I bet the truth is that Kerry was in Alabama closing down bars, occasionally wondering where exactly the nearest Guard base was. No that is not it. The truth is the VC had a secret mission in the USA where they would hang out in Alabama bars and snipe at the customers when they leave drunk at 2 am. Those brave drunken customers deserve Congressional medals of honor for dodging enemy fire while they navigated the parking lot to their car. Their bravery shames that of the soldiers in Vietnam.
What if Kerry was wrong about when he was in Cambodia? What do GOP'ers gain by that? Does Kerry being wrong about when he was in Cambodia 35 years ago make him less trustworthy as a comander in Chief than G.W. Bush who claimed that Iraq was months away from a nuke referencing a IAEA report that never existed? Bush then claimed he was mistaken and mentioned a different IAEA report. Turns out that report didn't exist either. Finally the Bush camp claimed it was a third report. The problem was that report didn't even existed when Bush first mentioned it. Kerry's 'mistake' wasn't used to start a war. Bush's mistake was. Kerry's mistake was 35 years ago, Bush's mistake was only a couple of years ago. So even if Kerry was wrong about Cambodia Bush still loses on the issue of trustworthyness. Bush still loses on the issue of military service. None of that changes the fact that Kerry volunteered to go Nam, while Bush requested not to go. None of that changes the fact that once in Nam Kerry acted bravely, while barely anyone even REmembers Bush showing up for his duty. Anyway you stack it Bush loses. Whether it's trustworthyness, or service during Viet Nam, in a head to head competition Kerry comes out on top every time.
that is truely amazing when you think about it you have 200+ viet vets, who never actually served with Kerry, put out a book filled with detailed descriptions of Kerry's alledged actions in Vietnam you have zero vets who even remember if Bush showed up or not in Alabama, zero vets coming forward to tell why Bush didn't show up for his drug test in 1972 and lost his flight status
not a single person in that book served on Kerry's boat the men that were on his boat all back Kerry dunno if this has been posted, but read it and then come back and tell me John O'Neill isnt a lying, partisan, Karl Rove attack dog.. O'Neill lies and avoids questions throughout this interview, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5697661 and yet you still defend this group ?
MATTHEWS: Well, he risked his life, didn‘t he? O‘NEILL: I don‘t believe that. This would be a lie masquerading as an opinion.
O‘NEILL: I don‘t really think so, Chris. We had people shoot at us. John Kerry got shot at. I‘m not denying that John Kerry in being shot at showed courage. I think he did, just like all the rest of us.
Yawn ... MATTHEWS: Well, he risked his life, didn‘t he? O‘NEILL: I don‘t believe that. O‘NEILL: ... John Kerry got shot at. I‘m not denying that John Kerry in being shot at showed courage. I think he did, just like all the rest of us. Reading between the lines, Kerry is a spineless Democrat who acted courageous accidentially and promised never to do it again. Were the bullets real that were fired at Kerry? Then, he risked his life. This is black and white.
By the way, when was the last time Kerry mentioned Christmas in Cambodia? Could it have been a decade or more ago? When did Bush say he continued flying for "several more years?" When did Bush say he was on the varsity rugby team? Bush did continue flying, but not for several more years. Is he lying or embellishing his service? Bush did play rugby at Yale, but there was no varsity, just intramurals. Is he lying or embellishing? Kerry did go to Cambodia. He may not have done it on Christmas Eve, 1968, but he could have also let his emotional memories trump his chronological memories. Again, as I pointed out earlier, not unique for people going through a stressful situation and certainly not a great sin. By all accounts, he handled himself well at the time and so this is, in my opinion, no big deal and I'm not even sure if anyone knows the real truth on the timeline. Kerry's diary is ambiguous, but Christie Todd Whitman thinks Kerry was doing something around that time... Jon Stewart: Do you know [John Kerry]? Have you met him at all? Christine Whitman: Oh yeah, oh yeah.... Stewart: Nice fellow? Whitman: Actually, my husband went through school with him, college, and served in Vietnam with him. Stewart: You're kidding me. Whitman: No, no, they spent Christmas on a Swift boat going up the river. Also, here's a contradiction to one of the swifties... _______________ Records Counter A Critic Of Kerry Fellow Skipper's Citation Refers To Enemy Fire By Michael Dobbs Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, August 19, 2004; Page A01 Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events. 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. 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." As one of five Swift boat skippers who led the raid up the Bay Hap River, Thurlow was a direct participant in the disputed events. He is also a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans dismayed by Kerry's subsequent antiwar activities, which has aired a controversial television advertisement attacking his war record. In interviews and written reminiscences, Kerry has described how his 50-foot patrol boat came under fire from the banks of the Bay Hap after a mine explosion disabled another U.S. patrol boat. According to Kerry and members of his crew, the firing continued as an injured Kerry leaned over the bow of his ship to rescue a Special Forces officer who was blown overboard in a second explosion. 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. 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. "It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case," Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting." Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't under fire," he said. He speculated that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation. In a telephone interview Tuesday evening after he attended a Swift Boat Veterans strategy session in an Arlington hotel, Thurlow said he lost his Bronze Star citation more than 20 years ago. He said he was unwilling to authorize release of his military records because he feared attempts by the Kerry campaign to discredit him and other anti-Kerry veterans. The Post filed an independent request for the documents with the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, which is the central repository for veterans' records. The documents were faxed to The Post by officials at the records center yesterday. Thurlow and other anti-Kerry veterans have repeatedly alleged that Kerry was the author of an after-action report that described how his boat came under enemy fire. Kerry campaign researchers dispute that assertion, and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the argument. As the senior skipper in the flotilla, Thurlow might have been expected to write the after-action report for March 13, but he said that Kerry routinely "duked the system" to present his version of events. 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. Thurlow, an oil industry worker and former teacher in Kansas, said he was angry with Kerry for his antiwar activities on his return to the United States and particularly Kerry's claim before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that U.S. troops in Vietnam had committed war crimes "with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." " 'Upset' is too mild a word," said Thurlow, a registered Republican, of his reaction to Kerry then. "He did it strictly for his own personal political gain, and it directly affected every single one of us as we were trying to put our lives together." 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." A fourth commander, Don Droz, who was one of Kerry's closest friends in Vietnam, was killed in action a month later. The incident featured prominently in an anti-Kerry television ad produced by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth earlier this month. "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star," says Van Odell, a gunner on PCF-23, one of the boats that came to the rescue of the stricken boat. "I know. I was there." The Bronze Star controversy is also a major focus of an anti-Kerry book by John E. O'Neill, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," which will hit No. 2 on The Post's bestseller list this weekend. The book accuses Kerry of "fleeing the scene" and lying repeatedly about his role. Members of Kerry's crew have come to his defense, as has Rassmann, the Special Forces officer whom he fished from the river. Rassmann says he has vivid memories of being fired at from both banks after he fell into the river and as Kerry came to his rescue. The two had an emotional reunion on the eve of the Iowa Democratic caucuses in January, an event that some political analysts believe helped swing votes to Kerry at a crucial time. The Bronze Star recommendations for both Kerry and Thurlow were signed by Lt. Cmdr. George M. Elliott, who received reports on the incident from his base in the Gulf of Thailand. Elliott is a supporter of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and has questioned Kerry's actions in Vietnam. But he has refused repeated requests for an interview after issuing conflicting statements to the Boston Globe about whether Kerry deserved a Silver Star. He was unreachable last night. Money has poured into Swift Boat Veterans for Truth since the group launched its television advertisement attacking Kerry earlier this month. According to O'Neill, the group has received more than $450,000 over the past two weeks, mainly in small contributions. The Dallas Morning News reported yesterday that the organization has also received two $100,000 checks from Houston home builder Bob Perry, who backed George W. Bush's campaigns for Texas governor and for president. Bush campaign officials have said they have no connection to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which is not permitted to coordinate its activities with a presidential campaign under federal election law. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13267-2004Aug18?language=printer
Interesting poll numbers in Ohio... http://2.004k.com/state/?s=Ohio Say, isn't that one of the states where the swifties have spent ad money?
There's been enough holes punched in this group's arguments to sink a swiftboat. One of the vets against Kerry signed documents during the war saying Kerry's actions in combat were unsurpassed. Now this guy swears there was enemy fire, just like Kerry did back then. Both of these guys stories changed 35 years later. hmmmm
actually, the latter point is inaccurate. at least one of the men on kerry's boat doesn't back him, and one other is dead
o'neill's point, and one i'm not necessarily defending, is that getting shot at in and of itself doesn't rise to the level of "heroism", much less merit a silver star.
where were they going? where are the records? remember, the kerry campaign has said they weren't in cambodia...in fact, it's an open question whether they were ever in cambodia . and please, don't shoot the messenger or the forum in which he writes. concentrate on the substance, for example, the commander of the swifties says "I was always properly informed. The whole time I was there, I don't recall such a mission..." -- The Weekly Standard A Historian's Tour of Duty Waiting for Douglas Brinkley to come out and share what he knows about John Kerry's Cambodia adventure. by Hugh Hewitt "KERRY WENT into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions," historian Douglas Brinkley told the London Telegraph last week. "He had a run dropping off U.S. Navy Seals, Green Berets, and CIA guys. . . . 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." John Kerry was obliged last week to recant a number of statements he has made over the years--statements rich in detail and emotion--about his Christmas Eve, 1968 illegal mission into Cambodia. Turns out that despite his ringing oratory on the floor of the Senate, Kerry had invented that account. Perhaps Brinkley had never spotted Kerry's accounts of his December 24, 1968 adventures, or because he knew them to be bunkum, the historian chose not to include this tale of daring-do in his best-seller Tour of Duty. But Kerry has told other stories of secret missions across the border, including to a Washington Post reporter in June of 2003 and a U.S. News reporter in May of 2000. To the Post reporter he spoke of a CIA man he dropped off and the "lucky hat" he gave Kerry. To the magazine writer he told a tale of running weapons to anticommunists across the border. To Brinkley Kerry either told, or allowed the historian to read, accounts of Navy SEALs, Green Berets, and spooks jammed on his swift boat. Retired Navy Admiral Roy Hoffman, commander of the swift boats during Kerry's four months on board them, scoffed at these stories in a report in the Kansas City Star: "'I was always properly informed. The whole time I was there, I don't recall such a mission," Hoffman said. The available sources do not support the notion that any swift boats, much less Kerry's, were supporting covert-ops across the Vietnam-Cambodian border. If Brinkley has sources beyond Kerry's private recollections and journals, he should let the public know what they are. Interestingly, as Kerry's campaign spokesmen retreated last week from their boss's floor-of-the-Senate declamations, they did not claim that he had been on any covert ops. Word of this retreat had either not reached Brinkley when he made his statement to the Telegraph, or his own researchers compelled him to stick up for the idea of John Kerry as a ferry-man of SEALs, spooks, and weapons-runner. Drudge announced last week that Brinkley was rushing a New Yorker piece into print that would defend Kerry's magic hat account, but does Brinkley really want to bet his reputation on Kerry's journals at this point? Or does he want to step back and ask himself whether a senator who invented "searing" memories might have had a creative pen along with his movie camera during his tour of duty? It remains possible that Kerry's magic hat and his gun-running are true accounts that neither his campaign nor Admiral Hoffman know of, and which have somehow eluded the historians' accounts of the "Salem House" operations of the Studies and Observations Group that was running the covert insertions into Cambodia in early 1969. What is more likely is that Kerry has expanded his Vietnam service whenever necessary for the advancement of his career, that he has molded it to the exigencies of the speech he needed to give or the attention he needed to gain. Kerry did not anticipate the internet or the power of a thousand pairs of eyes checking and rechecking, and he may not have counted on the instinct of a historian to preserve his reputation even at the expense of his access. Douglas Brinkley owes the public an accounting of John Kerry's accounts. Perhaps he will salvage the senator's Cambodian tale. And perhaps he will sink it.
thurlow is sticking by his story, and says (parallel to the point made above re john o'neill and chris matthews) merely coming under fire isn't a basis for a medal. kerry apparently feels otherwise. why do so many democrats feel compelled to exagerate their war service? are they overcompensating for subsequent actions? it's worth repeating. kerry is a confirmed liar over the christmas in cambodia story, a lie he used time and again to score political points on the floor of the US senate (finally! we're talking about his senate career!). furthermore, there are no records, and no coorborating witnesses to butress his claims he was ever there, and his commanding officer says it never happened. surely this calls into question his claim he's uniquely qualified to be commander in chief. if he is, then i suppose tom harkin is too.
Well obviously his voting record isn't something that can be looked up, but his political contributions are something we can... http://www.whoslying.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=581 ONeill claims he isn't a republican... but -he was put up by Nixon and Colson to attack Kerry 30+ years ago -he clerked with Nixon appointee Justice William H. Rehnquist, U.S. Supreme Court -he was up for a federal judgship apointment by Bush 1 (didn't get it) - he has only given money to Republicans - he voted in the 2000 Republican Primary ( according to Hou Chron) this isn't even mentioning all the other Republican party ties he has through his Houston law firm the man is a charlatan, he claims he is just a concerned Vet but he is nothing but a Republican attack dog sent to smear Kerry in a most dishonest and dishonerable way
