Another Swift Boat combat memory turns fuzzy.
 

Somebody actually bothered to look at the records and found another lie by a Swift Boat Veteran who should have known better.

The whole made-up story about there being 'no shooting' when Kerry was first wounded is falling apart:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5751284/

Um, POW/MIA classification is for keeping the families of POW/MIA soldiers on a higher payscale than KIA.

It is extremely unlikely there are any living POW or MIA in Vietnam.

Interesting.

I wonder which to believe. Documents that were written at or soon after the events or 35 year old "recollections".

Even if some of the documentation may not be totally accurate, they are at least written while events were "fresh in people's minds".

I asked the quwstion and no takers: Anyone here know precisely what you were doing even five years ago today? I have trouble remembeing who I had lunch with or where last week!!

Were you in combat 5 years ago, Bob? Combat tends to stick out in a guy's memory. I may not remember what I did on 19AUG99, but I'll never forget my first time as primary fire control operator for my first inspection. I'll also never forget my first Christmas underway. I have an uncle who was at Normandy. He almost never tells stories, but despite the fact that it happened over 50 years ago, his recollections of those events are crystal clear. Stuff like that tends to get uh ... "seared?" Yes, seared into a guy's memory.

Dan

Can a liar be trusted to tell the truth, even when he is telling the truth.

It took till last week for the Kerry staff to admit that Kerry lied when he claimed multiple times to have spent Christmas Eve of 1968 in Cambodia.

To add to the package Kerry claimed that the US government was lying about his presence there.

Kerry was probably right about that part. If he was in Cambodia, the US Gov't wasn't admitting to it. The rest of his Vietnam history is more interesting, and it comes down to a question of credibility.

One the one hand, you have a group of vets who may be getting paid to say mean things about JFK. There's a bunch of them, and they were mostly nearby when the stuff they describe happens. Their story correlates moderately well (but not spectacularly well), like you'd expect 35 year old eyewitness accounts to do. There are others who disagree with them.

On the other hand, you have Kerry, who is known to say absolutely anything his audience wants to hear. His story changes a bit more than most eyewitness accounts do, and generally looks more like the stuff of legends than of history books.

Is he lying? Tough to tell. Again, like Bush's charges, the charges against Kerry are similarly vague. He said one thing, then he said another, and it's almost impossible to demonstrate that he was actually lying. (sigh)

So you end up voting your heart, or your wallet, or whatever, because you've gotten all caught up in whether or not the Swifties were lying, and couldn't remember how the candidate stood on the issues.

Dan

Oh tech, I would be cautious about putting alot of faith in that one. The entire thing is based on the wording in the citation saying they were under enemy fire, right? Well, I give you two guesses on who wrote the citation:)

:D

Man, all sKerry has to do is release his records like he SAID HE WOULD...He would reveal those dastardly Vets (who didn't cut and run at first opportunity) for the agenda driven partisans they are (of course Kerry has nothing to gain by lying).

Why wont JFK debate John Oneill right now. That would go along way towards straighting out the truth this matter . Also if JF K would release his DOD records then we could see for our seves what the truth is.
Personlly I think Kerry is a Pussy.
I would like a return to Dueling that would make these Guys tell the truth.Why would you lie if you may die.

My thought exactly.

Furthermore, the article states; That could mean: "We experienced no "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units"

. ..hey, there's reference to. . .:rolleyes:

That article was clearly written to muddy the issue, in hopes people will just throw-up their hands and say "it's all too complicated."


. . oh, and why no hits on the boats; IF they took fire?

I think those of us who weren't in combat at some point in our lives have little to say/judge about those that were. Who am I to say he doesn't deserve a medal? The guy went over there and risked his life, period.

He got off the plane, and went into the firestorm, whether he wanted to or not. Some of our current leaders need to be reminded of their deferments, there seeming inability to be drafted, and sent to war.

Personally, I think it's a damn shame when a man who didn't go fight for his country, for whatever reason, to point the finger at the man who did. Such people should try to remember that nobody in a right state of mind actually likes war, and should be appreciative of the risks and sacrifices that those who have fought for us have made.

Personally, I don't particularly trust Bush or Kerry, or anyone else in Washington, as they're almost all too heavily influenced by special interests groups to be of much service to those non-special interest constituents who voted for them.

But I'll be damned if I agree with people who have the nerve to judge someone who made the trip, something a lot of people, like myself didn't do. Be careful calling someone a ******* when you don't have the record to prove that you're not!

Where is Perot when we need him?

Perot is why we are in this mess. And have W 88 ICBM's pointing at us NOW.

Do you have any proof of these allegations? Maybe you can cut and paste some references for those of us that are less informed.

Jason you arent older enough to have a thorough knowlege of world events. With out Perot we would of Had GHW as president and The ChiComs would not of gotten the ICBM's from the Tratoir Clinton.
The FBI and CIA would have been able to stop 9-11 before it happened. It was Jamie Garlich in the Clinton Admin who forbid the CIA and FBI from talking to each other about Domestic Terroism.

Look at the Dates on those Cut and paste ALL during the Clinton years

Suddenly we have an expert.

Dan, no I wasn't. I was long gone from the military scene. However, even seminal moments in one's life fade from reality over time. Facts get confused, recollections take on distortions. Sometimes they are even clouded by emotion, and really seem like the truth. I have had memories that seem to me real, although I would hesitate to swear to them in a court of law. So I am not belittling any of the individuals making statements, just pointing out that the human memory is faulty.

The WashingtonPost...bastion of unbiased journalism...uses the "freedom of information act" to paint a vague picture to slander the Swift Boat Vets.

Hey WP...Why don't you use the "freedom of information act" and get Kerry's records?

$150,000 invested in Swift Boat Vets...National scandal.

$50 million invested in attacking Bush (between Soros and Moore)...nothing to see here...moveon please.

The difference between the two?...Besides the huge difference in monies spent and the media silence regarding the CFR violations of pro-Kerry 527s...The Swift Boats have been proven right and Kerry has back-peddled on several points including:

1. Widespread attrocities (he backpeddled).
2. He committed attrocities (either a lie or he did).
3. He was in Cambodia (backpeddled).
4. Nixon ordered him into Cambodia (lied).
5. Has his medals on his wall (changed story at least 3 times).

Why all these discrepancies?...Did this disinformation campaign by Kerry get him into political office?...How many Vietnamese and American soldiers died because of anti-American hate-lies by John Kerry?...Isn't John Kerry more a hero for the communists than America?

Why is it anyone who exercises their right to "free speech" (contrary to Democrats) is demonized and villified and destroyed by Democrats and the media?

fascists...that is why.

National Socialists Workers Party

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1092939956.jpg

http://www.bush2004.com/

http://www.gwbush.com/

I find this whole thread interesting...I am an active duty navy pilot, O-6, who has had the opportunity to engage in combat, first during the escorts of the re-flagged Kuwatti Tankers (Ernest Will) and subsequently during DS/DS the First.
I frankly could care less if a presidential candidate has served in the military. There is simply no coorelation between military service and the ability to make correct and cogent policy; to work through the steps required to ultimately send or not send men and women into combat in a compelling, honest manner.
On this one issue, what I do care about is the ability of the president to understand the nature of military service and respect the young men and women (especially the enlisted ranks) who will carry out the nations will. Pay them, equip them, train them and support them...very little else matters.
I was commissioned in 1983 and the only president during my career who has understood this was Reagan, who's military service never extended beyond a movie set back lot. Spare me the Beruit/Grenada homilies, BTW.

It didn't matter to me if Herbert Walker flew for the navy in WWII any more than it did Clinton flying BOAC to study during Vietnam.

Issues, and the candidates positions on those that matter most to me are what is important, not the ability lead men and women in battle. The president can rely on the true professionals for that.

You guys aren't even original...weak.

Good post Seahawk. I'd be interested to hear your opinion on why Kerry is making his 4 mo. combat tour the centerpeice of his campaign.

ROFL

and you're right. . .not even original.

Mul, note; because the lib's have gone into BIG-baby mode, we're now using the fullsize seal . . .didn't you get the memo? :D

Larry Thurlow
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40037

Responding to a Washington Post article questioning his veracity, an eyewitness critic of John Kerry's war record insists military records cited in the story are based on a fraudulent after-action report by Kerry himself.

This is precisely why "campaign finance reform" is so incredibly dangerous to America...The people's right to "freedom of speech" is gagged and big-media is allowed to lie and give free propaganda to the Democrats.

Good job Washington Post...intrepid water carrying.

http://www.gop.com/images/nowak_0329.jpg

You are right...John Kerry is a communist and lost Vietnam for us, not to mention the most socialist Senator in the Senate and is actively impugning Swift Boat Vets for telling America what a POS he is.

Mule,

I admire him for his service during his tour of duty in Vietnam. I don't think I would have had the onions for Swift boats. So in that sense I have no issue with Kerry. I have seen good guys act poorly in much less trying circumstances in order to circumvent their duty.
His behavior after his tour of duty troubles me, not for the bluster or grandstanding, rather for the impact it had on those still serving, especially POWs. Spend two minutes with a POW from Vietnam and their visceral distain for Jane Fonda and her ilk becomes apparent. They suffered for her actions. Doubt is a very powerful enemy during war. For Kerry not to know that at a certain level he may have been helping the enemy buttress the fear and doubt in everyone involved in war, including his shipmates, is unfortunate and telling.
Lastly, two of my very good friends were in the "Brown Water" navy during Vietnam, one a Huey pilot with HAL 4 and the other an enlisted man on Swift boats. In addition, my father fought in Korea as an airborne ranger. They never, ever brag. I know it's trite, but that is exactly what makes them so cool.

Well, so what, really. I look at his senate voting record, listen to the rhetoric, compare his stated values and compare them to mine and try and find a reason to vote for him and not GW.
The last thing I care about is his service in Vietnam...I care about what he did subsequently.

Thanks for all that, Seahawk. I hope I did not offend with my Beirut story, but my point was similar to yours. Politics and military are two very different things. Different professionals in each. The former's methods should be exhausted before invoking the second. And once invoked, war should be left to the professionals. If a president were going to try to tell our armed forces HOW to fight a war, then he'd need military skill. Otherwise, no.

http://www.hannity.com/i/supporttroops.gif

Fighting FOR the communists does not count as military experience.

The Democrats have never been a friend to the military. It is a farce to believe otherwise.

Two posts, almost zero facts.

You just vilified the Washington Post for relying on official records, rather than tracking down a partisan critic to quite probably lie about their veracity. You then use this as evidence that the Washington Post is partisan and lying.

Second, Johjn Kerry is:

- not communist
- did not lose Vietnam
- got to be close to the most liberal Senator in the Senate, although I have seen nothing to prove he is "socialist"

You are right and wrong about the SBVfT - his campaign is fairly actively impugning them for making what he considers to be false or misleading accusations. What do you expect?

Why are you worried about this? Who cares - they won't ever use them.

Superman,

No offense taken. As you can see by my number of posts, I read more than I write...and while I have issues with many of your stated positions, your delivery is good to go. I have never been less off for rising to a challenge.
The fact that trying to find parts and advice for my 911S occasioned an entry to this forum has been a pleasure.

Kerry won three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and Silver Star for Vietnam War combat.

Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard.

enough said.

can't wait for the ****ing debates....w is gonna get ripped to shreds, no teleprompters allowed in debates.

:D

Enough said because anything else would disclose the lack of substance of your talking points.

3 PHs, Bronze star and Silver star IN FOUR MONTHS?...Incredible...As 250 Swift Boat Veterans will attest (minus those paid for by Kerry). If the medals were legit why doesn't Kerry release his records?...Because he has something to hide perhaps?...Why would a war hero throw his medals away in contempt, join the pro-communist anti-war movement, lie about wide-spread corporate attrocities and then after he has secured office tout his record as a "war hero?"

Kerry has a record he has lied about. He, in effect, aided and abetted the communists in Vietnam and ushered in a totalitarian hell-hole ever since...He turned his back on the POW/MIAs. His cousin received a contract with Vietnam after the "normalization." Kerry has voted against a majority of military spending bills. He has attacked Reagan and Bush during war-time. He has befriended people like Castro and Chavez. He married 2 millionaires and he is currently giving aid and comfort to Islamofascists by working diligently at dividing this nation for political power.
Me too...Cannot wait to see Cheney spank Edwards and Dumbya savage Kerry...Precisely what will happen.

he is currently giving aid and comfort to Islamofascists by working diligently at dividing this nation for political power.

Why do you put stuff like this in? I swear it is to wind people up.

He's taking part in a presidential race. To become president, he must win votes. To win votes, he must convince people to vote for him, and thus NOT for the current president. This is not "dividing the nation", it is how democracy works.

Cam, only one problem: you're assuming Mul wants democracy.

good question.
Kerry is in the same league as Jane Fonda when it comes to hating some 'Nam anti-war people. The extended death and hardship that those hated people have caused is still lingering in many 'Nam vets, their families, their friends, and those that respect them.

Some guys have a longer case of syntax than me.

CAM See:
Iran threatens strike against U.S., Israel
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40045

Repubican Flip Floping
 

More on the Swift Boat smear
Friday, August 20, 2004

By Mike Thomas

The New York Times has what should be the final word
on the slimy Swift Boat Liars for Bush story.

This comes just a day after the Washington Post exposed one of Kerry’s chief critics as a liar. Larry Thurlow, who commanded another swift boat during the incident when Kerry earned his Bronze Star, is contradicted by the military records that document his own Bronze Star that was earned on the same day. Thurlow has tried to claim that there was no enemy fire during the incident when Kerry fished James Rassmann out of the water, contradicting both Kerry and Rassmann and every other member of Kerry’s swift boat crew. Now, we find that the military records for Thurlow’s own Bronze Star make reference to enemy fire directed at all the swift boats at that time.
In response, Thurlow now makes the laughable suggestion that Kerry was responsible for writing up his commendation. How sad that this guy, who is by all rights a legitimate war hero, would stoop to defaming his own commendations in an effort to score political points against Kerry. Sad and pathetic.

But back to the NY Times piece. They start by showing the deep connections between the Swift Boat Vets group and the Bush campaign:

“Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family - one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's television commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988 presidential election.”

Then they show how the leaders of the group have contradicted themselves over the years, some as recently as just a year ago:

“In an unpublished interview in March 2003 with Mr. Kerry's authorized biographer, Douglas Brinkley, provided by Mr. Brinkley to The New York Times, Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral and a leader of the group, allowed that he had disagreed with Mr. Kerry's antiwar positions but said, "I am not going to say anything negative about him." He added, "He's a good man."

In a profile of the candidate that ran in The Boston Globe in June 2003, Mr. Hoffmann approvingly recalled the actions that led to Mr. Kerry's Silver Star: "It took guts, and I admire that."

George Elliott, one of the Vietnam veterans in the group, flew from his home in Delaware to Boston in 1996 to stand up for Mr. Kerry during a tough re-election fight, declaring at a news conference that the action that won Mr. Kerry a Silver Star was "an act of courage." At that same event, Adrian L. Lonsdale, another Vietnam veteran now speaking out against Mr. Kerry, supported him with a statement about the "bravado and courage of the young officers that ran the Swift boats."

"Senator Kerry was no exception," Mr. Lonsdale told the reporters and cameras assembled at the Charlestown Navy Yard. "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."

Those comments echoed the official record. In an evaluation of Mr. Kerry in 1969, Mr. Elliott, who was one of his commanders, ranked him as "not exceeded" in 11 categories, including moral courage, judgment and decisiveness, and "one of the top few" - the second-highest distinction - in the remaining five. In written comments, he called Mr. Kerry "unsurpassed," "beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged leader in his peer group."

It sounds like the Kerry campaign could make a pretty good comercial of their own using these guys’ statements and the official record. Talk about flip-flopping!

The story goes on to relate how the Swift Boat group, with the backing of big Republican campaign donors, hired a private investigator to try and dig up dirt on Kerry’s war record. And he apparently accomplished this by misleading the people he interviewed and then misrepresenting what they said:

“Patrick Runyon, who served on a mission with Mr. Kerry, said he initially thought the caller was from a pro-Kerry group, and happily gave a statement about the night Mr. Kerry won his first Purple Heart. The investigator said he would send it to him by e-mail for his signature. Mr. Runyon said the edited version was stripped of all references to enemy combat, making it look like just another night in the Mekong Delta.

"It made it sound like I didn't believe we got any returned fire," he said. "He made it sound like it was a normal operation. It was the scariest night of my life."

The story goes on to poke further holes in the Swift Boat Vet’s allegations and by the end it is clear that their real gripe with Kerry is that he chose to protest the war after leaving Vietnam.

It is unfortunate that the group didn’t stick with that criticism instead of resorting to making false and malicious smears against Kerry’s military service. By casting aspersions on Kerry, they are also calling into question the credibility of every member of the military who served in Vietnam and received commendations. If we supposedly cannot trust the documentation for Kerry’s wartime medals (or for Thurlow’s) then can we trust any of them? I believe that we can and I find the charges being leveled by the Swift Boat Vets group to be scurrilous and denigrating to all military veterans. A truly despicable enterprise and one that George W. Bush should have denounced long ago if he had a shred of decency.