First Swift Boat Ad of the National Campaign?

[corplinx]

Swift Boat Ads have these characteristsics:
1. made by a 527 or other non party group (who is funded in part by certain activist millionaires)
2. they are smears

By those standards, I think this might be the first swift boat ad of the nation campaign cycle.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/04/moveon-ad-says.html

[quixotecoyote]

There also has to be a significant level of dishonesty in them. This ad was slightly misleading as it indirectly implies that McCain would be ok with having troops in the same situation they are now in Iraq when he really said he'd be ok with an American presence in Iraq for the next however many years.

Given that he really does want to continue most of Bush's policy and he really is ok with having troops in Iraq forever (or 10,000 years), it's only a slight exaggeration to omit the conditions of the troops.

Compare that to "Kerry lied about his military service, did not earn his medals, I was there." When he wasn't. That's the level of duplicity in a swiftboat ad. This wasn't close.

[corplinx]

There also has to be a significant level of dishonesty in them.

You don't think saying that McCain supports 100 years of war in Iraq isn't dishonest (either explicitly or through implication)?

FactCheck.org thinks so and its a nonpartisan resource.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I don't think that that is at Swift Boat levels. Swift Boating is more about character assassination, this one is still about policy, even if it is misleading.

[T.A.M.]

did it come with the background music of "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"?

TAM;)

[corplinx]

I don't think that that is at Swift Boat levels. Swift Boating is more about character assassination, this one is still about policy, even if it is misleading.

swiftboatingusa defines it as smearing a candidate with lies and innuendo. I further refined that definition by adding that the ads should be from a 527 or other non-party political group with dubious funding.

You are entitled to make you own definition of what swift boating is as well.

[T.A.M.]

I think it is defined as,

"travelling on a body of water through the use of a fast ship."

TAM;)

[corplinx]

I think it is defined as,

"travelling on a body of water through the use of a fast ship."

TAM;)

Obligatory, predictable, but still made me crack a smile.

Cheers.

[Puppycow]

You don't think saying that McCain supports 100 years of war in Iraq isn't dishonest (either explicitly or through implication)?

FactCheck.org thinks so and its a nonpartisan resource.

And when John McCain characterizes Obama and Clinton's Iraq positions as ""Surrender to Al-Qaeda and leave" (http://www.blogsforjohnmccain.com/mccain-says-obama-clinton-iraq-formula-clear-surrender-al-qaeda-and-leave-video-31308) is that a fair characterization? Is anything in that ad more of a distortion of McCain's position than McCain's characterization of Obama and Clinton's positions?

McCain does support an indefinite commitment, doesn't he? As soon as he commits to a date certain for withdrawal, please let us know.

FYI: 68% of Americans (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) want US troops out of Iraq within 2 years. 56% say we should withdraw US forces from Iraq even if that means civil order is not restored there. 61% don't think it is necessary to "win the war in Iraq in order for the broader war on terrorism to be a success."

[corplinx]

And when John McCain characterizes Obama and Clinton's Iraq positions as ""Surrender to Al-Qaeda and leave" (http://www.blogsforjohnmccain.com/mccain-says-obama-clinton-iraq-formula-clear-surrender-al-qaeda-and-leave-video-31308) is that a fair characterization? Is anything in that ad more of a distortion of McCain's position than McCain's characterization of Obama and Clinton's positions?

McCain does support an indefinite commitment, doesn't he? As soon as he commits to a date certain for withdrawal, please let us know.

FYI: 68% of Americans (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) want US troops out of Iraq within 2 years. 56% say we should withdraw US forces from Iraq even if that means civil order is not restored there. 61% don't think it is necessary to "win the war in Iraq in order for the broader war on terrorism to be a success."

You are making a partisan issue out of it. I was just noting the first swift boat ad of the national campaign cycle. Politicians say all sorts of nasty things about each other as well but those aren't smear ads by not-for-profits.

This is like the first flake of snow in the Winter.

[Brainster]

Let me point out as always that the Swift Boat Veterans were proven right on more than one occasion. Kerry was proven conclusively to have lied about his excursion to Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968; even Kerry's hagiographer, Douglas Brinkley was forced to admit that. And in the case of Jim Rassmann, whose rescue gave Kerry a Bronze Star, it was proven that both Rassmann and Kerry had been wrong about how Rassmann ended up in the water, pretending that Rassmann had been blown off another boat by a mine.

In fact, Rassmann fell in the water off Kerry's boat when Kerry sped up and zigged just as Rassmann was moving forwards on the boat. Arguably not Kerry's fault, but why did Kerry and Rassmann lie about the incident? To make Kerry's actions look more heroic. Unfortunately for Kerry he had recited the actual truth of the incident into the Senate record in a eulogy for one of his crew members only two years earlier.

I always felt the Swiftees made a tactical error by taking on the other incidents, where their case could not be proven. But they hit a home run with these two examples of Kerry's duplicity about his war record.

[Puppycow]

Let me point out as always that the Swift Boat Veterans were proven right on more than one occasion. Kerry was proven conclusively to have lied about his excursion to Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968; even Kerry's hagiographer, Douglas Brinkley was forced to admit that. And in the case of Jim Rassmann, whose rescue gave Kerry a Bronze Star, it was proven that both Rassmann and Kerry had been wrong about how Rassmann ended up in the water, pretending that Rassmann had been blown off another boat by a mine.

In fact, Rassmann fell in the water off Kerry's boat when Kerry sped up and zigged just as Rassmann was moving forwards on the boat. Arguably not Kerry's fault, but why did Kerry and Rassmann lie about the incident? To make Kerry's actions look more heroic. Unfortunately for Kerry he had recited the actual truth of the incident into the Senate record in a eulogy for one of his crew members only two years earlier.

I always felt the Swiftees made a tactical error by taking on the other incidents, where their case could not be proven. But they hit a home run with these two examples of Kerry's duplicity about his war record.

1968 would have been 36 years ago in 2004. Old memories can be tricky. Why should one jump to the conclusion that these were "lies"? Will you apply the same standard if John McCain misremembers something from the past and call it a lie?

[Puppycow]

You are making a partisan issue out of it. I was just noting the first swift boat ad of the national campaign cycle. Politicians say all sorts of nasty things about each other as well but those aren't smear ads by not-for-profits.

This is like the first flake of snow in the Winter.

Fair enough.

Wait. What about that North Carolina ad that McCain was denouncing the other day? Was that a "swift-boat" ad? Just asking.

[Random]

McCain does support an indefinite commitment, doesn't he? As soon as he commits to a date certain for withdrawal, please let us know.

The McCain position is not “Let’s keep troops in Iraq forever while they are being killed”. The McCain position is “Let’s keep troops in Iraq until they are not being killed anymore, at which point it will be safe to keep them in Iraq forever.” The subtle difference between these two positions means that John McCain can never be questioned about Iraq ever, ever, ever, no takebacks infinity.

[headscratcher4]

Hard to feel sympathy for McCain...even if it isn't his complete statement, it is his words coming out of his mouth. He can explain what he meant, why do the Democrats? Further, his policy will keep us there for many, many years. Third, the GOP is sort of at the hight of hypocracy crying about this...after all, just imagine the ads they're gearing up for Obama...not even using Obama's own words, they will flood it with Wright, demanding that Obama defend the words or counter the words of someone other than himself...and than there are the Hillary ads. Yeah, its a crappy ad...but is it really worse than others we've seen or will see? I hardly think so.

[Sefarst]

Hard to feel sympathy for McCain...even if it isn't his complete statement, it is his words coming out of his mouth. He can explain what he meant, why do the Democrats? Further, his policy will keep us there for many, many years. Third, the GOP is sort of at the hight of hypocracy crying about this...after all, just imagine the ads they're gearing up for Obama...not even using Obama's own words, they will flood it with Wright, demanding that Obama defend the words or counter the words of someone other than himself...and than there are the Hillary ads. Yeah, its a crappy ad...but is it really worse than others we've seen or will see? I hardly think so.
McCain specifically denounced and tried to get an ad pulled in North Carolina doing just that about Obama. I don't think the campaign will be clean, but I think McCain is trying to avoid letting things fall into a degenerative mudfight, mostly because McCain knows what it feels like to be swift-boated (South Carolina, 2000).

[Random]

McCain specifically denounced and tried to get an ad pulled in North Carolina doing just that about Obama. I don't think the campaign will be clean, but I think McCain is trying to avoid letting things fall into a degenerative mudfight, mostly because McCain knows what it feels like to be swift-boated (South Carolina, 2000).

Yeah, right. The ad gets played a handful of times, McCain "denounces" it (but is apparently too impotent to have it stopped), and the lemming media spends a couple of days talking about the "controversy" and playing the ad for free over and over again.

Huckabee tried this trick and the media laughed at him. Why does McCain get away with it?

[Bob Klase]

1968 would have been 36 years ago in 2004. Old memories can be tricky. Why should one jump to the conclusion that these were "lies"?

That's true. I think we can all get confused remembering things that happened 36 years ago. You'd have a good point if Kerry hadn't been telling the Cambodia story since 1979 (or earlier).

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/08/18/kerry_disputes_allegations_on_cambodia/

For years, Kerry has said he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968. He gave a detailed view of that experience in an article he wrote for the Boston Herald in 1979. "I remember spending Christmas Eve five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas," Kerry wrote.

[fuelair]

McCain specifically denounced and tried to get an ad pulled in North Carolina doing just that about Obama. I don't think the campaign will be clean, but I think McCain is trying to avoid letting things fall into a degenerative mudfight, mostly because McCain knows what it feels like to be swift-boated (South Carolina, 2000).
Which, by the way, which is why even if I would vote for any republicker, I would never vote for McCain. Instead of doing his best to tear Bush a new one (actually impossible since Bush is entirely one) for that, and instead he bent over and took Shrub's full thrust and said "Thank you ,sir, may I have another" (i.e. he supported every bad thing Shrub did).:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:mad:

[Darth Rotor]

I think it is defined as,

"travelling on a body of water through the use of a fast ship."

TAM;)

No. :mad:

That's boat, not ship, landlubber. ;)

"Travelling through a body of water through use of a fast boat." That would be correct.

(And in particular, a fast patrol boat in a combat zone.)

DR

[daredelvis]

Let me point out as always that the Swift Boat Veterans were proven right on more than one occasion.

With that quote goes any last shred of credibility. Within all of the outrageous lies promulgated by the SBVFT there were one or two minor facts.

Disappointing.

Daredelvis

[corplinx]

Let me point out as always that the Swift Boat Veterans were proven right on more than one occasion. Kerry was proven conclusively to have lied about his excursion to Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968; even Kerry's hagiographer, Douglas Brinkley was forced to admit that. And in the case of Jim Rassmann, whose rescue gave Kerry a Bronze Star, it was proven that both Rassmann and Kerry had been wrong about how Rassmann ended up in the water, pretending that Rassmann had been blown off another boat by a mine.

In fact, Rassmann fell in the water off Kerry's boat when Kerry sped up and zigged just as Rassmann was moving forwards on the boat. Arguably not Kerry's fault, but why did Kerry and Rassmann lie about the incident? To make Kerry's actions look more heroic. Unfortunately for Kerry he had recited the actual truth of the incident into the Senate record in a eulogy for one of his crew members only two years earlier.

I always felt the Swiftees made a tactical error by taking on the other incidents, where their case could not be proven. But they hit a home run with these two examples of Kerry's duplicity about his war record.

So thats what, 2 for 200 ?

www.swiftboatingusa.com

[corplinx]

Fair enough.

Wait. What about that North Carolina ad that McCain was denouncing the other day? Was that a "swift-boat" ad? Just asking.

It was run by the North Carolina GOP's gubernatorial campaign. The ad was a local ad targetting the Dem candidate for governer. So no, that wasn't a swift boat ad by my definition.

[T.A.M.]

I thought that add was attacking Obama via the Wright association...was that a different add that McCain was denouncing??

TAM:)

[corplinx]

I thought that add was attacking Obama via the Wright association...was that a different add that McCain was denouncing??

TAM:)

Google it. It was a really dumb ad. "Candidate Foo supports Barack Obama. Barack Obama's pastor of 20 years was a raving lunatic. Candidate Foo is just too extreme for North Carolina."

[Lurker]

Let me point out as always that the Swift Boat Veterans were proven right on more than one occasion. Kerry was proven conclusively to have lied about his excursion to Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968; even Kerry's hagiographer, Douglas Brinkley was forced to admit that. And in the case of Jim Rassmann, whose rescue gave Kerry a Bronze Star, it was proven that both Rassmann and Kerry had been wrong about how Rassmann ended up in the water, pretending that Rassmann had been blown off another boat by a mine.

In fact, Rassmann fell in the water off Kerry's boat when Kerry sped up and zigged just as Rassmann was moving forwards on the boat. Arguably not Kerry's fault, but why did Kerry and Rassmann lie about the incident? To make Kerry's actions look more heroic. Unfortunately for Kerry he had recited the actual truth of the incident into the Senate record in a eulogy for one of his crew members only two years earlier.

I always felt the Swiftees made a tactical error by taking on the other incidents, where their case could not be proven. But they hit a home run with these two examples of Kerry's duplicity about his war record.

Um, actually the relevent point about the Bronze Star incident is whether they were under enemy fire. The majority of personnel that were there at the time said they were under fire. Further, witnesses from other boats confirm this. Further, the Swiftie who claimed there was no fire, Thurlow, himself received a Bronze Star for his actions but somehow never read the commendation itself over the years and never noticed the mention of enemy fire.

So, it seems you choose to believe the MINORITY of eyewitnesses instead of the MAJORITY. Further, you also have to ignore all the reports of the event which mentioned enemy fire. And we KNOW that Thurlow's Bronze Star commendation was not written by Kerry since he was not immediately present to witness the details.

I thought the skeptical point of view was to go where the evidence leads you? In this case, the majority evidnece supports enemy fire and thus the Bronze Star is legitamate.

[Brainster]

1968 would have been 36 years ago in 2004. Old memories can be tricky. Why should one jump to the conclusion that these were "lies"? Will you apply the same standard if John McCain misremembers something from the past and call it a lie?

Kerry was found to have told the Cambodia tale as early as 1979, when he wrote a review of the movie Apocalypse Now for a Boston paper. He told it again in 1985 on the floor of the Senate, and claimed that the memory was "seared, seared in me".

[quixotecoyote]

You don't think saying that McCain supports 100 years of war in Iraq isn't dishonest (either explicitly or through implication)?

FactCheck.org thinks so and its a nonpartisan resource.

I usually agree with factcheck, but since the ad did not say 100 years of war, just that he was ok with troops being there for 100 years, the ad is correctly presenting his position. Granted there's the implication that is bad because they'll be fighting for 100 years, which McCain doesn't think is the case, but given that as long as we have troops there we'll creating hostility, I think McCain is wrong.

The ad didn't say war and thus used a quote accurately. It didn't capture the nuances of McCains opinions, but I think that's expecting a bit much from an opponents campaign ad. Hardly the stuff that the swift boaters pulled.

[corplinx]

I usually agree with factcheck, but since the ad did not say 100 years of war, just that he was ok with troops being there for 100 years, the ad is correctly presenting his position. Granted there's the implication that is bad because they'll be fighting for 100 years, which McCain doesn't think is the case, but given that as long as we have troops there we'll creating hostility, I think McCain is wrong.

The ad didn't say war and thus used a quote accurately. It didn't capture the nuances of McCains opinions, but I think that's expecting a bit much from an opponents campaign ad. Hardly the stuff that the swift boaters pulled.

Its portrayed as 100 years of major combat operations if you watch the ad.

[Random]

That's silly. Major combat operations ended five years ago.

[headscratcher4]

That's silly. Major combat operations ended five years ago.

That's right, now we're just mopping up a few "dead-enders" to quote Cheney. In fact, it still amazes me -- given the ammoung of flowers that were thrown at our troops when they came as liberators -- that the real problem for our veterans isn't poor hospital conditions, increased brain injuries and other traumas, but alergies.

[Brainster]

Um, actually the relevent point about the Bronze Star incident is whether they were under enemy fire. The majority of personnel that were there at the time said they were under fire. Further, witnesses from other boats confirm this. Further, the Swiftie who claimed there was no fire, Thurlow, himself received a Bronze Star for his actions but somehow never read the commendation itself over the years and never noticed the mention of enemy fire.

So, it seems you choose to believe the MINORITY of eyewitnesses instead of the MAJORITY. Further, you also have to ignore all the reports of the event which mentioned enemy fire. And we KNOW that Thurlow's Bronze Star commendation was not written by Kerry since he was not immediately present to witness the details.

This Washington Post story has the best review (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html) of the various accounts of that day. I can get no clear indication of whether the majority of the eyewitnesses back up Kerry or not:

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.

On the other hand, Kerry, Rassmann and Kerry's crew members say that there was fire. The article does come down on Kerry's side, and like I said, I thought the focus on whether Kerry deserved the medals was a tactical error. They had Kerry dead to rights on Christmas Eve in Cambodia, and they had him dead to rights on how Rassmann actually got in the water. This article sums up nicely (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40228) how Tour Of Duty claimed Rassmann was on another boat, and how Rassmann claimed that he fell into the water when a mine exploded under Kerry's boat. But Kerry himself had indicated in a eulogy for one of his crew members (Tom Belodeau) that Rassmann was on his boat and fell off when Kerry turned the boat sharply:

There was the time we were carrying special forces up a river and a mine exploded under our boat sending it 2 feet into the air. We were receiving incoming rocket and small arms fire and Tommy was returning fire with his M–60 machine gun when it literally broke apart in his hands.

He was left holding the pieces unable to fire back while one of the Green Berets [Rassman] walked along the edge of the boat to get Tommy another M–60. As he was doing so, the boat made a high speed turn to starboard and the Green Beret kept going -- straight into the river.

So by Kerry's own account, Rassmann was on his boat and fell off when the boat made a sharp turn. And yet when Brinkley wrote the account for Tour of Duty, Rassmann was on another boat. Why? It seems clear that Kerry must have changed his story between 1998 (when he wrote the eulogy) and 2003 (when Tour of Duty was being written). It does make Kerry sound a little more heroic to have him going back to save somebody who'd fallen off another boat. But it's wrong, and moreover, it's clearly intentionally wrong (i.e., a lie).

[kallsop]

Kerry was found to have told the Cambodia tale as early as 1979, when he wrote a review of the movie Apocalypse Now for a Boston paper. He told it again in 1985 on the floor of the Senate, and claimed that the memory was "seared, seared in me".


Giving Kerry the benefit of the doubt, I say it's entirely possible to have memories that are a little off but seem rock solid in your mind, especially under the stress of war. That must be why Hillary misremembered the sniper fire in Bosnia too :)

The real problem for Kerry was that he threw away his medals (and later changed the story to throwing away his medal ribbons) and accused, without any first hand knowledge or corroboration, his fellow veterans of being rapists and murderers akin to Ghengis Khan. Kerry is a rat who sold out his comrades for political gain.

[varwoche]

This Washington Post story has the best review (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html) of the various accounts of that day. I can get no clear indication of whether the majority of the eyewitnesses back up Kerry or not The star Swiftie eyewitness was Larry Thurlow. The degree to which Thurlow has been discredited is nothing short of an abject joke. evidence (http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/larry-thurlow.html)

[varwoche]

The real problem for Kerry was that he threw away his medals (and later changed the story to throwing away his medal ribbons) and accused, without any first hand knowledge or corroboration, his fellow veterans of being rapists and murderers akin to Ghengis Khan. Kerry is a rat In this part at least you, unlike the swifties, are judging Kerry based on stuff he actually did. Whereas the swifties committed the vilest sort of character assassination by piling on the incendiary, unsubstantiated charge of medal-scamming.

[Drysdale]

If Kerry was slandered as he has claimed why has'nt he filed a lawsuit?

There was a lot of screaming about it but as far as I know nothing has been filed.
Why not?

Certainly not for lack of money,and if he has any intentions of running for office again he knows this will reappear. I think he does'nt want any part of what might come out in a lawsuit.

[Lurker]

This Washington Post story has the best review (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html) of the various accounts of that day. I can get no clear indication of whether the majority of the eyewitnesses back up Kerry or not:

The WAsh Post story is incomplete. Many witnesses came forward and said there was enemy fire. Everyone on Kerry's boat say there was enemy fire. Plus other non-Kerry boat witnesses such as Rassman, Langhofer, Russell, and Lambert. Plus you have the AAR, the Bronze Star citations. Plus the damage report which Thurlow had to change his story about when confronted with. Don't forget Thurlow pointed to the initials KJW as "evidence" of JFK authoring the reports.


They had Kerry dead to rights on Christmas Eve in Cambodia, They do? Why is that? I thought the evidence either was was pretty inconclusive.

[Lurker]

If Kerry was slandered as he has claimed why has'nt he filed a lawsuit?

There was a lot of screaming about it but as far as I know nothing has been filed.
Why not?

Certainly not for lack of money,and if he has any intentions of running for office again he knows this will reappear. I think he does'nt want any part of what might come out in a lawsuit.


Golly gee, what an incredibly high level of evidence you require to believe. Why doesn't President Bush file lawsuits against those who claim he lied about WMDs? Why doesn't he file a lawsuit against those who claim he skipped his Reserve Service?

Siince he has not filed those lawsuits, it MUST be true, right? right? :0

[Drysdale]

Golly gee, what an incredibly high level of evidence you require to believe. Why doesn't President Bush file lawsuits against those who claim he lied about WMDs? Why doesn't he file a lawsuit against those who claim he skipped his Reserve Service?

Siince he has not filed those lawsuits, it MUST be true, right? right? :0

I'd say that's a weak comparison and completely off topic,some may even say a strawman argument.

From my recollections Kerry was indeed threatening a lawsuit against the swiftboat group if they didnt refrain from running the ads.

Why did'nt he?

Pretty simple question if the swiftboaters were lying as much as we're led to believe right?

[jj]

swiftboatingusa defines it as smearing a candidate with lies and innuendo. I further refined that definition by adding that the ads should be from a 527 or other non-party political group with dubious funding.

You are entitled to make you own definition of what swift boating is as well.

And Wright isn't a kind of swiftboating?

N.B. Haven't seen what MoveOn has (Old Rule 8) forth here.

[jj]

If Kerry was slandered as he has claimed why has'nt he filed a lawsuit?

There was a lot of screaming about it but as far as I know nothing has been filed.
Why not?

Certainly not for lack of money,and if he has any intentions of running for office again he knows this will reappear. I think he does'nt want any part of what might come out in a lawsuit.

Because you can't sue someone over political speech, which is part of how we got into this kind of negative campaigning in the first place.

The liars who smeared Kerry were absolutely legally invulnerable, no matter how much they smeared the medal-holder in favor of the draft-dodger. Why? Because it was understood to be political speech.

Any attempt to protray not suing for any other reason is nothing but supporting the swiftboaters who smeared the war hero in favor of the draft dodger. Why do they hate America?

[quixotecoyote]

Its portrayed as 100 years of major combat operations if you watch the ad.

No it's not. The only mention of major combat operations was the Bush speech from '03. McCain was only referred to as wanting to keep troops 'in Iraq'. You really have to stretch to infer that McCain wants major combat operations for 100 years.

[corplinx]

No it's not. The only mention of major combat operations was the Bush speech from '03. McCain was only referred to as wanting to keep troops 'in Iraq'. You really have to stretch to infer that McCain wants major combat operations for 100 years.

Did you watch the ad? Its pretty blatant and if you don't see than the problem lies between your chair and keyboard.

[Drysdale]

Because you can't sue someone over political speech, which is part of how we got into this kind of negative campaigning in the first place.

The liars who smeared Kerry were absolutely legally invulnerable, no matter how much they smeared the medal-holder in favor of the draft-dodger. Why? Because it was understood to be political speech.

Any attempt to protray not suing for any other reason is nothing but supporting the swiftboaters who smeared the war hero in favor of the draft dodger. Why do they hate America?

Where is the law that says you can't sue over "political speech"?
Slander is slander isnt it?
You may be right, I dont know. I just find it hard to believe you can say anything and be immune to any legal action in the name of political speech.

[varwoche]

Where is the law that says you can't sue over "political speech"?
Slander is slander isnt it?
You may be right, I dont know. I just find it hard to believe you can say anything and be immune to any legal action in the name of political speech. I don't know what the law is it doesn't seem very realistic for presidential candidates to go around suing people, as evidenced by the fact that it never(?) happens. Did McCain sue when he was swiftboated in N Carolina in 2000? No. Did Clinton sue when claims were made that he was complicit in Vince Foster's death? No. Did Obama sue when it was claimed he's an islamist sleeper agent? No.

Can you name even one instance of a president, presidential candidate, or senator who sued someone for defamation? I doubt it. Which makes your criterion for judging Kerry way off base.

[Random]

Where is the law that says you can't sue over "political speech"?
Slander is slander isnt it?
You may be right, I dont know. I just find it hard to believe you can say anything and be immune to any legal action in the name of political speech.

Not quite. The ads were very carefully crafted to walk right up to the line to libel and slander but not quite cross it. Say "maybe", "possibly" and "could it be" enough and you can get people to believe something without actually saying it. There were a lot of distortions, a bunch of personal opinions, some innuendo, but few outright lies.

Instead we get stuff like, "I served on the same boat as John Kerry" "He needs to explain those medals" "His statements after the war endangered lives", and a lot of other vague BS. Not enough there for libel and slander charges, but more than enough to get a self-sustaining rumor mill going, which was the whole point of SBVfT.

[varwoche]

There also has to be a significant level of dishonesty in them. This ad was slightly misleading as it indirectly implies that McCain would be ok with having troops in the same situation they are now in Iraq when he really said he'd be ok with an American presence in Iraq for the next however many years.

Given that he really does want to continue most of Bush's policy and he really is ok with having troops in Iraq forever (or 10,000 years), it's only a slight exaggeration to omit the conditions of the troops. All of which is utterly typical for a political ad, which is exactly what this is -- run of the mill. It may even be more truthful than the average ad.

[quixotecoyote]

-deleted, double post-

[quixotecoyote]

Did you watch the ad? Its pretty blatant and if you don't see than the problem lies between your chair and keyboard.

This is not a substantive response.

The ad does not say what you claim it says.

Insults do not change that.

The fact that McCain assumes the 100 years will be peaceful does not make it so.

And as an aside, I just did a little digging and the factcheck site is talking about a different video than the one you linked to.

[varwoche]

All of which is utterly typical for a political ad, which is exactly what this is -- run of the mill. It may even be more truthful than the average ad. ... which isn't saying a lot. Yes, it's misleading to take a snippet like this out of context.

[quixotecoyote]

... which isn't saying a lot. Yes, it's misleading to take a snippet like this out of context.

Arguing with yourself, or is your sock on strike?:p

[Policenaut]

And as an aside, I just did a little digging and the factcheck site is talking about a different video than the one you linked to.

I saw a different video with the same message basically as the one in the first post so maybe they were talking about that. It shows footage of heavy combat operations and bombs going off in Iraq while basically saying the same thing as the other video.

[quixotecoyote]

I saw a different video with the same message basically as the one in the first post so maybe they were talking about that. It shows footage of heavy combat operations and bombs going off in Iraq while basically saying the same thing as the other video.

True enough. It's basically the same message, but the one factcheck complained about was a bit more heavy handed with the war imagery.

I just thought it worth pointing out that in a thread bemoaning subtle misrepresentations, the OP subtly misrepresented the facts.

[Gazpacho]

Swift Boat Ads have these characteristsics:
1. They damage the candidate someone wants to see elected.

[corplinx]

1. They damage the candidate someone wants to see elected.

Nope. The swift boat ads were against presidential candidates, run by non-profits, and were outright smears. This is a swift boat ad.

I see a lot of people upset with me for pointing this ad out because the target happens to be McCain. That doesn't say much about me. It says more about you. Am I supposed to wait until some conservative NPO funded by Scaife or some other wingnut millionaire makes an ad about Obama to declare the first swift boat ad of the national election cycle?

Less confirmation bias plz. Kthxbai.

[Gazpacho]

Where is the law that says you can't sue over "political speech"?
Slander is slander isnt it?
Slander is slander. Stating opinions based on a set of facts that might be incomplete is not (in the US). Besides, presidential candidates are broadly considered public figures, which allows you to say pretty much anything about them.

[Gazpacho]

I see a lot of people upset with me for pointing this ad out because the target happens to be McCain. That doesn't say much about me. It says more about you.
I am merely upset that so many people buy into the idea that politics, especially as it involves the US presidency, should be or ever will be "nice." Particularly given a history of nasty campaigning that stretches back to 1800.

[quixotecoyote]

Nope. The swift boat ads were against presidential candidates, run by non-profits, and were outright smears. This is a swift boat ad.

I see a lot of people upset with me for pointing this ad out because the target happens to be McCain. That doesn't say much about me. It says more about you. Am I supposed to wait until some conservative NPO funded by Scaife or some other wingnut millionaire makes an ad about Obama to declare the first swift boat ad of the national election cycle?

Less confirmation bias plz. Kthxbai.

Does anyone know the Latin for 'argument from Wah! I've a minority viewpoint'?

[jj]

Where is the law that says you can't sue over "political speech"?
Slander is slander isnt it?
You may be right, I dont know. I just find it hard to believe you can say anything and be immune to any legal action in the name of political speech.

I would suggest that you examine the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. See if you can find the roots of the idea there, ok, now?

[jj]

Nope. The swift boat ads were against presidential candidates, run by non-profits, and were outright smears. This is a swift boat ad.

This is nothing but some hippie at MoveOn drooling in its sleep.

Doesn't excuse it, but since even moderates like me have been intentionally dehumanized and marginalize by the right-wing press's slanted accusations of "commie liberal pinko", "evolution lover" and so on, this stupidity on the part of MoveOn pales in comparison. Still doesn't excuse it, but it pales in comparison to the deliberate hate speech and incitement to do harm from a Glen Beck, a Ben Stein, St. Hannity, or St. O'Really.

[Drysdale]

I would suggest that you examine the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. See if you can find the roots of the idea there, ok, now?

Maybe you can point out to me where that is specifically?
I dont see it.

[Gazpacho]

Maybe you can point out to me where that is specifically?
I dont see it.
From New York Times v. Sullivan (1964):

Authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to recognize an exception for any test of truth--whether administered by judges, juries, or administrative officials--and especially one that puts the burden of proving truth on the speaker. Cf. Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525-526. The constitutional protection does not turn upon "the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered." NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 445. As Madison said, "Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing, and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press." 4 Elliot's Debates on the Federal Constitution (1876), p. 571. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310, the Court declared:
In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields, the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained, in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy. That erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected if the freedoms of expression [272] are to have the "breathing space" that they "need . . . to survive," NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433, was also recognized by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Sweeney v. Patterson, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 23, 24, 128 F.2d 457, 458 (1942), cert. denied, 317 U.S. 678. Judge Edgerton spoke for a unanimous court which affirmed the dismissal of a Congressman's libel suit based upon a newspaper article charging him with anti-Semitism in opposing a judicial appointment. He said:
Cases which impose liability for erroneous reports of the political conduct of officials reflect the obsolete doctrine that the governed must not criticize their governors. . . . The interest of the public here outweighs the interest of appellant or any other individual. The protection of the public requires not merely discussion, but information. Political conduct and views which some respectable people approve, and others condemn, are constantly imputed to Congressmen. Errors of fact, particularly in regard to a man's mental states and processes, are inevitable. . . . Whatever is added to the field of libel is taken from the field of free debate.Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252. [note 13]...
A rule compelling the critic of official conduct to guarantee the truth of all his factual assertions -- and to do so on pain of libel judgments virtually unlimited in amount -- leads to a comparable "self-censorship." Allowance of the defense of truth, with the burden of proving it on the defendant, does not mean that only false speech will be deterred. [Footnote 19] Even courts accepting this defense as an adequate safeguard have recognized the difficulties of adducing legal proofs that the alleged libel was true in all its factual particulars. See, e.g., Post Publishing Co. v. Hallam, 59 F.5d 0, 540 (C.A. 6th Cir. 1893); see also Noel, Defamation of Public Officers and Candidates, 49 Col.L.Rev. 875, 892 (1949). Under such a rule, would-be critics of official conduct may be deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be true and even though it is, in fact, true, because of doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so. They tend to make only statements which "steer far wider of the unlawful zone." Speiser v. Randall, supra, 357 U.S. at 357 U. S. 526. The rule thus dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate. It is inconsistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with "actual malice" -- that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

[jj]

Maybe you can point out to me where that is specifically?
I dont see it.

You don't find the part about freedom of political speech anywhere in there? Really? Oh my word! Somebody tell the court!

[Drysdale]

You don't find the part about freedom of political speech anywhere in there? Really? Oh my word! Somebody tell the court!

Freedom of speech is not freedom of any speech,else there would be no such thing as slander. And there has been many public figures that has indeed sued for slander and won.

The main reason I'm asking specifically about it regarding Kerry is because he was threatening lawsuits if the ads were'nt pulled. The swiftboaters refused to pull them.

I have seen no evidence more substantial that they are lying moreso than Kerry was. As a matter of fact he blatantly backtracked on the Cambodia claim.

Yet swiftboating is now a term used to imply lying.
Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

[kallsop]

The main reason I'm asking specifically about it regarding Kerry is because he was threatening lawsuits if the ads were'nt pulled. The swiftboaters refused to pull them.


Recall that Bill Clinton accepted a deal to give up his law license rather than go to court. Better to keep some things on the down low and OFF THE RECORD and then you can still blow smoke up the faithfuls rear end. Kerry's best choice was to back down and move ahead, keeping the faithful in tow.

[varwoche]

Freedom of speech is not freedom of any speech,else there would be no such thing as slander. And there has been many public figures that has indeed sued for slander and won. And yet you ignored my question (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3670106#post3670106). <crickets chirping>

I have seen no evidence more substantial that they are lying moreso than Kerry was. You are woefully misinformed. As a starting point, read up on George Elliott (http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/george-elliott.html), John O'Neil (http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/john-oneill.html) and especially Larry Thurlow (http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/larry-thurlow.html).

[Drysdale]

And yet you ignored my question (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3670106#post3670106). <crickets chirping>

You are woefully misinformed. As a starting point, read up on George Elliott (http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/george-elliott.html), John O'Neil (http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/john-oneill.html) and especially Larry Thurlow (http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/larry-thurlow.html).

To your first point,as I stated in post #64...

The main reason I'm asking specifically about it regarding Kerry is because he was threatening lawsuits if the ads were'nt pulled. The swiftboaters refused to pull them.

As to your second,who knows what happened that day. Maybe they were all lying in order to get decorations. Would'nt be the first time.

Maybe if Kerry would release his military records we'd have a better idea. Bush released his. Why did'nt Kerry ever release his?

[Kestrel]

Maybe if Kerry would release his military records we'd have a better idea. Bush released his. Why did'nt Kerry ever release his?

Actually Kerry did release his military records. During the campaign they were available on Kerry's web site among other places.

[varwoche]

To your first point,as I stated in post #64... Translation: I (Drysdale) am unable to name even one president, presidential candidate, or senator who has ever sued someone for defamation, yet I am going to use this as a criterion to judge Kerry.

Using Drysdalian logic, shall we now assume that McCain fathered an illegitimate black child, that Clinton was complicit in Vince Foster's death, and that Obama is an Islamanchurian candidate?

As to your second,who knows what happened that day. Maybe they were all lying in order to get decorations. Maybe? Maybe they tortured kittens.

Maybe if Kerry would release his military records we'd have a better idea. I repeat: you are woefully misinformed (http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/kerrys-service-records.html). I suggest you acquaint yourself with the facts and stop echoing misinformation.

[Drysdale]

Translation: I (Drysdale) am unable to name even one president, presidential candidate, or senator who has ever sued someone for defamation, yet I am going to use this as a criterion to judge Kerry.

Using Drysdalian logic, shall we now assume that McCain fathered an illegitimate black child, that Clinton was complicit in Vince Foster's death, and that Obama is an Islamanchurian candidate?

Maybe? Maybe they tortured kittens.

I repeat: you are woefully misinformed (http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/kerrys-service-records.html). I suggest you acquaint yourself with the facts and stop echoing misinformation.

Once again, Kerry was threatening lawsuits. Thats the distinction. The others I dont know nor care about really. This OP is about swiftboating. The issue I'm addressing is the creation of the definition of swiftboating as lying and innuendo by the left.

The only group I know that uses that word in that context is the left.

And we dont know the facts. Only the officers that were there know them and they differ on them depending on who you talk to. Unless you were there you dont know the fatcs either so come down off the high horse like you have all the answers.

As far as the others,I've never heard the black illegitimate child bit about McCain. Where'd that one come from?

[Kestrel]

Once again, Kerry was threatening lawsuits. Thats the distinction. The others I dont know nor care about really. This OP is about swiftboating. The issue I'm addressing is the creation of the definition of swiftboating as lying and innuendo by the left.

The only group I know that uses that word in that context is the left.

And we dont know the facts. Only the officers that were there know them and they differ on them depending on who you talk to. Unless you were there you dont know the fatcs either so come down off the high horse like you have all the answers.

The military records compiled when Kerry was in Vietnam support his version of the story. These records often directly contradict the claims made by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth.

As far as the others,I've never heard the black illegitimate child bit about McCain. Where'd that one come from?

During the South Carolina Primary campaign in 2000, McCain was the target of a robocall smear campaign that claimed his adapted daughter was actually his illegitimate child along with other similar nonsense.

[varwoche]

Once again, Kerry was threatening lawsuits. Thats the distinction. Even if true (and I don't know that it is; see below) it's a meaningless criterion because it informs a critical thinker of precisely nothing.

If John Doe alleges defamation and threatens to sue there are two possible reasons: (1) he really was defamed and/or (2) to deflect rightful criticism. We have no way of knowing. (Unless you can cite statistics indicating that lawsuit threateners are apt to be liars. :))

Out of curiosity, I tried to fact-check your claim that Kerry threatened a lawsuit at google news archive (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22john+kerry%22+swift+boat+lawsui t&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&ned=us&btnG=Search+Archives) and can't find mention. (I do have a vague recollection of a lawsuit being mentioned by someone or another.) Can you post a cite?

[Random]

I have taken a look at the commercial in question and frankly can't see the problem. This is an attack ad, but I don't see how it is libel, slander, or even a smear for that matter. Why do people think this is a baseless smear? If McCain is not willing to stay in Iraq for a hundred years, how long does he think we should stay in Iraq exactly? I think that is a perfectly legitimate question to ask.

[Lurker]

I have seen no evidence more substantial that they are lying moreso than Kerry was. As a matter of fact he blatantly backtracked on the Cambodia claim.

Let's review.

1st Purple Heart: Majority support Kerry's version that there was enemy fire. Only one person who other witnesses say was not there says there was no fire.

Silver Star: Not a single actual witness disputes Kerry's version of events. Even the Vietnamese corroborate Kerry's version.

Bronze Star: Majority of witnesses agree with Kerry. Only about four or five disagree with him. That leaves about 20 that agree with him.


Yet swiftboating is now a term used to imply lying.
Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

Thurlow pointed to the initials KJW as proof that Kerry (JFK) authored the reports. He also claimed that he NEVER read his own Bronze Star citation.

Thurlow also said he knew someone that knew Kerry's 1st purple heart was not earned. When pressed on who this witness was Thurlow named Steve Gardner. Problem is, Gardner was not present the day Kerry earned his first purple heart.

Thurlow also critized Kerry for not opening his full records yet Thurlow refused to do the same saying he did not want people attacking him. Oh the hypocrisy.

Al French swore an oath and signed an affidavit "I am able to swear, as I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge and belief." But French did not have “personal knowledge.” He was not present for any of the Kerry activities under question. In an interview with The Oregonian French said he relied on the accounts of three other veterans in making the statement about Kerry and did not personally witness the events.

Swiftboater for Truth Elliott is really a prime piece of work. In real time, he gave Kerry glowing recommendations in Nam. And in 1996, he flew to Boston to defend Kerry when the Boston Globe slimed his Silver Star conduct. But this year, the scatter-brained skipper has pulled three big flips. First, he signed up with the Swift Boat Veterans, saying that Kerry didn’t deserve the Silver Star. Then, in early August, he took it all back. “It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here,” he told the Globe’s Michael Kranish. “I knew it was wrong” to sign, Elliott said. “ In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.” But the next day, the vacillating veteran changed course again, saying he had been misquoted. Now, he is simply “unreachable.”

[Drysdale]

Even if true (and I don't know that it is; see below) it's a meaningless criterion because it informs a critical thinker of precisely nothing.

If John Doe alleges defamation and threatens to sue there are two possible reasons: (1) he really was defamed and/or (2) to deflect rightful criticism. We have no way of knowing. (Unless you can cite statistics indicating that lawsuit threateners are apt to be liars. :))

Out of curiosity, I tried to fact-check your claim that Kerry threatened a lawsuit at google news archive (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22john+kerry%22+swift+boat+lawsui t&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&ned=us&btnG=Search+Archives) and can't find mention. (I do have a vague recollection of a lawsuit being mentioned by someone or another.) Can you post a cite?


You may be correct on this. I did a search also and other than Kerry filing a complaint with the FEC about the ads I did'nt find any references of Kerry personally threatening to file lawsuits. I did however see a lot of the media and his supporters trying to coerce him into filing lawsuits. That's what must have given me the impression he was filing lawsuits.

[Drysdale]

Let's review.

1st Purple Heart: Majority support Kerry's version that there was enemy fire. Only one person who other witnesses say was not there says there was no fire.

Silver Star: Not a single actual witness disputes Kerry's version of events. Even the Vietnamese corroborate Kerry's version.

Bronze Star: Majority of witnesses agree with Kerry. Only about four or five disagree with him. That leaves about 20 that agree with him.



Thurlow pointed to the initials KJW as proof that Kerry (JFK) authored the reports. He also claimed that he NEVER read his own Bronze Star citation.

Thurlow also said he knew someone that knew Kerry's 1st purple heart was not earned. When pressed on who this witness was Thurlow named Steve Gardner. Problem is, Gardner was not present the day Kerry earned his first purple heart.

Thurlow also critized Kerry for not opening his full records yet Thurlow refused to do the same saying he did not want people attacking him. Oh the hypocrisy.

Al French swore an oath and signed an affidavit "I am able to swear, as I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge and belief." But French did not have “personal knowledge.” He was not present for any of the Kerry activities under question. In an interview with The Oregonian French said he relied on the accounts of three other veterans in making the statement about Kerry and did not personally witness the events.

Swiftboater for Truth Elliott is really a prime piece of work. In real time, he gave Kerry glowing recommendations in Nam. And in 1996, he flew to Boston to defend Kerry when the Boston Globe slimed his Silver Star conduct. But this year, the scatter-brained skipper has pulled three big flips. First, he signed up with the Swift Boat Veterans, saying that Kerry didn’t deserve the Silver Star. Then, in early August, he took it all back. “It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here,” he told the Globe’s Michael Kranish. “I knew it was wrong” to sign, Elliott said. “ In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.” But the next day, the vacillating veteran changed course again, saying he had been misquoted. Now, he is simply “unreachable.”

I've read and researched much of these claims and found them to be pretty much he said she said. Certainly not enough to convince me one side is any more credible than the other. Not enough to justify the creation of a new word "Swiftboating" anyway.
Both have their holes. It's been awhile though, about 4 years to be exact. I'll look it over again since more information maybe has come out since.

I noticed you did'nt include the Christmas in Cambodia claim by Kerry though which he backtracked on. Why's that?

[varwoche]

I've read and researched much of these claims and found them to be pretty much he said she said. The part that I colored blue indicates to me that you have not used credible sources for your research -- a theme in a number of your posts here.

[Drysdale]

The part that I colored blue indicates to me that you have not used credible sources for your research -- a theme in a number of your posts here.

Think so huh? Maybe your sources are'nt the credible ones.

I ran across this though...

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/general/view.bg?articleid=1045198

Why did'nt Kerry follow through with this challenge?
Isn't this a chance for vindication from the swiftboat ads?

[Lurker]

Drysdale:

When in doubt about an event, we need to examine the evidence. Let's list the events in question.

Purple Heart #1: Majority of witnesses and paperwork support Kerry

Bronze Star: Majority of witnesses support Kerry. Navy records all support Kerry.

Silver Star: Every witness support Kerry. Navy records support Kerry. No Swifties for Truth were there to witness this event.

So again I ask, as a skeptic, when we have limited evidence and it turns into a he said/she said sort of event, why do you Drysdale choose to take the side that has LESS eyewitness support and NO written record support? It appears you are more swayed by emotion and politics than an actual weighing of the evidence.

[Lurker]

Drysdale:

Regarding the Cambodia question, I have no idea if Kerry was there or not.

As the honesty of the Swifties, O'Neill makes big hay out of quoting Kerry's book (pg 219) where Kerry says he was in Sa Dec, 50 miles from Cambodia. Yet oddly, O'Neill has excised from his quotation the preceding ten pages where Kerry discusses his patrol earlier that same day up to the Cambodian border!

Now, tell me how honest it is of O'Neill to selectively quote Kerry to fool thte audience into thinking Kerry had spent the day in Sa Dec miles from the border when the full text has Kerry patrolling the bordeer erlier that same day?

It seems you have a very low expectation of honesty from the Swifties. I guess as long as they are lying to support your view it is all right by you, eh?

[varwoche]

Think so huh? Maybe your sources are'nt the credible ones. Well, seeing as I have provided you with several links (to my blog swiftboatingusa.com which in turn links to source documents) maybe you could be more specific and tell me which of my sources aren't credible.

Unfortunately though, I can't provide you with similar feedback. That's because you have failed to back up any of your claims.

I ran across this though...
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/general/view.bg?articleid=1045198
Why did'nt Kerry follow through with this challenge?
Isn't this a chance for vindication from the swiftboat ads? After issuing this insane challenge, Pickens entered his goalposts into the marathon at the Beijing Olympics where they are expected to medal. link (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-kerrypickens-letters,0,3042855.story?coll=la-home-center) :)

But more to the point, this isn't a game of whack-a-mole. You provide one rational to judge Kerry. It is shown to be bogus. So you provide another rational to judge Kerry. It too is shown to be bogus. And now the mole pops up again, and an incredibly flimsy one at that.

[jj]

Freedom of speech is not freedom of any speech,else there would be no such thing as slander. And there has been many public figures that has indeed sued for slander and won.

It's a shame that you have to change the goalposts here. I said "political speech" in particular. Now go back and read the constitution again, and then read the court actions regarding it.

You'll find a few things.

1) Political speech is pretty much unfettered
2) In order to collect, you have to pretty much show that the speaker of the words his or her (or its) self knew FOR A FACT that the words were false.
3) If the "information" was supplied by a third party, there is no way to show, in any real sense, that the speaker KNEW the words were false.
4) The "information" source is pretty much invulnerable.

So, regardless of your repeated denials, that's how it really works. There's nothing Kerry or anyone else could do legally. Now, Kerry COULD have smacked them upside the head in a speech, but the stereotype of the Dean "arrgggh" scared him too much.

For that matter, Dean was smeared for the "argghhh" routine. It's entirely reasonable to snarl at total, utter horse bollocks.

[jj]

Recall that Bill Clinton accepted a deal to give up his law license rather than go to court. Better to keep some things on the down low and OFF THE RECORD and then you can still blow smoke up the faithfuls rear end. Kerry's best choice was to back down and move ahead, keeping the faithful in tow.



Wow, talk about a misbegotten inference.

Bill Clinton was factually caught out.

Kerry decided not to go after them, which would have effective derailed his campaign by requiring his presence where he couldn't campaign.

Your attempts to support the swiftboating of the War Hero in favor of the draft dodger is noted.

[jj]

Bronze Star: Majority of witnesses agree with Kerry. Only about four or five disagree with him. That leaves about 20 that agree with him.


It's funny, of course, that the "disagree" appeared after Kerry's public condemnation of the war.

Of course, in all of this, nobody has ever suggested the blatantly obvious, namely that people are getting even with him for his condenmnation of the war.

Evidences? I haven't any for the reason. But we all have evidence that the swiftboating was utter, total lying, stem to stern.

[Kestrel]

Drysdale:

Regarding the Cambodia question, I have no idea if Kerry was there or not.

As the honesty of the Swifties, O'Neill makes big hay out of quoting Kerry's book (pg 219) where Kerry says he was in Sa Dec, 50 miles from Cambodia. Yet oddly, O'Neill has excised from his quotation the preceding ten pages where Kerry discusses his patrol earlier that same day up to the Cambodian border!

Now, tell me how honest it is of O'Neill to selectively quote Kerry to fool thte audience into thinking Kerry had spent the day in Sa Dec miles from the border when the full text has Kerry patrolling the bordeer erlier that same day?

It seems you have a very low expectation of honesty from the Swifties. I guess as long as they are lying to support your view it is all right by you, eh?

I found the claim that Kerry could not have possibly gone to Cambodia to be rather strange. It ignores the fact that Kerry was in command of a Swift Boat that had a range of 320 km when running at 20 knots. The round trip from Sa Dec where Kerry was stationed to the Cambodia border was well within this range.

[Drysdale]

Well, seeing as I have provided you with several links (to my blog swiftboatingusa.com which in turn links to source documents) maybe you could be more specific and tell me which of my sources aren't credible.

Unfortunately though, I can't provide you with similar feedback. That's because you have failed to back up any of your claims.

After issuing this insane challenge, Pickens entered his goalposts into the marathon at the Beijing Olympics where they are expected to medal. link (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-kerrypickens-letters,0,3042855.story?coll=la-home-center) :)

But more to the point, this isn't a game of whack-a-mole. You provide one rational to judge Kerry. It is shown to be bogus. So you provide another rational to judge Kerry. It too is shown to be bogus. And now the mole pops up again, and an incredibly flimsy one at that.

Those links/stories on your website are old. I am perusing the web though looking for more updated sources.This is a rather old story though so not sure how much luck I'm going to have. Will get back to you with what I find.

On that challenge, since he's paying the reward isnt he entitled to set what he deems fair proof? Isnt that what Randi does with his challenge?
That challenge was last November it looks like. Any recent responses from Kerry?

On an aside from another poster earlier. Kerry did'nt release his total records.
He gave the Globe sole permission to post only the records he allowed from what I've found. If you have a link to his full records please provide it.
I cant find them.

[varwoche]

On that challenge, since he's paying the reward isnt he entitled to set what he deems fair proof? Crikey Drysdale, this is incredibly weak. Even if it weren't for the fact that Pickens blustered, got called on it, and then backtracked, this doesn't merit discussion. It's obvioius that you're scrambling about in post-hoc mode because your earlier claims got shot down.

On an aside from another poster earlier. Kerry did'nt release his total records. To my knowledge, he released more records than has any candidate for president ever. Prove me wrong.

[Kestrel]

On an aside from another poster earlier. Kerry did'nt release his total records. He gave the Globe sole permission to post only the records he allowed from what I've found. If you have a link to his full records please provide it.

In order to proves someone is withholding a document, you really need to provide some evidence that such a document exists. For example, Kerry's officer fitness reports cover the entire duration of his active duty military service. Unlike the records of George W. Bush, there is no question about where Kerry was, who he was reporting to and what he was doing. Kerry's enlistment, decorations and discharge from active duty are all properly documented in the records released to the public.

[Drysdale]

Crikey Drysdale, this is incredibly weak. Even if it weren't for the fact that Pickens blustered, got called on it, and then backtracked, this doesn't merit discussion. It's obvioius that you're scrambling about in post-hoc mode because your earlier claims got shot down.

To my knowledge, he released more records than has any candidate for president ever. Prove me wrong.

I dont know where he backtracked,he laid down the stipulations.
Why did'nt Kerry follow them?

As far as releasing his records I'm not even sure that's possible to compare how many each president has released. But he did'nt release his records to the Globe till after the elction was over. He was no longer a candidate then.

[jj]

Those links/stories on your website are old.

My goodness. One looks to history for historical issues. Of course links to what happened in 'nam date back.

What's the next excuse?

[BeAChooser]

Whereas the swifties committed the vilest sort of character assassination by piling on the incendiary, unsubstantiated charge of medal-scamming.

We know Kerry's first medal was a fraud because his own journal betrays him. An entry written nine days after the incident which he used to get his first purple heart (going outside the chain of command to do it, BTW) states "hadn't been shot at yet".

In the Bronze Star instance, his campaign originally claimed that Kerry stayed and the other boats ran. They later admitted that Kerry's boat left the scene and the other boats stayed. So the question is why did Kerry's boat leave? What was too hellish for his boat to withstand but not the others? The others who were there (other than a couple on Kerry's boat who he also managed to get out of Vietnam) said there was no HOSTILE gunfire. They said that when the first boat hit the mine, the boats that remained ... that wouldn't include Kerry's ... immediately opened fire on the shoreline with everything they had. It was standard practice. Then when it because apparent noone was shooting back they stopped firing. And by the way, no member of any crew got a purple heart as a result of gunshot. Not even Kerry. In fact, despite Kerry's claim that they were under fire during the rescue of the damaged boat and ran a gauntlet of heavy gunfire for nearly two miles in the narrow channel, there wasn't one verified bullet hole in any boat resulting from the action that day. A little unlikely, if Kerry's after action report was in any way true, wouldn't you say?

Sorry, but I think medal-scamming is just what Kerry was doing in order to get his pass out of Vietnam.

[varwoche]

I dont know where he backtracked,he laid down the stipulations. Clearly there's a lot of things you don't know.

As far as releasing his records I'm not even sure that's possible to compare how many each president has released. But he did'nt release his records to the Globe till after the elction was over. He was no longer a candidate then. Your perfect record is in tact because you're wrong yet again. These records (http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/kerrys-service-records.html) were released before the election; they were on Kerry's web site. This should be provable with the wayback machine in case you doubt me.

[varwoche]

We know Kerry's first medal was a fraud because his own journal betrays him. An entry written nine days after the incident which he used to get his first purple heart (going outside the chain of command to do it, BTW) states "hadn't been shot at yet". Evidence?

The others who were there (other than a couple on Kerry's boat who he also managed to get out of Vietnam) said there was no HOSTILE gunfire. Bogus.

1. Larry Thurlow, captaining another swift boat, earned a bronze on the same mission. His commendation says there was enemy fire.
2. Thurlow's crewmate Robert Lambert also earned a bronze star on the same mission. His commendation says there was enemy fire.
3. Kerry's crew affirms Kerry.
4. Thurlow's boat had bullet holes after the mission.

link (http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/larry-thurlow.html)

And btw, who did Kerry get out of Vietnam and how? This smells fishy.

[jj]

We know Kerry's first medal was a fraud because his own journal betrays him. An entry written nine days after the incident which he used to get his first purple heart (going outside the chain of command to do it, BTW) states "hadn't been shot at yet".


We know that you assert the statement above. What you have not done is provide any evidence beyond your own cheap words. It looks to me, again, like you're supporting the campaign of the draft dodger against that of the war hero.

Why?

[Kestrel]

Evidence?

Bogus.

1. Larry Thurlow, captaining another swift boat, earned a bronze on the same mission. His commendation says there was enemy fire.
2. Thurlow's crewmate Robert Lambert also earned a bronze star on the same mission. His commendation says there was enemy fire.
3. Kerry's crew affirms Kerry.
4. Thurlow's boat had bullet holes after the mission.

link (http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/larry-thurlow.html)


You should add
5. The Vietcong also said they were shooting at the Swift Boats (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2004/story?id=166434).

I also know an Army veteran who hangs out on a different forum that was present on the mission where Kerry earned his Bronze Star. Doug supports Kerry's version of the events.

The evidence that the SBVT version of the story is bogus is overwhelming.

[jj]

The evidence that the SBVT version of the story is bogus is overwhelming.

You know, I don't think anyone is confused on that front, it's 99.95% deliberate, intentional payback for his public condemnation of the war as far as I can tell.

I know what people where I grew up had to say about antiwar activists. and "ends fits the means" is right up there.

[corplinx]

I think Drysdale represents the point of view of most people. Except for the handful of people who have read swiftboatingusa, not many people really know the real story. The version of John Kerry's record that is affixed in the zeitgeist and people just assume to be true is lie.

[Lurker]

We know Kerry's first medal was a fraud because his own journal betrays him. An entry written nine days after the incident which he used to get his first purple heart (going outside the chain of command to do it, BTW) states "hadn't been shot at yet".

He was in command of a new crew. He was speaking as a captain with a new crew, not about himself specifically. By the way, are you calling Vietnam veterans Runyon and Zaladonis liars? They were with Kerry in the skimmer when they were shot at which you seem to say did not happen. And your evidence is Kerry's poetic words? Your interpretation requires you to call Runyon and Zaladonis liars.


In the Bronze Star instance, his campaign originally claimed that Kerry stayed and the other boats ran. They later admitted that Kerry's boat left the scene and the other boats stayed. So the question is why did Kerry's boat leave? What was too hellish for his boat to withstand but not the others? The others who were there (other than a couple on Kerry's boat who he also managed to get out of Vietnam) said there was no HOSTILE gunfire. They said that when the first boat hit the mine, the boats that remained ... that wouldn't include Kerry's ... immediately opened fire on the shoreline with everything they had. It was standard practice. Then when it because apparent noone was shooting back they stopped firing. And by the way, no member of any crew got a purple heart as a result of gunshot. Not even Kerry. In fact, despite Kerry's claim that they were under fire during the rescue of the damaged boat and ran a gauntlet of heavy gunfire for nearly two miles in the narrow channel, there wasn't one verified bullet hole in any boat resulting from the action that day. A little unlikely, if Kerry's after action report was in any way true, wouldn't you say?

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! Did you read any of hte earlier posts in this thread? The bold part is just plain wrong as I listed a few others that WERE NOT ON KERRY'S BOAT that said there was enemy gunfire. Actually, the damage report had THREE bullet holes. Thurlow claimed that there was no damage, no bullet holes in any of the boats yet when shown the damage report he feebly changed his claim and said those three bullet holes were from earlier action.

You really need to stop listening just to the Swifiteis for TRuth people. They are liars.


Sorry, but I think medal-scamming is just what Kerry was doing in order to get his pass out of Vietnam.

Medals have nothing to do with getting out of Vietnam. Regardless, Kerry was in Vietnam while Bush was back home helping a friend campaign for political office.

[Lurker]

BEachooser:

As stated earlier, here is a list of those who were NOT on Kerry's crew that confirm there was enemy gunfire. Please retract your earlier claim that only Kerry crewmembers claim there was gunfire.

1. Rassman,
2. Langhofer
3. Russell
4. Lambert

So Beaman and retract the claim.

[Drysdale]

Clearly there's a lot of things you don't know.

I dont know everything,dont claim to unlike others. Thats why I'm taking my time reading many sources. Thus far it is still one side calling the other side liar.

Your perfect record is in tact because you're wrong yet again. These records (http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/kerrys-service-records.html) were released before the election; they were on Kerry's web site. This should be provable with the wayback machine in case you doubt me.

What date were those released? From what I've seen his F180 was signed June 05. That is after the elections.

[varwoche]

I dont know everything,dont claim to unlike others. In fact you've made a number of claims. All of them false. Thus far it is still one side calling the other side liar. I don't know who/what you're referring to.

What date were those [Kerry's records] released? All I can say is they were on his site in Aug 2004; I cited them at the time here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=713819#post713819).

[Kestrel]

I dont know everything,dont claim to unlike others. Thats why I'm taking my time reading many sources. Thus far it is still one side calling the other side liar.



What date were those released? From what I've seen his F180 was signed June 05. That is after the elections.

Contrary to what the Swift Boaters have been claiming, Standard Form 180 (http://www.archives.gov/research/order/standard-form-180.pdf)is simply a form used to request a copy of your military records. Using the form is not required (http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/standard-form-180.html#ways) to obtain military records.

If you are not able to obtain SF-180, you may still submit a request for military records. Requests must contain enough information to identify the record among the more than 70 million on file at NPRC (MPR).

John Kerry requested his records by writing a letter (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/rqsthistserv.pdf) on May 9, 1986.

[Drysdale]

This is what is available to the public's request per the National acrchives website.
Anything more requires a F180(preferred) or a letter. I am aware of this as I have requested my records before.
http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/foia-info.html#mprfoia

Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act (FOIA)
The public has access to certain military service information without the veteran's authorization (or that of the next-of-kin of deceased veterans). Examples of information which may be available from Official Military Personnel Files without an unwarranted invasion of privacy include:

Name
Service Number
Dates of Service
Branch of Service
Rank and Date of Rank
Salary *
Assignments and Geographical Locations
Source of Commission *
Military Education
Promotion Sequence Number *
Awards and decorations (Eligibility only, not actual medals)
Duty Status
Photograph
Transcript of Court-Martial Trial
Place of entrance and separation

What extra did Kerry release prior to June 05?
All these look to be in the FOIA

[Lurker]

Drysdale, BeaChooser:

Here is an interesting quote from the head honcho of the Swifties:


O'NEILL: Just a second, just a second. I can understand why you don't want to talk about it. This is a creek that is 75 yards wide. There, they were there for an hour and a half trying to save this boat—not John Kerry, but the other guys who were there, an hour a half. There's not a bullet hole anywhere. No one was wounded by any bullets. What they claim is they take the Bronze Star citations from that day, and...they make a reference to fire, so they rely on that.


DOBBS (8/22/04): 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.

So, it appears that O'Neill is either lying or mistaken again.

[Lurker]

To summarize the Bronze Star incident. We have

1. All of Kerry's crew (about 5 I believe)
2. Langhofer
3. Russell
4. Lambert
5. Rassman

all saying there was enemy fire. Are all of these Vietnam veterans lying? (By the way, some did NOT support Kerry's political ambitions)

If they were not lying, were they merely mistaken? If you choose this option, you are extending them the possibility that in the fog of war they were mistaken about enemy fire. If you choose this option, it is only logical to extend the exact same option to Kerry. If the above 9 people could be mistaken, why cannot Kerry be mistaken as well? Or is Kerry incapable of mistakes and can only be lying?

Frankly, I think it is pretty obvious that there was enemy gunfire. More witnesses say there was. Three Bronze Star citations mention enemy fire (it is impossible for them to have been authored by Kerry). A damage report mentions three bullet holes. The AAR mentions enemy fire. I find it hard to believe that Kerry was able to doctor all that evidence back then.

[Drysdale]

Let's review.

1st Purple Heart: Majority support Kerry's version that there was enemy fire. Only one person who other witnesses say was not there says there was no fire.



OK, I've researched this one and I'd like to take these one at a time so as not to complicate things. The alleged witnesses are only 2 other troops if you discount Schachte. Not numerous ones like your post suggests.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5843180/

This is the guy who's word you're taking on Schachte? He doesnt remember anything hardly except who was in the boat that nite? Pretty amazing selective memory there.

Schachte's version
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5840657/

Why is it that Zaladonis and Runyon do not have to furnish evidence that THEY were on the skimmer? Myers on more than one occasion asks for proof,papers etc for Schachte. Yet not once was Zaladonis asked for any proof. Who says there's a media bias anyway right? I cannot find any transcript of Runyon. If you have one I'll be glad to read it.

For all intents and purposes though is it really relevant to who was in the boat that nite? Where's the after action report? This must be filed after all conflicts. If there's an after action report and Kerry's name is in it then who is in the boat is a moot point. You have a link to it?
I've yet to see it anywhere. Have a link to it?

[Lurker]

OK, I've researched this one and I'd like to take these one at a time so as not to complicate things. The alleged witnesses are only 2 other troops if you discount Schachte. Not numerous ones like your post suggests.

Majority. 2>1.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5843180/

This is the guy who's word you're taking on Schachte? He doesnt remember anything hardly except who was in the boat that nite? Pretty amazing selective memory there.[/quote]

Hmm, details may be hazy but remembering that there were only 3 people on the boat does not seem that difficult.

Further, Schachte claims there was a grenade launcher. Both Runyon and Zaladonis say there was not.

Schachte's version
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5840657/

Why is it that Zaladonis and Runyon do not have to furnish evidence that THEY were on the skimmer? Myers on more than one occasion asks for proof,papers etc for Schachte. Yet not once was Zaladonis asked for any proof. Who says there's a media bias anyway right? I cannot find any transcript of Runyon. If you have one I'll be glad to read it.

PRobably because nobody is disputing whether they were there or not. Anyway, here is Runyon's account as reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.


"We were on about a 14-foot boat with an outboard motor. We started out, taking a guess, around 10 p.m. We were sup posed to sneak up and check sampans," said Pat Runyon, a 58-year-old grandfather from Eaton, a small southwestern Ohio town near the Indiana border.

Runyon, an enlisted man who served on Swift boats in Vietnam, was not a regular member of Kerry's crew.

He said in an interview Sunday he somehow was chosen - "Let me tell you, I didn't volunteer" - to go out on the Dec. 2, 1968, mission, called a "skim op" in Navy slang.

The small, flat-bottomed boat - Runyon called it a "skimmer" - carried three men - Kerry in command, Bill Zaledonis on a machine gun and Runyon operating the outboard motor.

Once in place on the river, the three U.S. sailors paddled and drifted. Covered by the darkness, they hid to stop sampans, small vessels common in Southeast Asia. Guerillas used the sampans to smuggle weapons in the Mekong River Delta.

Runyon said Kerry was wounded after one vessel tried to avoid an inspection.

"Lt. Kerry said, 'I'm going to pop a flare, and when I do, I want that engine started,' " Runyon said. But the outboard would not crank. Meanwhile, the sampan's crew steered it to the riverbank, and people started running on the shore. Runyon said shooting broke out.

Somehow, Kerry's weapon stopped firing. Runyon thinks he ran out of ammunition. He said Kerry bent down to pick up another gun and got hit in the arm.

"It wasn't a serious wound," Runyon said, and Kerry was able to start shooting again. When the firefight was over, Runyon said Kerry told him all he felt was a "burning sensation."

Runyon said he remembers the incident clearly because it was the first time he had been in combat. "I hadn't seen any kind of action or anything," he said.

He said Kerry, Zaledonis and himself were the only men aboard. When he got the motor started, they took off. He said the outboard was in bad condition and did not have a handle to steer with. "I had to wrap my arms around it, like hugging it, to turn it," he recalled.


For all intents and purposes though is it really relevant to who was in the boat that nite?

Um, if you want actual eyewitness testimony, yes, it is important. I can see why you might be retreating from that position though.


Where's the after action report? This must be filed after all conflicts. If there's an after action report and Kerry's name is in it then who is in the boat is a moot point. You have a link to it?
I've yet to see it anywhere. Have a link to it?
As you are well aware, AARs are not easy to get and are not always public information. Anyway, Swifities claim that Kerry authored all his AARs himself and embellished. This claim is made when they point to the KJW initials for John F Kerry. LOL! You sure align yourself with real braniacs there, Drysdale! LOL Oh, by the way, to further show the desperation adn idiocy of your "allies", the KJW initials that they think is proof that JFK (Kerry) authored the report is not even in the location where the author initials and instead is where the receiver of the report initials. But in your twisted world that is evidence, eh? Please explain how that is.

Thanks!

[varwoche]

OK, I've researched this one and I'd like to take these one at a time so as not to complicate things. I like one at a time. Since I'm not enamored with the whack-a-mole debate style -- you judge Kerry based on claim A; claim A gets whacked; you offer claim B; claim B gets whacked; repeat for C, D and E -- I'm going to summarize your stunned moles before we move on.

# 1
From my recollections Kerry was indeed threatening a lawsuit against the swiftboat group if they didnt refrain from running the ads ... Pretty simple question if the swiftboaters were lying as much as we're led to believe right? ... Kerry was threatening lawsuits. Thats the distinction As I explained, this is empty arm waving because whether or not Kerry sued informs us of nothing. That said, as to whether Kerry threatened a lawsuit:

Claim: FALSE (as you more or less acknowledged)

#2
And we dont know the facts. Only the officers that were there know them and they differ on them depending on who you talk to. Of course we know the facts -- as best as it's possible to know most war facts that is -- based on official record and eye witness accounts (what a concept). See Lurker's post 74. And oh by the way Kerry's medals were re-affirmed by a naval review (http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/navyresponse.pdf) in 2004.

Claim: FALSE

#3
Why did'nt Kerry follow through with this [Pickens' slippery challenge]? How is it possible to stoop to this level of post hoc desperation and have any claim to being fair minded? (Answer: It isn't possible.)

Notwithstanding, as a separate matter of skeptical inquiry I welcome you to quote (in full) Pickens' original challenge and his revised challenge after Kerry accepted.

Inferred Claim: LAUGHABLE

There's more except I'm out of time. Once you acknowledge you are wrong on #2, and line up the quotes concerning #3, we can look at the purple heart incident, aka he said (one swiftie) vs they said (Kerry plus 2 crewmates).

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
We know Kerry's first medal was a fraud because his own journal betrays him. An entry written nine days after the incident which he used to get his first purple heart (going outside the chain of command to do it, BTW) states "hadn't been shot at yet".

Evidence?


http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07292004.html "What Kerry Really Did in Vietnam, By ALEXANDER COCKBURN and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR ... snip ... Arriving in Vietnam on November 17, 1968, Kerry chafed at patrols around Cam Ranh bay and pushed successfully for assignment to the forward, killing patrols. ... snip ... On December 2, Kerry went on his first patrol up one of the canals. It was near midnight when the crew caught sight of a sampan. Rules of engagement required no challenge, no effort to see who was on board the sampan. Kerry sent up a flare, signal for his crew to start blazing away with the boat's two machineguns and M16 rifles. Kerry described the fishermen "running away like gazelles". Kerry sustained a very minor wound to his arm, probably caused by debris from his own boat's salvoes. The scratch earned him his first Purple Heart, a medal awarded for those wounded in combat. Actually there's no evidence that anyone had fired back, or that Kerry had been in combat, as becomes obvious when we read an entry from his diary about a subsequent excursion, written on December 11, 1968, nine days after the incident that got Kerry his medal. "A cocky air of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel, because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky."


Quote:
The others who were there (other than a couple on Kerry's boat who he also managed to get out of Vietnam) said there was no HOSTILE gunfire.

Bogus.

1. Larry Thurlow, captaining another swift boat, earned a bronze on the same mission. His commendation says there was enemy fire.
2. Thurlow's crewmate Robert Lambert also earned a bronze star on the same mission. His commendation says there was enemy fire.
3. Kerry's crew affirms Kerry.
4. Thurlow's boat had bullet holes after the mission.


Thurlow said there was no firefight. He did this UNDER OATH. He didn't learn of the medal until three months after he left the service. He said at the time he thought he got the medal for helping to rescue the crew of PCF-3. He probably deserved a medal since it was his boat that pulled along side PCF-3 (while it was still moving) and he who jumped aboard to help the crew. But there was no firefight. Yes, his commendation says there was a firefight because the after action report, on which the commendations to Thurlow and Lambert were solely based, stated there was a firefight. But the after action report, written by Kerry, is false. All but a few who where there say there was no hostile fire. It's curious that Kerry's boat ran from the scene yet it's Kerry's crew that claims there was a firefight. Oh yes ... the after action report left out the fact that Kerry's boat abandoned the other boats (including the damaged one).

The truth is that those three (wow!) bullet holes most likely came from fighting the day before when the 5 boats carried Mike Strike Force (MSF) Regional Forces/Popular Forces (RF/PF) on a Sea Lords operation which assaulted a village, killed 1 VC and wounded 5 VC. During that assault they were under enemy small arms fire. That day they destroyed 30 sampans, 5 structures and captured 16 grenades while losing 1 MSF KIA. On the way back, without the Mike Strike Force (who stayed at the village), PCF 3 hit the mine. There was NO small arms fire around the mine. There were no reported VC KIA or WIA around the mine. Which is why the PCFs were able to hang around for 90 minutes in one spot on the channel while salvaging the PCF 3 before towing it in ... and not suffer a single casualty or have the boats riddled with holes from the enemy fire Kerry claimed was occurring. It is impossible to reconcile that with the description of the incident offered by Kerry and his few supporters. Kerry LIED.

In fact, why should we believe a single thing the Kerry camp claims about this incident when they initially tried to make Kerry out as a hero who stayed to help PCF 3 while all the other boats ran (just the opposite of what actually happened)? They couldn't even get the details straight about Rassmann right. They claimed that Kerry was injured by shrapnel when the mine detonated next to PCF 94 but there's no evidence of this "shrapnel". NONE.

And keep in mind that the after action report was written by Kerry. The 3 other surviving officers have all stated they didn't write it. In fact, a journalist (Tom Lipscomb of the Chicago Sun-Times) conducted an investigation where he examined what the numbers at the top of the after action reports mean. He concluded that they clearly show that none of the other commanders wrote the report. Based on where it originated, he said they show it had to be one of three men. One of them was injured and in no condition to write the report. Another was clearly off doing something else at the time it was submitted. Kerry was last of the three. So he concluded Kerry wrote the report. In which case, Kerry lied about the incident, exaggerating his role and diminishing the role of others. The officer who wrote up the citations says he based them SOLELY on what the after action report said. If the after action report is a lie (and dozens of people who were there but not on Kerry's boat say it's a lie) and it was written by Kerry (which that journalist showed must be the case), then the medals given in this instance were a deliberate scam by Kerry because he needed them as his pass out of Vietnam.

And btw, who did Kerry get out of Vietnam and how? This smells fishy.

From Michael Kranish's account in the Boston Globe (he's a big time Kerry supporter, btw):

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml

Kerry's early departure meant that he was leaving behind a crew that had suffered through many bloody battles with him. Worried that crew members would be killed, he arranged for them to receive a safer assignment. When one crew member, Medeiros, tried to stay, Kerry "came and talked to me and said, `I really would like you to go. ... I'd like to know you are safe, or safer."'

And also btw, here's a picture of your war hero:

http://611.mystarband.net/images/protest.jpg

I'm sure you're asking ... who are the guys in the foreground?

Well one defended Saddam ... and the other lied about serving in Vietnam. :D

[BeAChooser]

You should add
5. The Vietcong also said they were shooting at the Swift Boats (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2004/story?id=166434).

Yes, the day before ... at the village the Mike Strike Force attacked.

There are no Vietcong saying they fired at the PCF boats at the location where PCF 3 hit the mine and where Kerry's boat RAN.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
We know Kerry's first medal was a fraud because his own journal betrays him. An entry written nine days after the incident which he used to get his first purple heart (going outside the chain of command to do it, BTW) states "hadn't been shot at yet".

He was in command of a new crew. He was speaking as a captain with a new crew, not about himself specifically. By the way, are you calling Vietnam veterans Runyon and Zaladonis liars? They were with Kerry in the skimmer when they were shot at which you seem to say did not happen. And your evidence is Kerry's poetic words? Your interpretation requires you to call Runyon and Zaladonis liars.

http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/08/batman_rips_rob.html "I'm told that now coming across the newswires is a new column from Bob Novak that contains extensive quotes from Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. Schachte, call-sign "Batman," has broken his press silence to insist that he was indeed aboard the Boston Whaler or "skimmer" in the early morning mission on December 2, 1968, out of which Sen. John Kerry's first Purple Heart was awarded. Schachte maintains that Kerry's minor arm wound was indeed the result of Kerry — code-named "Robin" on this mission — being careless in firing an M-79 grenade launcher. Other officers are quoted to support the likelihood of Schachte's presence. ... snip ... It was between two and three in the morning – I don't remember. I detected what I thought was some movement. So, I took one of the hand-held flares and popped it instantly. It went up and when it burst – I don't know if you've heard that described, but it really lights up the area. I thought I saw the same area of movement. So, I opened up on it with my M-60. ... snip ... My gun jammed after the first burst and as I was trying to clear my weapon – John's gun apparently jammed too because he wouldn't fire anymore – I heard the old familiar, ‘thump’ – ‘POW!’. And I looked, and John had fired the M-79 grenade launcher. We were receiving NO fire from the beach. There were no muzzle flashes. The water wasn't boiling around the boat as it were – and the only noise was the noise we were making. ... snip ... And that morning, I went in and debriefed my commanding officer – our division commander, then Lieutenant Commander [Grant] 'Skip' Hibbard. And I told him what happened. And I told him I was NOT going to be filing an after-action report, which is required if you have enemy action, because we had no enemy action. And I also after giving him all the details and I said, 'Oh, by the way –' and I don't remember my exact words – 'John nicked himself with the M-79.' Those M-79s, by the way, have a kill radius of about five meters. A little over five yards. But, there is a shrapnel area beyond that. And that's what happened. And I was upset because that could have gone in somebody's eye and so on and so forth. The division commander said, 'Fine, understand – no after-action report required.' Then, I found out that John had come in. And then I went back into a meeting and he had this small piece of shrapnel in his hand and he was requesting a Purple Heart. I was opposed to that. The division commander was opposed to that. And John left our division four or five days later. I departed country maybe three weeks later. Skip left a few days after I left. So, we were all gone. And I forgot about it. Until some years later, someone told me – and I don't recall who – to my surprise, John had been awarded a Purple Heart for that incident."

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2004/08/27/retired-admiria.php

"Schachte described the use of the skimmer operating very close to shore as a technique that he personally designed to flush enemy forces on the banks of Mekong River so that the larger Swift boats could move in. At about 3 a.m. on Dec. 2, Schachte said, the skimmer -- code-named "Batman" -- fired a hand-held flare. He said that after Kerry's M-16 rifle jammed, the new officer picked up the M-79 and "I heard a 'thunk.' There was no fire from the enemy," he said.

Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis are the two enlisted men who said they were aboard the skimmer and did not know Schachte. However, two other former officers interviewed Thursday confirmed that Schachte was the originator of the technique and always was aboard the Boston whaler for these missions.

Grant Hibbard, who as a lieutenant commander was Schachte's superior officer, confirmed that Schachte always went on these skimmer missions and "I don't think he (Kerry) was alone" on his first assignment. Hibbard said he had told Kerry to "forget it" when he asked for a Purple Heart.

Ted Peck, another Swift boat commander, said, "I remember Bill (Schachte) telling me it didn't happen" -- that is, Kerry getting an enemy-inflicted wound. He said it would be "impossible" for Kerry to have been in the skimmer without Schachte.

As to Runyon and Zaladonis, here's what Zaladonis actually said:


"there was about five or six sampans, small junks crossing at the same time, and we challenged them – John saw them through the starlight scope – and we challenged them and we popped a flare and they refused to stop. They hit the beach and took off. So we opened up on them and, uh, after a few seconds of that-- and our cover was blown so we got out of there…"

"And I had muzzle flashes in front of my eyes so it was hard for me to see, because it was like having flashbulbs going off in front of your face – you know, hundreds of them at the same time. And I just couldn't see. "

"Because I found out later that when he bent over to pick up that rifle was when he got hurt. I guess we discussed that on the way back to the swift boat. "

"I can't say we weren't fired on, but I can't really tell if we were. I didn't see any tracers, but that doesn't mean anything ‘cause if they were using small arms there wouldn't have been any tracers. "

And here's a quote from Runyon, http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/05/did_the_band_of.html : "Runyon said he assumed the suspected Viet Cong fired back because Kerry was hit by a piece of shrapnel. "I can't say for sure that we got return fire or how [Kerry] got nicked," Runyon told the Globe."

You know, it's odd that neither Kerry, Runyon or Zaladonis (all very green) had been on a skimmer mission before this one, yet they claim to have used a technique that was authored by Admiral Schachte, who superior officers say ALWAYS went on these missions. According to http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,102361,00.html (this is really good ... you should read it), "Grant Hibbard, the commander of Coastal Division 14, under whom all these men served, 'These missions were originally designed and executed by my executive officer, Bill Schachte, who served as my operations officer.' ... snip ... Schachte says he personally led all the 8 skimmer missions he ran at Cam Ranh, but one, and the one he didn't lead was not led by what Hibbard terms 'a rookie who knew nothing about the concept or tactics involved to command the skimmer.' Schachte points out that if he had risked the lives of two enlisted men with a green officer on a difficult night mission like this he should have been reprimanded. Kerry, after all was an "officer in training" at Coastal Division 14. Kerry had never had a command and had not yet been released to a first command of his own. His job was to go on missions with veterans and learn. In fact the one mission Schachte didn't lead, was led by veteran Swift boat skipper Tedd Peck, two nights after the Kerry mission, to the same place, with Peck as leader with two other officers, Stephen Hayes and Mark Janes. In advance of the mission, according to Peck, 'Schachte made us go down and have a gunner's mate train us with the M-60 machine gun which was not part of the Swift boat arsenal at the time, but was the main armament of the skimmer. It took two hours and we finished it just before we left on the mission.' ... snip ... According to Coastal Division 14 commander Hibbard, every mission was assigned by Schachte. Does Kerry expect us to believe Schachte assigned him, in the face of his and Hibbard's statements, and they are both lying about it?"

So you really want to discuss who is lying here? Because most of the military seem to think Kerry and his pals did. :D

[Kestrel]

you really want to discuss who is lying here? Because most of the military seem to think Kerry and his pals did. :D

The most reasonable explanation is that Schachte lied (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E5DF163EF933A1575BC0A9629C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=4).

But the two other men who acknowledged that they had been with Mr. Kerry, Bill Zaladonis and Mr. Runyon, say they cannot recall a third crew member. ''Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three,'' Mr. Runyon said in an interview. And even Dr. Letson said he had not recalled Mr. Schachte until he had a conversation with another veteran earlier this year and received a subsequent phone call from Mr. Schachte himself.

Mr. Schachte did not return a telephone call, and a spokesman for the group said he would not comment.

Now why wouldn't he care to comment?

[BeAChooser]

BEachooser:

As stated earlier, here is a list of those who were NOT on Kerry's crew that confirm there was enemy gunfire. Please retract your earlier claim that only Kerry crewmembers claim there was gunfire.

1. Rassman,
2. Langhofer
3. Russell
4. Lambert

Let's look at that list.

First, Rassmann's account of the day is full of inconsistencies. Kerry and Rassmann have each claimed Rassmann was on PCF 3 at times and at other times claimed he was on PCF 94. You'd think they'd at least be able to get that much of their story correct. :rolleyes:

And was Rassmann blown off the boat by a mine or thrown off by a sudden turn or acceleration of the boat? The account that Rassmann wrote for Kerry's website during the election said he was blown off PCF 94. But a eulogy for crew member Thomas Belodeau that Kerry entered into the Congressional Record in 1998 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=1998_record&page=S186&position=all ), states Rassmann fell overboard when the boat made an abrupt turn. You'd think they'd at least be able to get that much of their story correct. :rolleyes:

The crew of the other boats all say that when PCF 3 was damaged by the mine, they opened up with their machine guns on the shoreline. Thurlow, Chenoweth, Pees and Odell (the commanders of the other boats) all say that EXCEPT FOR KERRY, they immediately went to the aide of PCF-3 and it's crew. They say Kerry's boat fled (which is ironic given Kerry's election sound bite about "no man left behind"). They say the firing stopped after about 40 seconds when they realized that no one was shooting back. How far down river did Kerry's boat go? Can you tell us? How many minutes was he away from the scene? Rassmann indicated that it was many minutes and that he was all alone on the river. Rassmann said he was retrieved by Kerry under enemy fire but the other crews all say that when Kerry pulled the man out of the river, no one was shooting ... not even the PCF boat crews. Why all the inconsistencies?

Now Langhofer was a crewman on the boat behind Kerry's. He said he distinctly remembered the “clack, clack, clack” of enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks. He said "There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river." On the other hand, Langhofer also claimed that Kerry dived into the water to rescue Rassmann. :rolleyes: And why has no one else noted the "distinctive" sound of AK-47's? Or was he hearing the sound of breaking tree branches from their own suppressive fire?

Russell wrote (http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/08/the_new_jim_rus.html ) "We were second in line while exiting the river and going through the opening in a fish trap when a mine blew up under the No. 3 boat directly in front of us and we started taking small arms fire from the beach. Almost immediately, another mine went off somewhere behind us. All boats, except the one hit, immediately wheeled toward the beach that most of the fire came from (a tactic devised by Lt. Kerry, I later learned) and commenced showering the beaches with so much lead, that it could probably be now mined there. The noise was of course, deafening." He goes on to say "Three things that are forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago are: (1) The No. 3, 50-foot long, Swift boat getting huge, huge air; John Kerry thought it was about two feet. (He was farther away from it than I). I think it was at least four feet and probably closer to six feet; (2) All the boats turning left and letting loose at the same time like a deadly, choreographed dance and; (3) A few minutes later, John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God."

Now, of course, all boats except the one hit did NOT wheel towards the beach and shower it with lead. Because Kerry's boat ran. You'd think that would be one of the three things he'd "picture in his mind" that day. Certainly it's more significant than watching Kerry bend over to pick Rassmann out of the water (especially since a bunch of other people also had to be rescued from the water that day). And by the way, Russell's boat wasn't even close to where Rassmann was reportedly retrieved so how good a view could he actually have had? Wonder what else in that account is not true. For example, why is he the only witness to claim that almost immediately after the first mine went off under PCF 3, another mine went off behind them? Also, why is his the only account that talks about the boats en mass wheeling towards the shore? And *Thank God*, the VC gunners were so bad ... given the amount of time they must have been firing at all those dead in the water boats from a shoreline that was no more than 35 meters away. Sorry but his account reeks. :rolleyes:

Lambert told the Associated Press that "I thought we were under fire, I believed we were under fire". That is not a declaration he is certain they were under fire. Maybe he was just confused by all the confusion. And by his stated *belief* that "Anytime you are blown out of the water like that, they always follow that up with small arms fire." Mr. Lambert's follow-up comment should lead one to wonder whether he has a specific, detailed recollection, or just an impression based on what he thinks was usually the case when ambushed.

And then we have accounts like this which are more typical of those who weren't on Kerry's boat:

Butch Vorphal who was on PCF 3 said the only gunfire he remembers was cover fire from the Swift Boats themselves. Vorphal says they lay down cover fire because they assume there's going to be enemy gunfire. He says when they stopped firing, there was no other gunfire. Vorphal says none of his shipmates remember seeing bullet holes from enemy fire in the Swift Boats.

Here's a great analysis of the whole medal fraud:

http://idexer.com/articles/kerry_medals.htm

Oh and by way ... did you know that Chenoweth, Thurlow and Odell have all signed under-oath affidavits attesting to their version of events (among others). Have any of the witnesses on Kerry's side done that ... signed sworn statements? Or do they fear perjury? Hmmm?

[BeAChooser]

Double post.

[BeAChooser]

Me and Bill aren't the smartest

:D

So tell, us ... since you believe Admiral Schachte lied (as well as commander Hibbard) ... who was in command of that mission? John Kerry? That would have been his very first command that night? Correct? On a mission that he hadn't yet trained for or been on? Using a tactic he hadn't been taught (and mind you, all agree that Schachte was the one who invented the tactic).

Are you absolutely sure that both Zaladonis and Runyon were on that mission? You have any proof of that? Why would they include 2 enlisted men on a mission that called for 2 officers and 1 enlisted man? Especially when the two enlisted men weren't "the smartest". And according to the article I linked, use of M-60s was essential to that mission. Yet Runyon admited he was never trained on one, even though he claimed that he traded off with Zaladonis in manning the M-60.

Now according to that article, Zaladonis claimed he was trained on an M-60 at Swift Boat School at Coronado Island. But they apparently didn't have a machine gun range. So Zaladonis claimed he went to Pendleton for that training. But why did a survey of Swift Boat trainees during that time period show that no one went to Camp Pendleton to train on the M-60? Is Zaladonis just fabricating?

And by the way, if Kerry was in command, and there was hostile fire, why didn't he file an after action report? You are supposed to do that if there's hostile fire. Was Kerry too busy scurrying around trying to get his medal to take the time to do that? :D

[Drysdale]

Majority. 2>1.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5843180/



Hmm, details may be hazy but remembering that there were only 3 people on the boat does not seem that difficult.

Well, for these 2 it apparently is. There's a lot of I think,not sure,dont recalls in there.

Further, Schachte claims there was a grenade launcher. Both Runyon and Zaladonis say there was not.

Again,you're gonna rely on these guys words when they cant even remember
what weapons they were using? Directly from that transcript

Zaladonis: Right, we started firing. I had an M-16 machine gun. I was on the bow of the boat and I opened up on them, and John didn't like the area I was shooting at and he directed me to fire more to the right. And I had muzzle flashes in front of my eyes so it was hard for me to see, because it was like having flashbulbs going off in front of your face – you know, hundreds of them at the same time. And I just couldn't see. So he kind of directed my fire. And from what I remember, he was firing an M-16 and it either jammed or he ran out of ammo. And he bent over to pick up another one and then he got hurt, as he was bent over. As far as I can remember.

Myers: How did he get hurt?

Zaladonis: I'm not sure. I'm not sure at all.

Myers: How did you know he was hurt?

Zaladonis: Because I found out later that when he bent over to pick up that rifle was when he got hurt. I guess we discussed that on the way back to the swift boat.

Myers: Do you recall was there enemy fire that night?

Zaladonis: I'm not sure. I don't really remember. But it was so hard for me to tell. I can't say there was or there wasn't. I believe Mr. Kerry thought that there was, but I was busy with that M-60 and I was trying to empty all my ammo out as quick as possible, and get the heck out of there. It was a pretty scary situation…


Which was it?


PRobably because nobody is disputing whether they were there or not.
Anyway, here is Runyon's account as reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Why? Isnt the idea to not assume one side is lying and make a decision based on the evidence?

Um, if you want actual eyewitness testimony, yes, it is important. I can see why you might be retreating from that position though.

Eyewitness testimony is only as reliable as the eyewitness. I would'nt bet much on Zaladonis. Runyon there isnt really enough there to make a judgement.


As you are well aware, AARs are not easy to get and are not always public information. Anyway, Swifities claim that Kerry authored all his AARs himself and embellished. This claim is made when they point to the KJW initials for John F Kerry. LOL! You sure align yourself with real braniacs there, Drysdale! LOL Oh, by the way, to further show the desperation adn idiocy of your "allies", the KJW initials that they think is proof that JFK (Kerry) authored the report is not even in the location where the author initials and instead is where the receiver of the report initials. But in your twisted world that is evidence, eh? Please explain how that is.

Thanks!

They really are'nt that hard to get if they exist.

OK,lets proceed without Schachte. As I said before whether he was there or not is really irrelevant.

Number 1.. No after action report was filed for the incident on December 2-3, 1968.
If it was there Kerry would have found it and supplied copies of it.
None exists. Period, or there would be a record of it in the archives.

Number 2..No personnel casualty report was filed forJohn Kerry’s injury from the incident on December 2-3, 1968.
None exists. Period, or there would be a record of it in the archives.

Number 3..if his injury was caused directly or indirectly by enemy action, the unit commander would have initiated an administrative request for the award of a Purple Heart.
No such administrative request was prepared for John Kerry’s injury from the incident on December 2-3, 1968. None exists. Period, or there would be a record of it in the archives.


The only available Navy records for this first Purple Heart are the notation of treatment in John Kerry’s personal medical records that he has released. He has not released all. And the notification of award for the Purple
Heart, both of these were released by John Kerry.

The medical treatment record for this “wound” dated December 3, 1968, reads:

Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty.

He had a scratch and a little metal splinter that it must have been hell to keep in his arm until he got to the doctor so it could be annotated.
According to the doctor who treated him it was'nt even a comparable to a rosethorn scratch degree.

The notification of award for the Purple Heart reads:

28 FEB 1969
From: Commander U. S. Naval Support Activity, Saigon
To: LTJG John F. KERRY, USN, [service number]
Via: Commander Coastal Division ONE ONE
Subj: Purple Heart Award; presentation of
Enlc: (1) Purple Heart Medal, Ribbon and Lapel Pin
1. On behalf of the Chief of Naval Personnel, the commander U. S. Naval Support Activity,
Saigon hereby awards you the Purple Heart for injuries received on 2 December 1968.
2. A certificate of this award will be forwarded directly to you by the Chief of Naval Personnel.
Donald A. Still
Chief Staff Officer

Why the 3 month lag time for the award of this purple heart?
That is not standard. In fact this purple heart didnt even originate from his division where he sustained the injury.

If this first Purple Heart had resulted from enemy action as claimed by John Kerry, there should have been an after action report filed for the action, most likely by the operations officer for Coastal Division 14, Lieutenant William Schachte. There would have been a personnel casualty report filed by Dr. Louis Letson, the officer who treated the wound. There would have been an administrative request for the award of the Purple Heart signed by the commander of Coastal Division 14, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard, forwarded through Coastal Squadron One to the commander of the US Naval Support Activity, Saigon. None of these documents exists. None. Zilch.

What is to be learned from this? Apparently none of these officers believed that John Kerry’s injury resulted from enemy action and therefore did not qualify for the award of a Purple Heart.

So in order to believe Kerry's version of events the 2 eyewitnesses and Kerry is really all you have. I need more proof than a couple of no more believable witnesses than the other officer who contradicts Kerry's account.

[jj]

It's really rather depressing to see people supporting the historical-revisionist swiftboaters.

It's funny how their "testamony" seems to come about with funding from who????

[Kestrel]

It's really rather depressing to see people supporting the historical-revisionist swiftboaters.

It's funny how their "testamony" seems to come about with funding from who????

It's really rather depressing to see people supporting the historical-revisionist swiftboaters.

It's funny how their "testamony" seems to come about with funding from who????

It's classic conspiracy theorist behavior.

When Kerry's story is collaborated by two other men, all three must be liars. If the documents from the time agree with Kerry's story, it's because Kerry faked them. If the documents can't be found, the reason must be that Kerry had them destroyed. Any evidence that Kerry is right is treated is countered by claims of an even wider conspiracy.

And like the troothers, they seldom respond to evidence presented by others. They just move on to a different part of the grand conspiracy theory. Shifting from incident to incident, posting reams of stuff cut and pasted from other sites.

[BeAChooser]

When Kerry's story is collaborated by two other men, all three must be liars. If the documents from the time agree with Kerry's story, it's because Kerry faked them. If the documents can't be found, the reason must be that Kerry had them destroyed. Any evidence that Kerry is right is treated is countered by claims of an even wider conspiracy.

Tell us ... did Kerry write the after action report in the mine incident? Yes or no? If not, who did? And provide your proof. If he did write it (which is what the facts laid out by journalists seem to show), then why do you place such faith in documents based solely on that report ? If the after action report was false regarding hostile fire, then those documents would naturally be in error too. Right? So who wrote the after action report?

How do you explain the fact that Kerry initially said he stopped to help the mine damaged PCF and that the other boats ran? How could he possibly have gotten that detail wrong? That's worse than Hillary's sniper lie.

Also, who was commander during the first Purple Heart incident? Are you claiming it was Kerry even though all evidence points to that not being logical or correct? Why are there so many inconsistencies in the stories told by the other two who claim they were on that mission? I'm curious ... were they in Cambodia at Christmas too? Did they have good luck hats given to them by shadowy CIA spooks too? :D

[Kestrel]

Tell us ... did Kerry write the after action report in the mine incident? Yes or no? If not, who did? And provide your proof. If he did write it (which is what the facts laid out by journalists seem to show), then why do you place such faith in documents based solely on that report ? If the after action report was false regarding hostile fire, then those documents would naturally be in error too. Right? So who wrote the after action report?

If your theory is correct, where is the after action report proving that William Schachte actually commanded the boat that night? Remember we are talking about the claims of one man when three others are claiming he wasn't even there. Kerry has two witnesses that agree with his version of what happened. Schachte has no witnesses or documents to back up his story. So why do you believe him? If Kerry must have an after action report to prove his case, why doesn't Schachte?

I snipped the rest of your post, lets just focus on this issue for a while.

[Drysdale]

If your theory is correct, where is the after action report proving that William Schachte actually commanded the boat that night? Remember we are talking about the claims of one man when three others are claiming he wasn't even there. Kerry has two witnesses that agree with his version of what happened. Schachte has no witnesses or documents to back up his story. So why do you believe him? If Kerry must have an after action report to prove his case, why doesn't Schachte ?

I snipped the rest of your post, lets just focus on this issue for a while.

I dont want to answer for BeAChooser but I can give what I think is the answer and he can reply later.

Lets think about what you're asking. Where is the AAR Schachte?
There isnt one.
That's the whole point.
If there was enemy fire that night there would have been one. Those guys did'nt have an inkling in 68 Kerry was going to run for president one day so there was no need for some great conspiracy to put it to him. He did'nt have any problems locating the other AAR's, though how valid they are is disputable to some but I'm only talking about the first PH right now.

The point is it was 2 officers and one enlisted each mission.
On this nite though we are to believe that was an exception due to Runyon and Zaladonis's testimony and they are both enlisted right? And neither really remembers who was firing what,as a matter of fact neither are sure there was enemy fire.

On this night there was no AAR showing enemy fire yet Kerry says there was enemy fire.

This PH was not issued till 3 full months later which is not standard. In most cases they are issued the same day. If there was'nt enemy fire that night there is no PH period.


These occurences(and there's probably more these are just off the top of my head,never occured to me that there was a breaking of protocol like we are to believe with 2 enlisted on the boat till BeAchooser pointed it out. That's another strike.)just happen to be coincidences that aligned against poor old John Kerry.

Really now, if you are a true skeptic what are the odds of that?

[varwoche]

If Kerry must have an after action report to prove his case, why doesn't Schachte? Clearly, the true believers have different standards for Kerry than the Swifties -- a standard favoring minority witnesses over majority witnesses and no documentation over documentation.

It's also bleakly amusing to see keyboard commandos (i.e. Drysdale) trying to make hay out of trivial differences in 35 year old war memories.

[Drysdale]

I like one at a time. Since I'm not enamored with the whack-a-mole debate style -- you judge Kerry based on claim A; claim A gets whacked; you offer claim B; claim B gets whacked; repeat for C, D and E -- I'm going to summarize your stunned moles before we move on.

# 1
As I explained, this is empty arm waving because whether or not Kerry sued informs us of nothing. That said, as to whether Kerry threatened a lawsuit:

Claim: FALSE (as you more or less acknowledged)

I was wrong on that one yes. He did file complaints with the FEC however trying to stop the swift boat ads and the documentary StolenValor.
We're talking 4 years ago, I was wrong on specifics but he did indeed attempt to stop the ads.


#2
Of course we know the facts -- as best as it's possible to know most war facts that is -- based on official record and eye witness accounts (what a concept). See Lurker's post 74. And oh by the way Kerry's medals were re-affirmed by a naval review (http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/navyresponse.pdf) in 2004.

Claim: FALSE

All the Navy reaffirmed is protocol for a PH was followed. It was not like a murder investigation where all alleged witnesses are subpoened etc.
And speaking of official documents where are they? All we have are eyewitness testimony. Where is all the after conflict reports?

#3
How is it possible to stoop to this level of post hoc desperation and have any claim to being fair minded? (Answer: It isn't possible.)

Notwithstanding, as a separate matter of skeptical inquiry I welcome you to quote (in full) Pickens' original challenge and his revised challenge after Kerry accepted.

Inferred Claim: LAUGHABLE

Still waiting on Kerry to respond. Not holding my breath though.


There's more except I'm out of time. Once you acknowledge you are wrong on #2, and line up the quotes concerning #3, we can look at the purple heart incident, aka he said (one swiftie) vs they said (Kerry plus 2 crewmates).
[/QUOTE]

If I'm wrong I'll admit it dont worry. I'm not here tabulating scores like some of you guys seem to do. Pretty pitiful actually. Why cant you just have a discussion? On the lawsuit my memory let me down on the specifics yes. On the others I dont see any evidence to convince me otherwise as of yet.

[Lurker]

Thurlow said there was no firefight. He did this UNDER OATH. He didn't learn of the medal until three months after he left the service. He said at the time he thought he got the medal for helping to rescue the crew of PCF-3.
Let me get this straight. Thurlow felt his medal was for helping a boat get running again? Is that the contention? I did not know they handed out medals for mechanical duty.

That does not explain the third Bronze Star handed out that day. The recipient of that Bronze Star syas there was enemy fire and he WAS NOT A KERRY CREWMEMBER. Further, he says Thurlow was underwater qand istracted and may not have known about the enemy fire.


He probably deserved a medal since it was his boat that pulled along side PCF-3 (while it was still moving) and he who jumped aboard to help the crew. But there was no firefight. Yes, his commendation says there was a firefight because the after action report, on which the commendations to Thurlow and Lambert were solely based, stated there was a firefight. But the after action report, written by Kerry, is false. All but a few who where there say there was no hostile fire. It's curious that Kerry's boat ran from the scene yet it's Kerry's crew that claims there was a firefight. Oh yes ... the after action report left out the fact that Kerry's boat abandoned the other boats (including the damaged one).
Um, that is total speculation the Kerry wrote the AAR. It would breach Navy protocol since the senior officer is supposed to write it. Are you aware that the "evidence" that Thurlow said that Kerry wrote the report was the initials KJW on the report? KJW!!!!! Think about it. Navy officials also said that the KJW initials are for the report receiver, not writer which goes to show the lengths Thurlow will go to "prove" his point. By the way, KJW did write plenty of other reports and most were at actions that Kerry was not present at. Still waiting for your explanation of this.

"Abandoned the other boats". Are you aware that Thurlow specifically said he would not use the word "fled" shen describing Kerry's leaving the scene as he did not like what the connotation was. He understood whyt Kerry left. Of course, that won't stop you, a nonwitness, from characterizing it in a different fashion. How ignoble of you.


The truth is that those three (wow!) bullet holes most likely came from fighting the day before when the 5 boats carried Mike Strike Force (MSF) Regional Forces/Popular Forces (RF/PF) on a Sea Lords operation which assaulted a village, killed 1 VC and wounded 5 VC. During that assault they were under enemy small arms fire. That day they destroyed 30 sampans, 5 structures and captured 16 grenades while losing 1 MSF KIA. On the way back, without the Mike Strike Force (who stayed at the village), PCF 3 hit the mine. There was NO small arms fire around the mine. There were no reported VC KIA or WIA around the mine. Which is why the PCFs were able to hang around for 90 minutes in one spot on the channel while salvaging the PCF 3 before towing it in ... and not suffer a single casualty or have the boats riddled with holes from the enemy fire Kerry claimed was occurring. It is impossible to reconcile that with the description of the incident offered by Kerry and his few supporters. Kerry LIED.

And your proof of this? We have Thurlow saying there were no bullet holes in any of the boats. He said that specifically. Only when he was shown the damage report did he change his story. Anyway, please show your proof that the bullet holes were from previous action. Thank you.

In fact, why should we believe a single thing the Kerry camp claims about this incident when they initially tried to make Kerry out as a hero who stayed to help PCF 3 while all the other boats ran (just the opposite of what actually happened)? They couldn't even get the details straight about Rassmann right. They claimed that Kerry was injured by shrapnel when the mine detonated next to PCF 94 but there's no evidence of this "shrapnel". NONE.
None, eh? Well, let's just take a look at the Navy Injury Report:

KERRY, JOHN F., XXXXXX, USN WOUNDED IN ACTION -
13 March 1969 vicinity of Song Bay Hap, South
Vietnam. Received shrapnel wounds in the left
buttocks and contusions on the right forearm
when a mine detonated close to PCF-94 while
engaged in operations on river. CONDITIONS AND
PROGNOSIS EXCELLENT. RESULT OF HOSTILE ACTION


I guess Navy records don't count as evidence, eh? Care to take back your assertion that there is NO evidence of shrapnel. And you then said emphatically, "NONE". LOL


And keep in mind that the after action report was written by Kerry. The 3 other surviving officers have all stated they didn't write it. In fact, a journalist (Tom Lipscomb of the Chicago Sun-Times) conducted an investigation where he examined what the numbers at the top of the after action reports mean. He concluded that they clearly show that none of the other commanders wrote the report.
The numbers at the top of the report refer to the boats that were there. They don't refer to the author.

Read this: http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/kerrybronzestar.htm

It is well sourced. Read it carefully. Pretty much everything you claim has been debunked.

[Lurker]

Let's look at that list.


OK, I don't want to get into the fine detail of a he said/she said. I will stick with the majority fo witnesses supporting there being enemy fire. You can stick with the minority.

So, can we assume the majority of witnesses are not lying? If we go with the assumption that there was no enemy fire, are teh other witnesses lying or mistaken? If they are mistaken, is it at all possible that Kerry is mistaken too or is it only possible that Kerry lied?

Just wondering.

[varwoche]

I was wrong on that one yes. He did file complaints with the FEC however trying to stop the swift boat ads and the documentary StolenValor. We're talking 4 years ago, I was wrong on specifics but he did indeed attempt to stop the ads. So what. This informs of us of precisely nothing.

All the Navy reaffirmed is protocol for a PH was followed. It's been alleged that Kerry gamed the system. This review stands as evidence that he didn't.

And speaking of official documents where are they? All we have are eyewitness testimony. Where is all the after conflict reports? I dunno. You tell me.

Still waiting on Kerry to respond. Not holding my breath though. I heard that you're a pedophile. Unless and until you turn over your medical records, I'm going to assume the rumor is true. Not holding my breath though. (Not very fair, is it?)

Why cant you just have a discussion? I tried. You elected to play whack-a-mole.

[Lurker]

Let's look at that list.

BeChooser, you specifically claimed that nobody outside of Kerry's boat said there was enemy fire. I provided a list of men not on Kerry's boat who said there was enemy fire. You then proceeded to attempt to pick apart their testimony calling it into question. It does not change the FACT that they calimed there was enemy fire.

So, when can I expect your retraction? You made a claim, I proved it wrong. You then decided to attack their position but that is immatierial to your original claim where you said nobody outside of Kerry's boat claimed there was gunfire.

[Lurker]

It's classic conspiracy theorist behavior.

When Kerry's story is collaborated by two other men, all three must be liars. If the documents from the time agree with Kerry's story, it's because Kerry faked them. If the documents can't be found, the reason must be that Kerry had them destroyed. Any evidence that Kerry is right is treated is countered by claims of an even wider conspiracy.

And like the troothers, they seldom respond to evidence presented by others. They just move on to a different part of the grand conspiracy theory. Shifting from incident to incident, posting reams of stuff cut and pasted from other sites.

You know something, Kestrel, you are correct. It is classic CT behavior. I'm gonna bow out of this.

In sumamry, the majority fo eyewitnesses agree with Kerry. In the Silver Star incident not a single eyewitnesses disputes the Kerry story. All the Navy records corroborate this as well. I'll stick with that evidence.

[BeAChooser]

If your theory is correct, where is the after action report proving that William Schachte actually commanded the boat that night?

No after action report was necessary if there was no action. Hibbard agrees with this assessment. Didn't you bother to even read the link I posted: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,102361,00.html ? Apparently not.

Remember we are talking about the claims of one man when three others are claiming he wasn't even there.

First of all, there are good reasons to distrust the claims of Kerry and the two other men. One is that Kerry lied about many other facts surrounding his time at war. You don't want to answer my other questions because you have no reasonable response. The issue is Kerry's memory or honesty. I think it's proven that Kerry wrote the after action report on which the mine incident medals are based. So logically, if that after action report can be shown to be inaccurate (and it has), the documents related to the medals that describe events (like enemy fire) would also be inaccurate. So claiming those documents *prove* anything is fallacious.

And it's curious that in this instance you want base what we should believe on the relative number of witnesses (3 to 1 you claim, and I'll get to the falseness of that claim in a moment) ... but in the mine attack instance there were far more people who say there was no enemy small arms fire than those who claim there was. I think you want to believe Kerry's little band of brothers, regardless of the facts and number of witnesses. :)

At the start of his "no man left behind" election ploy, Kerry claimed that it was his boat that saved PCF 3 while the others boats ran. That was either a lie or it shows that Kerry's memory is not to be trusted at all. If it was a lie, then he could have lied about the first medal event too. And if he couldn't remember that significant a fact, why should we believe he remembers who was on the boat this particular night?

If his memory of events is soooooo sharp, why would Kerry in an interview with Tim Russert say "We were in combat. We were in a very, very--probably one of the most frightening -- if you ask anybody who was with me, the two guys who were with me, was probably the most frightening night that they had that they were in Vietnam... " yet in his book, Tour of Duty, say "It was a half-assed action that hardly qualified as combat, but it was my first... . ... [A] minor skirmish, but since I couldn't put my finger on what we really accomplished or on what had happened, it was difficult to feel satisfied. " He can't seem to make up his mind about much of what happened in Vietnam. :rolleyes:

The truth is that your theory defies logic and common sense. It requires that Kerry have commanded the mission at a time when he was clearly unqualified to do so ... he'd just arrived in Vietnam and this was his FIRST combat mission of any type. It requires that the mission consist of one officer and two enlisted men (one who was also on his FIRST combat mission and the other who was on his first skimmer mission) even though all other known facts suggest this type of mission required 2 officers (because after all it was an intelligence gathering mission) and 1 enlisted man, all with some experience. It ignores the fact that Schachte did develop the concept and tactics for this type of mission and so logically would have been involved in training others in carrying it out. It requires that Schachte have been such a poor officer (mind you, he eventually became an Admiral) that he sent three very inexperienced men (none who had been on a skimmer before and two who were on their very first combat mission of ANY type) out on a night intelligence gathering mission, all alone, where combat was expected (the intent of the missions was to draw fire). Is that what passes for logical amongst democrats like you?

There is no valid reason to distrust Schachte's recollections (http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document200408280010.asp ). On the other hand, we KNOW that Kerry either lied about being in Cambodia on Christmas ... an event that he claimed was "seared" in his memory ... or his memory of events during the war is completely faulty. How many times to you have to get burned by Kerry's memory before you start to get wise, Kestrel?

Kerry has two witnesses that agree with his version of what happened. Schachte has no witnesses or documents to back up his story.

Kerry claims there was enemy fire, but the statements by the other two men leave that in doubt . Zaladonis says "I don't remember". Runyon says "I couldn't say one way or the other" . And Kerry's own diary indicates that even 9 days later he hadn't been shot at yet. Kerry claimed there were explosions from enemy rockets/grenades/mortars (to account for his shrapnel injury) but Runyon's description clearly states there were no explosions other than the M-79 round that Kerry fired. It's Kerry's story that isn't "backed up" by witnesses and documents. :rolleyes:

Statements by Schachte's (and Kerry's) commanding officer (Hibbard) are consistent with Schachte's version of the event, not Kerry's. Statements by others who went on such missions are consistent with Schachte's description of who and what they involved, not Kerry's. Hibbard is on the record (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39831 ) saying that "Kerry requested permission to go on a skimmer operation with Lieutenant Schachte, my most senior and trusted lieutenant, using a Boston whaler to try to interdict a Viet Cong movement of arms and munitions. The next morning at the briefing, I was informed that no enemy fire had been received on that mission. Our units had fired on some VC units running on the beach. We were all in my office, some of the crew members, I remember Schachte being there. This was 36 years ago; it really didn't seem all that important at the time. Here was this lieutenant, junior grade, who was saying "I got wounded," and everybody else, the crew that were present were saying, "We didn't get any fire. We don't know how he got the scratch." Kerry showed me the scratch on his arm. I hadn't been informed that he had any medical treatment. The scratch didn't look like much to me; I've seen worse injuries from a rose thorn." Hibbard confirmed that Schachte always went on the skimmer missions and said "I don't think he (Kerry) was alone" on his first assignment. Also, according to Schachte, the swift boat that night was commanded by Mike Voss (notice that Kerry never mentions who commanded the Swift Boat component in his accounts). Well Mike Voss also came forward to back up Schachte's version of that night. He told NBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5843388/ ) "I'm pretty certain Schachte was there in the skimmer."

Let's face facts. Schachte was trusted enough to eventually wind up an Admiral. We KNOW that Kerry's commanding officers and even the doctor who treated his wound did not trust Kerry ... did not believe his story about his injury being due to enemy action. That is documented fact. In an interview, Tedd Peck (who was on the skimmer mission after Kerry's) recalled Schachte heading into the officers' club for a drink the day after the mission muttering that Kerry was threatening "to write his Congressman if he didn't get his purple heart." :D

Apparently Kerry didn't really believe his version of this event either since he didn't file an after action report as would have been required if his version of the events were correct. Instead, this incident demonstrates Kerry's basic dishonesty when it came to medal gathering, because after being told "no", he went outside the chain of command to get his precious medal (from his next duty location so Hibbard wouldn't know about it). And in so doing, he dishonored the very meaning of it, just as he continued to dishonor it (and his fellow soldiers) once he escaped from Vietnam (thanks to acquiring those medals, btw). Sorry, but the facts clearly suggest that medals were Kerry's planned ticket out of Vietnam so he was willing to do anything to get them. Even LIE.

And the veracity of Kerry's other two witnesses' is questionable as well. As noted by Drysdale, Zaladonis' recollections of the weapons that he used on the mission are contradictory. His claims about where he obtained training on the critical M-60 machine gun are in doubt. And most curious of all, in interviews before this became a selling point for Kerry's campaign and before Schachte came forward to cast doubt on Kerry's version of that night, Zaladonis didn't even mention this night ... even though he later claimed it was his "scariest night" of the war. In fact, Zaladonis is listed in a Swift Vets Directory as being in An Thoi/Cat Lo, not Qui Nhon/Cam Ranh Bay, from 10/68 to 4/69, making it somewhat unlikely that he was with Kerry in December 1968 on that skimmer mission.

On the other hand, Runyon is listed as being in Qui Nhon/Cam Ranh Bay from 10/68 to 3/69. So Runyon probably was on the mission ... but as was pointed out, it was his FIRST combat mission and he admits that he wasn't all that smart. Maybe he just is confused about the facts. Or perhaps, based on interviews with Runyon, we can see his motive in remembering things the way he "remembers" them. He told Kranish (who first publically identified him in April of 2004 as being on the mission) that "he followed Kerry's career from the moment Kerry became an antiwar activist as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War". I'm curious ... did Runyon join the VVAW?

If Kerry must have an after action report to prove his case, why doesn't Schachte?

How many times must I answer that? Because no after action report was necessary if there was no action. And that's what Schachte's (and Hibbard's) version of the events said. So now tell us why Kerry didn't file an after action report if he was in command? You still haven't done that.

And while you are at it, tell us who wrote the after action report in the Bronze Medal/Purple Heart mine incident. This is relevant and you seem to be avoiding that question. I think the reason why is clear. Because Kerry wrote it and if that was all you had to go on, you'd come away thinking he was commander of the operation and that only his boat and crew that showed any courage that day. (Never mind that they ran from the scene while the other boats actually did the rescue.) :D

[Drysdale]

So what. This informs of us of precisely nothing.

Well, he did try and stop the ads yes. It informs us of that.

It's been alleged that Kerry gamed the system. This review stands as evidence that he didn't.
No, that review is evidence protocol was followed of the issuance of the PH.
Not it's vailidity.

I dunno. You tell me.
There isnt any. That's the point.


I heard that you're a pedophile. Unless and until you turn over your medical records, I'm going to assume the rumor is true. Not holding my breath though. (Not very fair, is it?)
Wow, time to pull out the ad hominem already?
Tell you what,if I decide to run for president I'll release all my military records how's that?


I tried. You elected to play whack-a-mole.

Pointless to respond to this.

[Lurker]

I will say this. The point that there appears to be no AAR for Kerry's 1st Purple Heart action is a point of concern for me. Assuming the poster was right who said that a claim of enemy fire would necessitate one. Contrary to my impressions, papers do appear to get lost in the system (as evidenced by Bush's numerous National Guard records that have disappeared) so it is possible there was one at one time by that is pure speculation. I would certainly feel more comfortable in my opinions on the evidence if there was an AAR to point to.

[BeAChooser]

Let me get this straight. Thurlow felt his medal was for helping a boat get running again? Is that the contention? I did not know they handed out medals for mechanical duty.

According to Lambert, after PCF 3 hit the mine, the crew was stunned and shaken and the boat was running free. He said "It was running wide open". But there was noone at the helm and what Thurlow did is pull his boat along side PCF 3, told Lambert to take over control, then JUMPED from one boat to the other. That took a lot of courage ... compared to the *courage* Kerry showed in running from the scene after the mine went off and not returning until it was clear there was no enemy gunfire. :D

That does not explain the third Bronze Star handed out that day. The recipient of that Bronze Star syas there was enemy fire and he WAS NOT A KERRY CREWMEMBER.

You aren't being honest. According to http://archive.mailtribune.com/archive/2004/0826/local/stories/01local.htm , Lambert didn't say he knows for a fact they were under fire. He said "I sure was under the impression we were." And perhaps that impression was only an expectation because he also said "Anytime you are blown out of the water like that, they always follow that up with small arms fire." But maybe they didn't in this case. And the decision to give medals was based solely on what the after action report said ... a report apparently written by Kerry and which has been shown to be wrong and incomplete regarding numerous other facts that day.

Um, that is total speculation the Kerry wrote the AAR.

No it is not. Did you bother to read the article and analysis by Tom Lipscomb of the Chicago Sun-Times? The number on the AAR indicates who wrote the document. That number was TE 194.5.4.4/1 .

TE means Task Element.
194: Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, Commander of all Navy forces in Vietnam
5: Adm. Roy Hoffman, Commander of all Swift boats
4: Cmdr. Adrian Lonsdale
4: Cptn. George Elliot, CO of Kerry's base at An Thoi
/1' indicates that someone other than Elliot sent the report. The 'TE' would have been 'CTE' had it been Thurlow, who commanded the task element that day. That leaves only three other officers, and Lipscomb traced their whereabouts:


According to a Navy communications expert, Chief Petty Officer Troy Jenkins, who has examined the message traffic, the report in question was sent from the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Spencer, Lonsdale's command ship, at 11:20 that night.

Only three of the officers on the mission that day were on the Spencer, John Kerry, Dick Pease and Donald Droz. Droz took the wounded from the mine explosion to be examined and treated at the Spencer, including the third officer, the severely wounded Dick Pease. Since the Spencer had no helipad for the evacuation of the wounded, Droz then had to return to the USS Washtenaw County, stationed about 25 nautical miles away, leaving only Kerry aboard the Spencer at the time the message was sent at 11:20 p.m.

Could Droz have somehow written the report? Lonsdale says command precedence of days in swift boat service alone rules this out. "According to the command procedure I set down, Kerry would have been the only logical candidate. Kerry had been in Vietnam since November. Droz just arrived at An Thoi in February." Thurlow adds, "I never liked the paperwork anyway. I was happy to have Kerry write them up."

And there is another factor. Thurlow ordered Droz to take care of the wounded after the action on the Bay Hap. Droz had ferried them 40 miles out to the Spencer and now had to take them 25 miles back to the USS Washtenaw County. Moving wounded on and off a 327-foot cutter from a 50-foot swift boat on the open sea was not something Droz was likely to leave unsupervised long enough to dash off a report. Kerry had no duties other than reporting to the sick bay, where according to his doctor he was seen at 7 that night. And he spent the night on the Spencer.


Here's another source:

http://idexer.com/articles/kerry_medals.htm


The Kerry for President Campaign has released a few official spot reports that were prepared and sent out by LTJG Kerry himself after he had returned from the March 13, 1969 incident. We know it was Sen. Kerry who prepared the spot reports because he was the officer in charge of the four boat TE (Task Element.) Looking at the spot report we find the line who is responsible for the contents: "MARKET TIME SPOT REPORT 13/1/TE 194.5.4.4/1."

The 194.5.4.4/1 identifies the officer in charge of the four boat TE, which would had been LTJG Kerry, who also would have been responsible for all the after-action reporting. It has been mistakenly reported that the initials "JKW" at the bottom of some of the spot reports was evidence that Sen. Kerry was the author. This is false, it is just the initials of who ever had received the report at An Thoi, which in this particular case it was "JKW" who was on duty at the time LTJG Kerry was sending in his spot reports.

CTE command structure works out like this:

CTE 194 = Zumwalt
CTE 194.5 = Hoffman
CTE 194.5.4 = Lonsdale
CTE 194.5.4.4 = Elliott
CTE 194.5.4.4/1 = Kerry because he had Tactical Command of the boats.

There are other available references from Sen. Kerry that confirms he was the author of these spot reports describing the action that had occurred on March 13th. According to the authors of "John F. Kerry", "All events described were checked against official navy records, most in `spot reports' filed by commanders just after action, many of them written by Kerry." Kerry also has told a Senate Committee on April 22, 1971, "...I can recall often sending in the spot reports which we made after each mission.."


Are you aware that the "evidence" that Thurlow said that Kerry wrote the report was the initials KJW on the report?

Are you aware you are wrong about that? It was O'Neill who said that the initials "KJW" on the bottom of the report identified it as having been written by Kerry. Not Thurlow. If you think Thurlow said that, then offer a direct quote from a reputable source.

And isn't it curious that the report exaggerates Kerry's and his boat's role in the events that day while failing to mention many other facts that Kerry's boat was not involved in or just outright missed (because they fled instead of sticking around to help out). In fact, according to Lipscomb, "the report completely leaves out how Kerry's boat ran downriver, leaving James Rassman overboard and the other three boats to deal with the ambush and the sinking PCF 3. All the living boat commanders on that mission are in firm agreement on that action by Kerry and agree that the report is a fraudulent misrepresentation of an action they remember well." Hmmmmmm?

According to the action report, there was "heavy A/W [automatic weapons] and S/A [small arms] [fire] from both banks. Fire continued for about 5,000 meters," a little over three miles. The admiral who commanded the Swift boats in Vietnam, Roy Hoffman said that's absurd. Admiral Hoffman wrote "There was never an incident under my command in all of Vietnam where my boats were engaged by continuous fire from both banks of a half-mile in length, much less three." And just image, they were subjected to that hellish environment without any apparent damage to any of the boats. Yes, I know about the 3 bullet holes, as I noted those were most likely the result of the fire fight that actually did occur the day before. :rolleyes:


Quote:
The truth is that those three (wow!) bullet holes most likely came from fighting the day before when the 5 boats carried Mike Strike Force (MSF) Regional Forces/Popular Forces (RF/PF) on a Sea Lords operation which assaulted a village, killed 1 VC and wounded 5 VC. During that assault they were under enemy small arms fire. That day they destroyed 30 sampans, 5 structures and captured 16 grenades while losing 1 MSF KIA. On the way back, without the Mike Strike Force (who stayed at the village), PCF 3 hit the mine. There was NO small arms fire around the mine. There were no reported VC KIA or WIA around the mine. Which is why the PCFs were able to hang around for 90 minutes in one spot on the channel while salvaging the PCF 3 before towing it in ... and not suffer a single casualty or have the boats riddled with holes from the enemy fire Kerry claimed was occurring. It is impossible to reconcile that with the description of the incident offered by Kerry and his few supporters. Kerry LIED.

And your proof of this?

I think a little common sense is required. No one denies there was a battle the previous day in which the enemy engaged those boats. In which 1 VC was killed and 5 wounded. Even the VC are quoted saying they fired on the boats. Yet you want us to believe those 3 holes came from an engagement where almost all those present say there was no enemy fire, where they say their own suppressive firing stopped within minutes, where the boats hung around dead in the water next to the shore in a channel only 75 meters wide for over an hour and a half with (according to Kerry's witnesses) enemy firing all the time, and then traveled another 3 miles down that narrow channel with "heavy A/W [automatic weapons] and S/A [small arms] [fire] from both banks" all the way. Just 3 bullets you say and not one injury?

We have Thurlow saying there were no bullet holes in any of the boats. He said that specifically.

Can you offer a direct quote of what Thurlow said? Because I haven't found a direct quote so we can know in what context he said this. And that might be important.

But here's a quote for you:

"There was absolutely no fire coming from any direction," Van Odell, a gunner aboard a boat behind the stricken vessel told UPI. "There were no tracers, there were no bullet holes in the boats, no one else was wounded. We came around (to rescue men) ... and at this point, of course, Kerry's boat was way down river. If there was any fire we should have had holes in our boat, we should have had other wounded. We didn't. Kerry fled the scene and then he comes back. We couldn't leave. The (damaged) boat was dead in the water. We stayed there to protect those people." You calling him a liar? :D


let's just take a look at the Navy Injury Report:

KERRY, JOHN F., XXXXXX, USN WOUNDED IN ACTION -
13 March 1969 vicinity of Song Bay Hap, South
Vietnam. Received shrapnel wounds in the left
buttocks and contusions on the right forearm
when a mine detonated close to PCF-94 while
engaged in operations on river. CONDITIONS AND
PROGNOSIS EXCELLENT. RESULT OF HOSTILE ACTION


And do you suppose that was what Kerry told them about the event? Because Brinkley wrote in "Tour of Duty,", based on material Kerry gave him, that Kerry injured his arm and suffered "a slight concussion" when he was thrown against the bulkhead of a Swift boat. No mention of shrapnel coming from a mine detonation. Brinkley described the aftermath of the March 13 incident thus: "Kerry and the other wounded men received medical attention aboard a Coast Guard cutter... In addition to getting his arm patched up, Kerry, who had suffered a slight concussion, also had bits of shrapnel and rice extracted from his backside". Tell us, did the VC put rice in their mines?

Care to take back your assertion that there is NO evidence of shrapnel.

I said there was no evidence of him receiving shrapnel from the mine or any other hostile fire during the mine incident.

As to the origin of that shrapnel and rice, let's looks closer:

The WashingtonPost quoted Rassmann saying this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html ):


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."


Oh well, I guess now you'll claim Rassmann isn't that great witness you were claiming he was. :rolleyes:

The numbers at the top of the report refer to the boats that were there. They don't refer to the author.

Wrong. The numbers at the top of the report do indeed refer to who sent the report (and presumably wrote it). They do NOT refer to which boats were there. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=84567 "An operations order by Adm. Hoffman two months earlier set the format for the designation. The operations order procedures, originated by the operational commander of the Coastal 11 An Thoi unit Kerry served with, Cmdr. Adrian Lonsdale, was the basis for the terms of designation used in this kind of report subsequently. Upon seeing the report, Lonsdale, a Swift Boat Veterans for Truth member, recognized it and recalled the procedures it required as being followed in his command. "TE" refers to a "task element," which is defined by the numbers to the right, which show the command structure over the task element in action. "194" is Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam; "5" is Hoffman's swift boat command; "4" is Lonsdale's command, and the last "4" is Capt. George Elliot's swift boat base at An Thoi, where the boats on this mission were based. The last "1" indicates someone other than the commander of the mission. If the report had been submitted by the mission commander, in this case Thurlow, according to the operations order, it would have begun with a "C" for commander of the Task Element, and the sender would have been 'CTE 194.5.4.4.'"

And maybe you missed this in Lipscomb's article: "The head of the Operational Archives Branch of the Naval Historical Center in Washington, Kathy Lloyd, has verified Hoffman's operations order."

Here is what else Rear Admiral Hoffman says about Kerry:

http://horse.he.net/~swiftpow/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=88652&sid=aef6b9a95405b60f34bba3ee3d9c2251 "VIEWPOINT: Swift boat vets' stories hold up under fire, Fri, Oct. 01, 2004, By Roy Hoffmann ... snip ... this is a man not, strictly speaking, wedded to a single truth." :D

You want another example? The after action report (which was undoubtedly written by Kerry even if your political bias prevents you from seeing that) describes the mine going off "UNDER PCF-3" and "CLOSE ABOARD PCF-94" (Kerry's boat). But Kerry's boat was actually on the other side of the channel at the time. This is what numerous eyewitnesses all say. Furthermore, the after action lists no damage to PCF-3 (odd that) but describes severe damage to PCF-94. Here is what says about Kerry's boat: "Two stbd and one port main cabin windows blown out. VRC-46 radio and all remote units pilot house inop. AC wiring shorted out. Onan generator inop. Steerage control after helm inop. Stbd bilge pump broken. Screws curled and chipped. Radar gear box frozen. Main engines experienced RPM drop." Yet it states "PCF-94 TOWED PCF-3". That's a little odd, wouldn't you think? Furthemore,, the after-action report describes mine explosion injuries to several crew members of PCF-3, but Kerry is the only one on PCF-94 listed with mine explosion injuries. How curious. And there are no descriptions of bullet damage to any craft or crew in the after action report.” And how is it that a boat that badly damaged ... that was taking on water according to one of Kerry's loyal crew members (Del Sandusky) ... was able to go on a mission just 5 days later? Care to comment?

Now Medeiros, another one of Kerry's crew members said that after the mine went off, Kerry's boat raced off down the river, away from the ambush zone. You want to deny that? Del Sandusky said that he doesn't believe the damage to Kerry's boat was done by a mine but rather by a rocket or rocket-propelled grenade (which he admitted he didn't actually see hit the boat). But how does a rocket curl and chip boat screws? Have an answer?

More likely, Kerry in his frantic haste to get away from what he THOUGHT was an ambush, ran over something at high speed (remember they were going around an obstacle in the river at the time) and when that happened, Rassmann was knocked off the boat and the boat was damaged. Or perhaps Odell is right. He says that the damage to Kerry's boat was sustained the previous day. Maybe it's a little of both. One thing for sure. Kerry lied.

:D

[BeAChooser]

OK, I don't want to get into the fine detail of a he said/she said.

ROTFLOL! No, I'm sure you don't. Because every time we do, Kerry's stories gets even more absurd and your efforts to defend him more ridiculous.

I will stick with the majority fo witnesses supporting there being enemy fire. You can stick with the minority.

Boy are you delusional. Virtually the only people making that claim were on Kerry's boat (and even one of his crew members has gone on record saying that's not true). Every other commander (there were 4 other boats, remember, not just Kerry's) said there was no enemy fire. They even stated that UNDER OATH. Has Kerry or any of his *eyewitnesses* made out affidavits under oath? I don't believe they dared. And I've already named 4 or 5 other swift boat crew members who were there that day who say there was no enemy fire. So you have an odd view of what constitutes a majority and minority. In fact, Kerry's campaign initially showed a photo of 20 Swift Boat crew members from that time period ... part of that "band of brothers" mystic he was cultivating. Do you know how many actually supported Kerry's election? FOUR.

Or are you like Russell (one of Kerry's witnesses)? He said ""The only people that know if he was under fire were the people in that boat and the person in the water." Maybe all the other crew members of the other 4 boats just don't count in your mind. He went on to say "There were no other boats close enough to Kerry during the incident for the other veterans to be able to tell whether there were bullets flying." So maybe you are claiming that ONLY Kerry's boat was fired at. Is that how ridiculous your side's claims have gotten? :D

[BeAChooser]

BeChooser, you specifically claimed that nobody outside of Kerry's boat said there was enemy fire.

Fine. I was careless in my statement. There were a few. But there always are a few people that don't see or hear what everyone else sees and hears ... who perhaps just misinterpret what they see or hear. That's why there are eyewitnesses claiming that no plane hit the Pentagon and that bombs blew up the World Trade Center towers.

I provided a list of men not on Kerry's boat who said there was enemy fire. You then proceeded to attempt to pick apart their testimony calling it into question.

I didn't just attempt ... I succeeded.

:)

[Kestrel]

How many times must I answer that? Because no after action report was necessary if there was no action. And that's what Schachte's (and Hibbard's) version of the events said. So now tell us why Kerry didn't file an after action report if he was in command? You still haven't done that.

The after action report can be found about 7 pages down in this document (http://www.sportsmenforkerry.com/downloads/AfterActionSpotReportsFebruary1969.pdf).

[BeAChooser]

The after action report can be found about 7 pages down in this document (http://www.sportsmenforkerry.com/downloads/AfterActionSpotReportsFebruary1969.pdf).

You're joking, right? At least I hope you realize you are. Because if anything should give you a clue from that mess, the dates should. :rolleyes:

[Kestrel]

You're joking, right? At least I hope you realize you are. Because if anything should give you a clue from that mess, the dates should. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I have a hard time keeping up with your cut and paste arguments from the SBVT material. But since you don't actually do any research of your own, I doubt you will understand.

[BeAChooser]

But since you don't actually do any research of your own, I doubt you will understand.

Well by all means, enlighten us. Because frankly, I don't think anyone is going to buy any explanation you might offer regarding that pdf file and how it relates to the first Purple Heart incident. You do know when Kerry's M-79 "engagement" took place, don't you? :D

[Kestrel]

I will say this. The point that there appears to be no AAR for Kerry's 1st Purple Heart action is a point of concern for me. Assuming the poster was right who said that a claim of enemy fire would necessitate one. Contrary to my impressions, papers do appear to get lost in the system (as evidenced by Bush's numerous National Guard records that have disappeared) so it is possible there was one at one time by that is pure speculation. I would certainly feel more comfortable in my opinions on the evidence if there was an AAR to point to.

You are falling into a classic conspiracy theory trap. Historical records are often lost, especially in time of war. That one document can't be found doesn't prove much much besides humans are imperfect.

Kerry's first PH the one that Dr. Louis Letson claimed to have treated him and minimized the extend of Kerry's injuries. But when the records are examined, Letson doesn't show up as the one providing treatment and his description of Kerry's wounds didn't match the medical report. This is a better indication of fraud, when the documents created at the time don't match a persons claim.

[BeAChooser]

You are falling into a classic conspiracy theory trap.

What can I do but laugh, folks? ROTFLOL!

Kerry's first PH the one that Dr. Louis Letson claimed to have treated him and minimized the extend of Kerry's injuries. But when the records are examined, Letson doesn't show up as the one providing treatment and his description of Kerry's wounds didn't match the medical report. This is a better indication of fraud, when the documents created at the time don't match a persons claim.


http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200405041626.asp

"Letson says that last year, as the Democratic campaign began to heat up, he told friends that he remembered treating one of the candidates many years ago. In response to their questions, Letson says, he wrote down his recollections of the time. (Letson says he has had no contacts with anyone from the Bush campaign or the Republican party.) What follows is Letson's memory, as he wrote it.


I have a very clear memory of an incident which occurred while I was the Medical Officer at Naval Support Facility, Cam Ranh Bay.

John Kerry was a (jg), the OinC or skipper of a Swift boat, newly arrived in Vietnam. On the night of December 2, he was on patrol north of Cam Ranh, up near Nha Trang area. The next day he came to sick bay, the medical facility, for treatment of a wound that had occurred that night.

... snip ...

What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle.

I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound.

The wound was covered with a bandaid.



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39889 "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."

http://www.rasmusen.org/x/2004/09/02/if-dr-letson-is-a-liar-kerrys-first-purple-heart-is-a-fraud/

"If Dr. Letson is a Liar, Kerry’s First Purple Heart is a Fraud

... snip ...

But then the evidence Continetti gives seems to me to pretty clearly wreck Kerry’s story. Take a look:

... snip ...

Letson says he used tweezers to remove the shrapnel from Kerry’s arm a day after the firefight, and then bandaged the wound. And Letson’s description matches what we know from the only available piece of documentary evidence–a concise medical report written one day after the firefight. The report, released by the Kerry campaign and obtained by the Boston Globe, reads: “3 DEC 1968 U.S. NAVAL SUPPORT FACILITY CAM RANH BAY RVN FPO Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl. Bacitracin dressing. Ret to duty.” That’s it.

Here is Letson’s problem. The report is signed “J.C. Carreon.” Carreon, it turns out, was an orderly who has since passed away. Letson says he was Carreon’s boss, and would let his orderly sign routine medical reports. Still, there is no evidence available which says Letson treated Kerry’s wound or even saw Kerry that day in December."


As I said in an earlier post, one requirement for a Purple Heart is that the injured person be treated by “a medical officer”. ... snip ... But let’s go with the skeptics who doubt Dr. Letson ever treated Kerry, and say Carreon, the orderly, was the one who treated him. What happens to Kerry’s Purple Heart? It become fraudulent, because he wasn’t treated by “a medical officer”. The document alone seems to say that Kerry’s scratch doesn’t justify a Purple Heart, because it wasn’t big enough to require a doctor.


So which is it? :D

http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/34502/view?viewtype=best&skip=10

KERRY CAMPAIGN BACKTRACKS ON FIRST PURPLE HEART AWARD

Campaign Says May Have Been Self-Inflicted

Washington - In a reversal of their staunch defense of John Kerry¿s military service record, Kerry campaign officials were quoted by Fox News saying that it was indeed possible that John Kerry's first Purple Heart commendation was the result of an, unintentional, self-inflicted wound.

GARRETT: "And questions keep coming. For example, Kerry received a Purple Heart for wounds suffered on December 2, 1968. But in Kerry's own journal written nine days later, he writes he and his crew, quote, 'hadn't been shot at yet,' unquote. Kerry's campaign has said it is possible this first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentional self-inflicted wound -- Brit." (Special Report with Brit Hume Aug.23, 2004)


:D

[daredelvis]

As was said earlier, this discussion should be moved to the CT forum.



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39889


How far out of it does someone have to be to try to cite worldnetdaily.com as a source?

Daredelvis

[varwoche]

How far out of it does someone have to be to try to cite worldnetdaily.com as a source? Boggles the mind. It's unfathomable to cite a source so profoundly divorced from reality on a skeptical forum.

[Tricky]

Well, John McCain is no war hero either. I have it from a reputable source (http://www.namvets.com/Reading/john_mccain_is_no_war_hero.htm). You can tell because they emphasize their sincerity with a bright yellow background.

[BeAChooser]

How far out of it does someone have to be to try to cite worldnetdaily.com as a source?

Then I bet you really didn't like this issue:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39982 "Kerry praised Ho Chi Minh!, Posted: August 16, 2004, On June 29, 1971, according to an FBI report, Kerry praised Vietnam's communist dictator Ho Chi Minh, comparing him to George Washington. At the time, Kerry was serving as the point man for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The president of the organization was Al Hubbard, who claimed to be an Air Force captain who was severely injured during his service in Vietnam. It turned out Hubbard was a sergeant who never served in Vietnam. He did, however, as Kerry knew, serve the communist cause with great enthusiasm and distinction – making propaganda trips to Hanoi paid for by the Communist Party USA."

Want to deny any of those facts?

The article continues:

"Furthermore, Kerry himself made two trips to Paris to meet with representatives of the enemy. He was also present at VVAW steering committee meetings in which debates took place about assassinating three U.S. senators. Kerry, of course, did not report these crimes to any authorities. Kerry tried to say he had quit the organization before these meetings. Now he claims his memory is hazy about what took place – that he doesn't recall hearing any of these dire plots."

Want to deny any of that?

As http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=VVAWFBI points out: "Kerry was a leader, fund-raiser, and spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), an organization that staged mock mass murders of civilians to dramatize American atrocities, and handed out flyers that read "if you had been Vietnamese" American infantrymen might have "burned your house" or "raped your wife and daughter" and "American soldiers do these things every day to the Vietnamese simply because they are 'Gooks.'"

And do you know what the FBI files (that you can read at the above site) revealed:

- the VVAW had a plan to assassinate seven US senators?

- the VVAW was training to execute a plan to decapitate the US Government's leaders?

- a member of VVAW was arrested in-route to a VP Agnew speech with an explosive device?

- the VVAW was running guns to a black militant group in Cairo IL?

- the VVAW was funded by the Communist party of America and the Communist Party of a country in Europe?

- the VVAW was taking directions from the North Vietnamese Communist Government?

- the VVAW sent tapes to NV to be played to our POW's being held by the communists?

- the VVAW sent its leaders (remember, Kerry was a leader) to NV to be indoctrinated by the NV Communists?

- That there was a plan by members of VVAW to assassinate two of the national leaders of VVAW (guess those two were too moderate)?

- That the VVAW had a plan to kidnap US leaders and hold them for ransom to force US withdrawal from Vietnam?

Now Kerry claims to have resigned from the executive committee of the VVAW at the Kansas City meeting in November 1971 where the murder of several senators was discussed? But even if that were true (and there are good reasons to doubt that), it is a fact that Kerry continued to publicly represent the VVAW until at least April of 1972?

Oh yes, Kerry was one of the good guys. A real standup, medal carrying patriotic American. (sarcasm)

...

Don't tell me. You have a signed copy of Kerry's book "The New Soldier" ...

http://ejsmithweb.com/fr/newsoldier/New-Soldier-Inro/Chapter.aspx

:D

[Dorian Gray]

No. :mad:

That's boat, not ship, landlubber. ;)

"Travelling through a body of water through use of a fast boat." That would be correct.

(And in particular, a fast patrol boat in a combat zone.)

DR

You can't use the word 'boat' in the definition of 'swiftboat' - that's circular.

[Dorian Gray]

This Washington Post story has the best review (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html) of the various accounts of that day. I can get no clear indication of whether the majority of the eyewitnesses back up Kerry or not:



On the other hand, Kerry, Rassmann and Kerry's crew members say that there was fire. The article does come down on Kerry's side, and like I said, I thought the focus on whether Kerry deserved the medals was a tactical error. They had Kerry dead to rights on Christmas Eve in Cambodia, and they had him dead to rights on how Rassmann actually got in the water. This article sums up nicely (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40228) how Tour Of Duty claimed Rassmann was on another boat, and how Rassmann claimed that he fell into the water when a mine exploded under Kerry's boat. But Kerry himself had indicated in a eulogy for one of his crew members (Tom Belodeau) that Rassmann was on his boat and fell off when Kerry turned the boat sharply:



So by Kerry's own account, Rassmann was on his boat and fell off when the boat made a sharp turn. And yet when Brinkley wrote the account for Tour of Duty, Rassmann was on another boat. Why? It seems clear that Kerry must have changed his story between 1998 (when he wrote the eulogy) and 2003 (when Tour of Duty was being written). It does make Kerry sound a little more heroic to have him going back to save somebody who'd fallen off another boat. But it's wrong, and moreover, it's clearly intentionally wrong (i.e., a lie).
Your side is and was wrong, and your definition of 'best' = 'agrees with your viewpoint most'.

[BeAChooser]

You can't use the word 'boat' in the definition of 'swiftboat' - that's circular.

Here's the new definition of swiftboat:

http://dvice.com/archives/2008/05/navy_launches_u.php

;)

[varwoche]

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07292004.html "What Kerry Really Did in Vietnam, By ALEXANDER COCKBURN and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR I've been meaning to follow up on this. I don't mean to be giving you excessive grief about your sources BAC but in general Andrew Cockburn is a zealot who places true belief above fact. (He's not quite as whacked out as the WND guy, but then again who is?)

As skeptics in search of the truth, it is important that we go directly to source, or as close to source as possible. I assign very little weight to a pundit's opinion based on an out of context snippet, even when the pundit is not a nut.

Which is longhand for: Do you have a link where we can read the diary entry in context?

[Kestrel]

"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."

The document you are disparaging is an official navy report. The only source you have showing that Dr. Letson was the guy that treated Kerry is the word of Dr. Letson.

Funny thing is that Dr. Letson only started telling that story when Kerry started running for President.

Also your claim that an MD must treat someone for a Purple Heart to be awarded is pure bunk.

[BeAChooser]

The document you are disparaging is an official navy report. The only source you have showing that Dr. Letson was the guy that treated Kerry is the word of Dr. Letson.

It would seem that in order to believe your side of this debate, one must now believe that every single officer in the Navy who had contact with Kerry at that time is a total liar. Let's review the list. All 3 of the other surviving Swift Boat officers in the Bronze Star mine incident say Kerry is lying about the facts that day. They've even made out sworn statements to that effect. So they must be lying, right? In the first Purple Heart incident, all of Kerry's superior officers (Hibbard, Schachte, Letson and Voss) tell a consistent story that again says Kerry is lying about the facts ... so they must be lying, too. Right? Why we must even believe that Rassmann, Kerry's "eyewitness" in the Bronze Star mine incident, is lying about the events the day before which resulted in Kerry's third Purple Heart. Even his own diary has to now be lying. Talk about CT. No wonder Kerry supporters were also such supporters of Bill Clinton ... who once wrote that he "despised" the military and claimed that everyone but him was lying. :D

Funny thing is that Dr. Letson only started telling that story when Kerry started running for President.

Funny thing, many of Kerry's eyewitnesses only started telling their stories after Kerry started running for President. Some (like Zaledonis) only started telling their most-frightening-night-of-the-war stories after Kerry made claims that others (like the officers above) challenged ... even though they'd been telling stories about serving with Kerry previously. It's like they just suddenly remembered their most-frightening-night-of-the-war. :D

Also your claim that an MD must treat someone for a Purple Heart to be awarded is pure bunk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Heart "A physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record."

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/navawards/blpurpleheart.htm "Limitations. Except in the case of a prisoner of war, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer at the time of injury."

So here's your problem. A corpsman is not a medical officer. And here's some proof of that:

http://www.sixthmarinedivision.com/citations.html "Not all wounds merited the Purple Heart. To be awarded a Purple Heart medal a wounded Marine had to spend at least one night in either an aid station or a hospital and be treated by a medical officer. Men whose wounds were treated by a corpsman but not by a medical officer did not qualify for the medal."

So who is throwing out the CT "bunk" here, Kestrel? :D

[Cicero]

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/navawards/blpurpleheart.htm "Limitations. Except in the case of a prisoner of war, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer at the time of injury."

So here's your problem. A corpsman is not a medical officer. And here's some proof of that:

http://www.sixthmarinedivision.com/citations.html "Not all wounds merited the Purple Heart. To be awarded a Purple Heart medal a wounded Marine had to spend at least one night in either an aid station or a hospital and be treated by a medical officer. Men whose wounds were treated by a corpsman but not by a medical officer did not qualify for the medal."

So who is throwing out the CT "bunk" here, Kestrel? :D

Didn't you know that JFK's self-described war hero/war criminal status trumps any military SOP?

[varwoche]

Oh and by way ... did you know that Chenoweth, Thurlow and Odell have all signed under-oath affidavits attesting to their version of events (among others). Have any of the witnesses on Kerry's side done that ... signed sworn statements? Or do they fear perjury? Hmmm? Let's put this canard into context:

First off, it's proven that some swifties lied on their sworn statements. (Al French (http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/alfred-french.html) and George Elliott (http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/george-elliott.html) who for all practical purposes admitted to lying, for instance.)

It's also clear that Thurlow (http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/larry-thurlow.html) lied. Either that or else he's a modern day Job and God has cast the universe against him. If we're to believe Thurlow then we must also believe that...
Kerry and all of his crew lied.
Thurlow's own bronze star citation is fraudulent; Thurlow didn't really face incoming fire that day.
Having been awarded the bronze star, Thurlow never noticed that his citation was fraudulent.
Thurlow lost his bronze star citation some years ago, and revealed this fact only when confronted by the WA Post.
The reason that Thurlow's bronze star citation is fraudulent is due to Kerry, despite that Lambert (Thurlow's crewmate) is the eyewitness named on Thurlow's award recommendation.
Lambert's bronze star is also fraudulent.
Despite that Lambert opposed Kerry's candidacy, Lambert lied when he affirmed that Kerry's version of events is accurate and Thurlow's retroactive version is not.
Langhofer's eyewitness account is a lie.
Rassmann's eyewitness account is a lie.Notwithstanding his signed statement, Thurlow does not rise to level of defying credulity.

[varwoche]

dupe

[Kestrel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Heart "A physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record."

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/navawards/blpurpleheart.htm "Limitations. Except in the case of a prisoner of war, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer at the time of injury."

So here's your problem. A corpsman is not a medical officer. And here's some proof of that:

http://www.sixthmarinedivision.com/citations.html "Not all wounds merited the Purple Heart. To be awarded a Purple Heart medal a wounded Marine had to spend at least one night in either an aid station or a hospital and be treated by a medical officer. Men whose wounds were treated by a corpsman but not by a medical officer did not qualify for the medal."

So who is throwing out the CT "bunk" here, Kestrel? :D

Instead of relying on Wikipedia and other secondary sources, lets look at the actual regulations (http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_8_22.pdf).

Quoting from AR 600-8-22 Page 21:

c. While clearly an individual decoration, the Purple Heart differs from all other decorations in that an individual is not "recommended" for the decoration; rather he or she is entitled to it upon meeting specific criteria.

d. A Purple Heart is authorized for the first wound suffered under conditions indicated above, but for each subsequent award an Oak Leaf Cluster will be awarded to be worn on the medal or ribbon. Not more than one award will be made for more than one wound or injury received at the same instant or from the same missile, force, explosion, or agent.


The definition of "wound" follows:

e. A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above. A physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by medical personnel and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.

(Emphasis added).

Note that there is no requirement for an overnight stay as one of your links claims.

[Cicero]

And if a corpsman treats an overzealous chow line Marine for shell fragments, the fact that is was an egg shell would not disqualify the soldier for the Purple Heart. I like this version betters than JFK's "criteria."

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Oh and by way ... did you know that Chenoweth, Thurlow and Odell have all signed under-oath affidavits attesting to their version of events (among others). Have any of the witnesses on Kerry's side done that ... signed sworn statements? Or do they fear perjury? Hmmm?

Let's put this canard into context:

First off, it's proven that some swifties lied on their sworn statements. (Al French and George Elliott who for all practical purposes admitted to lying, for instance.)

Both of those individuals just admitted that they were wrong to sign an affidavit asserting things they did not personally observe but instead only believed to be fact based on the statements of other individuals. That's quite different than claiming they lied about events they actually saw or participated in. Chenoweth, Thurlow and Odell signed statements as to what they actually saw.

George's Elliott's case is particularly interesting. I don't believe you can claim that George Elliott deliberately lied. Unless you mean the time he stated that "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed"? ;) Of course, I know what you refer to is Elliott saying he made a mistake in signing an affidavit that suggested Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star he got when he supposedly killed a Viet Cong soldier with a rocket launcher. And this is important because it was Elliott who recommended Kerry for the Silver Star.

Notice I've not said anything about the Silver Star in this thread because for one thing Kerry could have gotten a thousand of them and they wouldn't have gotten him out of Vietnam like the 3 Purple Hearts did. But since you raise the issue of the Silver Star and Elliott, let's take a closer look at that incident and Elliott's statements.

The source you indirectly linked (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/ ) says that Elliott regretted signing an affidavit where he alleged that Kerry "lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back." It says that Elliott said that it was a terrible mistake to have signed the affidavit "with those words" because he did not know whether the VC was shot in the back (he wasn't there). According to the source "Elliot said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

And you know what? While a case can be made that Kerry acted very foolishly in the Silver Star incident (beaching the Swift Boat and then leaving it to pursue them through the jungle), there's enough corroboration to believe there were VC present and that the one he killed was preparing to attack other soldiers in his unit. As Elliot wrote in 1996, "when [Kerry] came back and I heard his debrief, I said, 'John, I don't know whether you should be court-martialed or given a medal, court-martialed for leaving your ship, your post.' But I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that."

Now that Boston Globe article goes on to say how Elliott was also the officer who recommended Kerry for the mine incident Bronze star. Notice that he did not retract his assertion that the Bronze Star medal may have been based on poor information (i.e., the Kerry authored after action report which I've already shown is a very poor indication of what actually happened during that incident). Elliott is quoted saying that, "based on the affidavits of the veterans on other boats," Kerry's being awarded the Bronze Star and third Purple Heart might be questionable. He said: "I simply have no reason for these guys [signing the other affidavits] to be lying, and if they are lying in concert, it is one hell of a conspiracy."

The Globe article also notes that Van O'Dell signed a sworn affidavit that "Rassmann was not under fire when Kerry pulled him aboard." That directly contradicts Kerry's statements and the after action report.

And finally notice that the article says the naval documents (meaning the medal award documents based on the Kerry authored after action report) say Kerry "received shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm when a mine detonated close to PCF 94" and that Rassman said that's not true. Recall that earlier in this thread I provided Rassmann's own account where he described Kerry and him tossing grenades into a rice bin. He said Kerry didn't run away fast enough and as a result got shrapnel and rice in his rear end. And if that's true, then the only grounds for awarding that mine incident's Purple Heart can be the "contusions" Kerry got during the mine incident.

But if a contusion on the arm received during the mine incident is grounds for a Purple Heart (and the circumstances by which Kerry was injured are actually quite debatable), then lots of folks that day should have gotten Purple Hearts. Did they? Especially the folks blown off PCF 3 since they no doubt had contusions and concussions (which are specifically identified in military documents as injuries qualifying for Purple Hearts). And unlike Kerry's wound, there is no doubt they were injured as a result of an enemy weapon (a mine) being used.

It's also clear that Thurlow lied.

That's not clear at all.

If we're to believe Thurlow then we must also believe that...
1 Kerry and all of his crew lied.

Not necessarily.

Most may have just misinterpreted what happened that day in all the confusion. You will note that there are many contradictory statements amongst Kerry's crew and the few other witnesses that support Kerry. Kerry and Rassmann couldn't even decide which boat Rassmann was on. Kerry claimed his boat stayed to help PCF 3 while the other boats ran. I don't recall any of his crew saying that was in error. Do you? Why did it take others to clear that misconception up? Some of Kerry's crew say a mine caused their damage. Others say there was no mine and it was a rocket. Some say Kerry was hurt when the boat turned suddenly. As you can see, there is great confusion amongst Kerry's crew and his other witnesses. In contrast, the version of events by the other three Swift Boat commanders and the majority of their crews is quite consistent in its details. There was no enemy fire. There was one mine explosion. Their own suppressive firing stopped within minutes. Kerry's boat left the scene and didn't return for many minutes ... until after their own firing had stopped. It took about 90 minutes to get the boats back under way. There was also no enemy fire when they towed the damaged boat down the narrow channel. There was no damage to the boats from enemy gun or rocket fire during the mine incident. Kerry was lying.

And indeed some of Kerry's supporters may be lying, too ... for their own reasons. Notice that many of them have VVAW backgrounds or have stated they were very much against Bush and the Iraq War. People like that have been known to lie (or at at least stretch the truth) to further their agenda. And look at the number of democrats that could not care less that Bill Clinton lied again and again. Or that Bill despised the military.

2 Thurlow's own bronze star citation is fraudulent; Thurlow didn't really face incoming fire that day.

Well as a matter of fact, Thurlow said he'd consider his own medal "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. But Thurlow had nothing to do with receiving that medal. He did not write the after action report. He did not request the medal. In fact, he didn't even know he got the medal until after he was out Vietnam and the service. So how could that possibly be fraud by him? Perhaps by Kerry ... but certainly not Thurlow.

3 Having been awarded the bronze star, Thurlow never noticed that his citation was fraudulent.

Thurlow is on the record saying "I believed then as I believe now that I received my Bronze Star for my efforts to rescue the injured crewmen from swift boat number three and to conduct damage control to prevent that boat from sinking." And that risky action on his part (jumping onto a moving boat) actually was deserving of a Bronze Star, in my opinion. Thurlow said he never knew that Kerry was given a Bronze star and a Purple Heart that day. He said he "didn't see the after-action report which, in fact, was written by John." Why would Thurlow have reason to challenge his receiving a Bronze Medal after he was already out of the service or during the years since? Especially if, despite the fact it mentioned enemy fire, he felt deserving of it for risking his life to save the other crew and boat that day? Because regardless of whether there was enemy fire, what he did that day was rather extraordinary.

Here's what Van Odell (who was an eyewitness) said of Thurlow's actions: "Larry Thurlow piloted his boat straight toward the mine-damaged PCF-3 from which thick, black smoke billowed. He jumped aboard and personally led damage control operations that saved the boat and rescue operations that saved the lives of badly wounded men. Larry's leadership was in the highest traditions of the naval service. His leadership allowed the other men and boats of the mission to exit the river safely. This "single act of meritorious service", ” the chief requirement of the Bronze Star,” should be honored, not ridiculed, by the Kerry campaign and its allies in the mainstream media." Lambert's description matches this, except that Lambert thought they were under fire too.

Now contrast that with Kerry's actions that day. He ordered his boat to flee the scene. He only came back (according to most eyewitnesses) after the shooting had stopped. He pulled a guy out of the water that his actions caused to be in the water in the first place (in fact, in a eulogy to crew member Belodeau that Kerry wrote and entered into the Congessional Record, Kerry completely contradicts his later claims that Rassmann was knocked off the boat by a mine explosion by stating "one of the Green Berets walked along the edge of the boat to get Tommy another M-60. As he was doing so, the boat made a high speed turn to starboard and the Green Beret kept going — straight into the river." And Kerry performed this "heroic" rescue just as (according to eyewitness accounts) another of the Swift Boats was about to retrieve Rassmann anyway. :D

4 Thurlow lost his bronze star citation some years ago, and revealed this fact only when confronted by the WA Post.

You don't think that's possible? I'm sure plenty of Vietnam vets have lost the citations that went with their medals over the years. At least Thurlow didn't toss out the medal too ... like Kerry did. Or at least as Kerry claimed he did at one time. :D

5 The reason that Thurlow's bronze star citation is fraudulent is due to Kerry, despite that Lambert (Thurlow's crewmate) is the eyewitness named on Thurlow's award recommendation.

Kerry is the one who who wrote up the after action report on which Elliot said he solely based the medals given out that day. Naturally, Kerry wouldn't have written himself into that report as the eyewitness to Thurlow's valor because Kerry was long gone by then. Remember, he fled the scene of the mine attack. Also, since Kerry, Thurlow and Lambert were all put in for medals by Elliot under the same citation, it would be surprising if Thurlow's award said something different than Kerry's. :D

6 Lambert's bronze star is also fraudulent.

Lambert got his medal for pulling Thurlow out of the river. Now Lambert said he was "under the impression" they were under fire so he'd have no reason to have doubted the accuracy of the citation when he received it ... even if they weren't really under fire. But if they weren't under fire, then I guess the question of whether Lambert's medal is justified would depend on how dangerous his pulling Thurlow out of the water was at the time.

7 Despite that Lambert opposed Kerry's candidacy, Lambert lied when he affirmed that Kerry's version of events is accurate and Thurlow's retroactive version is not.

Perhaps Lambert just doesn't want to admit that he was wrong about there being enemy fire? Some people are that way. Perhaps he doesn't want to give up his medal because if there wasn't enemy fire perhaps his rescue of Thurlow wasn't all that extraordinary? I will say, however, that if he honestly thought they were under fire at the time then he wasn't lying in affirming Kerry's version. And if thinking they were under fire he still went into the shore to rescue Thurlow, then that's heroic and perhaps deserving of a medal. Maybe that's the out Kerry should have taken when challenged about this incident? :D

8 Langhofer's eyewitness account is a lie.

Could be. Or perhaps he just misinterpreted what he heard. Funny that none of the other eyewitnesses mentioned the "clack, clack, clack" of AK-47s. And it's curious that Langhofer claims to have witnessed Kerry saving Rassmann even though Langhofer's boat would have been some distance away at that time and he would presumably have been quite occupied with other duties. And even more interesting, note that the mainstream media reported that Langhofer claimed "Kerry dived in to rescue" Rassmann. Neither Kerry or Rassmann ever mentioned Kerry ever doing anything more than reaching out to pull Rassmann into the boat. So yes ... Langhofer could be lying. :D

9 Rassmann's eyewitness account is a lie.

Rassmann might just have a misplaced gratitude to the guy who pulled him out of the drink. And being thrown violently into the water with swift boats firing haphazardly in all directions at anything that seemed a possible threat or hiding place for a threat might be a little disorienting to someone in his position. By the way, at a time when he clearly wasn't disoriented, he stated that Kerry didn't get the wounds in his butt from the mine as Kerry's after action report and Purple Heart in the incident stated. He got it doing something stupid with a rice bin and grenades. :D

[BeAChooser]

Instead of relying on Wikipedia and other secondary sources, lets look at the actual regulations.

Quoting from AR 600-8-22 Page 21:

Several observations. First, you are quoting from ARMY regulations. Second that document is circa 2006.

Let's look at what the Navy regulations said back at the time of the Vietnam war:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/?page=2

The Globe asked Kerry's campaign whether the Massachusetts senator is certain he was under enemy fire and whether he recalled that a superior officer raised questions about the matter. The campaign did not respond directly to those questions. Instead, Meehan said in a prepared statement that Kerry "received the shrapnel wound early in the course of that combat engagement. " Meehan also provided a copy of a medical report showing treatment for a wound on Dec. 3, 1968. The Purple Heart regulation in effect at that time said that a wound must "require treatment by a medical officer."


A corpsman is not a medical officer.

http://www.amervets.com/replacement/ph.htm#isr

Executive Order 11016
Authorizing award of the Purple Heart

Source: The provisions of Executive Order 11016 of Apr. 25, 1962, appear at 27 FR 4139, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 596, unless otherwise noted.

... snip ...

3. A wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer.

A corpsman is not a medical officer.

But I'll grant that I find no requirement of an overnight stay. Maybe the Marines require more severe injuries than the *wimpy* Navy and Army. ;)

In any case, your claim that a "MD must treat someone for a Purple Heart to be awarded" is proven to be "pure bunk". Care to retract it or will you display CT behavior? :D

[varwoche]

Both of those individuals just admitted that they were wrong to sign an affidavit asserting things they did not personally observe but instead only believed to be fact based on the statements of other individuals. That's quite different than claiming they lied about events they actually saw or participated in. Chenoweth, Thurlow and Odell signed statements as to what they actually saw. It's hard to take you seriously when you give the swifties every possible benefit of the doubt and the opposite for Kerry. You made a big deal that the swiftie statements were true just because they were signed statements. And you were wrong.

Notice I've not said anything about the Silver Star in this thread because for one thing Kerry could have gotten a thousand of them and they wouldn't have gotten him out of Vietnam like the 3 Purple Hearts did. But since you raise the issue of the Silver Star and Elliott, let's take a closer look at that incident and Elliott's statements. We're already covering too many topics at once. I introduced that information not to discuss the silver star but to show that just because a statement is signed does not make it true. Sorry for the confusion. (Be aware though, ALL of the witnesses to the silver star events affirm Kerry. I'm sure you won't let that stop you from questioning the medal though.)

The Globe article also notes that Van O'Dell signed a sworn affidavit that "Rassmann was not under fire when Kerry pulled him aboard." That directly contradicts Kerry's statements and the after action report. Yes, I know there are a couple of swifties who contradict the majority of eye witnesses and the documentation.

Recall that earlier in this thread I provided Rassmann's own account where he described Kerry and him tossing grenades into a rice bin. Could you point out which post this was?

You will note that there are many contradictory statements amongst Kerry's crew and the few other witnesses that support Kerry. I have no doubt that it's commonplace for 35 year old war memories to vary. And without fail, you use these discrepancies to excuse the swifties and to condemn Kerry which is patently unfair.

[Kestrel]

Several observations. First, you are quoting from ARMY regulations. Second that document is circa 2006.

Let's look at what the Navy regulations said back at the time of the Vietnam war:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/?page=2

Try finding a primary source for that information.

A corpsman is not a medical officer.

http://www.amervets.com/replacement/ph.htm#isr


A corpsman is not a medical officer.

But I'll grant that I find no requirement of an overnight stay. Maybe the Marines require more severe injuries than the *wimpy* Navy and Army. ;)

You sound like the kind of right winger that would have proudly worn a Purple Heart Band Aid at the 2004 Republican Convention in New York.

In any case, your claim that a "MD must treat someone for a Purple Heart to be awarded" is proven to be "pure bunk". Care to retract it or will you display CT behavior? :D

Your claim is still pure bunk.

The Navy Inspector General's office investigated charges that Kerry's medals were improperly awarded, and came to this conclusion (http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/navyresponse.pdf) in September of 2004:

Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed. In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards.

Are you going to add the Navy Inspector General to your list of people in on the conspiracy to cover up for John Kerry?

[BeAChooser]

(Be aware though, ALL of the witnesses to the silver star events affirm Kerry. I'm sure you won't let that stop you from questioning the medal though.)

Apparently you didn't actually read what I wrote. I didn't question the witnesses. I just questioned Kerry's judgement in beaching the boat and running into the jungle after VC. That was clearly against accepted Swift Boat practice.

But just for the record (and to show you are incorrect in claiming that ALL the witnesses affirm Kerry's story about the Silver Star events) ...

http://idexer.com/articles/kerry_medals.htm

Sen. Kerry himself confirms the VC guerilla had already been wounded when he told the Boston Globe in June of 2003 that "Tommy (BAC - Belodeau) clipped him, and he started going [down.] I thought it was over."

But apparently the wounded VC did not stay down and as Kerry's first Silver Star citation and Bill Rood suggests, Kerry either followed or shot the*the wounded VC when he made it behind a hooch. Did anyone see Kerry kill the wounded guerilla? According to Sen. Kerry during a October 1996 press conference:

"I was never out of sight of Tom Belodeau or Mike Medeiros," Kerry said. "I went straight out from the boat to the path so I had a line of fire. I never went behind the hootch, and this is the first time in 30 years that anybody has suggested otherwise." Problem here is this is exactly what his first Silver Star citation[b] has been suggesting for the last 30 years as it [b]reads:

". . . Without hesitation Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hootch, and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."

One of Kerry's crewmembers, Michael Medeiros, who by his own account was running behind Sen. Kerry and the fleeing soldier said at the same press conference that he did not see Sen. Kerry kill him but had no doubt that the senator did so. "The only one that was there was Senator Kerry."

This did not stop Tom Belodeau, who was standing beside Kerry at the same press conference to state: "The soldier that Sen. John Kerry shot was standing on both feet with a loaded rocket launcher, about to fire it on the boat from which (Sen. Kerry) had just left, which still had four men aboard," Belodeau said.

Years later Medeiros would add: "With my adrenaline racing, I started following him off the boat," Michael Medeiros recalls in Douglas Brinkley's book, Tour of Duty. "So I was right behind him. . . . As the VC guerrilla got 20 or 30 meters down the path, just about in front of a lean-to, the (future) senator shot the guy. He had been standing on both feet with a loaded rocket launcher about to fire. He fell over dead."

To add yet another twist to the to the fleeing wounded VC story is from another witness and former Kerry crewmate, Del Sandusky. He told the LA Times on August 8, 2004 that no one had a clear view of the shooting. But "next thing we know, there's Kerry with the B-40 in his hand."


And note that all three of the men named above were on Kerry's crew the day of the mine incident. And it seems they can't get their story straight ... even in the simplest details ... in that case. So how unreliable might they be as witnesses in the Bronze Star mine incident?

Yes, I know there are a couple of swifties who contradict the majority of eye witnesses and the documentation.

That's an self-deluding understatement. ;)

You keep trying to make folks think the majority of the Swift Boat crew members who were at the mine incident agree with Kerry. That's not true. Kerry's boat had a total of 6 crew ... Kerry, Michael Medeiros, Dell Sandusky, Gene Thorson, Tommy Belodeau, and David Alston. Sure, they all (except Belodeau) stood with Kerry on the podium at the 2004 DNC convention but I can't find any statement by Thorson or Alston on that particular days events where they say there was enemy fire. Only Medeiros and Sandusky appear to have made public statements to that effect. Belodeau died in 1997 and only his eulogy (written by Kerry) linked him with there being enemy fire. So only 3 of the 6 on Kerry's boat (including Kerry) can be truthfully said to have corroborated the assertion that there was enemy fire.

There are 4 others (Rassmann, Russell, Lambert and Langhofer) who were there and who sided with Kerry's version ... at least as far as claiming they thought there was enemy fire that day. I've already discussed the veracity of each's statements earlier (I'll add a bit more in a moment). But the bottom line is that only 7 people have actually said there was enemy fire or even said they THOUGHT there was.

But there were 4 other boats. All three of the other 4 surviving captains (Thurlow, Pees, and Chenoweth) have signed sworn statements that there was no enemy fire at the mine site. That they just unleashed every gun they had into the banks of the channel thinking it was an ambush and that after a minute or so they stopped firing and then there was no further firing. To the best of my knowledge, none of Kerry's crew, including Kerry, has been willing to make out a sworn statement as to what they saw.

Chenoweth's gunner, Van Odell, tells the same story in a sworn statement. And Butch Vorphal on PCF 3 (http://www.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6096&highlight=&sid=2c4deb96061b38acd4acc5d3174732d8 ) said there was only "cover fire from the Swift Boats themselves. Vorphal says they lay down cover fire because they assume there's going to be enemy gunfire. He says when they stopped firing, there was no other gunfire. Vorphal says none of his shipmates remember seeing bullet holes from enemy fire in the Swift Boats." Robert Hornberger, on PCF 43, has apparently also stated there was no hostile fire.

Kerry's witnesses are problematic in many ways. Alston's credibility is questionable because he had previously claimed he was on the boat during the Silver Star incident ... and that's been thoroughly disproven (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200408160842.asp ). And curiously, Kerry told the New Republic in 2002 that

"He [Alston] sat up in a turret above my head in the pilot house — firing twin fifty-calibers to suppress enemy fire from ambushes. We were extremely exposed — always shot at first.... On one occasion in an ambush his turret was riddled with almost one hundred bullets penetrating the aluminum skin. This gunman kept firing even though he was wounded — one bullet going through his helmet, grazing his head and another hitting his arm...."

That description sounds precisely like the incident on January 29, 1969 in which Alston was wounded. But Lt. Peck, and not Kerry, was in command of PCF-94 that day.

According to a report in the Boston Globe, the Kerry campaign website has in the past listed Kerry as being the skipper of PCF-94 at the time of Alston's wounding. When Kerry's military records were first posted on the site, according to the Globe, "the campaign summarize[d] action that took place on Jan. 29, 1969, this way: 'While Kerry's boat and another (PCF-72) were probing a canal along the river, Kerry's boat came under heavy fire and was hit by a B-40 rocket in the cabin area. One member of Kerry's crew Forward Gunner David Alston suffered shrapnel wounds in his head....'

The campaign website also listed two other incidents that took place prior to January 29 as having occurred under Kerry's leadership. Peck, who would later sign a letter to Kerry written by the anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, protested. "Those are definitely mine," he told the Globe. "There is no doubt about it." The campaign later removed the January 29 reference from the website."


As you can see, the lies and distortions by Kerry's camp never stopped.

Truth is, Rassmann, being violently thrown in the water for whatever reason, was not exactly in the best position to know there was enemy fire. There was a large amount of suppressive fire that the boats let loose when the mine blew so that could be the source of his belief. I'm sure a lot of those rounds where fired with no concern for where Rassmann was at the time.

We can't be sure how Rassmann ended up in the water. In various accounts ... all from Kerry ... he was on PCF-3, he was on PCF-94, he was knocked overboard by a mine and he was thrown overboard during a sudden turn. In that last account, http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/34515/view?viewtype , Kerry even makes the bizarre claim that the mine - and there's only one in this account - exploded "under" HIS boat and that HIS boast was sent 2 feet into the air by it! You wonder how many versions of events Kerry has in his head. :D

Kerry and Rassmann say Kerry leaned over and plucked Rassman out of the water. Langhofer, showing his confusion about the events, claimed that Kerry dived in to save Rassmann. * A CNN tribute to Kerry by Aaron Brown early in the campaign quoted Sandusky saying “John, shot and bleeding, laid down and pulled up Rassmann by his belt." Now Kerry was "shot"?

That same CNN show quoted Medeiros saying “I saw him go over the side. I yelled, man overboard. So we had a firefight going on. We had a friendly soldier in the water and we had [a] disabled boat to take care of.” There was no mention of the fact that Kerry's boat then left the area instead of doing either. In fact, Kerry's crew isn't even clear as to whether they ran a hundred yards or a mile down river before turning around to rescue Rassmann. Kerry's after action report suggests they went 5000 meters ... that's 3 miles (all the time under fire from both shores by small arms and rockets/grenades)! That's actually possible since the top speed of these boats was about 27 mph and if Rassman was in the water for about 10 minutes (as appears to have been the case), then in 5 minutes, a swift boat could have have gone 3 miles down river before turning around to come back. That sure would put a different light on Kerry's heroism and the credibility of Medeiros account, wouldn't it. :)

In fact, I wish we really knew what happened on board Kerry's boat as it headed away from the scene. One can almost picture the crew arguing about whether they should go back ... finally convincing Kerry to do so ... then spending the return trip concocting a story to explain their boat's dereliction. :D

Kerry, in a purported journal entry cited in Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," maintained that he wanted to get his troops ashore "on the outskirts of the ambush." The outskirts a mile away? Three miles away? Does that tactic really make sense given that Swift Boats crews were not supposed to land and fight?

And between Kerry's witnesses there are claims of one explosion, two explosions and even three explosions. They disagree as to whether they were all mines or mines and rockets. Some of the descriptions had rockets flying everywhere (odd that none of the other commanders noticed that). Or perhaps Kerry's boat just hit a log as it flew across the weir in Kerry's haste to exit the scene.

Regarding Rassmann, Kerry, in notes cited by Brinkley, wrote "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." But other witnesses say Chenoweth's boat was very close to Rassmann at the time Kerry returned to the scene. In fact, Chenoweth, in his diary, wrote "we spotted a man overboard, started to pick him up, but 94 [Kerry's boat] got there first."

And the damage to the boats just doesn't correspond to the amount of small arms and rocket/grenade fire Kerry's witnesses claim was being thrown at the boats over an extended period of time. It's hard to believe that so much hostile fire would have failed to cause any damage to the boats. Besides the damage to the PCF 3 (the boat that hit the mine) and Kerry's boat (none of which includes any bullet holes), the only damage identified to any of the other boats are the 3 holes in Thurlow's. But we know there was a firefight the day before and Thurlow says his boat was hit by enemy fire in that engagement. Now you and Kerry want us to believe that the damage to Kerry's boat resulted solely from a mine going off near it on that day and enemy fire after the mine explosion. But even strong supporters of Kerry like the Washington Post have indicated Kerry's boat was damaged the previous day. For example, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21239-2004Aug21?language=printer "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." I think the truth is, due to your political bias, your side in this matter wants to completely ignore these contradictions in the story and Kerry's eyewitnesses.

One more thing with respect to you suggesting that the majority of the witnesses agree with Kerry. Kerry's campaign website initially used a photo showing Kerry with 19 other swift boat veterans (not all from that day) in their attempt to build his "band of brothers" mystic. Two of those 19 were dead at the time that photo was used by Kerry. Four said they were neutral. It turns out that 11 of the remaining 13 signed letters saying they do NOT support Kerry. Eventually 2 more joined Kerry's bandwagon, but make no mistake, the vast majority of Swift Boat veterans did NOT support Kerry. The fact that Kerry initially tried to make it appear he had their support is indicative of his inherent dishonesty.

And finally, since you want to claim Kerry's crewmen are always reliable, note that three of the five crewmen on Kerry's swift boat at another time (Zaldonis, Hatch and Gardner) deny that they or their boat were ever into Cambodia as Kerry claimed. Say ... wasn't that Christmas visit "seared" into Kerry's memory. Do you wish to call this crew liars? :D


Quote:
Recall that earlier in this thread I provided Rassmann's own account where he described Kerry and him tossing grenades into a rice bin.

Could you point out which post this was?


See post 132. Note where I cited the Washington Post saying

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."

And without fail, you use these discrepancies to excuse the swifties and to condemn Kerry which is patently unfair

First of all, the Swift Boat witnesses challenging Kerry's accounts of what happened do not have accounts full of contradictory statements. They made sworn statements under penalty of perjury. As far as I know, no Kerry supporter has done that. And as to unfair, what is totally unfair are the sweeping statements Kerry made about his comrades in arms after he left the service and joined the VVAW. So get over it.

[Kestrel]

First of all, the Swift Boat witnesses challenging Kerry's accounts of what happened do not have accounts full of contradictory statements. They made sworn statements under penalty of perjury.

All they really did was sign a piece of paper that included these words:

I am able to swear, as I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge and belief.

To be charged with perjury, the statement would have to be part of a court case, such as a witness deposition. So there was in fact, no chance of perjury prosecutions if these statements turned out to be false.

Al French did get into some hot water (http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_082304_news_french_protest.a701071e.html) with the Oregon State Bar after he admitted that he was not a witness to the events he testified about for the SBVT. Signing a statement known to be false is considered to be a violation of professional ethics for a lawyer.

[BeAChooser]

Beachooser wrote:
Care to retract it or will you display CT behavior?

Your claim is still pure bunk.

I guess you choose CT behavior. :rolleyes:

Are you going to add the Navy Inspector General to your list of people in on the conspiracy to cover up for John Kerry?

Of course not, since all the Inspector General concluded is that the PROCESS was correctly followed. That doesn't mean Kerry didn't lie in the after action reports on which the medals were based. If there's garbage in, you'll get garbage out.

I'm enjoying your growing desperation in this matter. :D

[Kestrel]

Of course not, since all the Inspector General concluded is that the PROCESS was correctly followed. That doesn't mean Kerry didn't lie in the after action reports on which the medals were based. If there's garbage in, you'll get garbage out.

Ignoring as always the fact that military medals require the commanding officer check the facts with an eyewitness and list that eyewitness on the application.

[BeAChooser]

To be charged with perjury, the statement would have to be part of a court case, such as a witness deposition. So there was in fact, no chance of perjury prosecutions if these statements turned out to be false.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40096 "John O'Neill, co-author of the best-selling "Unfit for Command," the book that accuses John Kerry of falsifying his Vietnam record, challenged the presidential candidate to sue him if he's wrong about any of his claims."

And Kerry did in fact threaten to sue. But instead he let the statute of limitations on doing so expire. You know why? Because Kerry knew that if he did he'd then really be in hot water. Because then those he sued could force him to release ALL his records (he still hasn't) ... and take sworn statements from Kerry and his supporters regarding the matter.

But maybe Kerry could still do it?

http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2007/08/sen-kerry-permi.html

'll tell ya what, though, Senator: On the off chance that I'm misreading what's behind your allowing limitations to lapse against O'Neill and Corsi, and you really intended to sue them but just, I dunno, forgot:

You have a standing offer from me: Just sue me here in Houston for defamation. After all, I've republished most of the SwiftVets' claims here on my blog, and I've made many of them again in my own voice. I use a pseudonym for my blog name, but it's not anonymous — my name and address are linked on every page of this blog, and have been since the day it started. I'll waive any statute of limitations defense. I'll waive service of process. Hell, I'll meet you at the federal courthouse doors for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (you have diversity jurisdiction), and I'll even pay your filing fee!


ROTFLOL!

Al French did get into some hot water with the Oregon State Bar when he admitted that he was not a witness events he testified about for the SBVT. Signing a statement known to be false is considered to be a violation of professional ethics for a lawyer.

In case you didn't hear, the Oregon State Bar decided that Mr. French's conduct was not a violation of the disciplinary rules.

http://wweek.com/story.php?story=6135 "The state bar rejected claims that French lied in his anti-Kerry affidavit."

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/oregonian/

The Oregonian
March 17, 2005

STATE BAR CLEARS PROSECUTOR OVER KERRY AD

Summary: Alfred French is found not to have committed ethics violations over the Swift Boat Veterans' claims and an interoffice affair

The Oregon State Bar has cleared Clackamas County prosecutor Alfred French of ethics violations when he lied years ago to his former boss about an interoffice affair and when he participated in a presidential campaign ad last year that said Democratic Sen. John Kerry lied about his Vietnam War record.


By the way, the wording in French's affidavit was this:

“I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge or belief.”

:D

[Kestrel]

In case you didn't hear, the Oregon State Bar decided that Mr. French's conduct was not a violation of the disciplinary rules.

http://wweek.com/story.php?story=6135 "The state bar rejected claims that French lied in his anti-Kerry affidavit."

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/oregonian/


By the way, the wording in French's affidavit was this:

“I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge or belief.”


Al French believed what his SBVT friends were saying, so he signed an affidavit saying he had witnessed the events himself. If Al French had signed an affidavit saying that he saw Santa Claus, in support of his friends that believe in Santa Claus, he would not be lying according to that ruling.

According to the logic you are using, that would stand as proof that Santa Claus exists.

[BeAChooser]

Ignoring as always the fact that military medals require the commanding officer check the facts with an eyewitness and list that eyewitness on the application.

http://hereticalideas.com/?cat=36 "Former Navy Commander George Elliott, who signed Thurlow’s citation, told Human Events he based the claim that there was enemy fire that day on an after-action report that Thurlow and two other officers on the scene believe was written by Kerry. I got the information from the after-action report,” said Elliott."

I don't see an indication that he checked with any other eyewitnesses. And even if he did, that doesn't mean the witnesses interpreted what they saw correctly ... as I've amply shown. In fact, why don't you name the witnesses in the first Purple Heart and the Bronze Star case that were interviewed by whichever commanding officer was supposed to check the facts. Can you do it?

[BeAChooser]

If you have a problem with the Oregon State Bar ruling in the French matter, Kestrel, take it up with them. :D

[Kestrel]

http://hereticalideas.com/?cat=36 "Former Navy Commander George Elliott, who signed Thurlow’s citation, told Human Events he based the claim that there was enemy fire that day on an after-action report that Thurlow and two other officers on the scene believe was written by Kerry. I got the information from the after-action report,” said Elliott."

I don't see an indication that he checked with any other eyewitnesses. And even if he did, that doesn't mean the witnesses interpreted what they saw correctly ... as I've amply shown. In fact, why don't you name the witnesses in the first Purple Heart and the Bronze Star case that were interviewed by whichever commanding officer was supposed to check the facts. Can you do it?

I note that your link doesn't point to the right place. Probably because you are cut and pasting this stuff directly from a SBVT site instead of doing your own research.

Elliot's recommendation for Thurlow's Bronze Star (http://www.sportsmenforkerry.com/downloads/veterans_awardrecommendation.pdf) names R. E. Lambert as an eyewitness. On the second page you can see where Elliot signed the form. If Elliot signed the form without verifying the facts with the listed eyewitness, he committed a serious breach of military law.

[BeAChooser]

I note that your link doesn't point to the right place.

I note that apparently you didn't bother to look down through the link text to where that citation is located. And failed to see the link at that point to humaneventsonline where the text came from. Here: http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/he_akamai_swiftvetrebuts.html . And I note your defense of Kerry is getting lamer and lamer all the time. :D

[Elliot's recommendation for Thurlow's Bronze Star[/URL] names R. E. Lambert as an eyewitness. On the second page you can see where Elliot signed the form. If Elliot signed the form without verifying the facts with the listed eyewitness, he committed a serious breach of military law.

During Kerry's campaign, Lambert said is that it was his IMPRESSION there was enemy fire. That's not a definite statement of having seen enemy fire. And we have no indication anywhere of what he actually told Elliot. But he probably told Elliot that he saw enemy fire and Elliot just accepted that since he already had the after action report that Kerry wrote stating there was enemy fire in hand. But Elliot didn't know that Kerry wrote that after action report. If he had, maybe he'd have dug a little deeper. As to Lambert being a witness of anything Thurlow did, I'm not challenging that since all accounts seem to agree that Thurlow acted heroically in jumping onto a moving Swift Boat to save the crew and it. I'm sure Elliot would have seen it that way, even if there hadn't been any enemy fire.

Who is the witness to Kerry saving Rassmann under enemy fire and being wounded in the rear during the mine explosion? Rassmann? I've already pointed out the numerous inconsistencies in Rassmann's statements (and those of the other witnesses). Again, Elliot probably just accepted Rassmann word since the after action report said the same thing and he probably thought it was written by someone other than Kerry ... like Thurlow. But now we know that's not true and most likely Kerry actually wrote it. Like I said, Garbage In Garbage Out. :D

By the way, I can't help laughing at this www.sportsmenforkerry.com link. Sportsmen For Kerry? Did you take a close look at the contents of that link? ROTFLOL!

[Kestrel]

I note that apparently you didn't bother to look down through the link text to where that citation is located. And failed to see the link at that point to humaneventsonline where the text came from. Here: http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/he_akamai_swiftvetrebuts.html . And I note your defense of Kerry is getting lamer and lamer all the time. :D



During Kerry's campaign, Lambert said is that it was his IMPRESSION there was enemy fire. That's not a definite statement of having seen enemy fire. And we have no indication anywhere of what he actually told Elliot. But he probably told Elliot that he saw enemy fire and Elliot just accepted that since he already had the after action report that Kerry wrote stating there was enemy fire in hand. But Elliot didn't know that Kerry wrote that after action report. If he had, maybe he'd have dug a little deeper. As to Lambert being a witness of anything Thurlow did, I'm not challenging that since all accounts seem to agree that Thurlow acted heroically in jumping onto a moving Swift Boat to save the crew and it. I'm sure Elliot would have seen it that way, even if there hadn't been any enemy fire.

Who is the witness to Kerry saving Rassmann under enemy fire and being wounded in the rear during the mine explosion? Rassmann? I've already pointed out the numerous inconsistencies in Rassmann's statements (and those of the other witnesses). Again, Elliot probably just accepted Rassmann word since the after action report said the same thing and he probably thought it was written by someone other than Kerry ... like Thurlow. But now we know that's not true and most likely Kerry actually wrote it. Like I said, Garbage In Garbage Out. :D

By the way, I can't help laughing at this www.sportsmenforkerry.com link. Sportsmen For Kerry? Did you take a close look at the contents of that link? ROTFLOL!

Your problem seems to be dealing with reality. I used the link because it still had copies of the actual Vietnam era documents.

Just for a recap. You claim Kerry's medals were falsely awarded. The Navy states that the proper procedures were followed. Then you claim all the witnesses who support Kerry were lying, that the officer who signed the recommendations for medals didn't verify the story. Whenever evidence is posted confirming Kerry's story, you just claim a wider conspiracy.

It's classic conspiracy buff behavior. Arguing further with you is pointless since all you do is cut and paste the SBVT responses in an endless circle, not even checking to verify that the included links are still valid You also don't seem to understand the difference between a primary source and and opinion piece.

[varwoche]

But just for the record (and to show you are incorrect in claiming that ALL the witnesses affirm Kerry's story about the Silver Star events) ...
http://idexer.com/articles/kerry_medals.htm
Nth hand opinion posted on the internet anonymously at an agenda-driven site? It's impossible to take you seriously when you cite drivel like this (and WND and Cockburn). And you're spewing it in such volume and across so many topics that I can't keep up.

Let's cut the nonsense. No more echoing of nth hand opinion. No more 40 year retroactive armchair nitpicking of commonplace variances in war recollections.

I challenge you to demonstrate that one eyewitness to the silver star events calls Kerry's actions into question.

Given that at least four (http://www.swiftboatingusa.com/swifties/george-elliott.html) eyewitnesses say that Kerry rocked surely this is not a lot to ask. Just one.

[BeAChooser]

The Navy states that the proper procedures were followed.

Well apparently that procedure didn't guarantee that the recipient of the medals wasn't the one who wrote up the after action report describing the incident. An after action report that we now know is false in many details (such as indicating an injury to Kerry's rear end from a mine explosion). An after action report that we now know omitted many other details (such as Kerry's boat leaving the scene for many minutes).

Then you claim all the witnesses who support Kerry were lying

You misrepresent what I said. That's a CT tactic. Some may be lying but others may simply have misinterpreted what they saw or heard that day. Regardless, no one at this point denies that Kerry's boat left the scene of the mine explosion that crippled PCF 3 and was gone for quite some time before returning. This fact directly contradicts what Kerry and his campaign staff initially claimed about the incident during the campaign. And apparently none of his crew members stepped up to the plate and corrected this misinformation before O'Neill and his group pointed out the actual truth. Sorry, Kestrel, but it is simply inconceivable that Kerry misremembered such a significant fact. There is no way he could have misinterpreted events to believe that he remained to help PCF 3 and the other boats left. One can not rationally conclude anything other than that Kerry deliberately lied in his representation of the events that day. So if anyone here is having trouble dealing with reality ... it would be those still defending Kerry in this matter at this point in time.

It's classic conspiracy buff behavior.

Yes, what you've done is this thread IS classic CT behavior. I'm curious ... were you LYING when you told me that "your claim that an MD must treat someone for a Purple Heart to be awarded is pure bunk"? Or were you just badly misinformed by the sources of information you use? :D

[BeAChooser]

Nth hand opinion posted on the internet anonymously at an agenda-driven site?

Are you so CT that you deny those are direct quotes from the eyewitnesses? They've been published in numerous places. :rolleyes:

And you're spewing it in such volume and across so many topics that I can't keep up.

I suspect there's another reason you can't keep up. :D

I challenge you to demonstrate that one eyewitness to the silver star events calls Kerry's actions into question. Given that at least four eyewitnesses say that Kerry rocked surely this is not a lot to ask. Just one.

The Silver Star Citation at the link you provided is not the original citation. Did you know that? It's the Hyland citation and it states that "With utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy. Upon sweeping the area, an immediate search uncovered an enemy rest and supply area which was destroyed." Notice there's no mention of Kerry going behind the Hootch and killing the VC.

Here's the after action report and the first version of the citation ... the one that actually accompanied the medal that Zumwalt personally awarded to Kerry:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/09/kerrys_silver_star_citations.html

After Action Report
WHILE TROOPS CONDUCTED SWEEP, PCF 94 AND 23 [MOVED UP RIVER] TOWARDS AREA FROM WHICH ARMY ADVISOR REPORTED GUNSHOTS. PCF 43 REMAINED AT ORIGINAL AMBUSH SITE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR TROOPS. PCF 94 AND 23 PROCEEDED TO VQ 984831 AND THEN TURNED TO RETURN TO PCF 43 LOCATION. AT VQ 984830 ROCKET EXPLODED IN WATER CLOSE ABOARD PCF 94 BLOWING OUT WINDOW FRAME. BOTH UNITS RECEIVED HEAVY SMALL ARMS FIRE AND OTC AGA[IN] CALLED UNITS TO TURN INTO FIRE AND CHARGE AMBUSH SITE. PCF 43 WAS C [UNREADABLE]

AND MOVED IMMEDIATELY TO ASSIST. PCF 94 BEACHED IN CENTER OF AMBUSH IN FRONT OF SMALL PATH WHEN VC SPRUNG UP FROM BUNKER 10 FEET FROM UNIT. MAN RAN WITH WEAPON TOWARDS HOOTCH, FORWARD M—60 GUNNER WOUNDED MAN IN LEG. OINC JUMPED ASHORE AND GAVE PURSUIT WHILE OTHER UNITS SATURATED AREA WITH FIRE AND BEACHED PLACING ASSAULT PARTIES ASHORE. [b]OINC OF PCF 94 CHASED VC INLAND BEHIND HOOTCH AND SHOT HIM WHILE HE FLED CAPTURING ONE B—40 ROCKET LAUNCHER WITH ROUND IN CHAMBER. OINC'S OF PCF'S 43 AND 23 LED ASSAULT PARTIES THROUGH BRUSH AND JOINED WITH PCF 94 GROUP. PARTIES FR[O]M 3 ACF'S [PRO]CEEDED TO SWEEP AREA AND [ILLEGIBLE]

Zumwalt Citation

Patrol Craft Fast 23 and 94 moved upstream to investigate an area from which gunshots were coming. Arriving at the area, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY's craft received a B—40 rocket close aboard. Once again Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY ordered his units to charge the enemy positions and summoned Patrol Craft Fast 43 to the area to provide additional firepower. Patrol Craft Fast 94 then beached in the center of the enemy positions and an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hootch and killed him, capturing a B—40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber. Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY then led an assault party and conducted a sweep of the area while the Patrol Craft Fast continued to provide fire support. After the enemy had been completely routed, all personnel returned to the Patrol Craft Fast to withdraw from the area.


Notice that both say Kerry chased the VC behind a hootch and killed him. Now why would the Hyland citation differ from the after action report and the original citation? Why would Kerry even ask for a second citation? And how did Kerry, just a lieutenant (junior grade), manage to get an active duty four star admiral to not only reissue a citation but rewrite it ... so the portion about Kerry killing a fleeing enemy was gone? Hmmmmm?

Do you know there was a third citation ... one by Lehmann that was issued one to two decades after the first? That's highly unusual. Why would it be necessary to issue a third one after so many years? Did you ever ask yourself that? Hmmmmm? And do you know the third citation is word for word almost the same as the second? What was the purpose? Did Kerry just want a Secretary of the Navy, instead of mere admirals, to issue the award? Was he that vain?

But Title 10, Section 1552, of the United States Code, subsection (a) (1), states that "The Secretary of a military department may correct any military record of the Secretary's department when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice." Subsection (b) provides that "No correction may be made . . . unless the claimant . . . files a request for the correction within three years after he discovers the error or injustice. However, a board . . . may excuse a failure to file within three years after discovery if it finds it to be in the interest of justice.".

Did Kerry prove there was an error in Citation 1 and that it was an injustice? What was that error? Inquiring minds would like to know. Was the after action report wrong about Kerry going behind the hootch? But if that's true, why did some of Kerry's eyewitnesses (like Rood) claim he did? :D

And in obtaining the Lehmann citation, what was the error that needed correcting. A word was mispelled or someone forgot to dot a i? Because Citation 2 and Citation 3 are virtually identical. And since the 3 year statute of limitation had passed, what factor made correction "in the interest of justice"? I think the American Public deserves to know and you claim the proper procedures were followed in the awarding of Kerry's medals. So prove it.

And you want to know another mystery? Lehmann said he never issued a citation for Kerry. http://wizbangblog.com/content/2004/08/28/kerry-citation.php "Former Navy Secretary John Lehman has no idea where a Silver Star citation displayed on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's campaign Web site came from, he said Friday. The citation appears over Lehman's signature. "It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me," he said."

And note that when the Navy inspector general concluded that the proper procedure had been followed in initially approving Kerry's medals, that investigation didn't address the factual claims made in the awards or by Kerry, and didn't investigate the statement by Lehman that he didn't issue the third citation. Could it be that Kerry was still cooking up medal citations decades after Vietnam? :D

Now let's look at the issue of whether ALL the witnesses say Kerry ran behind a hootch to kill the VC. You say I need to supply "just one"?

How about Kerry? :)

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YWQyYzAzYjU3MTVkZjBiY2JkZTU5YWYxNWVhZjJkYjA=

"Overspun Defense, Why two of John Kerry's critics were defending him in 1996. ... snip ...

By Jim Geraghty

... snip ...

The Boston Globe reported:

... snip ...

"I was never out of sight of Tom Belodeau or Mike Medeiros," Kerry said. "I went straight out from the boat to the path so I had a line of fire. I never went behind the hootch, and this is the first time in 30 years that anybody has suggested otherwise."


Perhaps the Boston Globe just mis-quoted Kerry? :)

Oh yes ... I've one more question. Was Kerry misquoted or lying when he told Meet The Press that "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. ... snip ... All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down." So tell us ... did Kerry commit war crimes? :D

[Lurker]

Purple Heart #1 (one boat, 1-2 crew and 1-2 officers depending on whom you believe)
2 SUPPORT (Runyon, Zaladonis)
1 DISPUTE (Schacte)

Silver Star (3 boats, 3 officers, 15 cremen)
10 SUPPORT (Belodeau, Medeiros, Sandusky, Short, Thorson, Rood, Lee, Cueva, Leeds)
0 DISPUTE
8 UNKNOWN (Droz, 5 crewmen on Droz's boat, Lamberson, Martin)

Bronze Star (5 boats, 5 officers, 25 crewmen)
8 SUPPORT (Sandusky, Alston, Belodeau, Medieros, Thorson, Rassmann, Lambert, Langhofer)
5 DISPUTE (Pees, Vorphal, Thurlow, Chenoweth, O'Dell)
12 UNKNOWN (Arp, Hollister, Tryner, Wolfe, Droz +4 crewmen, 3 of Chenoweth's crewmen)

[BeAChooser]

Purple Heart #1 (one boat, 1-2 crew and 1-2 officers depending on whom you believe)
2 SUPPORT (Runyon, Zaladonis)
1 DISPUTE (Schacte)


This is false, Lurker, as ANY reading of this thread already shows. Haven't you been paying attention? Not only Schachte disputes Kerry's claims, so does Hibbard and Voss. And Runyon and Zaladonis both said they don't know how Kerry was actually injured as they didn't see it happen. They also don't support Kerry's claim there was enemy fire as Zaladonis said "I don't remember" and Runyon said "I couldn't say one way or the other". Plus we have Kerry's own diary as a witness and it too suggests Kerry knew he wasn't fired upon in the first purple heart incident. And finally, it can't even be proven that Zaladonis was there that night since the Swift Vets Directory indicates he was at An Thoi/Cat Lo, not Qui Nhon/Cam Ranh Bay, in December of 1968.


Bronze Star (5 boats, 5 officers, 25 crewmen)
8 SUPPORT (Sandusky, Alston, Belodeau, Medieros, Thorson, Rassmann, Lambert, Langhofer)
5 DISPUTE (Pees, Vorphal, Thurlow, Chenoweth, O'Dell)
12 UNKNOWN (Arp, Hollister, Tryner, Wolfe, Droz +4 crewmen, 3 of Chenoweth's crewmen)

This too is false. As I pointed out, of the 6 on Kerry's boat (including Kerry), I find nothing in writing to indicate that Thorson or Alston actually said there was enemy fire. And note that Alston also claimed to have been on the Silver Star mission (and it appear you agree that he wasn't). Furthermore, the only statement I find linking Belodeau to enemy fire was the eulogy that Kerry wrote. So only 3 of the 6 on Kerry's boat (including Kerry) can be truthfully said to have corroborated the assertion that there was enemy fire. There are 4 others (Rassmann, Russell, Lambert and Langhofer) who were there and who sided with Kerry's version ... at least as far as claiming they thought there was enemy fire. But their statements are inconsistent in numerous details. They can't even get straight which boat Rassmann was on, whether Rassmann fell out of the boat during a sudden turn or when a mine/rocket went off, the number of explosions there were, whether Rassmann was shot and bleeding, whether they went 100 yards or 3 miles down the river before returning, whether Kerry dived in to save Rassmann or not, how Kerry's rear end got fragged, and how/when Kerry's boat got damaged. Their version also defies common sense and logic. Boats that were under fire to the extent claimed over the period of time claimed would surely have received more damage than was reported.

Give it up ... Kerry's is a sinking ship, Lurker. Much like Hillary's. :)

[Lurker]

This is false, Lurker, as ANY reading of this thread already shows. Haven't you been paying attention? Not only Schachte disputes Kerry's claims, so does Hibbard and Voss.

I am only concerned about people who were eyewitnesses. Sorry.

I am not concerned about inconsistencies in stories over 30 years old. You seem only interested in inconsistencies on one side. I understand both sides will be incosistent. No big deal.

I guess the difference is that you have no qualms about smearing veterans on weak evidence. I have more respect and restraint and would not question a veteran's medals or purple hearts in a he said/she said scenario. I give veterans the benefit of the doubt. You prefer to think all those who support Kerry are lying. I find that position disrespectful.

[BeAChooser]

I am only concerned about people who were eyewitnesses.

But were they eyewitnesses?

First of all, I proved that neither Zaladonis or Runyon can say how Kerry was injured or even whether there was enemy fire. They didn't see him get injured. Nor can they say whether there was enemy fire. Remember them saying ... "I don't remember" and "I couldn't say one way or the other"?

Second, the three ... Kerry, Zaladonis and Runyon claim Schachte wasn't there. But that is illogical. Schachte is known to have run all such missions and none of the three had ever been on such a mission before ... in fact, Kerry had never even commanded a mission up to that point. Would it make ANY sense at all to put him in charge of the mission?

Third, Voss (who was there but on the Swift Boat component of the mission) says Schachte was on the skimmer and Hibbard says Schachte ALWAYS went on these missions. Why should we doubt them?

Furthermore, Zaladonis was interviewed prior to questions being raised about this mission and he didn't even mention it ... even though later he claimed it was the scariest night of the war for him. Don't you find that strange, Lurker? Combine that with the fact that the Swift Boat database shows Zaladonis wasn't assigned to the region at the time of the mission and it's doubtful he actually was on the mission.

Runyon was on his first combat mission of the war and while he might of been there, perhaps he just didn't know the players well enough to say for certain who was there or not.

Give it up Lurker, you are trying to raise the dead.

You seem only interested in inconsistencies on one side.

Except I don't see any inconsistencies on the other side. Can you name some ... to equal the lists I've provided? I doubt it.

I guess the difference is that you have no qualms about smearing veterans on weak evidence.

I haven't smeared anyone. Just stated some facts that you desperately want to ignore. If you want an example of a smear, then look at Kerry's claims about American soldiers in the war ... claims about their rapacious and genocidal ways.

I have more respect and restraint and would not question a veteran's medals or purple hearts in a he said/she said scenario.

Sorry, but I don't think you respect the medals at all. The Swift Boat veterans who expressed their reservations about Kerry won far more medal (of all types) then Kerry and his supporters. They also didn't demean American servicemen and stand with the likes of Jane Fonda and the VVAW while American solders were still fighting and dying. They didn't spit on returning American soldiers as many of Kerry's followers did, both verbally and in actuality. And they never threw their medals away as Kerry did ... or at least lied about doing.

I give veterans the benefit of the doubt.

As long as they agree with your agenda, right? :D

You prefer to think all those who support Kerry are lying.

I specifically addressed this red herring. Apparently you just ignored what I wrote. So be it.

I find that position disrespectful.

Lurker, I don't think you actually know the meaning of respect. Here's a good example of disrespect (look at the author and contents):

http://ejsmithweb.com/fr/newsoldier/New-Soldier-Inro/Chapter.aspx