Critical "Swift Boat Veteran" Retracts Charges Against Kerry

[TwistofFat]

So, Glenn, if I can paraphrase ... what you need is a bit of "nuance".

What Senate voting records are you referring to? All of those bills should be fairly easy to look up and discuss, if we want to find specifics.

As to how we should deal with the current conflict ... I think Kerry has laid out a plan to restore faith with our Allies and work with them to assist us in being more 'humble'.

As to how to deal with wing-nut mullah's (yes those are two seperate things), again, this requires strengthening alliances, so that we can effectively monitor behaviors and take action when required. Wing-nut Mullah's are only a cause for concern if they are going to actually take an action to kill us in our homes. Until then, if we take any action, we are just being paranoid.

As to what Kerry said in 1972, it's all on record. Go read it. Please, read it. Because much of what Kerry is claimed to have said, was actually told to him from other Vets. Again, Nuance. But hell ... war is just that. It's ugly, people get killed, people kill, people do bad things. In the Norwegian countries, the legend of the Berserker can no doubt be seen in present day soldiers. It's ugly. Which is why, of course, war should be a last choice, unless, well .. .never mind.

I would gladly research some items to answer these questions, but we aren't seeing these questions. We're hearing the SBVT over and over and over.

Mike - that was an excellent response. When I get back tomorrow I will dive into my response. Regarding the faith of our allies - I did see that Iran has said no to the UN's request on the nuke fuel and the UN will impose sanctions in the near future. How will Mr. Kerry get the UN to step up if sanctions fail? If we find ourselves with another 1440 violation is you point that Kerry will get the UN to intervene?

Thanks - Glenn.

 

[michaeledward]

Mike - that was an excellent response. When I get back tomorrow I will dive into my response. Regarding the faith of our allies - I did see that Iran has said no to the UN's request on the nuke fuel and the UN will impose sanctions in the near future. How will Mr. Kerry get the UN to step up if sanctions fail? If we find ourselves with another 1440 violation is you point that Kerry will get the UN to intervene?

Do you think the Spanish would not vote to prevent the possibility of terrorism (Madrid trains)? the British (Lockerbie), Indonesia (Bali), Kenya or Tanzania (US Embassy bombings), Malta (Egypt Air Hijacking) Etcetera, Etcetera, Etcetera. The rest of the world has been living in the 'War on Terror' for at least twenty years. Working to prevent the proliferation of nuclear material, and to suppress terrorism is something they have been fighting for years.

But your question is not really what my point is (or is not), but rather, what has Candidate Kerry said about this issue.....

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0601.html

Last week, I proposed a new national security policy guided by four imperatives: First, we must lead strong alliances for the post 9/11 world. Second, we must modernize the world’s most powerful military to meet new threats. Third, in addition to our military might, we must deploy all that is in America’s arsenal -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas. Fourth, to secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Middle East oil.
. . .
Let me say it plainly: a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable. An America whose interest and allies could be on the target list must no longer sit on the sidelines. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve those issues.

or here
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0527.html

Any potential adversary should know that we will defend ourselves against the possibility of attack by unconventional arms. If such a strike does occur, as commander-in-chief, I will respond with overwhelming and devastating force. If such an attack appears imminent, as commander-in-chief, I will do whatever is necessary to stop it. And, as commander-in-chief, I will never cede our security to anyone. I will always do what is necessary to safeguard our country.
. . .
And let me be absolutely clear: As commander-in-chief, I will bring the full force of our nation's power to bear on finding and crushing your networks. We will use every available resource to destroy you.

 

[Trident]

Mike - how can you say, so absolutely, that " THE ACCUSATIONS ARE FALSE!!"? You weren't there. Neither was I, nor likely anyone else posting on this board.
Memories of events from 30+ years ago can be a little hazy. People can view the same event and come away with different ideas of what happened. People often embellish the part they played in past events. Statistically, though, you have John Kerry & a dozen or so supporters claiming one version, and 264 people who were also there claiming another.

Before we get all self righteous about this "assault on the proud institution of the United States Navy.", let me explain a little about how awards & decorations are supposed to be done: Say Ltjg Gronk does something really great, above & beyond. His immediate superior should submit an award recommendation for said event to the CO, who will either sign it or reject it. If he signs it, it goes up the chain to a review board who will read the events summary & decide what to award, if anything, often months down the road. The entire process assumes that the write up is accurate. No one goes back to fact check, especially in war time. Lets now way the Ltjg Gronk didn't do anything special, but really wants a medal anyway. He submits his own writeup of events & convinces some more senior officer to sign off on it. Once signed, process is the same, and no one is the wiser. Highly plausible that a few months later, when the award comes through, Ltjg Gronk's shipmates could be ticked off & call "BS". Too late - the award is issued and the citation is part of the official record. I've seen it happen. This is the process, holes and all. Clarification of this process is not the same as impugning it.

Robert - interesting that Kerry is a man of courage and integrity because he went to Vietnam, but the others who also served in Vietnam, yet dare to disagree with his version of his service there are a "group of loons"

Just my ex Navy officer 2 cents

Mike

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The accusations aren't that Kerry didnt go to Vietnam, but that he basically lied about what he had done there. I'm hardly trying to defend Bush, I hope he gets voted out. But the accusations are that Kerry lied about his actions, not that he didnt serve.

The allegations are bogus and have been proven so many times over. Giving credence to them when they've been exposed as the lies that they are is dishonest. Supporting a falsehood when it has been exposed as such is immoral.

The problem I have with this administration is its dishonesty. Whole books have been written about the deceptions, dirty tricks, slander, two-timing and trickery that have come out of the White House since Bush took office. This latest attack ad, so much like the tactics used against Cleland and McCain, is icing on the cake.

I have close friends who when they hear the arguments against the Swift Boat Vets literally start shouting down the opposition a la Sean Hannity. Its ridiculous. They might as well hold their hands over their ears and chant "Na, na, na, na, na!!! I can't hear you!" It is a silly and embarrassing denial of what I suspect they know. It is a lie. The President they voted for-who promised to bring integrity to the White House-is backing a lie.

And its just one of many.

Regards,


Steve

 

[RandomPhantom700]

To quickly clarify, I don't support the accusations against Kerry at all, nor was I trying to defend them. Just correcting robertson on what I thought was a misphrasing of them.

 

[michaeledward]

Mike - Do you really mean to suggest that these medals are there for the taking? Do you think so little of our Armed Services?

Here is the text; These are the official record of what happened on March 13, 1969. This is not my opinion of what happened (and I am a Left Wing Lunatic). These were submitted, reviewed, signed and stood as evidence for what happened for 35 years.


Text for Bronze Star Recommendation for John Forbes Kerry
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/bronze_star_recommendation.pdf

Bronze Star Medal
Heroic = X
Combat "V" Recommended = YES
Has Service Been Honorable (if not, attach statement) = YES
Eyewitness: D.L. SANDUSKY QM1,

On 13 March 1969, LTJG KERRY was serving as Officer-in-Charge of PCF-94 conducting a five boat Sea Lords operation in the Bay Hap river and Dong Gung canal together with ground forces. After sweeping the area for five hours, the boats extracted the ground troops and began exiting the river. Shortly after starting their exit, a mine detonated under one of the boats (PCF-3), lifting it two feet above the water and wounding everyone aboard. Almost simultaneously, another mine detonated close aboard PCF-94, knocking 1st LT RASSMAN into the water and wounding LTJG KERRY in the right arm. PCF-51 immediately went to the aid of PCF-3 while PCF-94 provided cover fire. Shortly after LTJG KERRY was informed that he had a man overboard, he immediately turned his boat around to assist the man in the water, who by this time was receiving sniper fire from the river banks. LTJG KERRY, from his exposed position on the bow of the boat, managed to pull LT RASSMAN aboard despite the painful wound in his right arm. Meanwhile, PCF-94 gunners provided accurate suppressing fire. LTJG KERRY then directed PCF-94 to the stricken PCF-3, where his crew attached a line and towed the boat clear of danger. Throughout the entire action, LTJG KERRY proved himself to be calm, professional, and highly courageous in the face of enemy fire.

Originator: G.M. ELLIOTT, LCDR, COMCOSDIV ELEVEN
Date: 1 April 1969

Text of Bronze Star Recommendation for Radarman 1st Class Robert Eugene Lambert

For meritorious achievement while serving with Coastal Division ELEVEN engaged in armed conflict against Viet Cong communist aggressors in An Xuyen Province, Republic of Vietnam on 13 March 1969. Inshore Patrol Craft [PCF] 51, with Petty Officer Lambert serving as Leading Petty Officer, was conducting a SEA LORDS operation in the Bay Hap river with four other boats. The boats were exiting the river when a mine detonated under another Inshore Patrol Craft, inflicting heavy damage to the boat and wounding the entire crew. At the same time, all units came under small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. Inshore Patrol Craft 51 immediately proceeded to aid the damaged Inshore Patrol Craft, where the Officer-in-Charge [Larry Thurlow] leaped aboard to render assistance. Petty Officer LAMBERT assumed command of Inshore Patrol Craft 51 and directed accurate suppressing fire at the enemy. While administering first aid to the crew of the damaged Inshore Patrol Craft, Inshore Patrol Craft 51's Officer-in-Charge was knocked overboard. Petty Officer LAMBERT, without hesitation, directed Inshore Patrol Craft 51 alongside his Officer-in-Charge, where, from an exposed position and with complete disregard for his personal safety, he pulled him aboard. Petty Officer LAMBERT then returned his Officer-in-Charge to the aid of the damaged Inshore Patrol Craft and remained in command of Inshore Patrol Craft 51 until all units cleared the river. Petty Officer LAMBERT's coolness, professionalism and courage under fire significantly contributed to the rescue of his Officer-in-Charge and the damaged Inshore Patrol Craft and were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/veterans_awardrecommendation.pdf
Text of Bronze Star Recommendation for Larry Raymond Thurlow

Bronze Star Medal
Heroic = X
Combat "V" Recommend = YES
Has Service Been Honorable? (if not, attach statement) = REDACTED
Eyewitness = R.E. Lambert RD1

On 13 March, 1969, LTJG THURLOW was serving as Officer-in-Charge of PCF-51, conducting a five boat Sea Lords operation in the Bay Hap River and Dong Gung canal together with ground units. After weeping the area for five hours, the boats extracted the ground troops and began exiting the river. Shortly after starting their exit, a mine detonated under one of the boats (PCF-3), lifting it two feet above the water and wounding everyone onboard. At the same time, all the boats came under small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. LTJG THURLOW immediately directed PCF-51 to assist PCF-3, where he leaped aboard the stricken boat. Finding the entire crew either wounded or in shock, LTJG THURLOW began administering first aid, as PCF-51 backed off and provided cover fire. While administering first aid to the forward gunner, LTJG THURLOW was knocked overboard when PCF-3 ran aground out of control. Fighting a three to four knot current, LTJG THURLOW managed to stay afloat with PCF-51 rushing to his aid to pull him aboard. Once aboard ****ough exhausted and out of breath, LTJG THURLOW, after radioing for MEDEVAC and reporting the seriousness of PCF-3's casualties, returned aboard PCF-3 and again administered first aid. After making the wounded comfortable, he then began damage control procedures on the boat. With the aid of one of the crewmembers who had recovered enough to assist, LTJG THURLOW was able to control the flooding until other boats came alongside to assist. LTJG THURLOW remained aboard the stricken boat until the units safely cleared the river and arrived at the support ship. All of these actions by LTJG THURLOW took place under constant enemy small arms fire which LTJG THURLOW completely ignored in providing immediate assistance to the boat and crew.

Signed: G.M. ELLIOTT LCDR COMCOSDIV ELEVEN
Date: 1 April 1969

 

[deadhand31]

Out of curiousity, was anyone listening to Rush Limbaugh today? There was one of Kerry's actual fellow vets (and this IS a decorated veteran) aboard his swift boat who stated that the first purple heart he recieved was self inflicted. I just want to know if I'm not the only one who heard it, becuase I'm sure now there will be a lot of people jumping down my throat just because it was on Rush Limbaugh.

Another interesting thing, I heard a clip from "Meet the Press" from 1971. It had Kerry saying that he, himself, took part in burning down villages, as well as other violations of the Geneva convention. One thing I wonder.... why on Earth is he touting stories that make him look good, while not even acknowledging that he basically called himself and his fellow vets war criminals?

 

[Trident]

"Think so little of our armed forces"? Please. I spent 9 years active duty as an officer in the United States Navy. I have a decoration or 2 in my service record, and I submitted a good number up the chain for the guys in my department. If you have more experience in this area, please feel free to chime in. Now, can we dispense with the misdirection & get back on point?

The citations you reference are pretty standard: they relay some "over and above" effort, they are signed by the unit CO. The factual information the citation is based upon typically comes from a sitrep or after action report filed by the crew. Obviously, the unit CO thought the writeup was good enough at the time, or he wouldn't have signed it. The skippers and crew of some of the other boats in the area have a different version of what transpired that day, according to their testimony in Unfit for Command, but they weren't interviewed before the citation was submitted. Nor would you expect them to be, as an officer's word is considered his bond.

The point of my post was that while the vast majority of the Navy citations are well deserved, the system can be manipulated if you are shameless enough. Just because it's an official record doesn't mean that it is infallible.

Can we get back to my original question, which you deftly sidestepped: how can you say, so absolutely, that " THE ACCUSATIONS ARE FALSE!!"?

Mike

 

[qizmoduis]

Can we get back to my original question, which you deftly sidestepped: how can you say, so absolutely, that " THE ACCUSATIONS ARE FALSE!!"?

Mike

Provide evidence that the official record is false. So far, the accusations as presented by the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" are basically secondhand hearsay. All eyewitness accounts contradict them. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof by flinging out a bunch of accusations and saying "Prove them false!" It doesn't work that way.

This whole thing is getting slimier and more disgusting every day. Every time I think it couldn't get any worse, Bush and his flunkies throw out something even more disgusting.

 

[michaeledward]

Can we get back to my original question, which you deftly sidestepped: how can you say, so absolutely, that " THE ACCUSATIONS ARE FALSE!!"?

Mike

I did not side-step anything. I responded with the Official Records. To which you respond "Obviously, Kerry knew that thirty five years later, he was going to run for President, so he doctored up 3 phony Bronze Star awards, With Combat "V", no less, so that he can claim he was brave and will be an effective leader in the War on Terror."

I bet you even have one of those little yellow ribbons, saying "Support Our Troops" on the back of your car. Geesh ... with friends like that ....

Oh yeah, and then there was this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5835000/

Swift Boat crewman: Kerry boat took fire
Says Thurlow 'too distracted' to notice gunfire

PORTLAND, Ore. - A Swift Boat crewman decorated in the 1969 Vietnam incident where John Kerry won a Bronze Star says not only did they come under enemy fire but also that his own boat commander, who has challenged the official account, was too distracted to notice the gunfire.

Retired Chief Petty Officer Robert E. Lambert, of Eagle Point, Ore., got a Bronze Star for pulling his boat commander — Lt. Larry Thurlow — out of the Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969. Thurlow had jumped onto another Swift Boat to aid sailors wounded by a mine explosion but fell off when the out-of-control boat ran aground.

Thurlow, who has been prominent among a group of veterans challenging the Democratic presidential candidate’s record, has said there was no enemy fire during the incident. Lambert, however, supports the Navy account that says all five Swift Boats in the task force “came under small arms and automatic weapon fire from the river banks” when the mine detonate

“I thought we were under fire, I believed we were under fire,” Lambert said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

“Thurlow was far too distracted with rescue efforts to even realize he was under fire. He was concentrating on trying to save lives.”

The anti-Kerry group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, has been running television ads challenging the Navy account of the boats being under fire. Kerry has condemned the ads as a Republican smear campaign.

'What happened happened'
A career military man, Lambert is no fan of Kerry’s either. He doesn’t like Kerry’s post-Vietnam anti-war activity and doesn’t plan to vote for him.

“I don’t like the man himself,” Lambert said, “but I think what happened happened, and he was there.”

A March 1969 Navy report located by The Associated Press this week supports Lambert’s version. The report twice mentions the incident and both times calls it “an enemy initiated firefight” that included automatic weapons fire and underwater mines used against a group of five boats that included Kerry’s.

Kerry’s Bronze Star was awarded for his pulling Special Forces Lt. Jim Rassmann, who had been blown off the boat, out of the river. Rassmann, who is retired and lives in Florence, Ore., has said repeatedly that the boats were under fire, as have other witnesses. Lambert didn’t see that rescue because Kerry was farther down the river and “I was busy pulling my own boat officer (Thurlow) out of the water.”

Thurlow could not be reached for comment about Lambert’s recollections.

But speaking for the Swift Boat Veterans group, Van Odell, who was in the task force that day, remembers it differently from Lambert.

“When they’re firing, you can hear the rounds hit the boat or buzz by your head. There was none of that,” he said in a telephone interview from Katy, Texas, where he lives.

On Thursday, the group released a 30-second Internet ad disputing Kerry’s contention that his Swift Boat crossed into Cambodia. Kerry’s campaign has acknowledged that he may not have been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve of 1968, as he has previously stated, but that he does recall being on patrol along the Cambodia-Vietnam border on that date.

Lambert said the Swift Boats were on their way out of the river when a mine exploded under one, PCF-3.

'Always a firefight'
“When they blew the 3-boat, everyone opened up on the banks with everything they had,” he said. “That was the normal procedure. When they came after you, they came after you. Somebody on shore blew that mine.”

“There was always a firefight” after a mine detonation, he said.

“Kerry was out in front of us, on down the river. He had to come back up the river to get to us.”

Lambert retired in 1978 as a chief petty officer with 22 years of service and three tours in Vietnam. He does not remember ever meeting Kerry.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Funny how the military service of this guy, and Cleland, and all the rest of them, doesn't count if they step out of the loonbox ideological line one little bit, let alone genuinely disagree.

But I see. It's the, "The Sun is really a great fiery dragon," argument. You know...the sun is a great fiery dragon...no, it's actually a start, fuled by nuclear reactions...how do you know? you weren't there, science only is about probabilities, and anyway we never really landed on the moon.

We know Kerry went to Vietnam and got shot at. Several times. We know that for some reason, he got decorated. We know that the Prez, his VP, our Sec'y of Defense, all of them, ducked out on serving in Vietnam--and they are now pushing, pushing, pushing wars.

Sure, fine. Have it your way. Saw Bill Clinton on "Comedy Central," last night--he quoted a Republican friend of his who said something like, "Bill, I'm sorry we attack you personally like this all the time. But if we just argued the issues with you, we'd always lose." Then he remarked that he didn't think his opponents were bad people or anything--they just saw the world very differently.

It is utterly gutless to attack character, and service, and family, the way that Kerry's been attacked. Go after his ideas, his plans, all the rest of it, no problem...but these clowns (who are always yelling about Americans sticking together) have no compunction at all about these mean-spirited little snipings. Have you heard any of them, even once, say anything like, "Look, I'm sorry to have to say this, but...." Nope. We get the likes of Hannity screeching incoherently--it's bullying by millionaries, nothing more, and it ought to be seen as such.

I heard Kerry's address and testimony before the Senate in 1971 last night. I had been lukewarm about him--no more. Anybody who has the guts to get up in 1971 and say those things, as well as being associated with the VVAW (other members of which I saw at a sign-up booth in 1972...at a Neil Young concert...in Phoenix, which believe me took some nerve) is OK by me.

Get on Pacifica. Listen to what he said. Think about it; evaluate its accuracy and honesty about the Vietnam War. Consider the clear fact that he put his heart into it.

If you don't like his ideas, fine. Lots there to ***** about. But martial artists ought to be learning a little more decency, a little more honesty, a little more about their own hearts and minds, than some of the abject crap on this thread suggests.

 

[Makalakumu]

So much of this criticism is 35 years old. And its coming from people (or those who learned from those people) who pushed an unjust war. I think that Kerry's stance on that issue long ago is coming back to bite at him in the form of "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."

How else is the Bush Administration able to convince the hundreds of people who signed on with this group to do and say what they did?

 

[Trident]

Mike -

Please point out where I said any of those quoted items. Although, the fact that the man carried around a video camera to reenact & record his daring exploits is interesting.

I pointed out how it is possible that citations could be manipulated. After your unequivocal "THESE ACUSATIONS ARE FALSE" post, I asked to see how you came to that conclusion. You chose to post the original citations & make digs at me. Fair enough. You ended up answering my question, just in a round about manner.

qizmoduis - I never said they were false, I simply pointed out the process by which citations get issued. Knowing this, I find it plausible that others who were there might have a different recollection of events.

Reasonable people can look at this situation and draw different conclusions based on the evidence they find credible. What qualifies as credible is strongly influenced by their own experiences & background. It's the stark EVERYONE IS LYING BUT ME -type statements that I find interesting.

Now that I have been instructed that official records are infallible, and the burden of disproof (in this case) is on those questioning the record, I have another question: Why isn't George Bush afforded this same courtesy in regard to his Texas Air National Guard service? Per the official records, he completed his service in an honorable manner.

Just wondering.

Mike

 

[michaeledward]

Please point out where I said any of those quoted items. Although, the fact that the man carried around a video camera to reenact & record his daring exploits is interesting.

I pointed out how it is possible that citations could be manipulated. After your unequivocal "THESE ACUSATIONS ARE FALSE" post, I asked to see how you came to that conclusion. You chose to post the original citations & make digs at me. Fair enough. You ended up answering my question, just in a round about manner.

qizmoduis - I never said they were false, I simply pointed out the process by which citations get issued. Knowing this, I find it plausible that others who were there might have a different recollection of events.

Reasonable people can look at this situation and draw different conclusions based on the evidence they find credible. What qualifies as credible is strongly influenced by their own experiences & background. It's the stark EVERYONE IS LYING BUT ME -type statements that I find interesting.

Now that I have been instructed that official records are infallible, and the burden of disproof (in this case) is on those questioning the record, I have another question: Why isn't George Bush afforded this same courtesy in regard to his Texas Air National Guard service? Per the official records, he completed his service in an honorable manner.

Just wondering.

Mike

Yes, I was paraphrasing your argument. The double quotes were not appropriate. I apologize.

But let's review what you said

You weren't there. Neither was I, nor likely anyone else posting on this board.

No, I was not there. Fortuneately, we have official documentation.

Memories of events from 30+ years ago can be a little hazy. . . .People often embellish the part they played in past events.

It's a good thing we have a written record from that time. It's even better that there are multiple documents that say, essentially, the same thing happened.

Statistically, though, you have John Kerry & a dozen or so supporters claiming one version, and 264 people who were also there claiming another.

It is strange that those 264 people can not show one official document to back up their claims. But the documents we have all report 'eyewitnesses' (a requirement), all were reviewed and signed by superior officers, and sent up the chain of command until the commendations were authorized.
But, we may ask, WHY are those 264 people talking about this now? The logical answer is that Kerry is running for President. They didn't talk about it in great detail during Kerry's 4 Senate campaigns. Much of the funding the SBVT received came from a long-time Bush supporter. (Not to mention the free publicity from FOX NEWS and TALK RADIO). So this is really about Kerry running for president ... not about what happened 35 years ago.
Of course, as you persue this argument, it seems that the reason that Kerry might possibly have wanted to doctor his own commendations is to further his political career at some point in the future. Which, is where we started this conversation, isn't it?

Lets now say the Ltjg Gronk didn't do anything special, but really wants a medal anyway. He submits his own writeup of events & convinces some more senior officer to sign off on it. Once signed, process is the same, and no one is the wiser. Highly plausible that a few months later, when the award comes through, Ltjg Gronk's shipmates could be ticked off & call "BS". Too late - the award is issued and the citation is part of the official record. I've seen it happen. This is the process, holes and all. Clarification of this process is not the same as impugning it.

Now here, Mike, are you suggesting that your commendations were submitted under false pretenses? Did you submit writeups of events that were not true? Or can we assume that you held your uniform with respect, and would not take any action to denigrate that uniform, your service, and those who have served before you, and who will come after you.

I expect that the service means quite a bit to those who have served. And, as President Bush is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military Services, I think we should expect that he hold those services in high regard, and, as sworn to in his oath of office, defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies. And I think anyone who impugnes the integrity of the United States Armed Services is an enemy.

Now, in this latest post you say:

Reasonable people can look at this situation and draw different conclusions based on the evidence they find credible. What qualifies as credible is strongly influenced by their own experiences & background. It's the stark EVERYONE IS LYING BUT ME -type statements that I find interesting.

To which, I say: "NO". In this situation, reasonable people can not look at the evidence and draw different conclusions. The evidence has been on record for 35 years. And we must discard the evidence to reasonably believe the accusations of John O'Neil and company.

Now, are some willing to ignore the evidence? (there was a Blue Dress, after all, wasn't there?) Sure, but all of that is politically motivated. And if they repeat it often enough, loud enough, perhaps the 'BIG LIE' will be bought by enough swing voters to tip an election.

For the record: I think John O'Neil can harbor his 33 year old grudge against John Kerry any way he wants; but remember that it was a Bush supporter that has provided much of the funding for Mr. O'Neil to exercise his Free Speech.

 

[michaeledward]

Now that I have been instructed that official records are infallible, and the burden of disproof (in this case) is on those questioning the record, I have another question: Why isn't George Bush afforded this same courtesy in regard to his Texas Air National Guard service? Per the official records, he completed his service in an honorable manner.

Now, it is you who are spinning hyperbole.

While it is concievable that 'official records' may not be infallible, when there are complimentary records that all point to the same event, the possibility of failibility must decrease significantly, if not exponentially. In the Senator's case, we have several documents, some of which are not associated with Kerry, all reporting the same events.

If we turn to President Bush's 'official records' of his service, we find incomplete 'official records'. We find little supporting evidence to statements being made. A careful review of the 'official records' tends to create more questions than it answers. Often, where there are gaps, we must take the Presidents word on an issue ("I remember serving in Alabama").

Or this: http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm

All members of the Air Force whose jobs required “flight status” were required to get a physical examination each year within three months prior to their birthday. Those not on flight status were required to get a physical examination at least once every four years and were required to submit a certification of physical fitness to serve each year. The periodic physical examination for those not on flight status required exams within eight months prior to the 27th birthday of all members of the Air Force.
George W. Bush turned 27 on July 6, 1973. His last physical was in 1971.
Thus, regardless of what ARPC wanted to do with Bush, it was absolutely necessary that Bush get a physical examination before they could make any decisions. And ARPC would have instructed Bush to accomplish that physical examination, and when he did not get that physical, ordered him to “special active duty.”
The absolute requirement for a physical examination and annual certification of physical fitness is one of the “choke points” in Bush’s military records. All possible outcomes required that ARPC determine Bush’s physical qualifications. In order to achieve that, ARPC would have first “instructed”, then “ordered” Bush to get a physical examination. We know, from Bush’s records, that no such examination was ever accomplished. Thus we know that Bush failed to obey a direct order to appear for active duty.

In other threads, I have mistakenly reported the requirement was 3 months prior to the 27th birthday. I was wrong; according to this article, the timetable is 8 months.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Soem of you guys don't like Kerry's peacenik stance (actually, that's not what he said, but wotthell), and you are perfectly entitled to do so. You don't like his policies, and you are perfectly entitled to do so.

What you aren't entitled to do--but will do anyway--is violate your own ideals, notions about reason, and basic decency in order to attack not the ideas, but the man.

Yes, yes, I know. You think, some of you, that the guys like me are doing the same thing. Most of it's projection; you assume that everybody else must use your tactics.

Some of it, alas, is a kind of defense mechnanism: you blame Kerry because you don't like what's happening to America, and really looking at what's responsible would cause too much of a conflict with other deeply-held values.

I repeat: get hold of what John Kerry said before Congress. They showed it on CNN last night; shouldn't be hard. I know: the Voice of Communism.

Nonetheless. Watch. Why you would find a young vet who spoke about honor, and this country's responsibilities, and what Vietnam really was, and the crappy way that vets were treated, so objectionable that you must repeatedly attack his whole life is beyond me.

You needn't agree with his statements. You're more than welcome to explain why he was wrong to talk about the shabby treatment in veteran's hospitals, the rampant unemployment among vets, the racial inequality in who fought the War, the number of Vietnamese civilians who died for nothing--nothing at all!!--if you can.

Watch the tape. Tell me true: has our current President ever spoken that eloquently, that honestly, that passionately, for anything except favors for his buddies? Oh, and remember...while Kerry was in Vietnam, Bush was screwing around as a privileged man's son.

You know what? Shame on you. Shame on the Savages, and the Hannitys, and the O'Neills of the world, so filled with hate and blindness--and even worse, a cyncial knowledge of how they get paid--that they cannot even treat a veteran with honor.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Reasonable people can look at this situation and draw different conclusions based on the evidence they find credible. What qualifies as credible is strongly influenced by their own experiences & background.

Translated, would that be "Republicans believe anything they're fed that is bad about John Kerry"?

Let's ask for some specifics here...what allegation of the Swifties do YOU think is "credible"?

Now that I have been instructed that official records are infallible, and the burden of disproof (in this case) is on those questioning the record, I have another question: Why isn't George Bush afforded this same courtesy in regard to his Texas Air National Guard service? Per the official records, he completed his service in an honorable manner.

Nobody questions the Bush records. The anti-Bush crowd LOVE those records. They're all too clear. He didn't show up for drills. He missed a required physical and got his flight status yanked. He got out early after spending a good deal of time campaigning for his Dad. This is service?

But if one makes an allegation, such as that against the official records of Kerry, the burden of proof is indeed upon those making the allegations. The Swift Boat veterans have so far failed to come up with any "credible evidence" as you call it to counter the official story. So far what they've said has been contradictory, if not outlandish.

How do you explain Swift Boat Veteran for Truth spokesmen Larry Thurlow's account of John Kerry's Bronze Star nomination? Thurlow was the senior commander of the operation, and likely wrote the after action report outlining what happened. Thurlow and one other man won Bronze Stars during that action. ALL THREE citations state there was enemy fire that day, which is verified by Jim Rassmen, the Special Forces Lieutenant who he pulled out of the water.

Yet Thurlow and Van Odell say there was no enemy fire during that operation...though there are damage reports for the boats, one of whom had three bullet holes.

"Larry Thurlow had maneuvered his PCF-51 over by this time and he hopped aboard PCF-3 to offer assistance. The boat was in shambles but they were still shooting too hard to assess any damage" "BOATS RECEIVED HEAVY A/W [automatic weapons] & S/A [small arms] FROM BOTH BANKS…ALL BOATS AND MSF RETURNED FIRE…PCF-94 [Kerry's boat] PICKED UP MSF ADVISOR WHO WENT OVERBOARD…PCF-94 TOWED PCF-3."

[Tour of Duty, Brinkley, 2004, p. 314; U.S. Navy After Action Report: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/SpotReports_March1969.pdf]


George Elliot, Kerry's commander, said Kerry "lied about what occurred in Vietnam. . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

Later Elliott, in an interview with the Boston Globe, said, "I still don't think he shot the guy in the back. It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Apparently it was pointed out to him that in a 1996 interview Elliott had said, "The fact that he chased an armed enemy down is not something to look down upon, but was an act of courage. [T]here was no question that it was above and beyond anything that we had seen down there in that case at that time frame...It just so happened that this one was so outstanding that the Silver Star was eventually awarded." [Kerry Press Conference, 10/27/96]

He also thought that Kerry went above and beyond the call of duty:

"The [Silver Star] ceremony [for John Kerry] was meant to be a morale booster,' Commander George Elliot recalled. 'We were trying to pay tribute to Kerry and the others for going above and beyond the call of duty. The Silver Star is always a big deal." [Tour of Duty, 2004, Brinkley; p. 294]

Elliot's fitness reports for Kerry were glowing.

"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 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)."[U.S. Navy, Officer Fitness Report signed by George Elliott; 18, Dec 1969]

Adrian Lonsdale says in the ads that Kerry isn't fit to lead. Yet in a 1996 news conference for Kerry Lonsdale said "As far as I was concerned, the war was won over there in that part for that period. And it was mainly won because of the bravado and the courage of the young officers that ran the boats, the SWIFT boats and the Coast Guard cutters and Senator Kerry was no exception." [Kerry for Senate Press Conference, 10/27/96]

The last time I checked, NONE of the Swift boat vets served on Kerry's two boats, PCF44 and PCF94. The men that appeared on stage with him at the DNC did serve with him. One of those men was Jim Rassman, whose life Kerry saved the day that Kerry earned the Bronze Star.


http://www.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/080504_truth.html#background

"If John Kerry came to us and said he had one more mission and we're going to hell, he'd have a full crew"

-- Jim Wasser [Dallas Morning News, 7/29/04] member of Kerry's crew.


Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

Hey, the part I especially like is Thrulow ... Let's see, his Bronze star certificate says :

All of these actions by LTJG THURLOW took place under constant enemy small arms fire which LTJG THURLOW completely ignored in providing immediate assistance to the boat and crew.

So, Thirty five years ago, he completely ignored something that today he claims with 100% certainty.

Think about it. - Mike

 

[TonyM.]

Gee as a RVN vet, whom would I like as commander and chief, a fast boat commander or a National Guardsman? Gosh that's a tough choice!

 

[hardheadjarhead]

"I think Senator Kerry should be proud of his record," Bush said. "No, I don't think he lied."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/bush_interview

Few will ever read that...and I doubt he's going to run any commercials stating it.

-----

In an interview with the New York Times, Sen. John McCain said "that he was so annoyed over the veterans' television advertisements attacking Mr. Kerry's war record that he intended to personally 'express my displeasure' to the president when they campaign together next week."

In an interview with the Arizona Republic, McCain said, "I'm sick and tired of reopening the wounds of the Vietnam War, which I've spent the last 30 years trying to heal. Now, these wounds are being reopened in the most unsavory of fashion."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/08/26/mccain_will_appeal_to_bush_about_swift_boat_ads.html



Regards,


Steve