Posted on 08/18/2004 8:24:34 PM PDT by Callahan
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Like to see the POST spin this story: Kerry Bogus Damage Report
"Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act,"
If this is correct, then WHY cannot Kerry's be sought and gained through the FOIA also?
WHO is lying?
By that, do you mean to suggest that the Post was given a direction to request this particular record of Thurlow's?
I'd like to know how many FOIA's the Post filed. And exactly where they got the list of what to ask for.
Because if this particular FOIA was "suggested" by the Kerry campaign, it would also indicate the campaign knew exactly what it would say. Which would also suggest that Kerry was the original source for the language in the citation, wouldn't it?
That was what we expected from the beginning.
This is the first big test. If any after action reports exist, SBV better have them and be ready to produce them.
DANG ..
right = write
and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the argument.
This might be another way of saying there are after-action reports, but Dobbs didn't find them "convincing". I bet we might find them "convincing". These reporters sometimes have a hard time being convinced when their liberal guy is in trouble.
That is an interesting observation - if you want to play a little game that I've seen play out here on FR before - see what else he's written, other people he's sourced things from before, etc., and see if you find any links or coincidences. You'll probably find either (a) there's no reason whatsoever to indicate why this reporter wrote this story ie not his beat or something; meaning it was dropped in his lap by the Kerry campaign and, being his lap, he's the one tasked to write it or (b) he has links to or in some way connects up with political types or other sourcing that would indicate the feed for the trail.
Right. There never will be any if the press doesn't FOIA with equal ferver for Kerry's documents as for the those of the men making the accusations.
Close but no cigar. This article does not refute anything said by the SB folks. It merely muddies up the water a bit and reading the whole article indicates that Kerry is the likely source of the confusion.
Thanks for that report. I heard the 8/5 Gardner interview and realized then what the swiftees had in the way of strategy. Gardner was on Kerry's swift and describes how Kerry self inflicted his PH butt wound,
exactly right - that's how their damage control operations work. All this stuff behind the scenes you've been reading about ala getting new advisors in place, bringing in old Clintonista hacks, etc., translates to meetings in a room where all these things are planned out and operationally instituted. Expect to see a stream just like this through other friendly media types (hint - remember that "secret" meeting all the reporters attended in NYC with Kerry after he'd wrapped up the nomination). But as I noted in another post, the SwiftVets have the benefit of the truth on their side so even when the Compost tries to give it their best shot, they include facts which are indisputably consistent with everything the SwiftVets have been saying :)
The scenario is that one boat has been hit by a mine, and there is a man in the water. Wouldn't it be likely that under these circumstances the enemy would have been able to hit what they were shooting at, if indeed there was enemy fire on the scene. Wouldn't they at least have been able to hit the boats? If bullets were flying constantly overhead, how is it that nothing was hit??? As far as I know, none of the accounts report anyone having identified the enemy positions and returning fire. Does the scenario in these citations make any sense at all?
Attendance in private and public intelligence meetings, Attendance when the senate was in session, His and his wife’s IRS returns, His military records.
...and what the heck happened to all those facial wrinkles if he isn't using botox?
The boats werent hit because there was no enemy fire.
Well duh, of course not—the bullets were all deflected by Kerry's magic hat.
They took no enemy fire. The boats were shooting at the shore.
We should demand Kerry release his wrinkles, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.