I initially tacked this on to the end of the flipper thread...but it really deserves its own, especially after going through the site for awhile. There is a ton of information there, ranging from explanations about how fitness reports are interpreted to TV interviews from 1971 where Kerry debated his statements before Congress.

In any case, what initially brought this up is that the actual doctor who treated Kerry for the "wound" he got his first purple heart for has come forward to say that Kerry is lying about 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.

The story he told was different from what his crewmen had to say about that night. According to Kerry, they had been engaged in a fire fight, receiving small arms fire from on shore. He said that his injury resulted from this enemy action.

Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on shore. The crewman thought that the injury was caused by a fragment ricocheting from that mortar round when it struck the rocks.

That seemed to fit the injury which I treated.

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. Not [sic] other injuries were reported and I do not recall that there was any reported damage to the boat.

This is important because in order to receive a purple heart you have to have documented medical treatment(which is why he went to see the doctor over something a bandaid would cover), and the injury has to be from an outside force or agent. In other words if Kerry's splinter is a result of his own action he didn't qualify for a purple heart, regardless of the actual seriousness of his "wound".

Also, the actual people who served with him(in case you didn't know, most of his "band of brothers" did not actually serve with him on his swiftboat) have come forward to speak out too. Among other things the gunnery mate from his swift boat says he lied to get his bronze star.

Now Kerry, if he is in the right, could absolutely take legal action for slander and libel...again, if he is right.

He isn't though...now you have to wonder...why isn't he?

http://www.swiftvets.com/anyquestions.wmv

http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php

Here is a great quote:


So far as we are able to determine, Kerry was the only Swift sailor ever to leave Vietnam without completing the standard one-year tour of duty, other than those who were seriously wounded or killed.

More great quotes from these guys, this is from one of his commanding officers:


Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you'd hear is 'requires constant supervision.'

A member of his crew:


My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in '68 and '69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy... if a man like that can't handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?


Incidently the group was formed this year in response to the release of his book, and is not affiliated with any political party.

It counts as members the entire chain of command above him in Vietnam as well as people from his swift boat that served with him.

Incidently the group was formed this year in response to the release of his book, and is not affiliated with any political party.
If these arent political... why is the site a 527?
These are about as non political as Move-On.org

So we have to pick between (to steal from Louis Black) crappy and crappy for president...tell me something I don't know ;)

Also from Black:

Election day - the one day you can count on feeling completely ineffectual more than any other. ;)

The one good thing....you can be having the worst day ever and still be feel better knowing "at least it's not election day:. :)

And then we have other quotes from those who served under him that are more supportive:

"In 1969, I was Sen. Kerry's gun mate atop of the Swift boat in Vietnam. And I just wanted to let everyone know that, contrary to all the rumors that you might hear from the other side, Sen. Kerry's blood is red, not blue. I know, I've seen it.

"If it weren't for Sen. John Kerry, on the 28th of February 1969, the day he won the Silver Star . . . you and I would not be having this conversation. My name would be on a long, black wall in Washington, D.C. I saw this man save my life." --Fred Short "I can still see him now, standing in the doorway of the pilothouse, firing his M-16, shouting orders through the smoke and chaos . . . Even wounded, or confronting sights no man should ever have to see, he never lost his cool.

I had to sit on my hands [after a firefight], I was shaking so hard . . . He went to every man on that boat and put his arm around them and asked them how they're doing. I've never had an officer do that before or since. That's the mettle of the man, John Kerry." --David Alston "What I saw back then [in Vietnam] was a guy with genuine caring and leadership ability who was aggressive when he had to be. What I see now is a guy who's not afraid to tackle tough issues. And he knows what the consequences are of putting people's kids in harm's way." --James Wasser From commanders:
"I don't like what he said after the war," said Adrian Lonsdale, who commanded Kerry for three months in 1969. "But he was a good naval officer." "I don't know what conclusions you can draw about someone's ability to lead from their combat experience, but John's service was commendable," said James J. Galvin, a former Swift boat officer . . . "He played by the same rules we all did." Of course, 35 years have passed and we're now in the midst of a presidential campaign. Political differences or commonalities can certainly color recollection of such old memories.

[quotes from http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp%5D) ]

EDIT: Fixed link

Maybe he isn't pursuing a libel case because he is in the middle of a Presidential campaign and has other, more pressing matters?

He can always sue afterwards.

Or perhaps he doesn't suffer from the knee-jerk desire to sue that many do in this country (it is part of the great US Hat Trick- overweight, ignorant and fond of litigation).

Hell, I wish I could pull a lever that gave a "Vote of No Confidence" that would force better candidates to be broght forth by both parties. There isn't anyone on the ticket worth a damn, anyone who I'd trust to do a better job than myself.

Hell, I wish I could pull a lever that gave a "Vote of No Confidence" that would force better candidates to be broght forth by both parties. There isn't anyone on the ticket worth a damn, anyone who I'd trust to do a better job than myself.
/agree /applaud

What we really need is a viable 3rd party to keep the current corrupt parties honest.

After reading over the whole purple heart thing... its seems that he needed to be injured 3 times before he could invoke the rule about "thrice wounded" you get to go home.

I am not sure why more isn't being made of that. While I applaud his serving over there, it seems to me that he was itching to get out of dodge and that was a pretty expident way.

Fyi, there's a book about this coming out soon. Unfortunately, I don't remember hte name. It's already listed at Amazon.com

Maybe he isn't pursuing a libel case because he is in the middle of a Presidential campaign
Actually, if he were to prove these guys flat out wrong it would do nothing but good for that Presidential campaign. It would be a great political move if he were to show his detractors as not being truthful.

More interesting than not taking that step, is that he refuses to release his medical records and all of his fitness reports..something that would only require a two page form.

Hmmm, a two page form that would confirm my story..


"I don't like what he said after the war," said Adrian Lonsdale, who commanded Kerry for three months in 1969. "But he was a good naval officer."
Now where did you get that quote?

Here(Adrian Lonsdale is a member of this group) is what Londsdale has to say about him:


Now when I went there right after Tet, I was restricted in my movements. I couldn't go much of anyplace because the Vietcong controlled most of the area. When I left, I could go anywhere I wanted, just about. Commerce was booming, the buses were running, trucks were going, the waterways were filled with sampans with goods going to market, but yet in Kerry's biography he says that our operations were a complete failure. He also mentions a formal conference with me, to try to get more air cover and so on. That conference never happened..

I don't know what conclusions you can draw about someone's ability to lead from their combat experience, but John's service was commendable," said James J. Galvin, a former Swift boat officer . . . "He played by the same rules we all did.
Of course he doesn't know firsthand, because Galvin did not serve with Kerry.

Just as an example, they say his superiors gave him good fitness reports..now if you go to the website, the officers that were above him and actually wrote those reports explain how to read them(remember, every single officer that was in Kerry's chain of command is a member of this group).

Don't rely on snopes to be your absolute guide to truth, they're wrong sometimes, and this is a good example...on the one hand you have all of the officers who were in charge of Kerry saying one thing, and then you have snopes saying they didn't really serve with him.

Swift Boat Veterans is comprised of over 250 people, including people who served with Kerry and every single officer who was ever in charge of Kerry during his short time in Vietnam. By comparison, Kerry's complete "band of brothers" contains 13 swift boat veterans, and a lot of those never even served with him.


If these arent political... why is the site a 527
They aren't affiliated with any political party. They are however determined to correct things in Kerry's campaign, which earns them a 527 status.

Now, even if you discount everything his commanders have to say about him, and how the guy manning the guns at the incident says Kerry lied to get a bronze star(hey, your call I guess, it's a stupid move imo) you still have the doctor that treated Kerry and his commanding officer at the time saying he didn't fit the criteria for his first purple heart and in fact his commander didn't even put in for one for him(he wants to know who did).

Now where did you get that quote? Snopes cites it from: 2. Braun, Stephen. "Kerry's War Tour Serves as Theme, Target." Los Angeles Times. 29 July 2004 (p. A13).



...every single officer that was in Kerry's chain of command is a member of this group
How many of those officers in the chain of command served with Kerry on his boat, or had more intimate interaction with him than, say, Bush had with Chalabi in the oval office? My post was primarily composed of quotes from shipmates (per the references included in the Snopes post) who present a positive view of Kerry rather than people up the chain of command. I present it to show that there is a whole 'nother side to the angle you present.

It's really a shame that we lack Bush's own wartime records, but there's an irony in comparing the history of a candidate that actually fought in Vietnam with one who spent his time at home a drunkard.

Making a lawsuit out of that would do nothing but hurt his campaign, and probably pretty badly. Even if everything those people are saying is untrue (thought I doubt it), if he takes them to court over it, he's just going to look like a jackass sissy. Also, further rehashing the events that happened/did not happen wouldn't serve to his best interests, either; his opponents would jump all over that one.

Actually, if he were to prove these guys flat out wrong it would do nothing but good for that Presidential campaign. It would be a great political move if he were to show his detractors as not being truthful.



Roliel touched on it; but there is another aspect.



In a mud slinging campaign (and all Presidential elections resort to this tactic) the worst possible spin is going to be put on any action taken.



If he were to pursue legal action, the other side would probably release commercials that went like this:

-------
Lead into world trade centers burning... show women holding children, weeping... segue into troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.... fast cut through newspaper headlines decrying how fucked up everything is...



All the while, a voiceover would be saying something like:

John Kerry is suing (insert group here) for libel for exercising their First Amendment rights in events over events that happened 40 years ago. John Kerry is more concerned with his personal reputation than he is in solving the problems that face us now. What kind of leader is that?


(image fades into George W. Bush)

George Bush. Connected to today. A proven record of strong leadership for this country.

(fade into US flag flapping in the wind, with text reading Bush/Cheney 2004)

---------



Shit.... Maybe I've found my new calling in life.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=3&u=/ap/20040805/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_mccain

The Vets have replied to McCain

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

How many of those officers in the chain of command served with Kerry on his boat, or had more intimate interaction with him than, say, Bush had with Chalabi in the oval office?


Several of the people that served on him in his boat are in that organization. Just as an easy showing, remember that photo in Kerry's campaign of him and 20 other guys? Yeah, well 14 of the 20 say he is unfit, while *2* support him. Considering that out of the remaining 4 2 are now deceased..well..that's not a pretty picture of Kerry's support from the people he served with.

Now as to how many officers had more intimate interaction than "say, Bush had with Chalabi in the oval office", the answer is simple: ALL of them. You see, they were his bosses. It was more than one visit with a group that Kerry happened to be a part of and shaking his hand a few times.

Perhaps, since you are chiming in on this, you can do what Lleauaric has been unable to and provide proof that Bush met with Chalabi more than he says he did?

The thread is that way, if you'd care to try.

Now then as for not pursuing litigation against this group being a good idea..they are attacking his character in a very public way, if they are incorrect it is not their first ammendment right at all but an act of libel and slander. No one would attack him for it, the Bush camp is already saying they don't condone the actions of the group.

Again, an EASY way for him to disprove them all, without even going into lawsuit mode, is to release his service records and prove them wrong.

That is of course unless his service records do not prove them wrong at all, but vice versa.

He already released small portions of his record, why not release the rest?

For those of you who think of snopes as canon law, the group in question is being picked up by all of the major media outlets and even the prime time news shows.

Not such an "urban legend" after all.

the group in question is being picked up by all of the major media outlets and even the prime time news shows. LOL. Yeah, of course they are. Because the services are extraordinarily lazy. They wait to be spoonfed news from their sources. Report now.. question later.

Swift Boat Nonsense

Who are these people? The leader of the swiftboat veterans for truth is John O'Neill, who was originally hand picked by Nixon to destroy Kerry's career, back in the 70's. They had a fairly famous debate on the Dick Cavett show, in which O'Neill didn't fare very well. O'Neill doesn't like to talk about that. One would think that O'Neill, as the leader of this group, would actually have known something about Kerry's service. However, he did not serve with Kerry. He arrived in Vietnam after Kerry had already left.

The group is receiving public relations help from Spaeth Communications, a Dallas-based firm owned by Spaeth, a former Reagan administration media official. Her late husband, H.J. "Tex" Lezar, was the Republican nominee for Texas lieutenant governor in 1994. Spaeth is among the most experienced and best connected Republican communications executives. During the Reagan administration she served as director of the White House Office of Media Liaison, where she specialized in promoting "news" items that boosted President Reagan to TV stations around the country. While living in Washington she met and married Lezar, a Reagan Justice Department lawyer who ran for lieutenant governor of Texas in 1994 with George W. Bush, then the party's candidate for governor. (Lezarlost; Bush won.)

Through Lezar, who died of a heart attack last January, she met O'Neill, his law partner in Clements, O'Neill, Pierce, Wilson & Fulkerson, a Dallas firm. (It also includes Margaret Wilson, the former counsel to Gov. Bush who followed him to Washington, where she served for a time as a deputy counsel in the Department of Commerce.)

Spaeth's partisanship runs still deeper, as does her history of handling difficult P.R. cases for Republicans. In 1998, for example, she coached Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, to prepare him for his testimony urging the impeachment of President Clinton before the House Judiciary Committee. She even reviewed videotapes of his previous television appearances to give him pointers about his delivery and demeanor. The man responsible for arranging her advice to Starr was another old friend of her late husband's, Theodore Olson, who was counsel to the right-wing American Spectator when it acted as a front for the dirty-tricks campaign against Clinton known as the Arkansas Project; he is now the solicitor general in the Bush Justice Department. (Olson also happens to be the godfather of Spaeth's daughter.)

In 2000, Spaeth participated in the most subterranean episode of the Republican primary contest when a shadowy group billed as "Republicans for Clean Air" produced television ads falsely attacking the environmental record of Sen. John McCain in California, New York and Ohio. While the identity of those funding the supposedly "independent" ads was carefully hidden, reporters soon learned that Republicans for Clean Air was simply Sam Wyly -- a big Bush contributor and beneficiary of Bush administration decisions in Texas -- and his brother, Charles, another Bush "Pioneer" contributor. (One of the Wyly family's private capital funds, Maverick Capital of Dallas, had been awarded a state contract to invest $90 million for the University of Texas endowment.)

"On closer inspection, the ostensibly nonpartisan "Swift Boat Vets" seem to have another pair of significant sponsors with deep and long-standing Republican connections in Missouri. Both are officers of Gannon International , a St. Louis conglomerate that does lots of overseas business in, of all places, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Ties to Gannon can be traced via the Swift Boat Vets web site (as an alert reader advised me last week). On April 14, the site was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, Gannon's information technology manager, at 11301 Olive Boulevard in St. Louis, the firm's headquarters address. Although Waterman wouldn't discuss why he had set up the Web site, he didn't deny that his boss, Gannon president and CEO William Franke, had asked him to do so. "The information about my client is confidential," said Waterman. He acknowledged knowing, however, that his boss Franke is a Navy veteran who served in Vietnam on swift boats. Gannon vice president Stephen Hayes, who oversees the company's office in Alexandria, Va., is likewise a swift boat veteran who first met Franke when they served together in the Mekong Delta.

While neither Franke nor Hayes returned calls seeking confirmation of their roles in the Swift Boat Veterans organization, it seems obvious that Waterman wouldn't have set up the group's Web site using Gannon's corporate address without approval from his employers. Franke is well known in Missouri as a longtime Republican Party activist and financier. In 1976, he managed John Danforth's victorious Senate campaign; two years later, he ran unsuccessfully for Congress. He also failed in an attempt to resuscitate the defunct St. Louis Globe-Democrat (which was, despite its name, a staunchly Republican newspaper) in 1986. Before the Globe-Democrat finally went under in 1987, Franke had obtained a commitment from the state industrial development authority -- all of whose members were appointed by then Gov. John Ashcroft -- to raise $9 million in tax-exempt revenue bonds to keep the paper afloat.

Last June, Franke gave the maximum $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaign, and he has since donated an additional $2,000 to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's political action committee, Americans for a republican majority, and $2,000 more to keep our majority, the PAC operated by House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Hayes left a long career in government to join Franke's company in 1993. His résumé is littered with public relations posts in Republican administrations dating back at least to 1984, when he worked as a transition spokesman for Treasury Secretary Donald Regan. Hemoved on to similar jobs at the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Agency for International Development.

Following the departure of the first Bush administration, Hayes joined Gannon. He maintains his conservative credentials as a director of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy, an organization that promotes "faith-based diplomacy" to resolve global conflicts. (Among this outfit's other board members are a former Republican congressman from Ohio, an author of books and articles arguing against evolution, and former Reagan national security advisor Robert McFarlane, forced to resign for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal.)

What is most intriguing about Franke, Hayes, and Gannon -- especially in light of their apparent role in the campaign against John Kerry -- are their strong commercial interests in Southeast Asia. While Gannon is a highly diversified holding company whose divisions range from real estate in Florida and Missouri to Internet technology and software, it maintains an unusual presence in Vietnam, with offices in both Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. Indeed, Gannon has operated in that country's tourism, real estate and import-export sectors for a decade. (The target market for its tours was fellow Vietnam veterans.)

None of Gannon's profitable activities in the communist republic would be possible, of course, without the approval of the Hanoi government, which Franke has described as "strong" and "stable." Nor would Gannon be conducting business in Vietnam without the Clinton administration diplomacy, assisted by Sen. Kerry, that established diplomatic and trade ties with the United States in 1994. Franke first began traveling to Vietnam on behalf of Operation Smile, an American charity that provides plastic surgery to children abroad. The relationships he established during those humanitarian missions provided a considerable advantage in doing business under government auspices.

It was also during those early visits to Vietnam, as he told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, that Franke reached a clearer understanding of the war he had once fought as a young Navy lieutenant.

"As I looked back 20 years, I saw that it was a very imperial relationship we had with these people," said Franke in 1989. "We were young. We were there because we were told to be there and that they were the enemy. This time I saw them as human beings who had fears and hopes the same as we."

Yet he evidently cannot forgive John Kerry for reaching the same conclusion about that war and its victims, so many years before he finally did.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/05/14/gannon/index_np.html

In 1968, Kerry critic Grant W. Hibbard,[1] a lieutenant commander in Vietnam during Kerry's tour:

... described Kerry in various favorable ways, as quote, "One of the top few in his willingness to seek and accept responsibility."

Here is what Grant Hibbard said back then about John Kerry. And he signed a report on Kerry. He said on initiative, one of the top few. Cooperation, one of the top few. Personal behavior, one of the top few.

Captain George Elliot, who served in Vietnam at the same time Kerry did, condemns Kerry now for touting his service in a war that Kerry later protested. ... But Elliot and other critics of today, praised him for going after the enemy. Here's what he said. "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lieutenant Junior Grade Kerry was unsurpassed. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach." That's a report of officer fitness from 1969 by George Elliott.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405050004

The Swift Boat Rats attacking Kerry are all commanders, all but one. Of the 15 or so men who served under Kerry's command, all have spoken highly of the senator.

As far as allegations about his medals, probably the most neutral source would be snopes.com, which specializes in verifying or disproving urban legends.

See what the people who actually worked with him say: http://www.johnkerry.com/video/console.php?video=072604_under_fire#072604_under_f ire

What his commanders said about him:


October 19, 1967, evaluation from Captain Allen W. Slifer:
A top notch officer in every measurable trait. Intelligent, mature, and rich in educational background and experience, ENS Kerry is one of the finest young officers I have ever met and without question one of the most promising.

September 3, 1968, evaluation from Captain E.W. Harper, Jr.:
LTJG KERRY is an intelligent and competent young naval officer who has performed his duties in an excellent to outstanding manner.

December 18, 1969, evaluation from LCDR George M. Elliott:
In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several enemy KIA.
LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training program.
During the period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).

Evaluation co-signed by Joseph Streuli and George M. Elliott on January 28, 1969, and March 17, 1969, respectively:
... exhibited all of the traits of an officer in a combat environment. He frequently exhibited a high sense of imagination and judgment in planning operations against the enemy in the Mekong Delta. March 2, 1970 evaluation from Admiral Walter F. Schlech:
... one of the finest young officers with whom I have served in a long naval career.

There aren't any negative descriptions. None.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Fitness_Reports.pdf

Could someone take away L2's red ink pen please?

Wow, go look at that site. They totally spinned that "swift boat" advertisement. They highlighted pictures of the guys behind them, making you to parallel that they were standing next to Kerry in the first picture, but then you go back and you look and they weren't in the picture with Kerry -- but in other pictures that were just cropped together. Took me 4x to watch that ad to catch it, pretty clever.

It seems at least some of these morons are backing off now:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040806/us_nm/campaign_kerry_vietnam_dc

But the GOP has accomplished it's mission smearing Kerry's war record.

On the contrary Ailwon.

The "morons" aren't backing down (http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_aff.html):

"Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the Boston Globe by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit [see below] in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played. "

Edit :

I just googled this Mike Kranish guy and guess what else he has written?

John F. Kerry (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=OhdC0mnvAyo9&isbn=0786268158&itm=3)

Kerry and Edwards: Their Plans and Promises (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=OhdC0mnvAyo9&isbn=1586483145&itm=2)

John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=OhdC0mnvAyo9&isbn=1586482734&itm=1)

No impropriety or conflict of interest in his journalism? HAHA

So Cpt. Elliot says one thing in Vietnam
Comes back and years later says another thing
Then when someone asks him, he says something else
Now when more people ask him again, he says another thing.

Interesting.

So Cpt. Elliot says one thing in Vietnam
Comes back and years later says another thing
Then when someone asks him, he says something else
Now when more people ask him again, he says another thing.

Interesting.
Yeah, which flip-flopper do you listen to? The guy who claimed to have committed war crimes, but didn't, or did, or may have, or something... or the other guy who just talks bad about the the first guy.

Interesting.

or the other guy who just talks bad about the the first guy.
or doesn't..
or does...maybe he did...no he didn't...wait!! :p

Bush...maybe he served his time in the military..or didn't...did but was drunk or maybe sober...quick daddy destroy the records <joke btw

Same 'ole shit from both sides...smear, confuse, spin. Pick the guy based on party platform not on who's running IMO. Rank your issues, decide which party (not guy) is going to address them best, and vote.

Who are these people? The leader of the swiftboat veterans for truth is John O'Neill, who was originally hand picked by Nixon to destroy Kerry's career, back in the 70's

Yes, so there was a right wing conspiracy by Nixon to destroy Kerry's career, because he was incredibly worried about the threat that would be created if Kerry became the junior congressman from Mass.

Nixon being an excellent saboteur managed to make Kerry lose to a republican in Mass..he was just that good folks.

BTW, the chairman of SVT is not John O'Neill, it is Roy Hoffman. John O'Neill is the spokesman.

While you may believe Nixon used him in his diabolical schemes to make Kerry wait till 1982 for public office, the fact is that O'Neill was a swiftboat commander at the same time Kerry was and the reason they came into confrontation is because they were chosen by their respective groups, VVAW and VVJP, to participate in a debate on the Cavett show.

That show btw, saw O'Neill fair very well actually...and if you would care to actually look at the interview yourself instead of reading a dem website you can see the interview transcript, and video of the interview itself:

http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=KerryONeill

As for your bit about "of the 15 or so men under Kerry" speaking well of him..I'm calling bullshit. First of all, his gunner says he lied about the incident he received the bronze star for...second, he has only 7 of his former crew that have come forward to support him.

Now, I'd like to point out another important fact about the records(and it is also good to keep in mind that Kerry is withholding military records from public scrutiny, ie he is only showing ones he thinks looks good) that you could have discovered if you had bothered to actually follow the link and examine the swiftie site:




Context

John Kerry's campaign representatives quote a few words from one of his best Navy fitness reports to support their misleading claim that Kerry's military evaluations were those of a top-flight officer. They carefully ignore the existence of several other reports that range from mediocre to substandard, thereby presenting an inaccurate picture of Kerry's service record.

There are also gaps in the documentation made public to date by the Kerry campaign, where no fitness reports are provided at all. Here we present an analysis of the available record.

An Introduction to Navy Fitness Reports

Navy officer fitness reports ("FITREPs") are of vital importance. Selection boards use them to promote the officer. Assignment officers use them to “sell” the officer into his or her next assignment. Only truly outstanding officers get the best jobs (or “billets”). Officers with adverse or spotty records are unsalable for anything but the most backwater assignments.

To read and understand FITREPs correctly, there are several crucial things to understand.

Dings and RAPs

First and foremost, a FITREP is a relative picture. You are not reading absolutes. If an officer is graded, say, as “outstanding,” it is meaningful only if he is ranked ahead of his contemporaries and the rest of the FITREP contains no glaring negatives.

Second, what matters most are marks or grades above and especially below the norm. Marks below the norm may fall under a very positive word (e.g., “excellent”) and appear positive to the casual reader, but no matter: any mark to the right of the norm is a strong, clear sign to both promotion boards and assignment officers (e.g., “detailers”) that there is a performance shortfall. A mark to the right is a “ding.” You don’t want a ding in your FITREP.

Third, what is not said in the narrative section is just as important as what is said. The truly superlative officer should be “RAPped,” meaning "Recommended for accelerated promotion." If Block 21 says only "Recommended for promotion" this is faint praise. It means that the officer should be considered for promotion along with the rest of his year group (all those commissioned in a given fiscal year constitute a “year group”). In the context of other marks and remarks, a “Recommended for promotion” mark means that the officer may just be average, called a “pack player.”

NOTE: An officer “Not Recommended for Promotion” is an officer in deep trouble. In a combat zone, failure to recommend for promotion may be indicative of problems in conduct, not just performance.

Key: Would His Commander Want Him to Command?

Fourth, if the officer is an Unrestricted Line Officer, he or she is in line for operational command (of a ship, an aviation squadron, etc.). Thus, one the most important marks on a FITREP for a line officer is “desirability for command,” referred to in the shorthand of selection boards and detailers as “command.” Thus, for a seagoing officer, a “ding in command” is big trouble. Likewise with the skill of “seamanship and ship handling”: a ship-driver “dinged in ship handling” is in big trouble.

As a footnote, line officers must win qualification as a Officer of the Deck for formation steaming [“OOD(F)”] that officer who stands watch on the bridge and is responsible for ship movement (and, frankly, everything that happens on that ship) while “formation steaming” or steaming in company with other ships. Officers must first qualify as OOD while in port [OOD(P) and subsequently for independent steaming [OOD(I)]. The quicker the climb to OOD(F) the better.

Also, Unrestricted Line Officers aboard ships (now called “Surface Warfare Officers”) must strive to be recommended for Navy Destroyer School which prepares the junior officer for his pivotal tour as a Lieutenant or Lieutenant (j.g.) -- a department head tour aboard a destroyer. A recommendation in a FITREP for Destroyer School is meaningful, however, if and only if the officer has qualified as OOD(F). The CO must qualify the officer as OOD for in-formation steaming; otherwise a Destroyer School recommendation is empty.

Thus, for the junior officer aboard ship, the number one performance goal is: qualify as OOD(F) and get recommended for Destroyer School. The unwritten rule is, don’t leave your first ship without the OOD(F) qualification.

Language and Other Signals

Fifth, FITREP language tends to be positive for officers who perform at a reasonably satisfactory level. That way, the FITREP tends to be a motivational tool to keep the officer on the right performance track. Thus, when COs feel the need to convey a signal to selection boards and detailers about performance that is lackluster, they will use code words. “Potential” is one of the key negative code words. Genuinely excellent officers should be performing; if they merely demonstrate “potential,” even “great potential,” this is read as a clear signal from the Commanding Officer that they are not performing.

Another signal is “trend of performance.” Unless it’s a “first report,” all good officers should be marked as “improving,” never “consistent” and certainly not “declining.”

Still another signal, particularly for line officers, is the broad categories of content in the narrative. A line officer’s FITREP should be glowing in praise of his or her ship handling and leadership abilities. Selection boards want to know how this officer performs on the bridge, not in some significantly less important collateral duty (e.g., public affairs officer). A CO who emphasizes performance in collateral duties is signaling that there is something lacking on the bridge.

Sixth, there can be no gaps. There must be one continuous thread of fitness reports in an officer’s jacket.

Seventh, it’s the operational tours that count. As long as the officer passes the school and stays out trouble, FITREPs from school commands don’t matter much.

Eighth, selection boards and detailers will examine the way the Commanding Officer grades his or her officers. Some of their considerations:

o They are looking for “good break-outs,” reports that clearly identify top-performers (called “water-walkers”) and distinguish them from “pack-plus” officers (above average performers) or “pack” officers (average). When a CO writes a “gift” FITREP (ranks everyone as top performers), boards and detailers tend to discount such “easy graders” and will look to a subsequent report for a clearer performance picture from another CO.

o Glowing, end-of-tour FITREPs are often viewed as “swan song” FITREPs (the officer is usually ranked 1 of 1) and don’t matter nearly as much as in-tour FITREPs when the officer is ranked with his or her peers. (Of course, if an officer is smacked in an end-of-tour report, you can be assured that boards sit up and pay close attention.)

What Do the Kerry FITREPs Really Say?

Knowing the above, what do the FITREPs selectively released by the Kerry campaign say about John Kerry as a junior officer in the U.S. Navy?

Kerry’s FITREPs are awash in dings, and some of the reports border on the adverse, particularly his combat FITREPs. The FITREPs convey significant performance problems and suggest problems in conduct, so much so that it is surprising that the campaign chose to release them. This may suggest that the FITREPs held from public view are even more adverse.

In what would customarily be an opportunity for a glowing “swan song” FITREP, the Commanding Officer of USS Gridley (DLG-21) tacitly blasts Kerry on his departure for Swift Boat duty by ranking him significantly below the norm in desirability for virtually every Navy assignment possible -– command, staff, whatever. He is a ship handler who is dinged in ship handling. He is in line for command, but his CO doesn’t want him near the bridge. He is slammed in all performance areas –- most notably and significantly in initiative and reliability. The “nice” narrative emphasizes performance in collateral duties, but in the grades and marks, the CO is telling the selection board and detailer loud and clear that this officer is lazy, unreliable and not suited for command. 3 SEP 68 (W.E. HARPER).

Another “swan song” opportunity is lost when Kerry departs a brief tour of duty as an Aide. Kerry is dinged in staff desirability, management and military bearing by Rear Admiral Walter Schlech (2 MAR 70 Schlech) while Kerry served as Schlech’s Aide. The Admiral makes considerable mention in the narrative section about Kerry’s ambition to run for Congress, and no doubt the glowing words were meant as a parting gift to someone who might become a member of Congress. The narrative notwithstanding, any detailer or selection board would consider the FITREP a bad one. Had Kerry remained in the Navy, it would be difficult to “sell” him to a new Aide assignment when his last boss, an Admiral, had dinged him in precisely those attributes indispensable for Aides.

The real performance problems are evidenced in FITREPs for his operational tours.

Because it is a FITREP that only covers about a month, LCDR Grant Hibbard’s first FITREP on Kerry should simply be marked “not observed” all the way down the line -– no grades, marks or narrative. Significantly, LCDR Hibbard chooses otherwise. Hibbard detects a personal behavior problem – a conduct problem – and smacks him for it in the report. He also dings Kerry on initiative and cooperation, just like his last CO in Gridley. 17 DEC 68 (HIBBARD).

In his FITREP for his combat tour as Officer in Charge of a SWIFT Boat -– arguably the most important FITREP among those released by the Kerry campaign –- Kerry is not dinged but slammed in command, seamanship and ship handling and in all major leadership traits (28 JAN 69 ELLIOTT). To Kerry and perhaps to other junior officers, it is an okay FITREP. To detailers and selection boards, it is a negative fitness report that borders on the adverse. LCDR Elliott ranks him well below the norm in traits essential for command: force, industry, analytical ability, judgment and more.

The PCF squadron commander, LCDR Elliott has 15 officers in his command, and his report (28 JAN 69) offers an excellent breakout. Elliott ranks his officers in two groups, the top and the bottom, and Elliott ranks Kerry among the top group. Or does he? Just like Hibbard, Elliott “red flags” Kerry in conduct by downgrading him significantly in judgment and personal behavior. When viewed in the context of the total FITREP, it is very clear to a detailer or selection board that Kerry probably ranks 7 of 15. He’s a “pack player” at best, but this is a worrisome FITREP to detailers and selection boards, because the significant flaws Elliott finds are in two critical areas: leadership traits and personal conduct. Moreover, because personal conduct issues have been raised by past commanders, detailers and selection boards would certainly conclude that the officer has exhibited major flaws in leadership and conduct over a sustained period of time that limit both his promotability and his salability to positions of responsibility. None of Kerry's evaluators had access to his previous FITREPS -- his commanders observed the same flaws independently.


Long quote, but what can you do..it's not like folks such as Lleauaric or Ailwon are going to admit anything unless you put it right in front of their face(and probably not even then..evidently providing links to the material isn't enough anymore.

HAHAHAHA, now THIS is PRICELESS!

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_pdf.html

Oh no, the DNC and Kerry say that SVT have every right to say what they want..then behind the scenes they try to strongarm stations into not airing their add.

PRICELESS!

It's the Kerry way!

Don't go the straight shooting route and take them to court, be sneaky about it and try to do things under the table!

Come on you Kerry backers, I want to see you try to talk out of this one!

LOL Thats not a problem.

http://www.unknownnews.net/040308moveon.html

"Now that you have been apprised of the law, to prevent further violations of federal law, we urge you to remove these advertisements from your station's broadcast rotation."

-RNC letter about Move-On.orgs ads
So basically, its fine and Dandy for the GOP TO DO THE EXACT SAME THING A COUPLE MONTHS EARLIER.

but... whooooooaaaaa there, once the dems do it, its bad?

Look out there, your double standard is showing.

Look out there, your double standard is showing.
This the double standard you speak of L2? (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040805-115811-6900r.htm)

The White House yesterday distanced itself from a political ad that questions John Kerry's Vietnam service and called on the Democratic presidential nominee to join President Bush in demanding an "immediate cessation" of all advertisements by outside groups.
"We have not and will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters aboard Air Force One. "The president is calling for an immediate cessation to all the unregulated soft money activity." Would have been nice to see Kerry come out against Moveon.org's ads, but that would be too much to ask I suppose.

Edit, forgot link.

Wow, so when GOP operatives fund the effort, the president gets to wait a whole complete and entire news cycle, just to make SURE everyone sees the adds, then calls for a stop of the adds when some of the dirt starts splashing back on him, and Im supposed to get all teary eyed and applaud what a great guy he is? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

Wow, so when GOP operatives fund the effort, the president gets to wait a whole complete and entire news cycle, just to make SURE everyone sees the adds, then calls for a stop of the adds when some of the dirt starts splashing back on him, and Im supposed to get all teary eyed and applaud what a great guy he is? RiiiiiiiiiiiiiiightLMAO L2, you're getting good at this. So if Bush had come out and denounced the ad on the very same day that it was released, don't ya think it would have appeared even more suspect that he was given a heads-up on it beforehand by these swiftvets ?

Get a clue.

And for the record, I don't really care if you ball your eyes out or not, at least ask yourself if Kerry has EVER denounced an attack ad against Bush or not. I'll save you some time, he hasn't. He talks a good game about "positive" political debates, but in the same speech he calls Bush a liar. /smirk

Ok just so we are clear. You dont think Karl Rove knew anything about the Swift Boats Against Kerry before they went public or in any way had a part in making resources availible to the creation?

JUST so we're clear Lleauaric..you didn't read either letter did you?

IF you had managed to do so, you MIGHT have noticed that the RNC letter to moveon.org was about campaign finance laws while the KERRY letter says the SVT ad is not true and contains thinly veiled threats to take action against stations who run them.

Hey, look! I can change fontsize too!

EVEN COLOR!

LOL

OOOOooOOOOOOOooOOOoOOOoOO
The only thing thats noticable here is that you are blinded by ideology.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/07/moveon.ads/

"As a broadcaster licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, you have a responsibility to the viewing public, and to your licensing agency, to refrain from complicity in any illegal activity," said the RNC's chief counsel, Jill Holtzman Vogel, in a letter sent to about 250 stations Friday.

"Now that you have been apprised of the law, to prevent further violations of federal law, we urge you to remove these advertisements from your station's broadcast rotation." Seems pretty threatening to me... more so than the DNC one.

Hey Crist0, Roves got some Kool-Aid for ya
http://www.pandagon.net/images/koolaid.jpg

The only thing thats noticable here is that you are blinded by ideology.
Excuse me?

Coming from someone who refuses to look at evidence when it is put right in front of their nose(as is obvious from your total ignorance of the material therein), that is sad.

I'd say funny but I've too much of your deteriorating antics lately to associate that word with you.

Some analysis (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231) of a new attack ad against Kerry featuring statements from Swift Boat Vets.

So from that we can conclude what most resonable people already concluded. This is a GOP attempt to cast doubt on the character of the canidate running against a man who has negligible character.

All comes down to this...no matter what Kerry served...unlike some who got daddy to get a cush assignment stateside, that he may or may not have shown up for.

Just for the record Thormir, none of them have recanted their statements. The Boston Globe reporter that says that one did, also wrote the autobiography for Kerry and has written 2 or 3 other books about his and Edward's campaign. The "recanter" has publically reaffirmed his statements to clear all that up. I linked to it above.

So anyway, one book against Kerry, and it's only damning because he chose to make 5 months of his life the foundation for his presidential nomination. Some of it could be cleared up if he released all of his military records. Other parts can't be cleared up because Kerry has given conflicting statements throughout his other 20 years of political life (imagine that.)

Did anyone really think Kerry, after accusing so many of his "brothers" of war atrocities, could run for president without some of this to come back and bite him on the ass? Come on...

http://www.fohguild.org/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=217711

/salute

Oh my bad, Kerry would NEVER use his "war experience" in a campaign. He actually has a platform of wholesome issues to talk about during a nomination convention.

Not.

/salute back

Wait, I'm confused. You uploaded a photo directly addressing "akipt" to the FoH boards, to post here?

Kerry's three purple hearts inside of 4 month stent tells me alot about a man..... that he is one clumbsy mother fucker....

Wait, I'm confused. You uploaded a photo directly addressing "akipt" to the FoH boards, to post here?
I dont have web storage. >shrug< just an end around. Email me your ftp or whatever if it bugs ya..

Thormir, I encourage you to actually go to and read the swift boat site.


It is very clear from the snopes link and your new one that you have not checked out the swiftie site either very minimally or not at all.

If you had, you would be able to identify the errors in your source material, such as the claims that none of the SVT served on his boat.


My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in '68 and '69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat

It's almost like you caught the Lleauaric disease and don't know how to follow links.

I encourage you to actually read through the swiftie site

I can't believe I actually have to tell you guys to look into what we're discussing, let alone tell you to look into it multiple times because you continue to fail to do so.

interesting read
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=KerryONeill

You know what is even MORE interesting?

If you had bothered to actually follow the link I provided in the first post and look into the topic being discussed, you would have found that exact transcript there.

Crazy huh?

You are right, I dont read half the stuff you post, because 99% of it is extemporaneous. You organize and present data poorly.
Blame yourself

Do you even know what extemporaneous means Lleauaric?

You don't read my links or posts because they are provided with no planning and are done as the argument progresses? What do you think, we all have scripts that we adhere to and prepare in advance?

You claim I present data poorly so you don't follow the links..

Just how do you present a link poorly?

I know I have some ideas of shoddy linking http://forums.ayonae.ro/showpost.php?p=68358&postcount=21 , but that applies more to being completely retarded and linking a bunch of unrelated crap that doesn't apply to any point you are trying to make.

Perhaps by poorly organized you mean like linking a page that you didn't investigate and proves the other person's point for them instead of what you were trying to argue?

http://forums.ayonae.ro/showpost.php?p=68318&postcount=62

Why don't you just admit that you don't research things even when spoonfed the material because you are either lazy or have some mental defect that leads you to believe you are omniscient?

Ok, try to follow along.

First, a couple quotes from Crist0

It is very clear from the snopes link and your new one that you have not checked out the swiftie site either very minimally or not at all.

If you had bothered to actually follow the link

That's to lay the base. Just so we know Crist0's stand.

This next one is important:
If you had, you would be able to identify the errors in your source material, such as the claims that none of the SVT served on his boat.
{ snipped Crist0 quoting Steve Gardner, but remember that name, there is a quiz later }


And, one more quote:
HAHAHAHA, now THIS is PRICELESS!

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesu.../unfit_pdf.html

Oh no, the DNC and Kerry say that SVT have every right to say what they want..then behind the scenes they try to strongarm stations into not airing their add.

PRICELESS!

It's the Kerry way!

Don't go the straight shooting route and take them to court, be sneaky about it and try to do things under the table!

Come on you Kerry backers, I want to see you try to talk out of this one!

Now, if we follow that link.......we find this quote:

The problem is that none of these men claimed to have served on Kerry's SWIFT Boat

The bold lettering is NOT my emphasis ( noted since everyone has gone a formatting spree ). It is the only thing in bold on the page that Crist0 linked.

Just for fun, one more quote. This one from L2
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...pr/kerry_mccain
{ yea, its a boring quote }

Down at the bottom of that link is this:
Hoffmann said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's.

That would be Admiral Hoffman. The guy that is leading SVT.

Why would you claim Thormir's sources were in error for backing up what both Admiral Hoffman said and a web page you linked? ( I'm sooo certain you read that link. Yes, I am. )

Now, on to SVT's, instead of your, credibility.

Most of the quotes on their page of the variety: I don't like Kerry because he protested the war once he returned stateside. Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

There are a couple actual damning accusations. First, Letson and his treatment of the wound that resulted in the first Purple Heart. Unfortunately, Letson isn't listed as the person that treated Kerry for that. He says Kerry's crewmates told him it was self-inflicted. Unfortunately, they don't remember talking to him. But, I'm sure that he remembers so clearly treating a minor wound 36 years ago even if the military documents don't show him actually treating it that we can trust him completely.

Second, the lying about getting his Bronze Star. Remember I said remember the name Steve Gardner? He was a gunnery mate on Kerry's swift boat and a member of SVT. First, yet another quote:
Among other things the gunnery mate from his swift boat says he lied to get his bronze star.
{ my emphasis there }

Again, we have one of those unfortunate facts getting in the way here. The gunnery mate that accuses Kerry of lying about the circumstances around his Bronze Star is named Van O'Dell and he did not serve on Kerry's boat. Furthermore, Van O'Dell's version is contradicted by Jim Rassmann, the Special Forces Lieutenant that he saved. Who had the better view, the guy that was being pulled out of the water, or the guy that was maybe 50 yards from the scene?

( I can only assume that Crist0 was confusing O'Dell and Gardner, since Gardner is the only former crewmate I can find on the SVT site ).

That leads me to something else. /cheer, more quotes from Crist0:
(in case you didn't know, most of his "band of brothers" did not actually serve with him on his swiftboat)

Kerry's complete "band of brothers" contains 13 swift boat veterans, and a lot of those never even served with him.

Now, a quote from the SVT site:
John Kerry has been able to convince about 13 men who served on Swift boats in the Mekong Delta to support him, 7 or 8 of whom were at various times crew members on his own 6-man boat

Let's say 7 for fun. That is more than 50%, I don't think you can apply adjectives of majority ( most and many ) to the other half. At least, not unless you are trying to mislead people. SVT has one crewmember, Kerry has seven ( or maybe 8! ).

So, how did I do? Do I read the links closely enough?

Fil

No, you didn't read the links closely enough.


Why would you claim Thormir's sources were in error for backing up what both Admiral Hoffman said and a web page you linked? ( I'm sooo certain you read that link. Yes, I am. )

INDEED!

You see..they didn't back up what he said, and the "web page I linked" was a letter from the DNC threatening tv stations to stop them from running the add.

Now..if you had....I don't know...read the first part of the letter you might have noticed the "We are counsel to the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry, respectively" bit. That was the entire point of linking it you see...to show Kerry in the open saying that SVT has a right to say what it wants, while sending in his legal team behind the scenes to bully stations into not airing their ad.

Furthermore *I* am correct in saying Thormir's sources have been erroneous..for instance snopes has taken down their swiftboat section that Thormir linked earlier because they were incorrect.




There are a couple actual damning accusations. First, Letson and his treatment of the wound that resulted in the first Purple Heart. Unfortunately, Letson isn't listed as the person that treated Kerry for that. He says Kerry's crewmates told him it was self-inflicted. Unfortunately, they don't remember talking to him. But, I'm sure that he remembers so clearly treating a minor wound 36 years ago even if the military documents don't show him actually treating it that we can trust him completely.

And...once again...if you read the swiftie site(if we were in EQ I would have hotkeyed this by now).


As an officer in command (OIC) in training, Kerry reported during this mission to William Schachte, who eventually retired as a Rear Admiral. Schachte flatly contradicts Kerry's claim to have been wounded by enemy fire, saying that after his M-16 jammed, Kerry picked up an M-79 grenade launcher and fired a grenade that exploded too close to the boat, causing a small piece of shrapnel to stick in the skin of his arm. Kerry himself did not report receiving hostile fire that night, which would have been required, and there is no record of hostile fire for the mission.

Schachte was the commander of the boat he was on - see attached letter..which also covers the doctor.


Who had the better view, the guy that was being pulled out of the water, or the guy that was maybe 50 yards from the scene?

Read the letter!


Dear Station Manager:


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

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

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

The Advertisement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(i) The Purple Heart Lie

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

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

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

(ii) The Bronze Star Lie

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

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

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

B. December 2, 1968 Purple Heart

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Christmas In Cambodia

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Exhibit 26.

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

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

D. War Crimes

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

Conclusion

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

Thank you for your kind consideration. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Original signed by John E. O'Neill

Posted in response to the DNC's letter that I linked earlier(Which I might as well post here since it wasn't read either):

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/DemsResponsetoVetsAd_800-1.gif

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/DemsResponsetoVetsAd_800-2.gif

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/DemsResponsetoVetsAd_800-3.gif

"Your station is responsible for the false and libelous statements made by this sponsor"

Oh, and as for the number not serving with him...when you get close to half of them..that's a lot of them.

INDEED!

You see..they didn't back up what he said, and the "web page I linked" was a letter from the DNC threatening tv stations to stop them from running the add.


Good God, man. Are you really this stupid?

If you had read the first part of the web page you linked, you might have noticed this
HUMAN EVENTS has obtained a copy of a letter

The part I quoted was from the web site, not the DNC letter.

Yes, Crist0. The people that agree with you said none of these men claimed to have served on Kerry's SWIFT Boat.

No mention of Admiral Hoffman's statement? I'm sure he only said it under duress from the DNC. Yea, that's the ticket!

I read that letter. The problem is zero source material. Where were these people 36 years ago? The only documentation they have are affidavits completed 36 years after the events took place. Most of their stories read like spins on the stories Kerry told in his book. So, were they really there and did they really see what they claim? We have Jim Rassmann, the guy who was pulled out of the water by Kerry. He claims they are wrong.

On one side we have people paid by the GOP backers, the other side is a guy rescued from a river in Vietnam.

Oh, and as for the number not serving with him...when you get close to half of them..that's a lot of them.

For purposes of this debate, we have two classes of people. Those that served with Kerry and those that served on his boat. You try to blur that line for your purposes.

The people that make up SVT are people that "served with Kerry" except for Steve Gardner who "served on Kerry's boat". For members of SVT, you relax the requirements. There, just serving with Kerry is good enough.

The "Band of Brothers" are made up mostly of people who "served on Kerry's boat" and then a few that only "served with Kerry" ( If you read the Swiftie site, you would know this ). But you keep trying to make it sound like they are people that never met Kerry? Why do you feel the need to be dishonest, if you have all these facts?

Not even going to reply to the fact that you flat out lied when you said "among other things the gunnery mate from his swift boat says he lied to get his bronze star"?

Fil

Not even going to reply to the fact that you flat out lied when you said "among other things the gunnery mate from his swift boat says he lied to get his bronze star"?
>snicker<

From the CBS Late Show...

Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11"

10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing

9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election

8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words

7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported

6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger

5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true

4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe

3. Where the hell was Spider-man?

2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth

1. I thought this was supposed to be about Dodgeball

I *did* address Hoffman's statement Filatil. Learn to read perhaps, then you can recheck my post.


The part I quoted was from the web site, not the DNC letter.

Now then, again..that reading thing..your entire point here is that none of the people in the ad served on the boat with Kerry.

You linked this statement of mine to claim I said otherwise:


If you had, you would be able to identify the errors in your source material, such as the claims that none of the SVT served on his boat.

WAIT A MINUTE!

That doesn't say anything about the ad, but SVT as a whole!

Therefor Admiral Hoffman is correct, that none of the people in the ad served on his boat, BUT the source information was incorrect in saying that none of the SVT(period, not just the ones in the ad) had served with him.

Do you understand the difference there or do I need to use smaller words?


Not even going to reply to the fact that you flat out lied when you said "among other things the gunnery mate from his swift boat says he lied to get his bronze star"?
Guess what, Gardner DOES say that Kerry lied..he just isn't the one saying it in the ad.

Guess I didn't lie, huh?


Where were these people 36 years ago?
Um...in his unit, stationed in the same place he was at, commanding boats alongside his, or even being his own commanding officer.

Are you saying they weren't there?

Even Kerry isn't saying that.


The "Band of Brothers" are made up mostly of people who "served on Kerry's boat" and then a few that only "served with Kerry" ( If you read the Swiftie site, you would know this ). But you keep trying to make it sound like they are people that never met Kerry?

Actually, his band of brothers contains people that served on his boat or in his unit, then you have the half or so that weren't..who simply served on swiftboats in the delta during Vietnam(not in his unit even).

By the way Lleauaric..there is already a thread about Moore's film..perhaps you should have posted Letterman's list there?

You know, just to keep it "organized".

Actually, if he were to prove these guys flat out wrong it would do nothing but good for that Presidential campaign. It would be a great political move if he were to show his detractors as not being truthful.

Hahahaha ... wonder if Sir Crist0's oppinion has changed in the past week. Turns out that after a good bit of research, all of these people who said that they have "served with John Kerry" means they were in Vietnam at the same time as him. So far Republicans and Democrats have proved this to be an utter lie, and has cost Bush the support of quite a few prominent and public Republicans.

References?

Christ Kelraz, HIS ENTIRE CHAIN OF COMMAND is in the group. Everyone who was ever his boss, the swift boat commanders who patrolled right along side him..it's pathetic that you even try to claim that Kelraz.

Ok Kelraz..if you can prove these people were not in his unit, on his boat, on the boats that patrolled with him, and were not his superior officers...let's see it.

I will publicly apologize here for misleading the community into believing people in the SVT served with Kerry.

Get to it.

How many more lies of John Kerry's are you guys going to ignore when you cast a vote for him?

Kerry on the floor of the Senate: "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared – seared – in me."

Boston Herald in 1979, Kerry said, "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

Nevermind that Nixon didn't take office until January of 1969...

But not a single officer above Kerry or anyone that served around him can substantiate his claims of being in Cambodia in 1968, or ever.

And he says as much in his diaries that he published:

"Visions of sugarplums really do dance through your head and you think of stockings and snow and roast chestnuts and fires with birch logs and all that is good and warm and real. It's Christmas Eve in Sa Dec."

Sa Dec is 55 miles from the Cambodian border in Vietnam.

Kerry has staked his candidacy on Vietnam. Edwards publicly invited the country to judge Kerry when he said, "If you have any questions about what John Kerry's made of, just spend three minutes with the men who served with him."

This isn't going away with a pack of lawyers making threats.

Sa Dec is 55 miles from the Cambodian border in Vietnam.
Boy.. thats a long way, thats like, crossing the Long Island Sound... and lord knows thats near impossible in a boat in one evening.

But not a single officer above Kerry or anyone that served around him can substantiate his claims of being in Cambodia in 1968, or ever.He steal a boat and do it himself?

Maybe he took a jet ski and Rambo'd shit up

Boston Herald in 1979, Kerry said, "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

Nevermind that Nixon didn't take office until January of 1969...

I can understand how this confuses you. Nixon, sometime between '69 and '79 said there were no troops in Viet Nam. John Kerry was in Viet Nam. John Kerry was an American soldier. What Kerry is reflecting on here, though the way in which it is said is convuluted is this : "The President said men weren't there, weren't dieing. I was there, I saw men dying." make more sense?

WAIT A MINUTE!

That doesn't say anything about the ad, but SVT as a whole!

Therefor Admiral Hoffman is correct, that none of the people in the ad served on his boat, BUT the source information was incorrect in saying that none of the SVT(period, not just the ones in the ad) had served with him.

Do you understand the difference there or do I need to use smaller words?

Finally, you make the distinction. At one point I didn't think you would ever do it. I never claimed you said otherwise, I claimed you falsely said Thormir's sources were erroneous even though they agreed with Adm Hoffman and the website you linked. Now, let's look at your quote about Thormir's sources one more time.

If you had, you would be able to identify the errors in your source material, such as the claims that none of the SVT served on his boat.

Thormir linked two items here. One a Snopes article, that we'll come back to in a sec, and an article from Factcheck.org. You claim that there are multiple errors in his source material, though you only name one: The claims that none of the SVT served on his boat ( would love to know what other errors there are ).

The Factcheck.org article doesn't make any such claim.

So, it must be in the Snopes article, right? The one you made this claim about:
*I* am correct in saying Thormir's sources have been erroneous..for instance snopes has taken down their swiftboat section that Thormir linked earlier because they were incorrect.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

From that article:
Although the men quoted above are often identified as "John Kerry's shipmates," only one of them, Steven Gardner, actually served under Lt. Kerry's command on a Swift boat. The other men who served under Kerry's command continue to speak positively of him:

Note that the article was last updated on July 30th. You started this thread on August 5th. Nothing has changed there.

Ok, so neither of Thormir's sources claim that "none of the SVT served on his boat". Since that was the only "error" you could produce and it doesn't actually exist, it must follow that the sources are error free.

This next one took me a bit of research. But I finally found an interview with Steve Gardner from 8/4 with Roger Hedgecock. Mr. Gardner definately believes Kerry lies ( even though his versions are disputed by every other living person that served on Kerry's boat ), but that wasn't your original statement nor was it what I called you on. Your original statement was "lied to get his bronze star".

Note the bronze star part, that's important.

In the interview, Mr. Gardner stated that he served under Kerry for 2 months and 2 weeks. That's important.

In the interview, Mr. Gardner states that he was with Kerry on Chrismtmas Day.

The bronze star was awarded for actions on March 13.

Dec 25 to March 13 is more than 2 months 2 weeks. That's if we assume that Gardner was attached to Kerry's boat on Dec 25. We don't have to assume though:

( paraphasing, audio here (http://www.rogerhedgecock.com/asheardontherogerhedgecockshow.html) )
Mr Hedgecock: So, were you on the boat ( when Rassmann was pulled from the water )?
Mr Gardner: No, no, no.

In the entire interview, Gardner makes a bunch of claims that his only support for is......his version. I couldn't find the SITREPs he claims to have anywhere. He says he'll give them to Hedgecock so he can post them, not there. Not on the Swift Vet website either. Hmmmm.

So, your claim that "his gunnery mate from his swift boat says he lied to get his bronze star" is refuted, since the guy wasn't even in country at the time.
I'll grudgingly give you that Gardner does claim he lied, if you give me that Gardner has absolutely no knowledge of the events in question. ( actually, you don't have to give me anything, I proved it. )


Where were these people 36 years ago?
Um...in his unit, stationed in the same place he was at, commanding boats alongside his, or even being his own commanding officer.

Are you saying they weren't there?

Even Kerry isn't saying that.

Poor choice of words on my part. What I meant was, why did they wait 36 years to come forward? Why didn't just one of them say something then? Oh, yea, they were too busy writing things like this:

In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several enemy KIA.
LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledge leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the Vietnames language and is intrumental in the successful Vietnamese training program.
During the period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal ( 2nd and 3rd awards ).

Capt. George Elliot

In looking for Gardner interviews, I also found this on billoreilly.com It didn't have what I was looking for ( Gardner's service dates ), but was interesting coming from a conservative like Bill O'Reilly.
The Factor pointed out that others who served with Kerry are defending his record, and concluded "there's no question John Kerry was a brave man."

No question.

Fil

Ah hell, just went poking around the Swift Vet site again. Hadn't noticed this before:
So far as we are able to determine, Kerry was the only Swift sailor ever to leave Vietnam without completing the standard one-year tour of duty

Repeat this phrase to yourself while listening to the Hedgecock interview.

Priceless.

Gardner only says his tour was abbrviated down to nine months, doesn't say why.

Fil

How about the book's Co-Author.. real peach this one.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1188258/posts

• Corsi on Muslims: "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together"
On Catholics and the Pope

CORSI: Maybe while he's there he can tell the UN what he's going to do about the sexual crimes committed by "priests" in his "Church" during his tenure. Or, maybe that's the connection -- boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press. (03/03/2003)

CORSI: So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the laywers rip the gold off the Vatican altars. We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that's probably about it.
On Chelsea Clinton

CORSI: According to Talk Magazine, Chubby Chelsea had a very great adventure on 9/11 in NYC and Hell-ary had the details wrong -- oh, it was terrible. (12/07/2001)

CORSI: Did the Journalist see Chubbie Chelsea among the wives. Little Katie Communist [Katie Couric] on the NBC Today show interviewed Hillary this morning and mom is worried sick about Chelsea. She was last seen in Kandahar at a Starbucks. But now, as Little Katie Communist sighed, "Who Knows?" Even British disinformation planted reports such as this grocery crap will be useful. Anyone with information about Chubbie Chelsea's whereabouts should post it now. Mom wants to know her daughter is out of harms way. Mom also wants to be at the center of the story. (11/29/2001)

CORSI: But the real question is: WHERE IS CHUBBIE CHELSEA? Is she in Kabul in danger, looking for a Starbucks? Waldo wants to know. Please, Little Katie Communist, HELP US FIND CHELSEA. THE SITUATION MAY BE URGENT. (11/29/2001)

CORSI: HILLARY SAYS CHELSEA IS MISSING AND JANET RHINO DOESN'T KNOW WHERE SHE IS? (11/28/2001)

Ok.. we are supposed to take this guy seriously? He is a racist, bigoted nutcase. And the co-author of this book which is being proven more and more every day to be a collection of lies.

hahahaha Little Katie Communist

Oh a small point about the bronze star allegations.
The Bronze star was awarded for pulling Rasmussen out of the water. Rasmussen testifies that HE initiated the push to get Kerry his medal and he WANTED him to get the Silver Star.

http://www.politicsus.com/011704fjk.htm

Mr. Gardner definately believes Kerry lies ( even though his versions are disputed by every other living person that served on Kerry's boat ),

And every member of multiple other swiftboats there that day say he lied. We know there were at least 3 other swiftboats(which of course was how they worked the river, in groups of 2 or more) on scene that day when it happened. 1 got hit with a mine, then you have Kerry who fled the scene, another boat that went to help the boat that hit a mine, and the last which went to pick up Rasmussen at the same time Kerry's did.


You claim that there are multiple errors in his source material

Yes:


Many of Kerry's Vietnam commanders and fellow officers also continue to speak positively of him

Incorrect.

All of his commanders from Vietnam are members of SVT. If you would look back..and..I don't know..read..some of the things I have posted from the SVT site(since the link clicking was too hard for some) you will note how reports are worded and how to interpret them. Out of his fellow officers in charge of other boats, the vast majority are also members of SVT. That's on their site too.


The other men who served under Kerry's command continue to speak positively of him:

Incorrect.

The other men who served have not all come forward to speak positively of him, only the 7 or 8 that are in his band of brothers.


How well all of these men knew John Kerry is questionable

Incorrect.

It is very easy to see how well they knew him. You have officers who were directly in charge of him. You have officers in charge of boats that worked with him day in and day out on the river. You have the officers who trained him.

Now, as for FactCheck.org ...it is incorrect on a few things as well.

First and foremost, it says Republican funded group in the headline ...they are not funded by the Republican party.

Next, it incorrectly states the circumstances required to be elligible for a purple heart


In any case, even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a purple heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment


The actual circumstances this refers to:


Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment.


In other words...not in the heat of battle...no purple heart for getting hit with shrapnel from your own grenade again.


In his affidavit, Letson says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted and does not merit a purple heart. But that's based on hearsay


Incorrect, Letson was actually there which is provable as he was the only medical officer stationed where Kerry was at that time - corpsmen do not count as medical officers.


Note that the article was last updated on July 30th. You started this thread on August 5th. Nothing has changed there

Really?

Go to the first page and click on Thormir's link.

If as you say nothing has changed there..it will work..right?

Now, for your quote


So far as we are able to determine, Kerry was the only Swift sailor ever to leave Vietnam without completing the standard one-year tour of duty

Wouldn't it be great if you could read the post before you respond?

Better yet, if you could quote material within its context instead of intentionally misrepresenting it?

The very first post of this thread.


So far as we are able to determine, Kerry was the only Swift sailor ever to leave Vietnam without completing the standard one-year tour of duty, other than those who were seriously wounded or killed.
It sure is funny how much the meaning of that statement changes when you actually put it into context, no?


Repeat this phrase to yourself while listening to the Hedgecock interview.

Priceless.

Gardner only says his tour was abbrviated down to nine months, doesn't say why.
I don't need to repeat it... see when you put forward the entire statement it's pretty easy to guess that he was seriously wounded and sent home early.

Now, for Lleauaric's little tangent.


And the co-author of this book which is being proven more and more every day to be a collection of lies.
Where?

By Whom?

Link it.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0895260174.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


A co-author of the anti-Kerry screed, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, is a religious bigot, hatemonger and gay basher who says Islam should be eliminated, calls Senator Hillary Clinton a “lesbo” and says “Ragheads are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters.”

“Islam is like a virus,” writes Jerome Corsi who – with longtime GOP operative John O’Neill wrote the book as part of a project financed by Texas Republican contributors with strong ties to President George W. Bush.

“It (Islam) affects the mind,” Corsi writes. “Maybe even better as an analogy, it is a cancer that destroys the body it infects. No doctor would hesitate to eliminate cancer cells from the body.”

Corsi posted these comments on the FreeRepublic.com web site on November 26, 2002. He is a regular contributor to the right-wing website, posting under the screen handle of “jrlc” since 2001.

A frequent gay basher, Corsi on November 18, 2001, posted: “Isn’t the Democratic Party the official SODOMIZER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION of AMERICA?” (The capital letters are his)

He reserves the same hatred towards Catholics: “So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the lawyers rip the gold off the Vatican alters. We may get one more Pope, when this senile old one dies, but that’s probably about it.” (Posted on December 16, 2002).

Corsi refers to Democratic Nominee John Kerry as “John F*ing Kerry” and said on February 2, 2004 that “John F*ing Commie Kerry and Commie Ted (Kennedy) discuss their plan to hand America over to our nation’s enemies.”

His religious bigotry extends to Judiasm with this March 4, 2004, post: “After he married TeRAHsa, didn’t John Kerry being practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?”

Besides John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Arabs, Muslims, Catholics and Jews, Corsi also hates Bill and Hillary Clinton. A sampling:

“HELL-ary loves the Arabs so much (kiss, kiss Mrs. Arab*RAT) – wonder how she would look in a Burka?” (Posted on May 21, 2002).

“When is this guy (Bill Clinton) going to admit he’s simply an anti-American communist? Won’t he and his leftist wife simply go away?” (Posted February 24, 2002).

“Let the FAT HOG run!!!” (A reference to a possible Presidential run by Senator Clinton posted on August 30, 2003).

“Anybody ask why HELLary couldn’t keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not a lesbo or anything is she?” (Posted on June 8, 2003).

Corsi admitted on FreeRepublic.com on March 19 of this year that he was “jrlc” adding that “the VVAW and John Kerry are a field of interest to me. In 1972, I published an extensive study of the political protest around the 1972 Democratic and Republican National Conventions in Miami Beach, protests in which the VVAW was actively involved (the work was published at the Lemberg Center for the Study of Violence, Brandeis University, 1974). Jerome R. Corsi, jrlc on Free Republic. I'll be happy to clarify any other questions you might have.”

Jerome Corsi has a PhD in political science from Harvard (1972), has written books on various subjects and is vice president and senior editor of U.S. Financial Marketing Group. He is also a contributor to wintersoldier.com, where he writes about John Kerry’s antiwar activities after coming home from Vietnam.

Reputable historians like Douglas Brinkley, author of the highly-acclaimed Tour of Duty, have noted about Corsi’s book, Unfit for Command, plays fast and loose with the facts when it comes to John Kerry. Corsi claims the Senator’s work as an antiwar activist were treasonous and claimed “Kerry and VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) consistently coordinated their efforts with communists.”

Recently declassified FBI files show the bureau had VVAW under surveillance, as they did with many antiwar activists, but the files say agents could not find “any evidence of any affiliation or coordination with Communist elements known to be operating in the country.”

In 1971, Corsi claimed Kerry proclaimed “Communists were right in maintaining that American values were corrupt and the only solution was for America to capitulate so Communism could continue to spread.”

Yet that same year, on December 12, Kerry was quoted in the Boston Globe as saying “I don’t like Communists. In fact, I hate them. I hate all totalitarians. I’m totally dedicated to representative, pluralistic, free democracy.”

“These are malicious fabrications in the heat of the election,” says Douglas Brinkley of the claims in Unfit for Command, adding that what Corsi and his co-author have written are nothing more than the grumbling of “malcontents who have never forgiven Kerry for his actions in speaking out against the war.”

Few outside Corsi's narrow conservative Republican view escape his verbal assaults. He says initials for the news network MSNBC stand for “More Shit, Nothing But Communism.” (Posted on FreeRepublic.com on May 16, 2002), NBC Today Show host Katie Couric is “Little Katie Communist of NBC (which Corsi says stands for Nothing But Communism).”

Celebrities are also a favorite target. On Martina Navratilova, Corsi posted on June 26, 2002: “Perfect Liberal – lesbian, self-absorbed, hates America, anxious to impose her values on everybody else.”

And this on June 7, 2003: “Too bad the plane didn’t crash into the TV set of the NBC show ‘The Left Wing” – especially when Martin Sheen was acting.”

(Our thanks to Media Matters for America for alerting us to this information along with readers who asked us to look into the opinions of Jerome Corsi because they said they were fed up with the tactics being used by Republicans and web sites like Free Republic.)

© Copyright 2004 Capitol Hill Blue

John Kerry volunteered for the Navy, for Vietnam, and for swift boat duty.
The U.S. Navy awarded John Kerry the Silver Star, the Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts.
John McCain called the attacks by Swift Boat Veterans for Bush "dishonest and dishonorable," and he called on George Bush to condemn the ad. George Bush has refused to do so. What is taking him so long? Why won't George Bush condemn these ads?
The crewmates who served with John Kerry stand with him.
Swift Boat Veterans for Bush did not serve with John Kerry in Vietnam; John O'Neill, the author of the book of lies and distortions, never laid eyes on John Kerry in Vietnam.
Kerry's crewmates said of this ad: "These assertions are garbage; these people weren't there with John Kerry. If he hadn't made the right command decisions, in my opinion, we would be some of the names on that wall." -Crewmate PCF 94, Gene Thorson, in response to assertions that Kerry acted poorly in combat.
"That's a pure fabrication...the fire was strong enough to knock out Tommy Belodeau's machine gun...I was in the middle of the firefight." -Jim Rassmann, Special Forces Officer saved by John Kerry, in response to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth assertion that there was no enemy fire on the day that Rassmann was rescued by Lt. Kerry.
"It was a hellacious firefight, I don't know how these guys could stretch the truth like this" -Senior enlisted man PCF 94 Del Sandusky in response to the same assertion.
Some of the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush were in John's chain of command and wrote glowing Fitness Reports on him; George Elliott: "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed...LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group." (fitness report of John Kerry, by LTCMDR George Elliott, 18 Dec 1969.)
These attacks on John Kerry are part of a Bush smear campaign against John Kerry; they are financed by Bob Perry, a Texas Republican friend of Karl Rove, and are organized and promoted by a Republican communications firm, Spaeth Communications.
By the mid-nineties, Rove had got himself into a highly unusual position for a political consultant-functioning more in the manner of an old-fashioned political boss than of a for-hire member of the service sector. Rather than his pitching candidates for their business, candidates pitched him for his commitment. The key to his power was that he had a particularly solid connection to the money side of politics. He carefully cultivated Texas's biggest Republican donors, people like Peter O'Donnell and Louis Beecher, in Dallas, and Bob Perry and Kenneth Lay (before the fall of Enron), in Houston; they saw him as someone whose clients usually won, and made their decisions about whether or not to invest in a candidate partly on the basis of Rove's decision whether or not to work for the campaign. http://bnfp.org/neighborhood/Lemann_Rove_NYM.htm


This (Swift Boat Vets for Truth) group has a couple big financial backers from Texas, who are not mentioned on the website. Their political donations for 2002 in Texas are noted below. They are also donors at the national level to republicans.

Registered as a “527″ organization with the Internal Revenue Service, the “Swift Boat Veterans” group can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money for campaign activities, but is prohibited from working directly with the Bush campaign or the Republican Party.

http://membership.publicintegrity.org/527/docs/9558357.pdf

This group has $158,000.

$100,000 from Bob Perry he is from Texas

Bob Perry donated $2,983,500 in fiscal year 2002 in Texas, 96,4% to republicans
As far as I can tell he did not serve in the military, he is not mentioned on the website

http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/contributor.phtml?si=200243&d=562077

But hey, its business as usual for this bunch of liars.
Ann Coulter on Max Cleland
Cleland wore the uniform, he was in Vietnam, and he has shown courage by going on to lead a productive life. But he didn't "give his limbs for his country," or leave them "on the battlefield." There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight. That could have happened in the Texas National Guard – which Cleland denigrates while demanding his own sanctification.
Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=42979
nice!

Karl Rove's Star Witness, Ted Sampley

Last night, we told you about Karl Rove's new attack on John Kerry, which in a nutshell goes like this: some right wing nuts found a photo of an out of focus John Kerry sitting about ten feet away from Jane Fonda two years before her trip to Hanoi; therefore decorated war hero John Kerry was actually a sympathizer of the Viet Cong.

In their story "breaking" the "news" that this photo is enraging veterans, the Washington Times relies heavily on Ted Sampley, whom they identify as a Kerry opponent and the publisher of the U.S. Veterans Dispatch. So how about a little background on Sampley?

Well, put simply, Ted Sampley is a loon...and a stooge for Karl Rove. During the 2000 Presidential campaign, he alleged that John McCain had been brainwashed by the VC while he was a POW. He also suggested McCain was a spy for the KGB. And now his website has doctored photo of Kerry testifying before Congress to include a VC flag flying in the background. And he has a long and documented history of manipulating the POW/MIA cause for his personal financial gain.

I suppose you could say it's fair to judge your political opponents by their friends. And if Ted Sampley is the type of person Karl Rove is going to rely on to win this campaign, well, he's going to lose...and badly. http://www.usvetdsp.com/mccainpg.htm

Like the right-wing veterans now seeking to turn Kerry's distinguished Navy service against him, McCain's faceless enemies in South Carolina twisted his heroism as a Vietnam prison-of-war to tar his reputation. Bush had the gall to stand up at a rally with Ted Sampley (http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=16830), the vicious pamphleteer who denounced McCain as a "traitor" and a "Manchurian candidate." The whispering campaign said that McCain had been found "mentally unstable" after his release from the North Vietnamese prison camp. As McCain asserted in a CNN debate, Sampley had launched other nasty smears against Bush's own father years before. "You should be ashamed," scolded McCain. But Bush, who had urged his campaign team to go heavily negative, showed no signs of remorse. http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=16830

I guess when your client is a coward, the natural thing to do is to try to bring down everyone else to his level. Grats Karl Rove on being the biggest scumbag in America

http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/vietnam.htm

Swift Boat Veterans for Bush did not serve with John Kerry in Vietnam; John O'Neill, the author of the book of lies and distortions, never laid eyes on John Kerry in Vietnam.


?

Even Kerry does not dispute that they were there with him in his unit.


But hey, its business as usual for this bunch of liars.
Uh..again..prove it?

Right now it's 250+ versus 13..against Kerry..that he misrepresents his war record.

It's already been definatively proven that he lied before Congress by saying he was in Cambodia for Christmas in 1968. That is illegal, in case you did not know.

So here we have a guy who has already without a doubt broken federal law(even if you wish to throw out all of the rest)..and there's nothing wrong with that. Nevermind the fact that you have stomped up and down about Bush lying to Congress when it turned out not to be a lie at all but poor info...when it's Kerry and he is caught in a boldfaced out and out lie..who cares.

BTW, these boats patrolled in groups of 6(if you'd been keeping up with this issue they've had guests from both sides on quite a few prime time news shows from CNN to MSNBC to FOX). That means in each of these accounts, excepting the training mission and his first purple heart...there were 5 other boats working with him.

I'm curious what's been found about Corsi..aside from his postings on a political messageboard(which he claims to be unPC humor)..I haven't been able to find out much of anything except that he evidently has a PhD and is an expert on the anti-war effort during Vietnam.

Likewise, I haven't read the book...but it is the number 1 book at Amazon atm(Clinton's book is 15th for example, and Kerry's Tour of Duty is ranked 4,146-no, that isn't a typo)...alot of interest.

I'm going to take it as a given that Lleauric hasn't, since it doesn't have enough pictures...but has anyone else read the book?

Even Kerry does not dispute that they were there with him in his unit. Who? Who served with Kerry, On his boat, with him, The more telling stat would "one of out fourteen".
Who took fire with him? The focus of the book is that he is a coward, he invented the situations to get himself medals. This has been proven false over and over and over again. The SOLE basis of this is the testimony of ONE man. Bitter enough to call Kerry a "traitor". Thats where he is coming from, anger. That fuels and colors this man.
The Rasmussen example illustrates this fact perfectly. The book says the situation occured in a safe zone where only a land mine went off. This has been proven to be a lie. The best source of info are people on other boats. Great. 5ft? 10ft? 50yards? 100yards? all of the above, at different times at different speeds, while under enemy fire, with the massive firepower pouring out of these boats creating a scene of chaos and confusion.
Im sorry, the best source is people specifically on his boat.
Here is a good source of information that cuts both sides equally.
http://www.spinsanity.org/

Likewise, I haven't read the book...but it is the number 1 book at Amazon atm(Clinton's book is 15th for example, and Kerry's Tour of Duty is ranked 4,146-no, that isn't a typo)...alot of interest. Before crowing about book sales numbers.. read this
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=57&aid=52208
I find it funny that people are SPECIFICALLY told to look at the amazon.com site. NYT and other sources are I guess invalid.
But it seems it would do "well" no matter what, Relentlessly hawked by the self proclaimed non existant conservative "news" sources. (FNC, Rush, Hannity, Vultur.. I mean Coulture, ect, ect...) I just think the numbers are inflated from bulk book buys, and its a tool both sides use btw. Its an example of unregulated soft money. I would bet a ton of money that if the criteria on Amazon was "Individual" buyers rather than total book sales, the list would look very different and most of these political books would never crack the top 10.

250+ versus 13 250 what? People who werent ever even around Kerry. People who are still angry and enraged at him coming home and protesting. People whos anger is coloring their views.
250 is a dishonest number in and of itself.

And what else do you need to know about Corsi. His "humor" is level with that of a Klan member. The most disturbing thing to me, was the outloud wondering if Kerry was a Jew. WTF was that? In the context of his writing it was at best inappropriate, at worst, disturbing.
The hate and venom in his posts are obvious and it shows the quality of the mans character, the spirit of the book, and the place where it comes from.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010

It's already been definatively proven that he lied before Congress by saying he was in Cambodia for Christmas in 1968. That is illegal, in case you did not know. Has it? 55 Miles from the border... obviously conducting operations in relation to Cambodia at the time
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/i/t.gif http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/i/t.gif
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/images/box_up_l.gif http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/images/box_up_r.gif http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/i/t.gif
Kerry's confusion over Cambodia
By David Rennie in Washington
(Filed: 13/08/2004)


The biographer of John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, said yesterday there was no basis for one of the senator's favourite Vietnam War anecdotes (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=3B0KYZCMLSSW3QFIQMGSM54AVCBQW JVC?xml=/news/2004/08/12/wus12.xml) - that he spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia, a neutral nation which US leaders vowed was off limits for American forces.

John Kerry catches a baseball at Long Beach Airport "On Christmas Eve he was near Cambodia; he was around 50 miles from the Cambodian border. There's no indictment of Kerry to be made, but he was mistaken about Christmas in Cambodia," said Douglas Brinkley, who has unique access to the candidate's wartime journals.

But Mr Brinkley rejected accusations that the senator had never been to Cambodia, insisting he was telling the truth about running undisclosed "black" missions there at the height of the war.

He said: "Kerry went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. He had a run dropping off US Navy Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys." The missions were not armed attacks on Cambodia, said Mr Brinkley, who did not include the clandestine missions in his wartime biography of Mr Kerry, Tour of Duty.

"He was a ferry master, a drop-off guy, but it was dangerous as hell. Kerry carries a hat he was given by one CIA operative. In a part of his journals which I didn't use he writes about discussions with CIA guys he was dropping off." Christmas Eve? Ok, maybe not? Dec 26? Probably.. December 23? Probably..



"I was on that boat with him that Christmas, and we were not anywhere near Cambodia," says Steven Gardner, who served as Kerry's gunner's mate on PCF-44 (patrol craft fast) and who is now a member of SBVT. PCF-44 was based in Cam Ranh Bay, a good distance from the Cambodian border. "He didn't have the balls to do that and break international law, let alone do what we were supposed to half the time.

"You have to put yourself in perspective with this. To have taken our boat and gone up into Cambodian waters would have been suicidal for Mr. Kerry because they would have put him in prison so fast for breaking international law that it was unreal, because there were no black ops, nothing like that with our boats. We'd take our guys and drop them into VC territory, of course, but nothing like what you hear these guys talking garbage about."

Jim Wasser disagrees. He was a radarman who was second in command under Kerry on PCF-44 and is now affiliated with his campaign as part of Veterans for Kerry. Wasser, who now lives in Illinois, says that it would be unusual for an enlisted gunner's mate to specifically know the boat's position at any given time.

"I had to go on [Fox News show] Hannity & Colmes with him, and even though he's wrong, and I truly believe that, he's my brother, and veterans should never say anything about each other," Wasser says of Gardner. "[Swift Boat Veterans for Truth] say they're about the truth; that's a falsehood.

"On Christmas in 1968, we were close [to Cambodia]. I don't know exactly where we were. I didn't have the chart. It was easy to get turned around with all the rivers around there. But I'll say this: We were the farthest inland that night. I know that for sure."

I still remember the Simpson's episode where the aliens disguised themselves as both of the Presidential candidates. LOL, the people were enslaved by their own Bi Partisan system. I mean, if you have two crappy leaders, you still have to vote for one of them.

Ye do need more parties. With Beer. and Chicks. and and and..... greased up Gnomes Dammit!
.
.
.
.
.
.
Where was I? :confused:

So you are maintaining that he was in Cambodia?


Wasser, who now lives in Illinois, says that it would be unusual for an enlisted gunner's mate to specifically know the boat's position at any given time.

Do you suppose he would have noticed if they went past the Marine PBRs guarding the border to Cambodia?


The SOLE basis of this is the testimony of ONE man.

Er...not quite.

What was the phrase?


Keep telling yourself that.. eventually even you will believe it

Hmmm..

During Christmas 1968, Kerry was stationed at Coastal Division 13 in Cat Lo. Coastal Division 13’s patrol areas extended to Sa Dec, about fifty-five miles from the Cambodian border. Areas closer than fifty-five miles to the Cambodian border in the area of the Mekong River were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and not by Swift Boats. Preventing border crossings was considered so important at the time that an LCU (a large, mechanized landing craft) and several PBRs were stationed to ensure that no one could cross the border.


A large sign at the border prohibited entry. Tom Anderson, Commander of River Division 531, who was in charge of the PBRs, confirmed that there were no Swifts anywhere in the area and that they would have been stopped had they appeared. All the living commanders in Kerry’s chain of command—Joe Streuhli (Commander of CosDiv 13), George Elliott (Commander of CosDiv 11), Adrian Lonsdale (Captain, USCG and Commander, Coastal Surveillance Center at An Thoi), Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann (Commander, Coastal Surveillance Force Vietnam, CTF 115), and Rear Admiral Art Price (Commander of River Patrol Force, CTF 116)—deny that Kerry was ever ordered to Cambodia. They indicate that Kerry would have been seriously disciplined or court-martialed had he gone there. At least three of the five crewmen on Kerry’s PCF 44 boat—Bill Zaldonis, Steven Hatch, and Steve Gardner—deny that they or their boat were ever in Cambodia. The remaining two crewmen declined to be interviewed for this book. Gardner, in particular, will never forget those days in late December when he was wounded on PCF 44, not in Cambodia, but many miles away in Vietnam.

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


Wow..so there you have definitive proof he was never there, supported not only by SVT but the commander of the Marine unit in charge of that section of the river and guarding the border. Oh, and notice how 3 members of his very own crew say they were never there?

Also, it tells you why Gardner left, Filatil.

http://www.swiftvets.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Christmas

Christmas Eve? Ok, maybe not? Dec 26? Probably.. December 23? Probably..Kerry's own spin on this now is that he didn't enter Cambodia until mid- January now. He won't address the issue himself but his people have stated this. I have heard reports that if he would release his own after action reports from the period... which he will not... they would prove that he in fact never did enter Cambodia. All members of SBVFT have signed an affidavit stating that they never entered Cambodia and that there were in fact Naval gunboats guarding the border on the Mekong to assure that their boats did not accidentally enter Cambodia.

Whats interesting about his Christmas in Cambodia story is that he has used it repeatedly yet at least 3 of the facts are incorrect. Nixon was not President at the time, the Khmer Rouge only had about 2000 members at the time and they were not fighting on the border (they didn't really begin to gain strength until after 1970,) and ... he was not there. Yet in his story he claims a very vivid memory of being in Cambodia, hearing Nixon claim he was not in Cambodia, and being shot at by the Khmer Rouge. He not only claims it was a vivid memory, but he claims it was the single biggest turning point in his life.

I'm not sure why you think since he was 55 miles away it must be true that he was in Cambodia the day before or after LL. He may or may not have been in Cambodia in mid January as his spin doctors now quietly claim as if it makes no difference, but it is clear that he lied about being there at Christmas. Either the story about the biggest turning point in his life is a fabrication, or his memory of the biggest turning point in his life is conveniently flawed.

Bitter enough to call Kerry a "traitor". Just as Kerry was either bitter or ambitious enough to come back from Viet Nam and call his fellow soldiers murderers, rapists, etc. Just because he has a strong feeling about Kerry doesn't mean he's wrong. I haven't 100 percent read this thread since I was gone for a few pages of it. Has it been proven wrong that Kerry's first purple heart was awarded despite the fact that the medic would not treat such a minor wound, his commanding officer refused Kerry's demand that he apply for him, and in the absence of any enemy fire? Has it been proven wrong that of the dozens of swift boat veterans who won 3 purple hearts, Kerry is the only one to use it to opt out of his service... after only 4 months?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/08/10/do1002.xml

I think this is a pretty good piece to sum it up. Notice his own crewmates say they were not in Cambodia, and his own book says he was 55 miles away with "visions of sugarplums." Oops.


On top of that, Rassman, has two different stories about the incident in which he was pulled out of the water by Kerry, including... stating once he was on the boat that was disabled by a mine, and later claiming he was on Kerry's boat. All the other boats in the task force claim that there was no hostile fire other than the mine, and that while they were aiding the disabled boat, Kerry's boat disappeared, fleeing the scene. Several minutes later Kerry's boat returned and managed to pluck one of the several sailors out of the water. The SBVFT consensus is that Rassman was on Kerry's boat and fell off as Kerry fled the scene. Kerry says that they were taking heavy fire for 3 miles, yes 3 miles, as he rushed back to the scene... which the other boats never left, to dramatically rescue this guy that had fallen off his boat.

Kerry's crew members who are supporting him... might be doing so because he used the same influence which got him his medals to get them all transfers to duty away from combat before he left.

Edward's himself said just listen to those who served with Kerry. Well the majority say he's unfit to command.
http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/images/cartoons/CollideLg.JPG

I need my own personal biographer, able to go back and rewrite as the story (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40006)'s retelling changes over time as needed...

A previously unnoticed passage in John Kerry's approved war biography, citing his own journals, appears to contradict the senator's claim he won his first Purple Heart as a result of an injury sustained under enemy fire.
Kerry, who served as commander of a Navy swift boat, has insisted he was wounded by enemy fire Dec. 2, 1968, when he and two other men took a smaller vessel, a Boston Whaler, on a patrol north of his base at Cam Ranh Bay.

But Douglas Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," for which Kerry supplied his journals and letters, indicates that as Kerry set out on a subsequent mission, he had not yet been under enemy fire.

While the date of the four-day excursion on PCF-44 [Patrol Craft Fast] is not specified, Brinkley notes it commenced when Kerry "had just turned 25, on Dec. 11, 1968," which was nine days after the incident in which he claimed he had been wounded by enemy fire.
You can't just blow this off now, because he's already had to go back and rewrite his SEARED MEMORIES "in" Cambodia. This is what happens when you weave a web of lies so thick you can't keep track of them all.

Heh.
keep talking it up. Its been successfully painted as partisan and enough doubt cast on it that its going to change nobodys vote. In actuality, its starting to hurt Bush in focus groups from the reports Ive read. This entire campaign has been about John Kerry. Its like Bush is hiding and is concelling his record.
Why cant the President run on his record? He is the incumbant.
He is stalling till the convention in an effort to buy time and use this phony swift boat nonsense in order to distract from himself. 60 million in ALL negative ads this week. >sniff< smell that? its called desperation.
Chimpy Mcflightsuit is going to be looking for another job to suck at in November.

Actually L2 it's having a decided effect on undecided voters. They are discussing it on FoxNews atm as we speak.

I realize you love ringing folks bells and getting them to think by playing devils advocate and all.

But in this perhaps you might have stepped off too far onto the ledge. Kerry is a lying no good sob who no Vet ( myself included) would consider following.

He lied about his time in service, he then attacked his time in service, caught lying about his time in service and hell was absent during a majority of last year from the Senate.

Say no to Kerry, we don't need another Carter in the White House...

Fandros

Why cant the President run on his record?So if we question a voting record, it's really questioning his patriotism. If we question a story that is SEARED into his memory, it's a negative attack even though story after story is coming out that his whole career is one big lie and another.

If the press DID ITS JOB and reported this stuff fairly and equally about all candidates on both sides, we'd have a completely different (and more positive!) presidential election now. But instead, you cheer on the sidelines when the press pummels Bush every minute of every day to release his military records just on some rumor that he was AWOL. He released his records, done. Everything cleared up except for the tin-hat moonbat whackjobs.

Now if only the press would do that for Kerry... but they won't because they want to see Bush defeated. So a group stands up to do the press' job and you bitch about who's funding them. Get a fucking clue. It's not about who's funding who, it's the truth that matters. Or does it? I don't think to you it does anymore. You'll just attack the messenger when its something against your boy. Damn the truth to hell! I want Kerry elected NO MATTER WHAT.

Sorry fucking state of mind man.

Kerry should release his military records and line by line, refute everything these Swift Vets are claiming. He could if truth was on his side. And fairly quickly too, it's a real short book (150 pages?)

But he won't because you people are oblivious to the train wreck that you're cheering for.

Its been successfully painted as partisan and enough doubt cast on it that its going to change nobodys vote.

Independent study says you are very wrong:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129287,00.html


The ad planted doubts in the minds of 27 percent of independent voters who planned to vote for Kerry or leaned pro-Kerry. After seeing it, they were no longer sure they'd back him, the study found.

An even better vote of confidence:


The Democrat's team yesterday held a press conference of pro-Kerry vets, but none of his crewmates was able to validate his Christmas-in-Cambodia claim.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

First clue... Fox News.
Second Clue... HCD research http://www.hcdpoliticalconsultant.com/who.htm
As Chairman of the Suffolk County (NY) Republican Party
(a County of 1.4 million people), Mr. DeMartini accomplished the unthinkable — he engineered the defeat of three Democrat incumbents — County Executive Pat Halpin, Congressman Tom Downey (NY-2) and Congressman George Hochbruckner (NY-1) in just three years.
Third Clue.. Professor Chris Borrick of Muhlenberg College, who did the ad study with the firm HCD Research. Ya.. right.. independant.. Go Go Fox News!


Thats too funny... really.. thanks for the laugh this afternoon. I needed that. Heres a little tip for ya. FOX news tells conservatives what they want to hear. They seek out stories that appeal to their viewer base. Actual news has VERY little to do with it. Might as well start linking stories from Al-Jezeera about the middle east

That's right LL, ignore polls. Talk about the scent of desparation....

Im not ignoring them Furt, Im just find out who conducted them

Gallop/USA today dont favor Kerry.. I trust them. Some backwater poll from an obscure college that is run by a Republican party chairman seems to me to be a tad suspicious... It isnt to you? But Id bet dollars to pennies that it would if I replaced the word Democratic in there.

That is hypocrisy you smell Furt.. and its coming from you.

Can you feel yourself getting dumber Lleauaric?

HCD/MCIPO(the people who did the study):


Headquartered in Flemington, New Jersey, HCD Research is a pioneer in Internet health care marketing and advertising research. Headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania, MCIPO is a respected source of public opinion data on local, state and national issues.

HCD is NOT Howard C. DeMartini, political consultant.

Aren't you the guy who said "Simply doing a WebQuest and regurgitating the information you find is fine for grade schoolers, but I assumed the debate here was on higher level than that of 10th graders."?

Can you feel yourself getting dumber Lleauaric?
Yep.. Im wrong.
Feel good?

No better than usual, thanks for asking though.

Even when you are wrong it's not easy to say it. GJ I say. You should give Halo a seminar.


Kerry is running ads on radio in Seattle which curiously accents his support for the Patriot Act. It seems strange to me since the general liberal consensus is that the Patriot Act is a travesty to personal freedom, and Seattle is a liberal bastion... I still can't understand the strategy there. I can only assume since the rest of the ad talks about the Department of Homeland Security, that he's running the ad in all major cities who feel they are in the crosshairs of a 9/11 type attack in order to appear strong on terrorism.

So you may ask: “Why is Vietnam service even an issue?” Good question. The following is from the Congressional Record, February of 1992, one day after Democrat Sen. Bob Kerrey, criticized Bill Clinton's lack of military service: (http://www.politicallyright.com/article172.htm)

Mr. President, I also rise today -- and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity -- to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.

What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.

What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.

What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a Presidential primary.


All Kerry is doing right now is trying to come in line with Bush's strength on defense, even though his voting record has been completely the opposite, hoping that people won't catch on. It's working for him so far. It's somehow hilarious to me that Kerry uses the picture of him with his "band of brother" even though only one of them supports him, yet the left defends him against what that "band of brothers" says by saying... oh but they weren't in the boat with him. I heard one of them talking about Kerry's "war footage" today. He mentioned that he remembers when Kerry was filming the stuff and they were all laughing at him, but just thinking it was stupid and childish, but oh well he's just goofy. He says the funniest part about it is that if you look at it, the bandolier he's wearing has ammo that doesn't even work with his rifle, and there's no clip in the gun. He says he was in that command for over 18 months and Kerry was the only one he ever knew to do something like that. He also says that its funny the story that Kerry has about inserting special forces guys into Cambodia on his boat, because it's so similar to the Apocalypse now story... and that among swift boat guys, the Apocalypse now story is a kind of joke because you would never ever insert special forces in that way. The rivers were heavily monitored by the VC, and trying to penetrate deep into enemy territory that way on the river would be suicide.

An interesting article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13267-2004Aug18?language=printer) about one of Kerry's SBVT critics. Highlights:

In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. A document recommending Thurlow for the Bronze Star noted that all his actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire which LTJG THURLOW completely ignored in providing immediate assistance" to the disabled boat and its crew. The citation states that all other units in the flotilla also came under fire. Now, the article does state Thurlow's contention that Kerry wrote the after-action report, Kerry's denial of that contention, and the lack of documents that can provide a conclusive answer either way. But it seems strange that this wouldn't have been addressed 30+ years ago when the citations and medals were awarded.

As an aside, it's ironic (well, hypocritical really) that Thurlow refused to release his military records because he "feared attempts by the Kerry campaign to discredit him and other anti-Kerry veterans."

FOX news tells conservatives what they want to hear. Apparently, tells liberals what they want to hear as well:

CABLE NEWS RACE
WED, AUG 18, 2004

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 1.5 [RATING]
FOXNEWS HANNITY/COLMES 1.5
FOXNEWS GRETA 1.3
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 1.2
FOXNEWS BRIT HUME 1.1
CNN LARRY KING 0.8
MSNBC HARDBALL 0.7
CNN PAULA ZAHN 0.6
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 0.4
MSNBC NORVILLE 0.4
CNN AARON BROWN 0.4
MSNBC OLBERMAN 0.3
CNBC MILLER 0.1
CNBC MCENROE 0.1


That isn't a fluke one time event either. Foxnews kicks the shit out of the other news networks, with both hands tied behind their back.

If it were just conservatives watching Foxnews, what are the liberals watching? BBC?

For much of the episode, Kerry was not in a position to know firsthand what was happening on Thurlow's boat, as Kerry's boat had sped down the river after the mine exploded under another boat. He later returned to provide assistance to the stricken boat.


So... he ran away after the mine exploded, the other boats stayed to help the boat that was hit. The other commanders all claim that they did what they were supposed to by immediately opening fire with their 50 caliber mgs into the jungle, but they stopped after 15 seconds because there was no return fire. Maybe that was the shooting Kerry heard as he was running away for 3 miles before returning.


Two other Swift boat skippers who were direct participants in the March 13, 1969, mine explosion on the Bay Hap, Jack Chenoweth and Richard Pees, have said they do not remember coming under "enemy fire."

You would think you might remember that. So they were sitting ducks in the river trying to help that other boat, yet miraculously no one was hit by all this fire coming from the VC firing from a concealed position on their totally exposed position. Yeah.. Kerry's story is sounding increasingly solid... not.

Instead of going away after awhile as Kerry had hoped, this is blowing up more and more. If its coverage continues to grow(as it will do) he will be facing a serious problem that could quite possibly cost him the election.

It's really interesting to see how he and his camp deal with it.

The headline story of the local (liberal as hell) news in Seattle was Kerry refuting the Swift Boat Veterans claims. They of course made it look like Kerry was above negative campaigning, but he has been forced to address this now because it's been killing him in the polls. What a crock.


On an off topic note... the same news station did a report which was sparked by a BBC world news report I saw a couple of days ago about segregation in America. They show that black Americans are establishing affluent communities around the country in upper class neighborhoods. Yet their kids are still doing awful in school... and they're blaming the schools still. Those who want their kids to do better are having to bus their kids off to predominantly white schools. The solution according to a panel of what they called "prominent civil rights advocates?".... mandatory redistribution of the best teachers to those schools where students are not performing well. Wth? I just don't get it.

That isn't a fluke one time event either. Foxnews kicks the shit out of the other news networks, with both hands tied behind their back.

And Jerry Springer gets good ratings too.. whats your point?

The Swiftboat thing is a hatchet job. Yes, the news has been saturated with it. But besides the SBFT guys being discredited (like the guy Thormir pointed out) what else is there in news cycle? People are going to get sick of hearing about it. And it still has the potential to blow up in Bushes face if they ride it too long.
If I were advising Kerry, I would have him go after as "Once again George Bush needs other people to fight his battles for him. These men who served in vietnam, are once again doing a job George Bush wasnt himself willing to do." I would go HARD with that.. I would yell it from every rooftop, and try to make people associate the swiftboat thing more with Bush. Let some of the mud splash back on him.

Im not wild about Kerry, there isnt much to be wild about. He SHOULD have put Bush away a long time ago. But he makes stupid moves and the weasle is still alive.
He fucked up the convention and made it about Vietnam. Not that there would have been a huge bounce either way...
But even with all these flubs, Bush still has a huge uphill battle to fight. And he cant go negative all the way till November. At some point he is going to have to make a case for himself, and THAT is the challenge.
And he has to beat Kerry in the debates. I think Kerry is going to challenge Bush pretty aggressively. It will be interesting to see how he reacts. The election might be won and lost at the debates. If Kerry can look stronger than Bush he wins.
Its stupid and its made of irrelevance, but its reality.
At the WORST. The Swiftboat thing may have a 2-3 point effect.. which in a race this close, is huge, but it wont carry much past early september. The legs on this just arent there, its already living on borrowed time imo.
The election hindges on 3 things. And really.... in the end, nothing else is going to matter
The Economy, Iraq and the Debates.

But But but L2....

ALL Kerry wants to debate about is Vietnam...

C'mon, he has no damn platform , he takes no stance and he has no...well ideas on what the hell he's going to do other than spend.

Not that Bush's spending is keen in my eye, but gods it was the end of the Clinton era that launched our lil recession. We hardly need this JFK wannabe entering the wayback machine and getting us totally up to our knickers in the all mighty Euro.

Fandros

These men who served in vietnam, are once again doing a job George Bush wasnt himself willing to do


Protesting that Bush isn't attacking Kerry's service won't hurt Bush.


Bush still has a huge uphill battle to fight


From Gallup:


In a two-way contest with Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, Bush enjoys a slight lead among likely voters, 50% to 47%, little changed from the 51% to 47% lead he enjoyed in a July 30-Aug. 1 poll.


That's right, Bush is still ahead in the most respected poll, just as he has been since the Dem convention...and Kerry is starting to have troubles because of the controversy over his war record(BTW..the two sides disagree about it..and Kerry is the one who keeps changing his story?).

There are lots of respected polls.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040819/nyth121_1.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/19/opinion/polls/main637123.shtml

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/presballot/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/americas_us_election_polls/html/1.stm

If ya look at the wall street journal/Zogby, the picture is pretty grim for Bush with almost insurmountable leads in Michigan and Pennsylvania.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-battleground04-frameset.html

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2004.htm (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2004.htm)

Gore won both Michigan and Pennsylvania. I would be shocked if Kerry didn't have a lead there at this time.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/po/2004/po040816.gif

reality sets in

Gore won both Michigan and Pennsylvania. I would be shocked if Kerry didn't have a lead there at this time.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

I posted this earlier but its pretty damn good. just hover over the state in question and you can get the most recent poll info that is considered respected.

reality sets in
That cartoon has as much reality as Kerry did when he said he spent Christmas in Cambodia, or when his website proclaimed he was vice chairman of the intelligence committee :)

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/po/2004/po040816.gif

The funny thing about you posting this Mr. High Road LL is that it has no basis in fact. You imply that all these guys are a bunch of fat ignorant dudes sitting around a bar deciding to go after Kerry. On the contrary they are educated guys with first hand knowledge of Kerry, many pictured with him in his "band of brothers" photo that he himself uses despite their objections. You're just following your party line instead of looking at the facts. Kind of reminding me of Kerry himself, turning on his fellow veterans when he got back from Vietnam in order to further his own political ambitions. You know there were hundreds of POWs suffering torture, starvation, and worse rather than sign lies admitting to war crimes... meanwhile Kerry was back here accusing them of war crimes himself.

"You know there were hundreds of POWs suffering torture, starvation, and worse rather than sign lies admitting to war crimes... meanwhile Kerry was back here accusing them of war crimes himself."

Have you seen their most recent ad? Even more powerful than the first using Kerry's own words.

Yeah... damn thought I could get that in under the gun and make it sound original ;)


The Kerry apologists are already out railing against the new ad. They are saying that Kerry never accused anyone of anything he was just reading the results of the "winter soldiers" conference. It's ridiculous. He was the leader of the group, he was the mouthpiece, it was his agenda. He later says ... and intentionally makes general statements of "we" and "us" following statements broadly speaking about ALL soldiers in Vietnam characterizing them as being ashamed of their service in Vietnam, and how the government has created millions of Americans who are now monsters, trained to deal and trade in violence, and echoing a common and very harmful fear at the time that veterans were coming back from Vietnam and would be violent criminals.

ooohhh.... picture time. You should have used this one, L2:

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/19/politics/campaign/20040820swift_graph.gif

Pity it doesn't matter.
We *know* how Bush is going to handle things- he is a known quantity.

I'd much rather hear about what Kerry intends to do if he does get elected instead of some shit that went down in the last century. How he did or did not earn his Bronze Star doesn't mean crap. How he intends to shepherd the country does matter.

Dragging Kerry into any battle regarding his past (or Kerry giving it one minute of his time) only helps the GOP.

You know, if you're going to show off your(well, not your) knowledge of a vast right wing conspiracy you should try to be more correct with the facts.

I can point out a few major flaws with that just by looking at it Esbat, John O'Neill is the group's spokesman not spaeth.

It's also notable that they dot out "..." that what Elliot said was Kerry was unsurpassed in his peer group(which is a major breech of ethics, but hey). Hmm..maybe..I'm not sure here..but just maybe..we covered the interpretting of those reports.


Glowing, end-of-tour FITREPs are often viewed as “swan song” FITREPs (the officer is usually ranked 1 of 1)

Hmmm...amazing what a little reading will getcha. Wonder why the NY Post didn't discover that?

Journalism at its finest!

Don't worry, I'm not implying that the media is trying to cover for Kerry ;)

After all, that would require them to have some sort of political bias, and it's clear to everyone involved that the media doesn't have any political bias, especially ones like the New York Post.

The Post was repurchased in 1988 by Murdoch's News Corporation and has taken a consistently conservative editorial viewpoint since being re-acquired by Murdoch after its near-insolvency in 1993.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/New-York-Post

After all, that would require them to have some sort of political bias, and it's clear to everyone involved that the media doesn't have any political bias, especially ones like the New York Post.
So 733t

I get a nice giggle every time I see one of you libs complaining about a right-biased news source. Cons have had to live with left wing media sources for years... and the vast majority of them still are.


I find it similarly hilarious that you use a lib website to try to prove that another source is right-biased. Good job you could be a CNN anchor.

http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/images/KerryVietnamUnit.JPG

Take Ralph Dobson off the support list btw. You can dig up all the contradictions you want. The fact is all these guys but ole Skippy Barker are strongly opposing John "film yourself reenacting the things you will later say were awful warcrimes" Kerry.

I get a nice giggle every time I see one of you libs complaining about a right-biased news source. Cons have had to live with left wing media sources for years... and the vast majority of them still are.

Wtf does that have to with anything? Did I complain? No crist0 said the Post was a new york liberal paper. I was pointing out his error.

You're right. I was just doing a driveby and didn't read far enough. The Post can be called liberal or conservative depending on what stories you want to excerpt. It's not a reliable source of information... it's a tabloid.



http://www.nypost.com/

Take a peek in there. It's not liberal or conservative... it's a tabloid ffs.

Btw

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

Jim Rassmann was the Army Special Forces lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water. Rassmann has said all along that he was under sniper fire from both banks of the river when Kerry, wounded, helped him aboard. Rassmann is featured in an earlier Kerry ad, in fact, (see script at left) saying "he (Kerry) risked his life to save mine."

On Aug. 10, Rassmann wrote a vivid account of the rescue in the Wall Street Journal that contradicts the Kerry accusers. Rassmann said that after the first explosion that disabled PCF-3:

Rassmann: Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard. And thats fine if the people in the picture you keep trotting out dont support Kerry. How many are attacking his service?
It is one thing to say "im not voting for that guy", its quite another to say he is a liar and a coward.

"I signed that letter because I, too felt a deep sense of betrayal that someone who took the same oath of loyalty as I did as an officer in the United States Navy would abandon his group here (points to group photo) to join this group here (points to VVAW protest photo), and come home and attempt to rally the American public against the effort that this group was so valiantly pursuing.

It is a fact that in the entire Vietnam War we did not lose one major battle. We lost the war at home... and at home, John Kerry was the Field General."

-- Robert Elder "I was in An Thoi from June of '68 to June of '69, covering the whole period that John Kerry was there. I operated in every river, in every canal, and every off-shore patrol area in the 4th Corps area, from Cambodia all the way around to the Bo De River. I never saw, even heard of all of these so-called atrocities and things that we were supposed to have done.

This is not true. We're not standing for it. We want to set the record straight."

-- William Shumadine Thats the quotes I could find with the men in the photo. They disagree with Kerry. They hate his protest against the war. Thats fine, thats kosher. But lets just make sure we are clear on this. They are not accusing Kerry of lying.

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.
Last month, Thurlow swore in an affidavit that Kerry was "not under fire" when he fished Lt. James Rassmann out of the water. He described Kerry's Bronze Star citation, which says that all units involved came under "small arms and automatic weapons fire," as "totally fabricated."

"I never heard a shot," Thurlow said in his affidavit, which was released by Swift Boats Veterans for Truth. The group claims the backing of more than 250 Vietnam veterans, including a majority of Kerry's fellow boat commanders. I hope he plans on returning the medal.

So who is lying? Rasmussen? or Thurlow? I think the evidence points that Thurlow is lying.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040821/cgsa002_1.html

actual article

The actual chicago tribune article


Swift boat skipper: Kerry critics wrong
Tribune editor breaks long silence on Kerry record; fought in disputed battle

By Tim Jones
Tribune national correspondent
Published August 21, 2004

The commander of a Navy swift boat who served alongside Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry during the Vietnam War stepped forward Saturday to dispute attacks challenging Kerry's integrity and war record.

William Rood, an editor on the Chicago Tribune's metropolitan desk, said he broke 35 years of silence about the Feb. 28, 1969, mission that resulted in Kerry's receiving a Silver Star because recent portrayals of Kerry's actions published in the best-selling book "Unfit for Command" are wrong and smear the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry.

Rood, who commanded one of three swift boats during that 1969 mission, said Kerry came under rocket and automatic weapons fire from Viet Cong forces and that Kerry devised an aggressive attack strategy that was praised by their superiors. He called allegations that Kerry's accomplishments were "overblown" untrue.

"The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there," Rood said in a 1,700-word first-person account published in Sunday's Tribune.

Rood's recollection of what happened on that day at the southern tip of South Vietnam was backed by key military documents, including his citation for a Bronze Star he earned in the battle and a glowing after-action report written by the Navy captain who commanded his and Kerry's task force, who is now a critic of the Democratic candidate.

Rood's previously untold story and the documents shed new light on a key historical event that has taken center stage in an extraordinary political and media firestorm generated by a group calling itself the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Allegations in the book, co-authored by one of the leaders of the group, accuse Kerry of being a coward who fabricated wartime events and used comrades for his "insatiable appetite for medals." The allegations have fueled a nearly two-week-long TV ad campaign against the Democratic nominee. Talk radio and cable news channels have feasted on the story.

Animosity from some veterans toward Kerry goes back more than 30 years, when Kerry returned from Vietnam to take a leadership role in the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Anger reached a boiling point with Kerry's presidential nomination and his own highlighting of his service during the war, a centerpiece of his campaign strategy against President Bush, who spent the war stateside in the Air National Guard in Texas and Alabama.

Many know of ads

A poll released Friday by the National Annenberg Election Survey reported that more than half the country has heard about or seen TV ads attacking Kerry's war record, a remarkable impact for ads that have appeared in only a handful of states.

Kerry strongly disputes the allegations. Last week he called on the White House to denounce the TV ads and accused Bush of relying on the Vietnam veterans "to do his dirty work." On Thursday, Kerry challenged Bush to a debate on their respective war records. Democrats point to unresolved questions about whether Bush in fact served all the time he was credited with serving in Alabama.

The Bush campaign has denied any association with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth but so far has refused to condemn the book and the group's TV ads. A report in Friday's New York Times disclosed connections between the anti-Kerry vets and the Bush family, Bush's chief political aide Karl Rove and several high-ranking Texas Republicans. Some of the recent accounts from veterans critical of Kerry have been contradicted by their own earlier statements, the Times reported.

Rood's account also sharply contradicts the version currently put forth by the anti-Kerry veterans. Rood, 61, wrote that Kerry had personally contacted him and other crew members in recent days asking that they go public with their accounts of what happened on that day.

Rood said that, ever since the war, he had "wanted to put it all behind usthe rivers, the ambushes, the killing. I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's serviceeven those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune."

"I can't pretend those calls [from Kerry] had no effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this," Rood said. "What matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk publicly about it."

Rood declined requests from a Tribune reporter to be interviewed for this article. Rood wrote that he could testify only to the February 1969 mission and not to any of the other battlefield decorations challenged by Kerry's criticsa Bronze Star and three Purple Heartsbecause Rood was not an eyewitness to those engagements.

Ambush scenario

In February 1969, Rood was a lieutenant junior grade commanding PCF-23, one of the three 50-foot aluminum swift boats that carried troops up the Dong Cung, a tributary of the Bay Hap River. Kerry commanded another boat, PCF-94 and Lt. j.g. Donald Droz, who was killed in action six weeks later, commanded PCF-43. Ambushes from Viet Cong fighters were common because the noise from boats, powered by twin diesel engines, practically invited gunfire. Ambushes, Rood said, "were a virtual certainty."

Before this day's mission, though, Kerry, the tactical commander of the mission, discussed with Rood and Droz a change in response to the anticipated ambushes: If possible, turn into the fire once it is identified and attack the ambushers, Rood recalled Kerry saying. The boats followed that new tactic with great success, Rood said, and the mission was highly praised.

In the book "Unfit for Command," Kerry's critics maintained otherwise. The book's authors, John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi, wrote that Kerry's attack on the Viet Cong ambush displayed "stupidity, not courage." The book was published by Regnery, a conservative publisher that has brought into print many books critical of Democratic politicians and policies.

"The only explanation for what Kerry did is the same justification that characterizes his entire short Vietnam adventure: the pursuit of medals and ribbons," wrote Corsi and O'Neill. Later in the war, O'Neill commanded the same Swift boat Kerry had led. O'Neill is now a leader of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

In the book, O'Neill and Corsi said Kerry chased down a "young Viet Cong in a loincloth clutching a grenade launcher which may or may not have been loaded."

Rood recalled the fleeing Viet Cong was "a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore." There were other attackers as well, he said, and his boat and Kerry's boat took significant fire.

After the attack, the task force commanding officer, then-Capt. Roy Hoffmann, sent a message of congratulations to the three swift boats, saying their charge of the ambushers was a "shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be the most efficacious [method] of dealing with small numbers of ambushers," Rood said.

In the official after-action message, obtained by the Tribune, Hoffmann wrote that the tactics developed and executed by Kerry, Rood and Droz were "immensely effictive [sic]" and that "this operation did unreparable [sic] damage to the enemy in this area."

"Well done," Hoffmann concluded in his message.

Change of story

But more than three decades later, Hoffmann, now a retired rear admiral, has changed his story. Today he is one of Kerry's most vocal critics, saying the attacks against the ambushers 35 years ago call into question Kerry's judgment and show his tendency to be impulsive.

Rood challenges that criticism, recalling that the direction for the actions they took on the river that day came from the highest ranks of the Navy command in Vietnam.

"What we did on Feb. 28, 1969, was well in line with the tone set by our top commanders," Rood said.

Asked for his response to Rood's account, O'Neill argued that the former swift boat skipper's version of events is not substantially different from what appeared in his book. The account of the Feb. 28 attack draws heavily on reporting from The Boston Globe, O'Neill said.

He said the congratulatory note from Hoffmann was based on the belief that Kerry was under heavy fire from the Viet Cong. But O'Neill claimed that "didn't happen." Had Hoffmann known the true circumstances of events that day, O'Neill said, he would not have issued the congratulatory note. Attempts to reach Hoffmann for comment were unsuccessful.

In his eyewitness account, Rood describes coming under rocket and automatic weapons fire from Viet Cong on the riverbank during two separate ambushes of his boat and Kerry's boat.

Praise for the mission led by Kerry came from Navy commanders who far outranked Hoffmann. Rood won a Bronze Star for his actions on that day. The Bronze Star citation from the late Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, then commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, singled out the tactic used by the boats and said the Viet Cong were "caught completely off guard."

Longtime debate

The war about the war between O'Neill and Kerry has raged for more than three decades. O'Neill, who became a lawyer in Houston after returning from Vietnam, was recruited by the Nixon administration in 1971 to serve as a political counterweight to Kerry, who by then had left the military and was a vocal critic of the war.

The two debated the war on the Dick Cavett television show in 1971, with O'Neill accusing Kerry of the "attempted murder of the reputations of 2 million" Vietnam veterans.

Rood acknowledged in his first-person account that there could always be errors in recollection, especially with the passage of more than three decades. His Bronze Star citation, he said, misidentifies the river where the main action occurred.

That mistake, he said, is a "cautionary note for those trying to piece it all together. There's no final authority on something that happened so long agonot the documents and not even the strained recollections of those of us who were there.

"But I know that what some people are saying now is wrong," Rood wrote. "While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they're saying impugns others who are not in the public eye."

If you were under heavy fire at that moment, why is it that neither Lt. Kerry's boat — nor any of the other boats whose crews were engaged in rescuing two other Americans who were wounded and put into the water by an exploding mine — had any bullet holes after the fight?




But, according to the American Spectator, Rassman contacted the Kerry campaign days before the celebrated "reunion rally."

The Kerry Campaign isn't stupid. After being flown to Iowa, Rassman just happened to be standing smack in the middle of a press gaggle when Kerry "spotted" him and the two hugged.

It was about as moving as a slow-motion scene from a '70s movie, except everyone knew about it days ahead of time.





"It was a wonderful, moving moment," says a Kerry volunteer. "We were briefed on it before the event, and told to steer cameras to a certain area. Reporters knew about it in advance, and so did Senator Kerry. We don't leave anything like this to chance." Kerry's "surprise" lasted well into the day.While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.
Rassman



Former Lieutenant John Kerry was reunited today with fellow Vietnam veteran Jim Rassman, who says Kerry saved his life during combat. On March 13, 1969, Rassman, a Green Beret, was traveling down the Bay Hap river in a boat behind Kerry’s when both were ambushed by exploding land mines and enemy fire coming from the shore. Kerry was hit in the arm, while a mine blew Rassman’s boat out of the water. With enemy fire coming from both sides of the river and swift boats evacuating from the area, Kerry’s crew chose to turn their boat toward the ambush to save Rassman.






Rassman also.



So far... because of facts introduced by the Swift Vets, Kerry has changed his story on 1) the Christmas in Cambodia story, 2) the actions of the other swift boats in the Rassman incident, namely the fact that he had left the scene while the others remained, and that he had later returned to pluck Rassman out of the water, 3) the facts surrounding the "band of brothers" photo, 4) they have yet to answer the fact that he says in January in his journal that he had yet to come under enemy fire, yet his first purple heart was in november from what the Swift vets call a self inflicted wound.

Your Chicago tribune article is only marginally relevant. The least of the charges, and least supportable is in regards to the silver star incident. The real controversy has been around the bronze star incident, and the first purple heart. I really don't even remember anyone on this board bringing up the issue of the silver star incident. It's a he said, she said situation, however the other two incidents have more hope of corroboration and more eye witness verification.


So who is lying? Rasmussen? or Thurlow? I think the evidence points that Thurlow is lying.
Rassman also said Kerry was bleeding heavily from a wound to his arm and that he came back alone to save him... both of which we know are not true. He apparently isn't sure which boat he was on, and as a matter of fact until this year didn't know that this guy that saved his life had even received a medal.

Look, I think if things were reversed... I'd be using the same arguments you're using, and you'd be using the same ones I'm using. The fact that libs are acting so indignant about the whole thing is ridiculous given the way they were all piling on Bush this last year about his National Guard record... and about the Moore film. If these guys were piling on Bush instead of on Kerry and Bush called on them to stop, you all would be crying censorship and that he was just afraid to hear dissenting voices. The fact is that Kerry has changed his mind of every national security issue in the past few years and it's impossible to figure out where he really stands on issues since what comes out of his mouth is usually the opposite of what his history would lead you to expect. If that weren't the case, perhaps he'd have more credibility on the issue of his service record which he has made the centerpiece of his campaign, and has done since he began runnign for office. Including the incident where he held an interview and did a commercial at the vietnam memorial despite the fact that he was told by the national parks department and by the memorial committee that the memorial was never to be used by any candidate in such a way.




Notice also if you would that Thurlow's citation says he provided "immediate assistance" to the stricken boat, while Kerry's says that he "returned to the scene" to pull Rassman out of the water.

If you were under heavy fire at that moment, why is it that neither Lt. Kerry's boat — nor any of the other boats whose crews were engaged in rescuing two other Americans who were wounded and put into the water by an exploding mine — had any bullet holes after the fight? Kerrys Boat was PCF 94
http://idexer.com/misc/pcf94_damage.jpg

Your Chicago tribune article is only marginally relevant. Marginally relevant? Please explain why showing one of the main Swift Boat Accusers of being a blatent liar is marginally relevant. Thurlow is lying, I dont think there can be any doubt about that.


Rassman also said Kerry was bleeding heavily from a wound to his arm and that he came back alone to save him... both of which we know are not true. He apparently isn't sure which boat he was on, and as a matter of fact until this year didn't know that this guy that saved his life had even received a medal.
Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush

By JIM RASSMANN
Wall Street Journal
August 10, 2004

I came to know Lt. John Kerry during the spring of 1969. He and his swift boat crew assisted in inserting our Special Forces team and our Chinese Nung soldiers into operational sites in the Cau Mau Peninsula of South Vietnam. I worked with him on many operations and saw firsthand his leadership, courage and decision-making ability under fire.

On March 13, 1969, John Kerry's courage and leadership saved my life.

While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire. I learned only this past January that the Navy awarded John the Bronze Star with Combat V for his valor. The citation for this award, signed by the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, read, "Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." To this day I am grateful to John Kerry for saving my life. And to this day I still believe that he deserved the Silver Star for his courage.

It has been many years since I served in Vietnam. I returned home, got married, and spent many years as a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County. I retired in 1989 as a lieutenant. It has been a long time since I left Vietnam, but I think often of the men who did not come home with us.

I am neither a politician nor an organizer. I am a retired police officer with a passion for orchids. Until January of this year, the only public presentations I made were about my orchid hobby. But in this presidential election, I had to speak out; I had to tell the American people about John Kerry, about his wisdom and courage, about his vision and leadership. I would trust John Kerry with my life, and I would entrust John Kerry with the well-being of our country.

Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans. I volunteered for his campaign because I have seen John Kerry in the worst of conditions. I know his character. I've witnessed his bravery and leadership under fire. And I truly know he will be a great commander in chief.

Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.

As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is "dishonest and dishonorable." Sen. McCain called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored Sen. McCain's advice.

Does this strategy of attacking combat Vietnam veterans sound familiar? In 2000, a similar Republican smear campaign was launched against Sen. McCain. In fact, the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry. Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad. Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam.

But when the noise and fog of their distortions and lies have cleared, a man who volunteered to serve his country, a man who showed up for duty when his country called, a man to whom the United States Navy awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, will stand tall and proud. Ultimately, the American people will judge these Swift Boat Veterans for Bush and their accusations. Americans are tired of smear campaigns against those who volunteered to wear the uniform. Swift Boat Veterans for Bush should hang their heads in shame.

Mr. Rassmann, a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, served with the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam 1968-69.
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/graphics/swiftboat_082104_2.gif

Meanwhile, back at the ranch

http://sapr-mgsu.by.ru/images/bush_young.jpg

http://www.film.queensu.ca/Critical/Photos/Apoc/Apoc600.JPG

Kerry on his secret mission to Cambodia to kill Marlon Brando.


First of all... look at item 8 on your picture there. Kerry claims that the explosion that hit his boat was simultaneous with the explosion that hit the other boat. Rassman originally claimed that Kerry's boat was hit by fragments of the mine that exploded underneath the other boat. Answer me this... was Rassman on Kerry's boat or on another boat? On top of that, after supposedly being hit by a mine and losing a guy overboard... why did Kerry flee in the wrong direction, splitting himself up from the rest of his force, and leaving behind a guy that supposedly was knocked off of his boat.



Rassman is correct in one point in his essay. In their response (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002202.php) to John Kerry's threat to sue them into silence, the Swiftvets indicate that the incident for which Kerry won that Bronze Star included no enemy fire at the time of the rescue, that the disabling fire came from a mine and not enemy fire, and they also indicate that they have evidence to back that claim up. If true, it does undermine Rassman's credibility, even if it just means that he was too dazed to understand what the circumstances of his rescue really was:

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



On top of that why did Kerry lie and say that he returned alone to the scene to rescue Rassman under heavy enemy fire when again... no bullet holes in the men or the boats despite being in a completely exposed position. The boats other than Kerry's were sitting ducks for a long period of time before Kerry ever returned.




A CQ reader who wishes to remain anonymous sent this over to me this morning. The reader claims that he had Special Forces experience in Viet Nam and has this to say about Rassman:

There are a lot of angles to the Kerry saga. I doubt anyone gets to every question, but some are compelling to me. The question that goes begging today is why was Rassman there at all?

I don't believe SF will take an official position on this, so I'll post what I have heard. I have never bad mouthed fellow SFers before, but I do have these comments from some sources I trust.

Rassman was reportedly the Asst S-1, which means he was the assistant admininistrative officer. Not exactly a key sought after job for an SF officer LOL. In fact I don't recall knowing of any official Asst S-1 officer slots in the field. Jobs like that are created to keep idiots off the teams.

He was supposedly in charge of awards and decorations (A&D) in a field unit. SF didn't issue many, so it was hardly a taxing assignment. The man doing that job at SF HQ RVN was a Sergeant. Giving it to an officer in a field unit as a primary duty is beyond unusual.

He was probably AWOL when he was with Kerry. At best someone may have said, OK go, just to get him out of the way.

My comments and speculation. If Rassman was an A&D clerk, his knowledge of how to get awards approved was probably very interesting to Kerry. Since reports indicate he wrote the citation for Kerry's SS, I believe this speculation is well-founded.

Answer me this... was Rassman on Kerry's boat or on another boat?
According to Rassman, he was on Kerrys boat, he knew Kerry, was familar with Kerry, trusted Kerry. He has stated definitly he was on Kerrys boat.

On top of that, after supposedly being hit by a mine and losing a guy overboard... why did Kerry flee in the wrong direction, splitting himself up from the rest of his force, and leaving behind a guy that supposedly was knocked off of his boat.
Look at the scenario. They are headed down river, the boats have to split to avoid nets. Kerry and another boat on the right side, the other three, including Thurlow on the left.
A VC detonates the mine on the left side, creating a bottleneck and the opportunity for a crossfire.
What should Kerry have done? Kill the engines? No, you create space and re-engage on your own terms. Before he got long, his boat was rocked by another detonated mine. At this point, Rassman is thrown overboard, Kerry spins the boat around and picks him up.
As far as no damage to the boat, well there is damage to it. But.
Place yourself in the shoes of a VC, there is a SHIT LOAD of firepower on the swiftboats, are you shocked that they didnt expose themselves enough to take a clean shot and draw the fire of the boat? Are you surprised they instead took the target of opportunity, the man in the river.

A CQ reader who wishes to remain anonymous sent this over to me this morning.
Right. sure
Now they attack Rassman... shameful. Saying HE did nothing, saying he was AWOL. Doesnt this start to strike you as shameful at some point? The man was a Green Beret Officer. Is the plan to belittle, attack and cast unfounded accusations and innuendo?
Cant wait for the attacks on Rood, and whoever else gets in their way.
Shameful.

He was probably AWOL when he was with Kerry. At best someone may have said, OK go, just to get him out of the way.
just.... wow.... sickening

http://www.johnkerry.com/video/console.php?video=082104_old_tricks#082104_old_tri cks

All agree there were no casualties or damage other than due to the mine detonations. All sources but the original Kerry version which has been changed, and who knows what version Rassman is sticking to now, agree that Kerry left the scene, and the other boats immediately began rescue operations, to which Kerry eventually returned to pluck Rassman out of the water. The only points of real contention are... Kerry and Rassman have both had to change their stories when confronted with facts, and the reports which have been charged to have been written by Kerry, give a different version of events than those remembered by every person there except Rassman and Kerry.


Former E-5 radarman Phil Carter posts a long letter explaining his service and impressions of John Kerry. Carter actually contributed to one of Kerry's Senate campaigns and paid him a visit in 1996. His personal recollections of Kerry seem innocuous and even endearing. However, Carter took the time to read Douglas Brinkley's hagiography, Tour of Duty, and objects to a number of misstatements and outright lies regarding Kerry's service:

When I read “Tour of Duty”, I became concerned because the material on Kerry’s time on GRIDLEY appeared in many instances to be exaggerations and in some cases figments of an overactive imagination. ... 4. Later on page 87 Kerry talks about Olongapo in the Philippines. He talks about bloated corpses floating in the river and starving women with babies dying of malnutrition. Now Olongapo was a wild and wooly town that existed solely for the entertainment of the US Navy, but in over three years of calling there, I never saw a single instance of either thing happening. Kerry uncovered this in his first visit. If this was from his letters home then he was certainly writing for dramatic effect. Balderdash. ...

5. The trip to Danang – GRIDLEY went into Danang for briefings before going to Northern SAR. This section is so full of hyperbole that the urge to giggle is almost uncontrollable. “The panic and pressure onboard GRIDLEY, strapping on a .45, wondering if I would have to use it, B-52’s howling overhead”. A B-52 over Danang would have been so high that only contrails would have been visible, cloud cover permitting. David Simons confirmed my recollection that during our brief stay in Danang Harbor, the sky was overcast to the point of being ominous.

More seriously, no one can remember John Kerry going ashore. I was part of the shore party that went to Monkey Mountain. We were taken in a screened in truck (to protect against grenades being tossed in) and made to unload our .45’s. The driver said that he did not want us newbies to shoot anyone by accident.

Neither Commander Kelly nor LCDR Rueckert (Kerry’s immediate boss) can recall approving a trip ashore for Ensign Kerry. The author uses remarks of David Simons IC2 as a lead in to the Danang section. I spoke to David and he has no personal knowledge of Kerry going ashore at all. He did talk to a researcher and made some generic remarks about Danang but had never discussed Danang with Kerry. He recalls arguing with the researcher because he tried to put the words “cowboy” in his mouth, which ended up in the book.

Not only does the candidate himself like to stretch the truth to the breaking point -- always to make himself look more manly, if you'll notice -- even his researchers press themselves to keep up. If Kerry never left the ship in Danang, then that calls Brinkley's work into question again. Did Brinkley or his researchers bother to fact-check anything from Kerry's journals?

There is no mystery about the “gruesome site of a pile of dead VC.” We saw no sign of anything like this. However, our escort to Monkey Mountain did tell us how the VC bodies were stacked up on the LZ’s after the TET Offensive, which had been several months before. Ensign Kerry would have been told this story by members of the shore party.It's just another example of John Kerry adapting someone else's experience into his own narrative. Carter finishes with a clarification about whether the US Navy leaves Ensigns in charge of its warships:

6. In command – Again with the hyperbole. Kerry makes much about being “in charge” of the ship after the Captain and XO. The OOD is in charge of the operation of the ship during his four hour watch but hardly in charge of the ship. Kerry qualified almost immediately as OOD(P), in port OOD but that is a given. For much of his time onboard he would have been Junior Officer of the Deck when underway. Although his fitness report as of 22 March says "he is qualified as OOD(I) now" (Independent steaming – with no ships or land anywhere near) , only OOD(P) is listed under duties. His Fitness Report from July 1968 lists two months as OOD(I) which would mean he qualified after leaving the war zone.Carter insists that Kerry was a good officer and well liked during his tenure on the Gridley, but obviously Carter never saw what Kerry wrote into his journals. His eyes have been opened by the massive inconsistencies coming from Kerry and Brinkley about his service, a reaction that many of the people in Kerry's units have experienced once they've read his stories.


Did you happen to see Stephanopoulas' show sunday morning? He had John O'Neil on and someone from Kerry's campaign on to debate with him over Kerry's 4 biggest inconsistencies. Despite Stephanopoulas trying to save the guy, O'Neil blew him out of the water so to speak. Every time it was his turn to dispute O'Neils facts, all he could do was rant on about how they are connected with the Bush campaign. He even had a decent response to that... O'Neil pointed out that his group was formed back when Kerry was still unlikely to even be the nominee of the democratic party.

Thurlow is lying, I dont think there can be any doubt about that.
There's far more evidence that Kerry is lying about many issues yet you choose to ignore them all. Thurlow has sworn an affidavit to the events of the day and they have challenged Kerry and Rassman to do the same... which they won't.



SUSAN ESTRICH, GUEST CO-HOST: I have to interrupt you for one second. I think...

ODELL: Another boat...

ESTRICH: Sir — Sir, I think it's my turn to ask you a few questions. You weren't a crew mate of Senator Kerry's, were you?

ODELL: I was not.

ESTRICH: You were not a crewmate of his. Right. All of the men on his boat are supporting his bid for the presidency, aren't they?

ODELL: No, that's not true.

ESTRICH: One is deceased, but all the rest are...

ODELL: Steve Gardner is not supporting him at all.

ESTRICH: But as I understand it all of the men on his boat...

ODELL: When I was in Vietnam — when I was in Vietnam, the people there on his boat crew did not have the same take on what he is like now.

ESTRICH: So all but one who were on his boat are supporting him. Is that right? And you weren't on his boat. Is that right?

ODELL: I was in close proximity. I was right behind his boat.

ESTRICH: You were half a football field away; is that right?

ODELL: Oh, no, it's closer than that. Sometimes we laid alongside many times. We were close together.

ESTRICH: But you weren't on the boat, correct? All of the people in your ad...

ODELL: I'll say it again, I was not on his boat. Right.

ESTRICH: And were any of the people in your ad on the boat?

ODELL: Most of the people in our ad were in close proximity in the same division and were right around with him.

ESTRICH: OK.

ODELL: He wasn't — he wasn't encapsulated in a boat and kept separate from all the rest of us. He was around us all the time.

ESTRICH: The doctor — but the doctor in your ad who said he treated him, did he not in fact sign the medical treatment report, did he?

ODELL: He signed the medical treatment report that he pulled a small piece, fragment out of his arm, yes.

ESTRICH: But he didn't sign Senator Kerry's treatment report, did he?

ODELL: Not that I'm aware of, no.

ESTRICH: Right, he did not. And who financed this ad? Did you pay for it yourself?

ODELL: I have put quite a bit of my own money in expenses. Yes.

ESTRICH: But did you...

ODELL: No, I did not pay for the ad.

ESTRICH: Who did pay for the ad, sir?

ODELL: We did. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth paid for the ad.

ESTRICH: Well, I think the ad cost about $158,000 and according to my notes, $100,000 came from a Texan Republican, a big Bush supporter, Mr. Perry. Are you familiar with him?

ODELL: Yes, I bought one of his houses.

ESTRICH: Bought one of his houses. And he's a major...

ODELL: Years ago.

ESTRICH: ... Bush supporter, yes.

If Mr. Bush himself asked you to stop running this ad, would you?

ODELL: No, we're not affiliated with the Republican Party. We are a completely separate group. We accept money from anyone under the provision. This is our message.

ESTRICH: But if they were to ask you...

ODELL: And if they asked us not to do it we would still put it out because it's our contention to put out the truth about what happened.

We're not affiliated with the Republican Party or the Democratic Party or Republican Party or anyone else. This is a separate group and don't take direction from any of them.

ESTRICH: So if the president said to you this is — if the president said to you, as John McCain has said, that this is one of the harshest tricks he's ever seen, that this is, in some people's words, a dirty trick, you would simply ignore the president and keep doing it anyway.

ODELL: We are a private group and we would keep doing it anyway. Yes, that's true.

HANNITY: Van, thank you for serving your country. Thank you for all you do. Appreciate your being with us.




The history of PCF-94 is interesting. The skipper prior to John Kerry was a man named Ted Peck. Captain Peck and David Alston were both injured on January 29, 1969, and airlifted out for medical care.

On January 30, 1969, John Kerry took command of PCF-94. A man named Fred Short took David Alston's place on Kerry's new boat. Fred Short clearly remembers the day he joined Kerry's crew because it was his birthday, February 18, 1969. Short remained on PCF-94 until March 4 and stated that Alston returned to the boat a "couple of days later." John Kerry left PCF-94 after receiving his third purple heart just after March 13, 1969. Those dates are part of the official record showing Alston served a total of one week, maximum, under John Kerry's command.

According to Kerry's own written reports, he had no missions from March 1 to March 10. From March 10 to the time he wrote his last report on March 13, he wrote reports for four missions. The missions of March 10 and 11 reveal no enemy contact.

March 12, 1969 brought the first combat David Alston saw with John Kerry. Fighting was reported as heavy, but there were no casualties or injuries reported.

March 13 is the now infamous day that bought John Kerry his Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. Four boats were involved in this particular mission. PCF-3 struck a mine and was disabled. There seems to be some confusion on the part of Jim Rassman, the man Kerry pulled from the water, as to which boat he was actually on. At the convention, he stated he was on Kerry's boat but in other interviews, he claims he was on PCF-3 and was blown off when it struck the mine along with three other men. There are many conflicting reports on what happened after that mine exploded with the majority of those present saying there was no incoming enemy fire as remembered by Rassman but only outgoing cover-fire that he may have confused for enemy fire. Giving Mr. Rassman the benefit of the doubt, he had just been blown off some boat and may well have been dazed. It's odd that man who can vividly describe how John Kerry saved him cannot remember what boat he was actually on at the time.

That was John Kerry and David Alston's second and last shared combat experience.

Also interesting are the apparent foggy memories of John Kerry himself about his time with David Alston. Posted on John Kerry's official website was this description of Kerry's recollection of when Alston was wounded. Reported by the Boston Globe the following report was quickly removed after it became obvious that it was a total fabrication. "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."

Ted Peck was not thrilled to read about John Kerry taking credit for missions that Kerry never participated in--on a boat he didn't take command of until January 30, 1969. The Kerry website has now removed all of the military documentation it once bragged endlessly about being proud to post. John Kerry's "band of brothers" has been gagged by the boss and may only give interviews after Kerry has approved them.

Other statements made by David Alston:

"We were in a lot of firefights. You learn a lot about people. After a firefight, John would come up to me and he would put his hand on me and he'd say, 'David, are you all right?' I stand here before you only because almighty God saw our boat safely through those rivers of death and destruction, by giving us a brave, wise, and decisive leader named John Kerry."

"I can still see him now, standing in the doorway of the pilothouse, firing his M-16, shouting orders through the smoke and chaos. Even wounded, or confronting sights no man should ever have to see, he never lost his cool."

Those are powerful words from a man who served one week with John Kerry. Is it possible to discern that a man is fit to be the leader of the free world based on four missions with only two incidents of combat 35 years ago? David Alston also related, vividly, the event that led to Kerry's Silver Medal (February 28, 1969) and said he knew Kerry was a man who would "take it to Charlie" when Kerry bravely beached their boat and pursued the enemy. The problem is that Alston was not there. Alston was still in the hospital recovering from the injuries he received on January 29.

Men who served on boats around John Kerry in Viet Nam and Steve Gardner, who was under Kerry's command, say that John Kerry and his band of brothers' recollection of those days are hazy at best and often fabricated at its worst. These men have been vilified in the media and by the Kerry camp as partisans, hacks, and liars.

What the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are doing now is just an extension of what they did for their country in Viet Nam--protect the American people from enemies both foreign and domestic. Thirty-five years ago the enemy was foreign and now they are warning Americans about a man who has taken four short months and glorified his service to the point of unbelievability, absconded with other men's records, received questionable honors and medals, related on the floor of the Senate events "seared" in his memory that didn't happen, and now claims that those four months make him deserving of the presidency. If not for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Kerry might have been able to carry out this gross charade on the American people. John Kerry was barely fit for command in Viet Nam. Kerry is certainly not fit for command now.


http://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Letson.pdf

When Thurlow put Rassman to the question of how is it that he was under such heavy fire from which Kerry saved him, and several other people including Thurlow himself had been in the water as part of rescue operations, and operations lasted more than an hour, how is it that there were no injuries or bullet holes from enemy fire... Rassman dodged the question and called Thurlow partisan and disingenuous.

Kerry, Rassman and Rood all say there was enemy fire.
Thurlow says no, despite accepting a medal for actions under fire.

how is it that there were no injuries or bullet holes from enemy fire.
Hmm.. why dont I let Tom Phillips of seawolf.org answer that for ya
http://www.seawolf.org/stories/scrmbl13.asp
We refueled and rearmed at Tra Vinh, and checked the birds for battle damage. We took no hits. All that fire and no hits. That's what door gunners are all about. There is no doubt in my mind that even the VC, notoriously poor shots that they were, with careful aim, and plenty of time, if not distracted, couldn't help but hit a low, fat, relatively slow (don't kid yourself about 120 knots being fast and elusive), target which we presented that day. Not until you factor in not less than 5,000 rounds per minute, and as much as 13,000 rounds per minute, of distraction. Visualize being seated in sampans, or exposed on the deck of the junk while, two, four, or six guns fire at you without ceasing, sometimes in crossfire. Stand up and take careful aim if you dare. We returned to find the junk aground on a mud bank near shore and no one in sight. More rockets, even the willy pete (white phosphorous) failed to set the junk afire. So we broke off, topped off at Tra Vinh, and went looking for the LST with enough time to allow for Murphy's Law to do it's worst before dark.
So maybe, 15 50 caliber machine guns ripping the entire riverline apart with lead, comgined with untrained VC shooting low quality weapons from places where the rain of lead couldnt hit them had something to do with it.

This whole thing reminds me of Pulp fiction and the scene from the resturant.http://l2.declension.org/Pulpbush.jpg

Kerry, Rassman and Rood all say there was enemy fire.

Rood was not there. You're falling for what Kerry has been doing... trying to confuse the silver star and bronze star incidents in order to try to shore up his increasingly untenable position on his bronze star.

You have got to be kidding me LL. These guys were hiding in the jungle around the boats, and the boats are in an uncovered position. The flimsy argument of VC firing from sampans doesnt even compare first of all, second of all, Rassman claims there were bullets all around him ripping the water. The commanders of the boats, besides Kerry, all claim that immediately after the single mine exploded, they all tore up the jungle for 15 seconds, then when they realized there was no return fire at all they quit firing and began rescue operations. Kerry had by then hightailed it and hadn't even begun thinking about turning around yet. He says he was taking constant enemy fire for over 3 miles along the river.

How bout this?


Possibly you will be more successful in doing so. At the least a call should be made for David Alston to release his service records for January, February, and March of 1969 so that this matter may be clarified."

Release the records, Senator Kerry. Sign the 180!


For years now we have been lead to believe that both Sen. Kerry and the Rev. David Alston had served together on the PCF-94 in Vietnam, and therefore, making David Alston an eyewitness to Kerry's actions and heroism. The fact that Sen. Kerry has used a now famous photo of himself together with David Alston and other crewmates while serving on swift boats in Vietnam, left little reason to believe otherwise. As with most anything having to do with Sen. Kerry -- nothing is ever as it first appears to be. There can be little doubt that Sen. Kerry and David Alston wanted people to believe the two served together on the PCF-94 swift boat by some of their recent comments:


"We were in a lot of firefights," Alston said. "You learn a lot about people. After a firefight, John would come up to me and he would put his hand on me and he'd say, 'David, are you all right?'" And Kerry added: "I didn't know then that I had a man of God on my boat. That's probably why I'm here today." (Orlando Sentinel, 1/31/04)

"I stand here before you only because almighty God saw our boat safely through those rivers of death and destruction, by giving us a brave, wise, and decisive leader named John Kerry." (David Alston in a speech before the Democratic Convention)

"I can still see him now, standing in the doorway of the pilothouse, firing his M-16, shouting orders through the smoke and chaos_. Even wounded, or confronting sights no man should ever have to see, he never lost his cool." (David Alston in a speech before the Democratic Convention)

Rev. David Alston says, "When the bullets started to hit the side of the ship, we found out that John Kerry [could] lead. (Kerry for President Campaign Ad that aired early February '04)

Only problem with the above statements is that they are most [certainly] false because David Alston was never a crew member under Sen. Kerry nor could he had ever participated in combat operations with Sen. Kerry because they were assigned to two different boats. From December 14 to January 29, 1969 Sen. Kerry commanded the PCF-44 while David Alston was the Gunner onboard the PCF-94 under Lt.(jg) Peck. On January 29, 1969 both Peck and Alston were wounded and hospitalized. We know Alston was wounded on that date because his casualty report was made available briefly by the Kerry Campaign before they had removed it. Here is what it said:






AWFA: GMG2 DAVID MARION Alston, USN, 99T 57 46
BRAVO: ACTIVE DUTY, ATTACHED TO COASTAL DIVISION ELEVEN AT AN THOI, RVN
CHARLIE: INJURY, HOSTILE FIRE
DELTA: 29, JAN 69, 1030H, SONG CUA LON - SONG BO DE, WHILE SERVING AS FORWARD GUNNER ABOARD PCF 94, ENGAGED IN CORDON AND SEARCH OPERATIONS IN THE ABOVE RIVER, GMG2 Alston RECEIVED SHRAPNEL WOUNDS TO HIS HEAD WHEN PCF CAME UNDER INTENSE HOSTILE ROCKET AND A/W FIRE.
ECHO: CONDITION GOOD, PROGNOSIS GOOD. PRESENCE OF NOK IS NOT MEDICALLY WARRANTED AS REPORTED BY CORPSMAN.
FOXTROT: MRS. IDA MCQUILLAR ALSTON, MOTHER
GOLF: NOK NOT OFFICIALLY NOTIFIED. REQ NOK NOT REPEAT NOT BE NOTIFIED.
HOTEL: SERVICEMAN TREATED BY CORPSMAN AND MEDEVACED TO 29TH EVAC HOSP. BINH THUY.
2. PATIENT ABL TO COMMUNICATE WITH NOK.
3. NO FURTHER INFO WILL FOLLOW.


This confirms the date of David Alston's wounds, but it does not tell how seriously wounded David Alston was. There is no military medical records available for David Alston, and you cannot go by this casualty reports description of "condition good" because they will always be worded that way even if you had both legs shattered -- and then there is the fact no medical doctor had yet evaluated him. We can get a sense of the severity from the missing time Alston was away from the PCF-94, at least 28 days (Feb. 1-28.) If it was a minor wound he would not had to have been replaced all through February. We can also see today see the severity of the wound Alston suffered as shown below from Rev. Alston addressing Democratic Convention delegates.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040727/capt.dnc17707270223.cvn_alston__dnc177.jpg

As one can see, it was a sever[e] wound indeed, and Alston most likely lost tissue and scalp from this injury. We know this wound is from Jan. 29th and not by a later condition/injury because Alston's mother has refered to it as his "war wound." This is important evidence for dating another picture of him with Sen. Kerry below.

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/ker_crew.jpg

Now let's take a closer look at Alston.

http://idexer.com/images/alston_closeup.jpg

No signs of a serious head wound, or the treatment of such a wound, which would had required visible head shaving that would still had been visible weeks later if this picture had been taken in early March 1969 as sometimes suggested by writers. Thus, we can be confident that the picture in question was taken prior to January 29, a time when Sen. Kerry was still skipper of the PCF-44 and Alston was the gunner on the PCF-94. How did Sen. Kerry get in this picture then? We know Coastal Division 11 and 13 were participating in joint operations in January of 1969 from the Command History of Division 11 released by the Navy, and no doubt that the crews from each division shared the same faculties.

Now that we know when and how Alston was wounded, we can began to see how Alston could not have been part of Sen. Kerry's crew on the PCF-94 because he had been replaced, just as the wounded Lt. Peck had been replaced by Kerry after the January 29th incident that lead to both Alston and Peck being hospitalized. Was David Alston able to return to the PCF-94 during anytime between February 1 and March 13, Kerry's last combat mission? No evidence that he did or even the suggestion he physically could have with the injury he had suffered, because we know that on February 28, 1969, Fred Short was onboard and described as an replacement for a wounded David Alston. We Know David Alston was not onboard for Kerry's last combat mission on March 13, either. Therefore, we can confidently say David Alston was never part of Kerry's PCF-94 crew from February 1 through March 13, 1969 because he was still recovering from his head wounds.

David Alston's mother also implies that in an July 28, 2004 interview with The Herald that after David was wounded on January 29, 1969 and survived, he came home.

Could the Rev. David Alston have served on another boat with Sen. Kerry? The Rev. Alston has discounted this theory before the world when spoke from the podium during the Democratic National Convention:

"I know him from a small boat in Vietnam, where we fought and bled together, serving our country. There were six of us aboard PCF-94, a 50-foot, twin-engine craft known as a "Swift Boat." We all came from different walks of life, but all of us-including our skipper, John Kerry-volunteered for combat duty. And combat is what we got."

So clearly he was on no other boat other than the PCF-94, and this is consistent with documents and eyewitness reports.

One other question that needs answered is whether David Alston could had been able to participate in combat missions with Kerry from a different swift boat? Looking at the daily combat missions for Coastal Division 11 for January 1969 we do not find both the PCF-44 (Kerry's boat) and the PCF-94 (Alston's boat) involved in any joint missions together. December offers no window of opportunity either since according to Kerry's fitrep (Fitness Report) he could only had taken over command of the PCF-44 until after December 14, 1969, and again, logs do not place the PCF-44 and 94 on any joint missions together during middle of December to January 1.

This conclusion is further supported by the fact David Alston, or any other Kerry crewmember, has ever ventured to describe specific missions that Alston and Kerry could have participated in. All discussion of Alston and Kerry together is vague, generalized and non-specific. On the other hand, his other crewmates can talk about specific missions and acts such as the day Sen. Kerry killed a fleeing enemy soldier.

Everything we were told by David Alston, Sen. Kerry and his people clearly cannot be true in regards to Kerry's Vietnam relationship with David Alston. This is not a mere little slip of the tongue, but an orchestrated scheme over the last few years to outright deceive people about Sen. Kerry's military service. Why did the Rev. David Alston insist he and Kerry served together on the PCF-94?

"I owe John Kerry my life," the Rev. David Alston was quoted as saying, "But John Kerry owes his life to me, too." Good possibility that Sen. Kerry indeed may owe his political life to some of his former crewmates, including Alston at this stage.

Another troubling question arises from this disclosure -- why hasn't any of Sen. Kerry's supporting "Band of Brothers" stepped forward and correct the record of the Kerry/Alston relationship, something they would know firsthand cannot be possible? Perhaps for the same reason none of them have volunteered to correct other known discrepancies in Sen. Kerry's stated record, such as Sen. Kerry being the officer in charge of the PCF-94 during January of 1969 when in fact he was not. Of course, if Kerry could have place himself on the PCF-94 during January, he and Alston could than say, with a straight honest face that they both had served together on the PCF-94.

http://www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/cartoon/images/monkey.jpg

Oh look more political satire.. its so cool.

Ok, you doubt Kerry, you doubt Rassman. How about a 3rd account?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1803&e=3&u=/washpost/a21239_2004aug21

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

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

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

Ah yes, Rood.

Let's focus in on one all important detail:


Kerry had personally contacted him and other crew members in recent days
It doesn't bother you that this guy comes forward to back him up only after Kerry gets in touch with him?

What did Kerry say to get Rood to come forward on his behalf now when he did not feel the need to do so earlier?

The SBVT ad has been going for a long time.

A more important question would be why, if he has contacted multiple crew members in recent days, only one has come forward to back his side of the story.

We're still waiting for him to release his military records, too. He has put forward 6 pages out of over 100, to give you some idea of just how little has been made public.

Shall we have a show of hands of those there that day and see who supports which story? You're still ignoring the point that his story is the one that has changed twice in the incident and the one with the inconsistencies between he and Rassman, and Rassman contradicting himself.


If not for the Swift Vets he'd still be telling the version where everyone else took off and he came back alone through heavy enemy fire which hit nothing to rescue this guy that fell off of the 3 boat, with his arm bleeding from... a bruise that was treated with a cold cloth. He'd also be having us believe that the damage to his boat and his minor hip injury had come from that day when his own accounts have contradicting that, showing that his hip injury and the damage to his boat had come the previous day in a grenade accident.





Once, he even directed the helmsman to beach the boat, right into the teeth of an ambush, and pursued our attackers on foot, into the jungle. In the toughest of situations, Lieutenant Kerry showed judgment, loyalty and courage. Even wounded, or confronting sights no man should ever have to see, he never lost his cool.
Coming from a man who served a total of 7 days with Kerry, speaking about an incident that he was not present at. Yet this is Kerry's poster-boy "crewmate" supporter.

Twas the night before Christmas and we were afloat Somewhere in Cambodia in our little boat. While the river was lightened by rockets red glare No one but the President knew we were there.



The crew was all nestled deep down in their bunks, While the Spook and I watched the sampans and junks. Our mission was secret, so secret in fact, No one else would remember it when we got back.



When out on the water there arose such a clatter I leaped down from the bridge to see what was the matter. The incoming friendly was starting to flash And I knew that the ARVN's were having a bash.


The snap of friendly fire on the warm tropic air Convinced me for sure no one knew we were there, On a clandestine mission so secret it's true That I'm still convinced only Tricky Dick knew.



While I huddled for safety in the tub on the bow, I thought of a title, "Apocalypse Now." To give to the films I was I making each day To show all the voters when I made my big play.



As I sat there sweating in my lucky flight jacket, Spook said, "Merry Christmas!" and tossed me a packet. And what to my wondering eyes did appear, But a new lucky cap, which I still have right here.


I keep it tucked here, in this leather brief case, Just sharing with the press its secretive place As I regale them again with my senate refrain, That Christmas in Cambodia is seared into my brain.


Don't bother to quibble with history my friend, By pointing out Johnson was President then. Don't listen to Swiftees who try to explain, For I tell you that night is seared into my brain.



Down Hibbard, down Lonsdale, and you too O'Neill, So you don't remember? Well it's something I feel. I don't need all you Swiftvets to support my campaign, Cause Christmas in Cambodia is seared into my brain

Shamelessly stolen!

The main issue here is this. Was there enemy fire?
3 People have said there was definitivly. Kerry, Rassman now Langhofer.

The personal attacks have started on Rassman, as I see above, because it isnt enough to disagree, the attempt must be made to personally destroy, to paint him as a coward, a liar, a do nothing bumpkin that was AWOL. Thats called desperation.

When do the personal attacks come on Langhofer? When do the private eyes start trying to dig up dirt? Winterworg, this isnt a quest for the truth, its a quest to destroy. And anyone who gets in their way will be attacked, will be smeared.

This man, Oneill, after he worked for Nixon in 1971 was given a clerkship in the Supreme Court to Justice Reinquist after he did the deed for him in 1971. Now he works in a Texas Law firm with MASSIVE ties to Bush (http://www.copwf.com) one of his co-partners is Margaret Wilson, Bush's general counsel from 1998-2000. He is a lawyer that owes his position to the Republican party. A attack dog, bought and paid for.

More lies from Bush. He denies having connection to the ads. Ya, ok. Do you REALLY believe that? Funded and run by people with direct ties to him. This is a pure hatchet job.
But Bush doesnt lie, because Bush is an honorable man.
And its not about ideas, its not about opinions. Its the propulgation of lies. Thurlow is lying. He says there was no gunfire. 3 other people say there was.
Thurlow lied about the gunfire. Everything else is colored by that.

But Bush doesnt lie, because Bush is an honorable manAbout the only truthful thing in your whole post. Your willful ignorance is outstanding.

You know, if you're going to show off your(well, not your) knowledge of a vast right wing conspiracy you should try to be more correct with the facts.I was just linking to a picture that the Kerry supporters might want to use; as evidenced by my "you might want to link this picture, L2"

I really didn't care how factual it was, I just wanted to take part in "biased picture time!"


I think Kerry is a twit. I don't think he can run the country. I'm most likely going to vote for Bush, unless Kerry manages to pull something out of his ass to really impress me.

The only wish I have is for Bush to improve his foreign policy. Operating under the "we'll patch things up after we invade some shit" only works if you try to patch things up. So far, I haven't seen him make much effort in that direction.

I think Kerry is a twit. I don't think he can run the country. I'm most likely going to vote for Bush, unless Kerry manages to pull something out of his ass to really impress me.
I agree...except I think both are twits. IMO, I know Bush can't run the country...so I'll take a shot that Kerry might be able....not holding my breath though. Wish McCain was running...I like that guy!!

[QUOTE=Lleauaric]


More lies from Bush. He denies having connection to the ads. Ya, ok. Do you REALLY believe that? Funded and run by people with direct ties to him. This is a pure hatchet job. [QUOTE]


In all honesty here L2 you could connect James Carville to Bush if you wanted to (Carville is married to Mary Matalin (sp) , Matalin worked for G Bush Sr, Sr is Jr's daddy).

I also do not argue that this is politcally motivated (in my mind) to keep Kerry from winning the presidency.

I stand by my original statement that Kerry is acting like a puss about it though. Bush is eclipsed in these 527's from Demo backing (I checked it out and its not even close) but he doesn't cry like a girl over it.

If he should get elected I fear the day he has to deal with real adversity with like say , a copy of Saddam, who will eat him alive.

But back to my point in this post. The inner circles are tight at the top of both political parties. While the connection brought out in the flow chart should be considered .... it is far from daming evidence. I may make a couple of my own flow charts that are far less obscure than that one that links mega-money to Kerry.....

I agree...except I think both are twits. IMO, I know Bush can't run the country...so I'll take a shot that Kerry might be able....not holding my breath though
Oh... I don't LIKE Bush. I just dislike him less than Kerry at the current point in time. He is a known quantity. I also don't feel like throwing a vote away on that nutjob Nader.

I already did that bise, although it isn't in flow chart form

http://forums.ayonae.ro/showpost.php?p=69750&postcount=46

Don't worry though, Lleauaric and crew will ignore that as surely as they ignore the fact that there were over 20 people there the day of the bronze star and while 3 say there was enemy fire the majority say there was none.

Lollerskates!

The most effective part of the Swiftboats campaign has been the assertion that they are independant, and are only concerned for the truth. They had no political affiliation.
This illusion has been shattered. That tool destroyed. When people hear swiftboats, they will think Bush as much as Kerry, and the light upon which it is viewed will be changed permanetly.
The more saturation in the media from the this, and more doubts and bickering, and the more Kerry links Bush to the attacks, the more they lose their effectiveness and become more partisan bickering.
Over exposure to this now Kerrys friend imo. Let people just get sick of hearning about it, and all the argueing and bickering.

Bush has greater problems to worry about then Kerry atm. The RNC convention has the potential to be Chicago 68 all over again. Instead of cameras and networks on the speeches, plan on seeing them on the streets in the massive demonstations that will occur. Over 250 thousand protesters are estimated to be coming. NYPD plans on at least 1k arrests a day.
It will be interesting hearing a man talk about how he is uniting America, when the biggest protests in 40 years are happening outside his doors.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20040823/ap_on_el_pr/war_politics

Of course, I'm sure the anti-Bush fanatics still won't be happy. I've gotta say, reading the mega left wing stuff here has about coaxed me into wanting to vote, just so I can vote for someone other than Kerry.

Bush has greater problems to worry about then Kerry atm. The RNC convention has the potential to be Chicago 68 all over again. Instead of cameras and networks on the speeches, plan on seeing them on the streets in the massive demonstations that will occur. Over 250 thousand protesters are estimated to be coming. NYPD plans on at least 1k arrests a day.
It will be interesting hearing a man talk about how he is uniting America, when the biggest protests in 40 years are happening outside his doors.
On a side note it will be fun to see the NYPD beat some hippie ass. Almost wish it was like a pay-per-view or something.

RNC convention has the potential to be Chicago 68 all over again.LL needs a lesson in history. Somehow I doubt many of the protesters in NYC will be Republicans protesting their own convention. I'm also surprised how soon you forgot (or were simply ignorant of) the WTO protests in Seattle or the Rodney King protests in LA. If NYC is greater/more violent than those 2 protests, it will only favor Bush.

Really? Massive anti war protests against the incumbant party, contrasted with a police force that was on edge.
You think there isnt ALOT of anger in the country now? This nation hasnt been this bitterly divided for A LONG time.. since prolly 1968. NYC looks like a place where things can easily boil over.
They called it "Czechago." Nowhere else during that decade was dissension so dramatically opposed as on the streets of Chicago during the turbulent Democratic National Convention in August 1968. The barbed wire-laced jeeps in Grant Park evoked images of Russian tanks in the streets of Prague.

For many it was a watershed event. After the Tet offensive that January many Americans began to shift their opinions of the war in Vietnam; after Chicago '68 they began to doubt the ability of American institutions to tolerate active dissension.

Chicago '68 was more than just another in a series of antiwar protests, and it was more than just a riot—no matter, whose riot. Chicago '68 was a focal point of the decade. On the streets and in the parks of Chicago the social conflicts of the Sixties were on display.

Heads were cracked, tear gas billowed, police lines advanced through demonstrators—and television cameras captured some of the graphic scenes. The eyes of the nation focused on Chicago and we decided who we were, what side we were on, and what we would fight for. Chicago changed minds, Chicago changed politics, Chicago changed the Left, Chicago changed the media, Chicago changed those who were here and those who watched from far away, and Chicago changed Chicago.

What happened in Chicago in August of 1968 changed our political and cultural institutions, and so it shaped our current political and cultural life. If we understand Chicago '68 we will understand not only a major event in our history but we will also better understand who we are now.

For the Democratic party, Chicago '68 doomed the candidacy of Hubert Humphrey and set off shock waves of reform.

History lesson again llauric. Who protested the '68 convention? Hint since you seem to be thick skulled -- it wasn't the Republicans.

The personal attacks have started on Rassman, as I see above, because it isnt enough to disagree, the attempt must be made to personally destroy, to paint him as a coward, a liar, a do nothing bumpkin that was AWOL. Thats called desperation.



Lol... then the democrats have been in desperation for 3 years now. Thanks for the ironic laugh. Come on you have to see how silly your saying that is. Again you get on the high horse and claim that all conservatives do is lie and smear. First of all I disagree, and second of all that's like the skunk telling the dog he stinks. How dare you speak out against John Kerry... you will be sued and harassed. The left has spent 10s of millions of dollars more through 527s than the right. What you want is for Bush to lay down and play dead while he gets pummeled with attack ads... I've seen tons of them, while the only time I've seen an attack ad on Kerry is when the news plays the Swift Vets ad.

More lies from Bush. He denies having connection to the ads. Ya, ok. Do you REALLY believe that? Funded and run by people with direct ties to him. This is a pure hatchet job.
But Bush doesnt lie, because Bush is an honorable man.
And its not about ideas, its not about opinions. Its the propulgation of lies. Thurlow is lying. He says there was no gunfire. 3 other people say there was.
Thurlow lied about the gunfire. Everything else is colored by that.
Again... you want to see a show of hands? Who has changed their story? Kerry has had to because he was lying publicly about the actions of that day. Why? Because if there was so much fire why did the other boats stay and begin rescue operations while he fled? Look at the citations. The other boats immediately began rescue operations. Kerry returned to the scene and plucked Rassman from the water. There were 4 men in the water... yet Kerry's account had him returning alone into blazing enemy fire, bleeding from a ... painful bruise.... and rescuing one of them. I guess they just left the other 3 in the water. Oh yeah they were already rescued by the time Kerry decided to return, and a boat was on the way to get Rassman when Kerry showed up. You want to see the results when water mines and heavy enemy fire are combined? Look Langhofer was involved in this one too.

http://www.pcf45.com/sealords/silvermace/silvermace.html

Somehow there were no bulletholes or casualties though in Kerry's scenario. O'Neil was in charge of PCF 94 that day. Kerry's own journal now gives away his lie that the injury he was treated for for his third purple heart happened in an accident the day before while throwing grenades in rice stashes. Therefore it was a fraud.

Over exposure to this now Kerrys friend imo. Let people just get sick of hearning about it, and all the argueing and bickering.
Yeah Kerry is relying on that. When he started getting hit back suddenly all the negative stuff like Bush has been permahit by for months is out of bounds. It's almost as hilarious when Kerry tries to play the high horse card as when you do it LL.

When Bush came to Seattle a couple weeks ago... remember its a bastion of liberal whackoism... there were rumored to be 10's of thousands of protesters who were going to block the freeway and invade the neighborhood of the house where he was meeting some supporters. Ended up being about 100 people standing on a corner flipping off people who went by with Bush stickers on their cars. What a tremendous groundswell of protest that was. The biggest protest came from the municipality which demanded that the RNC pay for the extra security and police that they put in place for the visit... even though they didn't demand the same thing when Clinton came to visit. What did Bush have to say about it? He told them to use the money to fix all the potholes his car hit on the way in. Classic. I'm sure there'll be the typical whackjob protests from those who can't find civilized ways to express themselves, but it won't be anything like you envision in your little wetdream, though I'm sure the media will try like heck to hype whatever protests there are.

I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star was language taken directly from John Kerry's report which falsely described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river.

To this day, I can say without a doubt in my mind, along with other accounts from my shipmates -- there was no hostile enemy fire directed at my boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day.

I submitted no paperwork for a medal nor did I file an after action report describing the incident. To my knowledge, John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incidents that occurred on the river that day.

It was not until I had left the Navy -- approximately three months after I left the service -- that I was notified that I was to receive a citation for my actions on that day.

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. My boat and several other swift boats went to the aid of our fellow swift boat sailors whose craft was adrift and taking on water. We provided immediate rescue and damage control to prevent boat three from sinking and to offer immediate protection and comfort to the injured crew.

After the mine exploded, leaving swift boat three dead in the water, John Kerry's boat, which was on the opposite side of the river, fled the scene. US Army Special Forces officer Jim Rassmann, who was on Kerry's boat at the time, fell off the boat and into the water. Kerry's boat returned several minutes later -- under no hail of enemy gunfire -- to retrieve Rassmann from the river only seconds before another boat was going to pick him up.

Kerry campaign spokespersons have conflicting accounts of this incident -- the latest one being that Kerry's boat did leave but only briefly and returned under withering enemy fire to rescue Mr. Rassmann. However, none of the other boats on the river that day reported enemy fire nor was anyone wounded by small arms action. The only damage on that day was done to boat three -- a result of the underwater mine. None of the other swift boats received damage from enemy gunfire.

And in a new development, Kerry campaign officials are now finally acknowledging that while Kerry's boat left the scene, none of the other boats on the river ever left the damaged swift boat. This is a direct contradiction to previous accounts made by Jim Rassmann in the Oregonian newspaper and a direct contradiction to the "No Man Left Behind" theme during the Democratic National Convention. These ever changing accounts of the Bay Hap River incident by Kerry campaign officials leave me asking one question. If no one ever left the scene of the Bay Hap River incident, how could anyone be left behind?


-Thurlow







A courageous, soft spoken man of the Midwest, Larry Thurlow has a heart bigger than the great plains and a commitment to truth and honesty that is boundless. He is under attack, because John Kerry is feeling the heat of truth at the hands of this honest man and others like him.

The Kerry Campaign is attacking the truthfulness of this man and the Bronze Star he so richly deserves for his actions on March 13, 1969. I was there. I saw what happened.

The mine’s detonation lifted PCF-3 completely out of the water just yards ahead of me. All boats commenced suppression fire in case enemy small arms fire ensued. None did.

All boats came to the aid of PCF-3, except one: John Kerry’s boat. Kerry fled.

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.

To reiterate, only one enemy weapon was deployed that day -– the command-detonated submerged mine that disabled PCF-3. Larry Thurlow's citation contained references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire," because that was the language chosen by John Kerry who penned the "spot report" on the action that day. There was no "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" received that day. John Kerry’s report was fiction -– a hoax on the entire chain of command. Larry Thurlow's heroism and meritorious service, however, is real. To me Larry is one of the heroes of our country. He is a man who served his country when called and who returned home to be a productive citizen. Larry and men like him are the strong backbone of our society. I am proud to have served with him.


-Van Odell







I am outraged by Michael Dobbs' attack on Larry Thurlow and his Bronze Star award.

The reason the citation mentions "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" is because it is based on the "spot report" that John Kerry submitted. Any and all awards presented for actions on 13 March 1969 would be similar, if not verbatim, regarding enemy gunfire, because the only information submitted to the chain of command was falsified by Kerry.

Mr. Dobbs also grossly mischaracterizes my statements, and probably those of Richard Pees as well, when he states that we "do not remember coming under 'enemy fire.'" He needs to go back and review his notes. I emphatically told him -– as I’ve told countless other reporters -- that there was no enemy gunfire from either bank at any time, that the only event of the day was the mine under PCF 3, followed by suppression fire from all of our boats. Mr. Dobbs is entitled to take whatever position he wants on the issue of who is telling the truth, but it is not right for him to mischaracterize my remarks so that it looks like I didn't "remember" whether there was enemy fire. I remember vividly. There was no enemy fire.

-Chenoweth







The Navy did not send Republicans or Democrats to the island of An Thoi. We are responding and dealing with something that is deeply personal -- our own record and the record of our unit in Vietnam. These are issues Senator Kerry raised and we regret that he uses ad hominem attacks instead of dealing with the actual facts. He is doing that because he can’t deal with the truth.

For example, for 35 years he said he claimed that one of the turning points of his life was spending Christmas Eve and Christmas illegally in Cambodia, libeling our commanders and our nation with accusations of war crimes. That is a totally false statement because he was no where near Cambodia on Christmas Eve and Christmas day. The Kerry campaign continues to flip flop on the Cambodia issue.

In addition, Senator Kerry closed the Democratic National Convention with a story in which he claimed that five of the boats fled on March 13 after a mine went off and he came back. His campaign is now admitting that he fled and the rest stayed.

Attacking our organization does not respond to the facts that occurred in Vietnam. Senator Kerry says that he has learned to charge into an ambush in connection with this, instead he is fleeing down the river from the facts. -- Mr. O’Neill is co-author of Unfit for Command.


http://www.swiftvets.com/images/brothers.jpg



Updated photo adding new support for Kerry.





-- by Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer

As the authors of Fake Warriors: Identifying, Exposing and Punishing Those Who Falsify Their Military Service, we receive scores of emails on our website either asking questions about the Fake Warrior phenomenon (which has reached epidemic proportions), or reporting sightings which sometimes lead to exposure and even fines or jail terms.

One Vietnam vet with nearly forty years of military service who retired as a major, spurred on by the revelations in our book, and, in his words. “having seen hundreds of DD 214s” (a veteran’s Record of Transfer or Separation), recently decided to take a close look at John Kerry’s DD 214, which is posted on his website. What the major called to our attention, which we have since verified, raises some extremely troubling questions about John Kerry’s Silver Star. Keep in mind that the Silver Star is the third-highest medal our Nation can bestow (after only the Medal of Honor and the three service “Crosses”).

Kerry's DD 214 lists a Silver Star with a combat “V” (for valor). As the major correctly observes, the “V” is never awarded with the Silver Star. But the actual wording on Kerry’s DD 214 (see www.johnkerry.com) is: “SILVER STAR WITH COMBAT ‘V’.”

There is an abundance of anecdotal evidence that a combat “V” (called a “Combat Distinguishing Device”) is simply not awarded with a Silver Star. For example, a former Vietnam War POW told us that he has “three SSs, and there was no V for any of them.” Countless other Silver Star recipients all say the same thing. Why? Because, among other reasons, it would be redundant to award a Silver Star for “gallantry” (the statutory term) and then embellish it with a “V” for valor.

Most conclusive, however, is that the law is very clear about the award of Combat Distinguishing Devices. According to the Navy Awards Manual:

Bronze "V" (Combat Distinguishing Device).

Prior to . . . 1974, the "V" was authorized for wear on the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Navy Commendation Medal and Navy Achievement Medal. Between . . .1974 and . . . 1991, the "V" was authorized for wear on the Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal and Navy Commendation Medal. [In] . . . 1991, the "V" was authorized for wear on the Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal. In all cases, the Combat Distinguishing Device may only be worn if specifically authorized in the citation. See also http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Valor_device (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Valor_device).

Because the “V” is authorized for only the ten awards cited above, but not for the Silver Star, Kerry’s Silver Star citation (the “explanation” of why the award was made) does not even mention the “V” for valor (see JohnKerry.com (http://www.johnkerry.com/)).

The presence of the combat “V” with Kerry’s Silver Star on his DD 214 raises two extremely disquieting questions. How did the unauthorized “V” get there, and why has Kerry allowed it to remain?

The first question should not be taken lightly because we are talking about possible federal crimes. We are talking about the possibility of a forged official document. We are talking, as well, about Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, which states: “[W]hoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States, knowingly and willfully . . . makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.”

Was the combat “V” added by a sloppy clerk or a yeoman’s typo thirty years ago? Was someone pressured or persuaded to add it? If Kerry had nothing to do with the gratuitously added combat “V,” why didn’t he have his DD 214 corrected when he was separated from the Navy?

Which gives rise to the second disturbing question: If Kerry was not a party to the unauthorized “V,” why, for all these years, has he allowed his DD 214 to remain uncorrected and to repose on his website?

In light of the recent Swift Boat revelations and the cloud they have cast over Kerry’s awards, one plausible answer is that this is yet another example of Kerry’s multiple, and increasingly transparent, lies about his alleged heroics in Vietnam. Let’s hope it won’t take a controversial TV spot to spark a mainstream media investigation of how candidate Kerry received an unearned “V” for valor.






http://www.fakewarriors.com/



Kerry relied upon phonies and wannabes for support. His prominence has allowed current phonies and wannabes to continue the unsubstantiated allegations made all those years ago and which Kerry appears to condone even today. For example:

Elton Mazione, claiming Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) credentials, Kerry's original organization, along with his friends, John Laboon, Eddie Swetz, and Kenneth Van Lesser. They claimed to kill children and remove body parts as part of the notorious Phoenix program. They were neither in Phoenix nor in Vietnam.

Kerry's VVAW leader friend from 1971, Al Hubbard, lied about being an
officer, Vietnam Veteran, and sustaining war injuries. Michael Harbert,
another VVAW crony of Kerry, lied about his Vietnam service.

Frank Dux: He charged many recognizable Vietnam vets with using techniques bordering on war crimes. Dux was a fraud and non Vietnam Veteran.

Yoshia K. Chee claimed we in Vietnam routinely resorted to the most
hideous forms of torture, threw people out of helicopters, and decapitated prisoners. He was a phony.

Mike Beamon, an alleged SEAL and Phoenix assassin, was never in the
military.

The Senator's own VVAW and similar groups relied upon people like: K.
Barton Osborn, a Vietnam veteran and testifier of atrocities to Congress.
He told of prisoners being thrown out of helicopters, a woman starved to
death, a prisoner being killed by a six inch dowel pushed through his ear.
Osborn was not in Phoenix, refused to name names, and provided no
documentation.

Lieutenants Francis Reitemeyer and Michael J. Cohn. Both sought
conscientious objector status because of Phoenix. Reitemeyer testified to
being assigned to Phoenix as an adviser and maintained a kill quota of
fifty bodies a month. They became famous as My Lai hit the news. Neither
served in Vietnam, in Phoenix, or had any first hand information.
Reitemeyer later denied receiving any assassination training.