Kerry Campaign Mascot
Mutley you snickering floppy eared hound
when courage is needed, you're neer around.
Those medals you wear on your moth-eaten chest
should be there for bungling at which you are best.
Posted on 08/19/2004 2:00:49 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
CNSNews.com) - A member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has alleged that John Kerry's own report 35 years ago was the basis for the military records that the Washington Post used in an article Thursday seeking to discredit the veteran, Larry Thurlow.
At issue is whether Thurlow, Kerry and others were subjected to hostile gunfire on Vietnam's Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969, as military records obtained by the Washington Post indicate.
Thurlow currently asserts that there was no gunfire, a contradiction of the military records cited in the Washington Post article. The Post was not able to show the source of the information for the military records.
Thurlow believes Kerry wrote the after-action reports that served as the basis for the military records, including the ones applying to Thurlow. He told CNSNews.com that Kerry routinely asked to write the reports, which, Thurlow said, exaggerate and falsify Kerry's actions. He said an examination of those reports reveals that Kerry was often portrayed as a hero, when that wasn't necessarily the case.
"In all honesty, knowing John wasn't reliable and wasn't trustworthy, I didn't expect him to do this," Thurlow said. "If he wanted to embellish his own account a little bit, I could even live with that because a lot of people are that way."
Both Thurlow and Kerry were awarded the Bronze Star medal for their actions on the Bay Hap River.
Kerry's own account is that during the Bay Hap River incident, he rescued another veteran, Jim Rassmann, while coming under fire from the Viet Cong. Rassmann backs up Kerry's version of events. But Thurlow said the awards, including his own, may have been inappropriately handed out as a result of a false report filed by Kerry.
"We were never under hostile fire," Thurlow told CNSNews.com as he recalled the events of March 13, 1969. "And if that's something that has to happen for me to get that Bronze Star, then I have had it all these years under false pretenses. I'll be happy to return the thing. I don't want the thing under fraudulent circumstances."
As reported by the Washington Post, the Navy award recommendation of March 23, 1969, indicated that Thurlow and Kerry had been subjected to "small arms and automatic weapons fire" along the Bay Hap River. Thursday's article in the Post used that statement, included in Thurlow's military records, to contradict Thurlow's current claim that there was no gunfire.
"The hostile fire is based entirely on [Kerry's] report," Thurlow said. "My contention, both then and now, is that there was no hostile fire."
Thurlow continued: "I had no clue, though, that he was building the centerpiece of his run for the presidency on it. There's no way I could have. Despite the fact he was known to have told several people that he was going to be president of the United States when he grew up, anybody could say that. John, it turns out, was very serious."
A spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign didn't immediately return CNSNews.com's request for comment. But Kerry denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, of which Thurlow is a member, during a speech Thursday.
"They're a front for the Bush campaign," Kerry said. "And the fact that the president won't denounce what they're up to tells you everything that you need to know - he wants them to do his dirty work."
When asked about the personal attacks he's endured since coming forward, Thurlow expressed disappointment. He said he merely wants to the truth about Kerry to be documented.
"What they're trying to do is discredit us," Thurlow said of the Kerry campaign. "If they can make anyone think we're not factual and not telling the truth, they've won that round."
If he could go back to Vietnam and do anything over again, he said he wouldn't have allowed Kerry to write the after-action reports.
"Back then, John would actually volunteer to write them up," Thurlow said. "He wouldn't be the officer in tactical command very often because he was fairly junior in the sense of who had been in country the longest.
"Nobody wanted to write these things," he added. "You're already drained from hours out on whatever the situation was. You wanted to clean up, get something to eat and get some sleep. John would say, 'I'll write this up.' [We'd say], 'Go for it, John.'
Proving that Kerry falsified reports is difficult, Thurlow acknowledged. He said higher-ranking commanders often gave a rubber-stamp signature to the reports because they trusted their officers to be honest.
"We accepted, whoever did it, to do it accurately," Thurlow said. "I myself expected him to do the right thing. Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have even let him do it. But at that time, I was more than happy to let him do it. I know something now that I did not know then."
See Related Story:
Kerry Says Bush Letting Others Do His Dirty Work (Aug. 19, 2004)
E-mail a news tip to Robert B. Bluey.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
>>>John O'Neill just said on Hannity's radio program "Those five boats were in a narrow creek (75 yards wide) for an hour and a half and none had bullet holes in them.
Should Thurlow give back his Bronze Star?
I agree but I had to pick myself up off the floor first - I can't believe the arrogance and entitlement mentality of these people. It's the LIBERAL pathology.***If you were active in the so-called "peace" movement or in the radical wing of the civil rights causes, why would you tell the truth? Why would you tell people that no, you weren't really a "peace activist," except in the sense that you were against America's war. Why would you draw attention to the fact that while you called yourselves "peace activists," you didn't oppose the Communists' war, and were gratified when America's enemies won?
What you were really against was not war at all, but American "imperialism" and American capitalism. What you truly hated was America's democracy, which you knew to be a "sham" because it was controlled by money in the end. That's why you wanted to "Bring the Troops Home," as your slogan said. Because if America's troops came home, America would lose and the Communists would win. And the progressive future would be one step closer.
But you never had the honesty-then or now-to admit that. You told the lie then to maintain your influence and increase your power to do good (as only the Chosen can). And you keep on telling the lie for the same reason. ***
It appears that maybe,just maybe,an adult in the Kerry camp has read Unfit For Command,and realizes that this book is BIG TROUBLE. In addition,after Mr. Thurlow's immediate return of fire today,the Kerryites are wary of Swiftboat mines in the water.I believe the Swifties have much more ammo (Alston,Lehman,etc.)and are just waiting for the right occasion to blast away.
He has offered to do so. I say, sure. It's a sign of good faith.
I'm listening on streaming audio from WABC in NY. Of course, I'm on cable so I'm not tying up a phone line.
Interesting...I will!!
Why should he? Seems like everybody there recognizes his "meritorious" service in jumping aboard the damaged boat, stabilizing the wounded and keeping the boat from sinking. That's what he thought that he got the Bronze Star for.
I've seen people get a Bronze Star for far less, like doing a good job keeping paperwork.
The difference, of course, is whether or not his has a "V" for valor. That's not clear. Kerry's does, and it appears that since he wrote the spot report, he probably didn't deserve the "V".
Certain instances, like if the boat was on fire and in danger of exploding, would justify a "V" for Thurlow, even in the absence of enemy fire.
No because he showed real valor in coming to the rescue of the mined boat.
* bump * Swiftees are riding high.
Mutley you snickering floppy eared hound
when courage is needed, you're neer around.
Those medals you wear on your moth-eaten chest
should be there for bungling at which you are best.
Because it would expose them as a fraud and shill for Kerry campaign!
But in the end, the object will be achieved, thanks, in large -if not total- part, are due to the Swiftees.
No. it was earned. the only reason Kerry included the additional lies about enemy fire was to try and justify a 3rd purple heart he'd use to get out of Vietnam asap.
I just go to hannity.com and use one of the three streaming audio options. The advantage of this is that each show repeats until the next day, when it is updated live and then this new episode repeats until the next update.
He'd gladly give it up, for the truth.
I like Mutley. Comparing Mutley to Kerry is really low!
BTW, Drudge reporting swifties to introduce new television ad tomorrow morning!
"BTW, Drudge reporting swifties to introduce new television ad tomorrow morning!"
No wonder Kerry is going ballistic now. He must have been tipped of to its contents. By the way, Brit Hume just went over the evolving Silver Star citation and how new and glowing language was added at a later date. (The Kerry campaign does not know why the language was changed.)
OK I'm sorry, Mutley isn't that bad. :-)
Interesting that if a casual visitor wants to see what the ad laughingly calls "the official documents" they have to dig for the .pdf files on that site. There's no direct or obvious link; instead it requires a search.
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.