Connections between Bush and Swift Vets

[Guest MikeSC]

jesus christ, will this swift boat shit ever go away? It is almost getting to the point of, "I don't care who is telling the truth, both sides STFU about it already"

You know, Kerry had an entire convention to mention his qualifications outside of his military service.

 

He, mind you, did not do so.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

You know, Kerry had an entire convention to mention his qualifications outside of his military service

 

A speech which only mentions military service, over and over..

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeche..._2004_0729.html

[Guest MikeSC]

You know, Kerry had an entire convention to mention his qualifications outside of his military service

 

A speech which only mentions military service, over and over..

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeche..._2004_0729.html

Funny you fail to mention that long biopic about him that PRECEEDED it. Remember that gem?

 

You know, the one that focused on Vietnam --- I'm not even sure if his Senatorial career got a mention.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

You know, Kerry had an entire convention to mention his qualifications outside of his military service

 

A speech which only mentions military service, over and over..

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeche..._2004_0729.html

Funny you fail to mention that long biopic about him that PRECEEDED it. Remember that gem?

 

You know, the one that focused on Vietnam --- I'm not even sure if his Senatorial career got a mention.

-=Mike

So, in the scheme of things, the candidate's film matters more than his speech?

 

Interesting..

[Guest MikeSC]

You know, Kerry had an entire convention to mention his qualifications outside of his military service

 

A speech which only mentions military service, over and over..

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeche..._2004_0729.html

Funny you fail to mention that long biopic about him that PRECEEDED it. Remember that gem?

 

You know, the one that focused on Vietnam --- I'm not even sure if his Senatorial career got a mention.

-=Mike

So, in the scheme of things, the candidate's film matters more than his speech?

 

Interesting..

Yes. Very much so. Images are more important than words nowadays.

 

What do you think they spent more time on?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And, you're arguing something KERRY had since admitted. This isn't even a question at this point. It's a statement of fact: Kerry. Was. Not. In. Cambodia. In. 1968.

Fine.

 

You keep referring to them as liars --- when the ONLY person who has had to change his story --- more than once, mind you --- is Kerry.

 

I refer to these guys as liars because so far there haven't been any records that support their side of the story, one of their men has an award for a rescue in the middle of hostile fire that he says didn't exist, it's headed by one of Richard Nixon's old contacts that didn't come forward to speak out against Kerry until weeks before the election but has spent plenty of time writing a book about Kerry with a FreeRepublic regular who has made some less than modest statements about Democrats. What all of this comes down to is that they feel betrayed that Kerry spoke for VVAW and that's only what these guys have in common. Oh, and that they all served in other boats while the people who served in Kerry's boat have nothing but praise.

 

There's some major credibility problems here outside of the raw politics of running the attack ad, and so rational and clear-thinking people are now skeptical and cynical of all the SwiftVet claims. The problem in this thread is that "rational and clear-thinking people" isn't including A MikeSC at the moment.

[Guest MikeSC]

You keep referring to them as liars --- when the ONLY person who has had to change his story --- more than once, mind you --- is Kerry.

 

I refer to these guys as liars because so far there haven't been any records that support their side of the story

 

He's said he thought it was for another altercation.

it's headed by one of Richard Nixon's old contacts that didn't come forward to speak out against Kerry until weeks before the election but has spent plenty of time writing a book about Kerry with a FreeRepublic regular who has made some less than modest statements about Democrats.

I guess you missed his debating with Kerry way back in 1971.

 

And attempting to smear Corsi doesn't actually disprove anything.

one of their men has an award for a rescue in the middle of hostile fire that he says didn't exist

Can you give names, so I can at least try and give you their side?

What all of this comes down to is that they feel betrayed that Kerry spoke for VVAW and that's only what these guys have in common. Oh, and that they all served in other boats while the people who served in Kerry's boat have nothing but praise.

As has been said MANY times before --- these boats didn't do too many operations ALONE.

 

And Kerry's GUNNER --- who served under him --- is on board with the SVBT.

There's some major credibility problems here

Then try and actually DISPROVE something.

 

I've already explained the "Well, this report indicates enemy fire" mistake on the part of the press.

outside of the raw politics of running the attack ad, and so rational and clear-thinking people are now skeptical and cynical of all the SwiftVet claims.

Nah, just people who think Kerry's changing of his story is just pure coincidence.

The problem in this thread is that "rational and clear-thinking people" isn't including A MikeSC at the moment.

Damn me for actually expecting PROOF of something being a lie --- not just an attempt to smear.

 

Simple question --- do you think the SVBT are nothing but Republican liars? You honestly believe that all 264 of them are just involved in a conspiracy against Kerry?

 

I hoped that this kind of deluded thinking was only part of the Clinton camp --- I'd hate to be mistaken on that.

 

Then again, you don't think condemning all ads and praising Kerry's service is good enough for Bush. Never mind that Kerry bashed Bush's service...

-=Mike

...And where was the "If you didn't serve in Vietnam, you are a coward/traitor!" wing of the Democratic Party during the 1990's?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I guess you missed his debating with Kerry way back in 1971.

See the line "one of Richard Nixon's old contacts".

 

And attempting to smear Corsi doesn't actually disprove anything.

It doesn't exactly help when the big new shocker best-selling book by the controversial non-partisan SwiftVets for Truth group is written by someone so one-sided.

 

Imagine if I wrote a SHOCKING TELLALL book about a popular Republican in two years. Do you not think the stuff I have written on this board isn't going to come back and discredit me? Heck, you'd probably be emailing my most lefty posts to the politician in question.

 

Can you give names, so I can at least try and give you their side?

Thurlow's Bronze Star citation lists the same non-existant enemy combat that he speaks out about regarding Kerry's medal.

 

As has been said MANY times before --- these boats didn't do too many operations ALONE.

 

And Kerry's GUNNER --- who served under him --- is on board with the SVBT.

Okay, one guy. And you can't deny it's a little suspicous that the guys who were actually on the boat aside from one person have such a radically different view than the people who weren't on the boat.

 

Then try and actually DISPROVE something.

It's pretty hard when the typical response is that Kerry not only wrote every record everyone involved is mentioned in, but used different initials on different documents as well. How you even believe that or what you think the motives behind that are is beyond me.

 

Nah, just people who think Kerry's changing of his story is just pure coincidence.

Kerry's changing his story is certainly an issue, but is nowhere near the amount of coincidences I mentioned above.

 

Damn me for actually expecting PROOF of something being a lie --- not just an attempt to smear.

If that was the case you'd expect more out of SwiftVets.

 

Simple question --- do you think the SVBT are nothing but Republican liars? You honestly believe that all 264 of them are just involved in a conspiracy against Kerry?

I think all 264 of them are hurt to varying degrees by Kerry's anti-war activity. I think some have brought across information that has caused Kerry to change his story and could have done some help to clear the air, but the amount of unsubstantiated claims that go against the records has done far more to create political smog.

 

I think, again, it all comes down to the protestor days and that these people think he backstabbed them for badmouthing the armed forces. In many interviews they always come back to that.

 

Then again, you don't think condemning all ads and praising Kerry's service is good enough for Bush.

It's the same tactic he either used or exploited, depending on how connected you think he is, with John McCain. Sit and apologize and keep your hands clean while an allied group does all the dirty work.

 

...And where was the "If you didn't serve in Vietnam, you are a coward/traitor!" wing of the Democratic Party during the 1990's?

 

Did Clinton say, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service"?

[Guest MikeSC]

I guess you missed his debating with Kerry way back in 1971.

See the line "one of Richard Nixon's old contacts".

 

Which ALSO kills your "Didn't speak up until recently" line, too.

And attempting to smear Corsi doesn't actually disprove anything.

It doesn't exactly help when the big new shocker best-selling book by the controversial non-partisan SwiftVets for Truth group is written by someone so one-sided.

Who said they're non-partisan? They're not Republicans, but they are opposed to John Kerry. Care to name an expose book written WITHOUT any real tilt to it?

Imagine if I wrote a SHOCKING TELLALL book about a popular Republican in two years. Do you not think the stuff I have written on this board isn't going to come back and discredit me?

Nope, I'd use what you wrote and hang you with it. I imagine you'd give me plenty of material to use.

Can you give names, so I can at least try and give you their side?

Thurlow's Bronze Star citation lists the same non-existant enemy combat that he speaks out about regarding Kerry's medal.

And Thurlow said he believed it was from a different incident at the time.

As has been said MANY times before --- these boats didn't do too many operations ALONE.

 

And Kerry's GUNNER --- who served under him --- is on board with the SVBT.

Okay, one guy. And you can't deny it's a little suspicous that the guys who were actually on the boat aside from one person have such a radically different view than the people who weren't on the boat.

Hardly. They'll have loyalty and an inability to actually look at the situation.

Then try and actually DISPROVE something.

It's pretty hard when the typical response is that Kerry not only wrote every record everyone involved is mentioned in, but used different initials on different documents as well. How you even believe that or what you think the motives behind that are is beyond me.

Except that the records only poke more holes in Kerry's stories more often than not.

Nah, just people who think Kerry's changing of his story is just pure coincidence.

Kerry's changing his story is certainly an issue, but is nowhere near the amount of coincidences I mentioned above.

Except that it fits EXACTLY what they said.

Damn me for actually expecting PROOF of something being a lie --- not just an attempt to smear.

If that was the case you'd expect more out of SwiftVets.

They have multiple people --- including Kerry's people --- saying the exact same thing while Kerry's story seems to waver a lot.

 

He could, you know, just sign SF-180 and end his problems. He could have Brinkley release all of the journals Kerry gave him to the public.

 

You know, like he demanded Bush do. And Bush did.

Simple question --- do you think the SVBT are nothing but Republican liars? You honestly believe that all 264 of them are just involved in a conspiracy against Kerry?

I think all 264 of them are hurt to varying degrees by Kerry's anti-war activity. I think some have brought across information that has caused Kerry to change his story and could have done some help to clear the air, but the amount of unsubstantiated claims that go against the records has done far more to create political smog.

You've referred to them as "liars". So, again, are they liars? Yes or no.

 

Kerry's claims, as time has shown, are hardly that well substantiated.

I think, again, it all comes down to the protestor days and that these people think he backstabbed them for badmouthing the armed forces. In many interviews they always come back to that.

Absolutely. Kerry burned a lot of bridges.

Then again, you don't think condemning all ads and praising Kerry's service is good enough for Bush.

It's the same tactic he either used or exploited, depending on how connected you think he is, with John McCain. Sit and apologize and keep your hands clean while an allied group does all the dirty work.

Until you have proof that anything DID happen to McCain in SC --- again, there is still a lack of a script for the calls, tape of the calls, etc. --- or that Bush had a thing to do with it, it's simple rumor-mongering.

...And where was the "If you didn't serve in Vietnam, you are a coward/traitor!" wing of the Democratic Party during the 1990's?

Did Clinton say, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service"?

No --- he lied to his ROTC officer to get out of the draft. That's honorable.

 

And who says they had "other priorities"? Cheney? Because it doesn't sound like something Bush said --- and Edwards lacks the military credentials to make a good bashing of Cheney all that valid.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Which ALSO kills your "Didn't speak up until recently" line, too.

I mean that he didn't speak up this year until recently. As Kerry was gaining momentum and eventually became the clear pick for the candidacy O'Neill didn't do any talk shows or appear on any news networks, even Fox, to warn Americans about supporting Kerry. You claimed that he was working as hard as he could in processing affidavits and so much other work that SwiftVets as a 527 wound up not appearing on the radar until pretty late in the campaign, but somewhere in the middle of all that O'Neill managed to find the time to author a 256 page book.

 

Yes, you're right, O'Neill did appear in a timely fashion in the seventies when he was contacted by the Nixon administration to "destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader," but the timing of SwiftVets in relation to the campaign and O'Neill's silence until that point in the election has all the timelyness of an ambush.

 

Who said they're non-partisan? They're not Republicans, but they are opposed to John Kerry. Care to name an expose book written WITHOUT any real tilt to it?

 

Their representatives in interviews have had difficulty with talk show hosts, trying to spin that their accusations on Kerry are not an endorsement of President Bush, but merely a lack of endorsement for Kerry. I think it's pretty hard to declare yourself a moderate in that position, but if we take them at their word, the co-author's comments about "BJ Bill" and "Hell-ary" among others isn't exactly helping them work towards that goal.

 

Hardly. They'll have loyalty and an inability to actually look at the situation.

Did they all quit and talk for VVAW as well then? Because some of these guys were pretty loyal until suddently "Well, sorry John, but I'm going to make your VVAW work an issue now if you're running for the Oval Office."

 

He could, you know, just sign SF-180 and end his problems. He could have Brinkley release all of the journals Kerry gave him to the public.

Exactly what else in there is useful besides what's already released (citations, after-actions, OERs, etc etc.) If he received a blemish on his service record it would show up on those. Now, perhaps there's pages of those missing but I think they're all there.

 

You've referred to them as "liars". So, again, are they liars? Yes or no.

I think they've made some claims that aren't true while I think some claims have been more truthful. So yes, I think they are spreading lies but I don't think everyone involved is lying non-stop.

 

Until you have proof that anything DID happen to McCain in SC --- again, there is still a lack of a script for the calls, tape of the calls, etc. --- or that Bush had a thing to do with it, it's simple rumor-mongering.

 

Even if it's just purely out of convenience and coincidence and not coordinated, it's still the same result. He sits there humble and innocent while the other guy gets the shit kicked out of him all over the papers and TV. Did you know that 45% of Americans have seen or heard of the SwiftVets ad even though it's only aired in three states? Do you know how that happened? A hint: "John Kerry's Band of Brothers" in your sig there is majorily responsible.

 

And who says they had "other priorities"? Cheney?

 

Yep.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

"Kerry never bled" -- Bob Dole's response to Kerry's 3 Purple Hearts

As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them.) In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg-the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart. -- Bob Dole's response to Bob Dole's Purple Heart

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Correction JTTS.

 

As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. Bob Dole took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, Bob Dole was used to catching passes, not throwing them.) In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into Bob Dole's leg-the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart. Ha Ha Ha.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That statement was written, but I almost considered introducing it in "And now, Bob Dole would like to talk about one of Bob Dole's favorite subjects, namely, Bob Dole."

 

 

And now, let's welcome our newest(?) liar, Mr. John O'Neill, who lied to President Nixon himself about being in Cambodia:

 

"I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," said John E. O'Neill in a conversation that was taped by the former president's secret recording system. The tape is stored at the National Archives in College Park, Md.

 

In an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, O'Neill did not dispute what he said to Nixon, but insisted he was never actually in Cambodia.

 

"I think I made it very clear that I was on the border, which is exactly where I was for three months. I was about 100 yards from Cambodia," O'Neill said in clarifying the June 16, 1971, conversation with Nixon.

 

Damage control is now in session, though to his credit O'Neill has decided to be his own spin doctor:

 

Referring to the tape of the Oval Office meeting with Nixon, O'Neill criticized Kerry for making claims, including in the Senate, that he was in Cambodia.

 

"I've never represented on the floor of the Senate, or told people 50 times like John Kerry did that I was in Cambodia. That never happened. And I don't think he was ever there either," O'Neill said.

 

 

"Well, yeah, okay, I lied, but this guy LIED A LOT!"

[Guest MikeSC]

Which ALSO kills your "Didn't speak up until recently" line, too.

I mean that he didn't speak up this year until recently. As Kerry was gaining momentum and eventually became the clear pick for the candidacy O'Neill didn't do any talk shows or appear on any news networks, even Fox, to warn Americans about supporting Kerry. You claimed that he was working as hard as he could in processing affidavits and so much other work that SwiftVets as a 527 wound up not appearing on the radar until pretty late in the campaign, but somewhere in the middle of all that O'Neill managed to find the time to author a 256 page book.

 

Why WOULD he speak out? They do not care if Kerry is a Senator. And, without this ad, what network would even listen? What network would speak to him?

 

O'Neill is a lawyer. Lawyers, as a general rule, don't do anything until they have a solid case built up before speaking.

Yes, you're right, O'Neill did appear in a timely fashion in the seventies when he was contacted by the Nixon administration to "destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader," but the timing of SwiftVets in relation to the campaign and O'Neill's silence until that point in the election has all the timelyness of an ambush.

Nice of you to try and trash a Humphrey supporter because he dares to criticize Kerry.

 

If Kerry did not win, they would have happily stayed silent. They did not care if he was a Senator until the day he died.

Who said they're non-partisan? They're not Republicans, but they are opposed to John Kerry. Care to name an expose book written WITHOUT any real tilt to it?

Their representatives in interviews have had difficulty with talk show hosts, trying to spin that their accusations on Kerry are not an endorsement of President Bush, but merely a lack of endorsement for Kerry.

Not that hard, since they have never said a word, positively or negatively, about George Bush. But, you're trying to tell me an author is having a hard time looking good to hostile TV interviewers?

 

Wow, next you'll tell me that the ocean is wet.

I think it's pretty hard to declare yourself a moderate in that position, but if we take them at their word, the co-author's comments about "BJ Bill" and "Hell-ary" among others isn't exactly helping them work towards that goal.

Since Corsi isn't a member, it's a little irrelevant.

 

Actually, it's a lot irrelevant.

 

And, I suppose you'll blame Kerry for Democratic activists plan to trash the SBVT.

Hardly. They'll have loyalty and an inability to actually look at the situation.

Did they all quit and talk for VVAW as well then? Because some of these guys were pretty loyal until suddently "Well, sorry John, but I'm going to make your VVAW work an issue now if you're running for the Oval Office."

Actually, several people refused to work with Kerry since they felt he took WAY too many liberties in "Free-fire" zones.

 

And they have all said, quite openly, that they had NO beef with him when he was a Senator. They had ZERO problems with him in the Senate --- you know, the career he has chosen to ignore. They had a problem with him being commander-in-chief.

 

You know, you might choose to actually listen to them on occasion. You keep repeating the same mantra they've discussed repeatedly.

He could, you know, just sign SF-180 and end his problems. He could have Brinkley release all of the journals Kerry gave him to the public.

Exactly what else in there is useful besides what's already released (citations, after-actions, OERs, etc etc.) If he received a blemish on his service record it would show up on those. Now, perhaps there's pages of those missing but I think they're all there.

Wow, Bush did not get this benefit of the doubt.

 

What else is useful? Well, his C.O said he'd like to see who recommended him for some of his awards, since he did not.

 

And, if a blemish showed up, there is no chance in hell Kerry would have it on his site or have it released to the public.

You've referred to them as "liars". So, again, are they liars? Yes or no.

I think they've made some claims that aren't true while I think some claims have been more truthful. So yes, I think they are spreading lies but I don't think everyone involved is lying non-stop.

Except you still haven't mentioned the lies.

Until you have proof that anything DID happen to McCain in SC --- again, there is still a lack of a script for the calls, tape of the calls, etc. --- or that Bush had a thing to do with it, it's simple rumor-mongering.

Even if it's just purely out of convenience and coincidence and not coordinated, it's still the same result.

This isn't quite the same thing as proof that this even happened. All you have is McCain's word. Again, no tapes. No scripts. Nobody who made the calls. Only one or two people who even claim to have received them.

He sits there humble and innocent while the other guy gets the shit kicked out of him all over the papers and TV.

Seeing as how I LIVE in SC, I can say, with INFINITE more accuracy than you, what actually happened here.

 

And, no, McCain was hardly having the "shit kicked out of him".

Did you know that 45% of Americans have seen or heard of the SwiftVets ad even though it's only aired in three states? Do you know how that happened? A hint: "John Kerry's Band of Brothers" in your sig there is majorily responsible.

Nope, they've responded because the internet has actually done the research on the charges that the press won't.

 

You don't find it odd that, say, the NY Times didn't even MENTION them --- until they had an opportunity to do a hit piece? They slammed a story they never even touched.

 

The internet has become a part of an alternative media that is driving stories that the mainstream press refuses to touch. The double standard between Kerry and SBVT and Bush's National Guard service is startling.

And who says they had "other priorities"? Cheney?

Yep.

And if Cheney was running for President, you might have a point. If Edwards had a military record of ANY sort, you might have a point.

 

But, he doesn't. And you don't.

And now, let's welcome our newest(?) liar, Mr. John O'Neill, who lied to President Nixon himself about being in Cambodia:

*yawn*. You mean O'Neill told Nixon he was on the Cambodian border? DAMN HIM! DAMN HIM TO HELL!

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Except you still haven't mentioned the lies.

 

George Elliott, 1996: "The fact that he chased an armed enemy down is something not to be looked down upon, but it was an act of courage."

 

George Elliott, 2003: "When he came back from the well-publicized action where he beached his boat in middle of ambush and chased a VC around a hootch and ended his life, when he came back and I heard his debrief, I said, 'John, I don't know whether you should be court-martialed or given a medal, court-martialed for leaving your ship, your post.' But I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that."

 

George Elliott, 2004: "While I suppose the fleeing, wounded Viet Cong could have been backpedaling, I have never heard this faintly suggested by anyone, and I do not understand why he would have to turn around to face Kerry if he were fleeing backward. The difference is not material to any of my opinions. Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single wounded Viet Cong."

 

 

And if Cheney was running for President, you might have a point.

*chuckle, snicker, snicker..*

 

*yawn*. You mean O'Neill told Nixon he was on the Cambodian border? DAMN HIM! DAMN HIM TO HELL!

"I was in Cambodia, sir."

"I doubt he [Kerry] was there, either!"

[Guest MikeSC]

This seemed nifty:

 

Plot thickens after checking records

 

August 27, 2004

 

BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB

 

In the midst of the controversy between the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Kerry campaign representatives about Kerry's service in Vietnam, new questions have arisen.

 

The Kerry campaign has repeatedly stated that the official naval records prove the truth of Kerry's assertions about his service.

 

But the official records on Kerry's Web site only add to the confusion. The DD214 form, an official Defense Department document summarizing Kerry's military career posted on johnkerry.com, includes a "Silver Star with combat V."

 

But according to a U.S. Navy spokesman, "Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star."

 

Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a "combat V" for the Silver Star, the third-highest decoration the Navy awards. None of the other services has ever granted a Silver Star "combat V," either.

 

Fake claims not uncommon

 

B.G. Burkett, a Vietnam veteran himself, received the highest award the Army gives to a civilian, the Distinguished Civilian Service Award, for his book Stolen Valor. Burkett pored through thousands of military service records, uncovering phony claims of awards and fake claims of military service. "I've run across several claims for Silver Stars with combat V's, but they were all in fake records," he said.

 

Burkett recently filed a complaint that led last month to the sentencing of Navy Capt. Roger D. Edwards to 115 days in the brig for falsification of his records.

 

Kerry's Web site also lists two different citations for the Silver Star. One was issued by the commander in chief of the Pacific Command (CINCPAC), Adm. John Hyland. The other, issued by Secretary of the Navy John Lehman during the Reagan administration, contained some revisions and additional language. "By his brave actions, bold initiative, and unwavering devotion to duty, Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry reflected great credit upon himself... ."

 

One award, three citations

 

But a third citation exists that appears to be the earliest. And it is not on the Kerry campaign Web site. It was issued by Vice Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam. This citation lacks the language in the Hyland citation or that added by the Lehman version, but includes another 170 words in a detailed description of Kerry's attack on a Viet Cong ambush, his killing of an enemy soldier carrying a loaded rocket launcher, as well as military equipment captured and a body count of dead enemy.

 

Maj. Anthony Milavic, a retired Marine Vietnam veteran, calls the issuance of three citations for the same medal "bizarre." Milavic hosts Milinet, an Internet forum popular with the military community that is intended "to provide a forum in military/political affairs."

 

Normally in the case of a lost citation, Milavec points out, the awardee simply asked for a copy to be sent to him from his service personnel records office where it remains on file. "I have never heard of multi-citations from three different people for the same medal award," he said. Nor has Burkett: "It is even stranger to have three different descriptions of the awardee's conduct in the citations for the same award."

 

So far, there are also two varying citations for Kerry's Bronze Star, one by Zumwalt and the other by Lehman as secretary of the Navy, both posted on johnkerry.com.

 

Kerry's Web site also carries a DD215 form revising his DD214, issued March 12, 2001, which adds four bronze campaign stars to his Vietnam service medal. The campaign stars are issued for participation in any of the 17 Department of Defense named campaigns that extended from 1962 to the cease-fire in 1973.

 

However, according to the Navy spokesman, Kerry should only have two campaign stars: one for "Counteroffensive, Phase VI," and one for "Tet69, Counteroffensive."

 

94 pages of records unreleased?

 

Reporting by the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs points out that although the Kerry campaign insists that it has released Kerry's full military records, the Post was only able to get six pages of records under its Freedom of Information Act request out of the "at least a hundred pages" a Naval Personnel Office spokesman called the "full file."

 

What could that more than 100 pages contain? Questions have been raised about President Bush's drill attendance in the reserves, but Bush received his honorable discharge on schedule. Kerry, who should have been discharged from the Navy about the same time -- July 1, 1972 -- wasn't given the discharge he has on his campaign Web site until July 13, 1978. What delayed the discharge for six years? This raises serious questions about Kerry's performance while in the reserves that are far more potentially damaging than those raised against Bush.

 

Experts point out that even the official military records get screwed up. Milavic is trying to get mistakes in his own DD214 file corrected. In his opinion, "these entries are not prima facie evidence of lying or unethical behavior on the part of Kerry or anyone else with screwed-up DD214s."

 

Burkett, who has spent years working with the FBI, Department of Justice and all of the military services uncovering fraudulent files in the official records, is less charitable: "The multiple citations and variations in the official record are reason for suspicion in itself, even disregarding the current swift boat veterans' controversy."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips27.html

-=Mike

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Why does it seem that literally EVERY piece of third party evidence goes against the Swift Boat vets?

 

Liberal media? No, that's not it...

 

Oh yeah, Bush and his buddies are lying sacks of shit.

[Justice 0]

Why does it seem that literally EVERY piece of third party evidence goes against the Swift Boat vets?

 

Liberal media? No, that's not it...

 

Oh yeah, Bush and his buddies are lying sacks of shit.

Uh... have you actually been reading anything in this thread? Both sides have cited something like a dozen articles between them, and it goes about half and half.

 

I can now see why you got banned from the WWE folder...

[Guest MikeSC]

Why does it seem that literally EVERY piece of third party evidence goes against the Swift Boat vets?

 

Liberal media? No, that's not it...

 

Oh yeah, Bush and his buddies are lying sacks of shit.

You mean like the article RIGHT ABOVE YOUR POST That piece of info that goes against them?

 

Or Kerry admitting that his first Purple Heart might have been self-inflicted?

 

Or Kerry admitting that he was not in Cambodia in Christmas?

 

All of those "lies"?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This seemed nifty:

So does this:

 

Navy report validates Kerry's recollection

 

By Matt Kelley, Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- A Navy report filed five days after a disputed incident in Vietnam supports John Kerry's version and contradicts critics who say the Democratic presidential nominee never came under enemy gunfire when he won two medals.

 

The Navy task force overseeing Kerry's swift boat squadron reported his group of boats being fired on during the March 13, 1969, incident. Some of Kerry's critics, including several men who were on other boats that day, say there was no enemy gunfire during the incident that won Kerry a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart.

 

The March 18, 1969, weekly report from Task Force 115, which was located by the Associated Press during a search of Navy archives, is the latest document to surface that supports Kerry's description of the event.

 

Crew members on Kerry's boat and a Special Forces soldier Kerry pulled from the water that day insist there was enemy fire, and they have appeared on behalf of the Kerry campaign.

 

The task force 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.

 

Task Force 115 was commanded at the time by retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the founder of the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has been running ads challenging Kerry's account of the episode.

 

A member of the group, Larry Thurlow, said he stood by his assertion that there was no enemy fire that day.

 

Thurlow, the commander of another boat who also won a Bronze Star, said task force commanders probably relied on the initial report of the incident. Thurlow says Kerry wrote that report.

 

The document, part of thousands of pages of records housed at the Naval Historical Center, is one of several that say Kerry and other servicemen were shot at from the banks of the Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969.

 

The anti-Kerry group has not produced any official Navy documents supporting its claim.

 

Kerry has denounced the assertions from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as lies made as part of a Republican smear campaign. Most of the group's members and early financial backers are Republicans.

 

Bush campaign lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg resigned Wednesday, a day after acknowledging he had given legal advice to the anti-Kerry group. One member of the group who appeared in an ad, Ken Cordier, was a volunteer member of the Bush campaign. The campaign cut its ties with Cordier last week.

 

President Bush has said his campaign had nothing to do with the veterans group and that all advertising by outside groups should cease. An anti-Bush group has run television ads saying Bush shirked his duty in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

 

Kerry highlighted his Vietnam service during the Democratic convention last month, recounting the March 13 incident and having the Special Forces officer, Jim Rassmann, join him on stage.

 

On that day in 1969, Kerry's PCF-94 swift boat was part of a five-boat group heading downriver. An underwater mine exploded under another boat, PCF-3, injuring its crewmembers. Kerry's boat was then hit by another explosion that knocked Rassmann, an Army Green Beret, into the water. Kerry hurt his right arm in the explosion.

 

Kerry turned his boat around to rescue Rassmann, pulling the soldier into the boat with his injured right arm, while the other boats rushed to help PCF-3. All the official Navy reports on the incident say the boats were under heavy fire from the riverbanks at the time. Those records include the official after-action report, citations for Bronze Stars awarded for heroism that day and now the Task Force 115 report.

 

The weekly report cites the incident twice, referring to its code name of Sea Lords 358. The first reference says the boats "encountered an enemy initiated firefight with water mines and automatic weapons fire." The second reference also mentions "an enemy initiated firefight ... with water mines and automatic weapons."

 

Thurlow, the commander of another swift boat who won a Bronze Star for helping the crew of PCF-3, insists there was no enemy gunfire during the incident. The citation and recommendation for Thurlow's Bronze Star, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, also mention enemy fire, however.

 

Thurlow's medal recommendation, for example, says he helped the PCF-3 crew "under constant enemy small arms fire." That recommendation is signed by George Elliott, another member of the anti-Kerry group. It lists as the only witness for the incident Robert Eugene Lambert, an enlisted man who was not on Kerry's boat who also won the Bronze Star that day.

 

Thurlow says his Bronze Star documents are wrong.

 

Kerry's campaign has released copies of the after-action report and Kerry's Bronze Star nomination and citation for the incident, but not the weekly report.

 

So that confirms what I've been saying for the past several pages about Thurlow, and Hoffman was in charge of the group that approved Kerry's version of events. Hmmmm....

[Guest Paul H.]

Why can't Kerry defend himself from these attacks?He should just let them roll of his back if he could disprove them.Plus this is politics not the debate team...fuck is he crying for?

[Guest MikeSC]

Of course, Jobber, the complaint is that this is based on Kerry's report and not actually reality.

 

Thurlow has stated that he didn't protest earlier because Kerry's citation for a Silver Star was so contradictory to reality that he assumed it had to be for another incident.

 

If Kerry exaggerates his record --- then the "Navy documents" --- based on his exaggerated reports --- will "agree" with it.

-=Mike

...Funny, no mention of Kerry's being the only boat to flee the scene. And, wow, lucky for Kerry he barely beat another man to get to Rassman first...

[Guest MikeSC]

BTW, funny that Rood's column got so much play --- but Schatche's comments have been, well, a little ignored.

 

Weird how that works.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Of course, Jobber, the complaint is that this is based on Kerry's report and not actually reality.

That does it. I'm tired of half-assed debunks of military documents by saying "Oh, well Kerry probably wrote it."

 

WHERE IS THE PROOF that he's been writing everything under the sun that contradicts what SwifVets said? I know it's been said he requested a purple heart but that doesn't explain all the others.

[snuffbox 0]

It really is incredible(and by 'incredible' I mean 'pathetic') that we as Americans are so willing to discuss finite details of Kerry's service in a war...yet Bush's nonexistent and dodgy/shady militry record is simply beyond mention.

 

Bush supported the Vietnam War, but didnt deem it necessary for his own personal involvement...and, of course, his mysterious checkered military career need not be contemplated.

 

Kerry did not feel that Vietnam was a just conflict...yet, he chose to participate.

 

Basically, George W. Bush run his campaign as a 'war president'(it wouldnt be prudent for him to speak of domestic issues at this juncture)....yet, has already cut VA benefits(and apparently inends to do so further)...and now his supporters and conservative constituents are accusing our American military of 'giving away medal of valor in combat'.

 

Truly deplorable....

My hope here is that Americans are not ignorant as the Republicans hope and will see through the haze of this sickening ad campaign to realize that, now, in a time of war on terror we as a pople want man who chose to fight for his people...and not cast their vote for a commander-in-chief whos only military experience is dressing up as a GI Joe character and taunting the enemy.

 

I personally believe that we do live in an intelligent country...I believe, and ardently hope, that my fellow Americans will see the obvious, and not vote for the ridiculous, on Nvember 2.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Guess who appeared eight years ago to defend one of Kerry's awards?

 

Sen. Kerry's staff arranged a news conference at the Courageous Sailing Center in the Charlestown Navy Yard. It also flew in several people who attested to Sen. Kerry's character and his version of events.They were retired Admiral E.R. Zumwalt Jr., who commanded U.S. naval forces in Vietnam; retired Capt. George Elliott, Kerry's commander at the time of the shooting; retired Cmdr. Adrian Longsdale, who commanded shoreline operations at the time; and Mr. Belodeau, an electrician who is currently working in Michigan.

 

Also participating by phone from San Francisco was Michael Medeiros, who was the rear gunner on the Swift boat. Tom Vallely, a former Marine and Sen. Kerry's close friend, introduced each speaker.

 

Mr. Zumwalt, with two Navy ships and the USS Constitution anchored over his shoulder, said he remembered only two such incidents from Vietnam and one of them was Sen. Kerry's. Mr. Zumwalt also said he wanted to recommend Sen. Kerry for an even higher medal, the Navy Cross, but approval would have taken too long. Instead, he personally approved a Silver Star and sped along the award to improve morale at a time his sailors were taking heavy casualties.

 

"To me it was such a terrible insult, such an absolutely outrageous misinterpretation of the facts, that I felt it was important to be here," Mr. Zumwalt said. "A wartime commander has a lifetime responsibility to look out for the guys under him."

[Guest MikeSC]

Of course, Jobber, the complaint is that this is based on Kerry's report and not actually reality.

That does it. I'm tired of half-assed debunks of military documents by saying "Oh, well Kerry probably wrote it."

 

Kerry probably DID write it.

WHERE IS THE PROOF that he's been writing everything under the sun that contradicts what SwifVets said? I know it's been said he requested a purple heart but that doesn't explain all the others.

The SBVT actually name names in their book. Guys who refused to work with Kerry because he would shoot at anything in free-fire zones. Guys who watched him leave the scene of the Rassman explosion while the other 3 boats stayed.

 

Kerry chose to run on his record. He made a rather big mistake.

Guess who appeared eight years ago to defend one of Kerry's awards?

Elliot said it wasn't until late 1996 or so that he even realized that some of the things Kerry claimed happened didn't actually happen. Several of them have stated that they felt he got medals for other incidents because his citations did not begin to sound like what actually happened.

It really is incredible(and by 'incredible' I mean 'pathetic') that we as Americans are so willing to discuss finite details of Kerry's service in a war...yet Bush's nonexistent and dodgy/shady militry record is simply beyond mention.

1) Nobody has spoken out against Bush's record.

2) Bush has done nothing but praise Kerry's service. These guys are totally seperate.

Bush supported the Vietnam War, but didnt deem it necessary for his own personal involvement...and, of course, his mysterious checkered military career need not be contemplated.

There is no mystery involved. They've tried to dig it up for 4 years and failed.

Basically, George W. Bush run his campaign as a 'war president'(it wouldnt be prudent for him to speak of domestic issues at this juncture)....yet, has already cut VA benefits(and apparently inends to do so further)...and now his supporters and conservative constituents are accusing our American military of 'giving away medal of valor in combat'.

Link please.

 

And, medals have been given away before. After all, LBJ got a medal when he didn't do a damned thing to deserve it.

Truly deplorable....

My hope here is that Americans are not ignorant as the Republicans hope and will see through the haze of this sickening ad campaign to realize that, now, in a time of war on terror we as a pople want man who chose to fight for his people...and not cast their vote for a commander-in-chief whos only military experience is dressing up as a GI Joe character and taunting the enemy.

Yes, because choosing the guy who faked his way through multiple Purple Hearts (no hospital time for 3 PH is a little hard to explain), exaggerated his own accomplishments (Cambodia, anyone?), and who has been one of the softest Senators on defense out there (gee, WHO supported a nuclear freeze in the 80's?) iis MUCH better.

I personally believe that we do live in an intelligent country...I believe, and ardently hope, that my fellow Americans will see the obvious, and not vote for the ridiculous, on Nvember 2.

Don't worry. Bush is actually ahead in most polls now. Your fears might be groundless.

 

Kerry's campaign is cracking up, collapsing under the weight of its hypocrisy (hmm, do you think Kerry will respect dissent, given how he's treated the SBVT?) and non-existant record.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Elliot said it wasn't until late 1996 or so that he even realized that some of the things Kerry claimed happened didn't actually happen. Several of them have stated that they felt he got medals for other incidents because his citations did not begin to sound like what actually happened.

He's said that if he "knew the facts", that Kerry shot a single Viet Cong in the back, that he wouldn't have wrotten Kerry up for the medal. But in 1996 he flew out to defend Kerry's action in regards to getting the award for shooting a Viet Cong in the back. So, if Elliott didn't know that was the circumstances under which the award was given, then why did he defend it in 1996? He clearly was aware of what was going on.

 

And then, as late as 2003, he defended it still.

[Guest MikeSC]

Elliot said it wasn't until late 1996 or so that he even realized that some of the things Kerry claimed happened didn't actually happen. Several of them have stated that they felt he got medals for other incidents because his citations did not begin to sound like what actually happened.

He's said that if he "knew the facts", that Kerry shot a single Viet Cong in the back, that he wouldn't have wrotten Kerry up for the medal. But in 1996 he flew out to defend Kerry's action in regards to getting the award for shooting a Viet Cong in the back. So, if Elliott didn't know that was the circumstances under which the award was given, then why did he defend it in 1996? He clarly was aware of what was going on.

 

And then, as late as 2003, he defended it still.

When did he defend it in 2003?

-=Mike

...Elliott was under the impression that enemy fire was present when it, sadly, was not...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

When did he defend it in 2003?

-=Mike

...Elliott was under the impression that enemy fire was present when it, sadly, was not...

As I said before:

George Elliott, 2003: "When he came back from the well-publicized action where he beached his boat in middle of ambush and chased a VC around a hootch and ended his life, when he came back and I heard his debrief, I said, 'John, I don't know whether you should be court-martialed or given a medal, court-martialed for leaving your ship, your post.' But I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that."