'Pilot our Swift Boat to the moon?' 'Why yes,' says Baron, 'it would be quite efficacious given the nature of my ambitions?' - John Forbes von Munchausen
Atos
Posted on 08/23/2004 12:10:03 PM PDT by Richard Axtell
I think we could all benefit from a kind of "play-by-play up-to-date accounting" of the specific claims and evidence in the Swift Boat Veteran's Controversy. I am not trying to make sport of all of this, as I see the conclusions we may draw as very serious and indicative of Kerry's veracity and personal character, and thus his fitness for the Office of President of the United States.
I have followed this story since I first heard of the Swift Vets in May, and am anxious to get my copy of “Unfit for Command” in the mail. In the meantime, I want to understand this issue much better.
The following is how I have perceived the overall "areas" of controversy regarding his service in Vietnam, and the specific incidents and issues within each area. What I would like a new thread to do is to continue to update and test via honest debate, the believability of each charge and counter charge as they are offered. I hope those who have been able to follow this more closely than I have, can help illuminate these issues for us, and for the wide world of lurkers, some of whom may be influential Bloggers and press people covering this story.
First of all, forgive me if an identically or similarly intentioned thread has already been started, as I haven’t seen any as yet.
I see three distinct phases or areas of debate about Kerry’s Vietnam “experience:
1.) Kerry’s 4 month long combat service record
2.) Kerry’s anti-war activities after his return to the US from active duty, but during the time he was technically in the Naval Reserve.
3.) And, the controversy regarding Kerry’s “signing off” and thereby covering up evidence in the MIA investigations, outlined in the story at this link.
The issues of the first phase seem to be as follows:
1.) Kerry’s true motivations and actual acts regarding his choice to “volunteer” for the Navy, and for active combat service in Vietnam.
There are questions as to whether he tired to avoid combat service by joining the Navy, as in his original request to be stationed in Europe, specifically Paris, in some sort of military Liaisons Office? When assigned to Vietnam, did he choose Swift Boats, because they were NOT then currently involved in action, only coastal patrols? And, were his choices driven by a desire and a plan to emulate John F. Kennedy and his heroic Naval career? What truth is there to this, and where is there proof that can be documented?
2.) Kerry’s “Christmas in Cambodia” story.
Due to the lack so far of any documentary evidence that might even indicate that something like this might have happened, and because of the realities of the “SOG” Operations Command, as documented by Hugh Hewitt and which oversaw all secret Cambodian operations during that time, and the testimony of Kerry’s gunners mate Steve Gardner, who said they were no where near Cambodia that night, it seems that this story is a complete fabrication. Add to this five distinct story changes by the Kerry camp since this story came out 3 weeks ago, and one can write pretty well this all off as a fantasy, spun by a man who had no worries about being found out. What is the status of this issue now? Have Kerry’s shills done anything more than muddy the waters? The claims made by Hurley on Scarborough last week seem particularly telling, relying entirely on Kerry’s word, and offering no answers to any of the other questions this story generates.
3.) Kerry’s 1st Purple Heart wound.
The Swift Vet’s have charged that this very minor wound was a result of Kerry clumsily firing a grenade from a grenade launcher, and it exploded too close, catching him in the arm with a tiny sliver of shrapnel. The doctor who treated this wound removed the shrapnel with tweezers, and put a Band-Aid over the small wound. When Kerry requested that he be submitted for a PH, and was reportedly refused by that doctor. Is this true? What about the fact that the only document we have heard about has the Doctor’s corpsman initials or signature on it? The Kerry people have used this to try and discredit the doctor’s story. Would complete release of Kerry’s medical records verify one or the other’s story?
4.) The “Sampan Incident.”
Steve Gardner, the gunner on Kerry’s boat for many weeks, tells of an incident when, due to Kerry not watching the radar during a night mission, allowed a Vietnamese civilian sampan to get within 30 or so yards of their Swift Boat. When a spot was thrown on the sampan, a man in it reached for an AK-47, and Gardner was forced to kill him with his 50 cal mg, and shoot up the sampan. When they inspected the sampan, they found a young boy killed along with the man. The After Action Report submitted by Kerry told a very different story, according to Gardner. Kerry’s report said 4 VC were killed, covering up Kerry’s negligence, and committing a court marshal offense, in the falsification of an official report. Gardner has a copy of this report, and swears that the incident did not happen as described in it. Are there any other pieces of evidence, testimony, etc. that can prove this story, one way or another?
5.) Kerry’s Silver Star.
This incident is the most confused to me, as even the Swift Boat Vets admit that Kerry did steer his boat into shore when they were ambushed from shore, jump out and single handedly attacked and killed a Viet Cong who had launched a rocket at Kerry’s boat. What seems to be in contention, is if there were more than one Viet Cong in the ambush, that the Viet Cong was only a teenager, dressed only in a loin cloth, and that Kerry killed him by shooting him in the back as he ran. Since the VC was a active combatant, that may not be wrong in itself, but it may not have been quite “Silver Star” material, in the sense that when the VC was killed, Kerry was no longer under any threat at all. Is this true, and what is the latest on this specific incident? How does Rood’s story affect this at all? And, who of the Swift Boat Vets witnessed this one action?
6.) Kerry’s 2nd Purple Heart.
I have only heard this described as a ‘contusion” or bruise on Kerry’s upper arm or elbow, as a result of the “Bronze Star” action describe later. Can someone get a Purple Heart for a bruise?
7.) Kerry’s Bronze Star.
This is the most analyzed and discussed incident so far. Without recounting the entire action, the bone of contention seems to be whether there was enemy fire from the shores after the #3 boat struck a contact mine, and began to sink. All the vets on the boats that did not run when the mine exploded say that there simply was no initial or return enemy fire from the riverbanks. Yet, it seems that Kerry’s account has a fusillade of devastating small arms and automatic weapons fire directed at Kerry and the other boats as they affected rescue of the #3 boat crew, and the Green Beret Rassman. Without that enemy fire, the requirements for the Bronze Star would not have been met.
Kerry’s spokespeople have countered the Swift Vet’s contention with the wording on Kerry’s and Thurlow’s Bronze Star citations, which describe the rescues as coming under enemy fire. But the Swift Vets say that these were based on Kerry’s original false After Action Report of the incident, and even parrot the same wording and language. What about the reports of battle damage, were they from previous actions? If Kerry were to sign the “form 180” and release all remaining docs, would this issue be cleared up?
8.) Kerry’s 3rd Purple Heart.
From what I have heard, this PH was also “self inflicted”, in that Kerry chose to destroy a VC rice cache by dropping some sort of grenade into it. Kerry claims that this wound came from a second water mine explosion, not “rice in the ass” as told by the witnessing vets and elsewhere, possibly even in Kerry’s Brinkley biography. What is the truth here?
Finally, two of the Swift Vets who signed the original affidavit, have been recorded on videotape, praising Kerry’s service, during a campaign event for Kerry’s ’96 Senate race. I am right in thinking that both of these vets were officers in Kerry’s chain of command, and that they had no reason to believe other than Kerry’s account of the previous incidents, until they heard the testimonies of the Swift Vets that were at and witnessed each individual incident mentioned?
This is getting a bit long, so I will save the other two “phases” of this discussion for later threads, but please feel free to discuss them also. There is a lot to the “Winter Soldier” investigations, regarding their fraudulence and reported communist funding and influence in their planning and content. This must be exhaustively explored and exposed, and Kerry does NOT deserve a pass on this seemingly “treasonous” action, due to his youthful indiscretions. I am currently reading more about the MIA issue, and feel strongly that it must also be fully aired before the election, if we are to know the full extent of Kerry’s “real record”. Thanks to everyone who might help keep this cleared up, Good luck and keep to the Truth!
Richard Axtell
Did you listen to the last bit of Rush? He said that the Swifties have something even better that will come out. (O'Neill was on Rush for an entire hour today and was fabulous as usual.) I can't wait. I have believed for a long time that these guys have a lot on old Lurch.
Yes, I did hear that. I am convinced that Kerry cannot afford to allow all of the pertinent naval records to come out, and this might be regarding those records.... very interesting.
Well, the second ad is way worse for Kerry than the first. I think their strategy was to get some attention with the medals ad, and the basically unprovable content therein, and then follow up with the second ad when everyone started watching. so far they've done a great job, Kerry's a sickmaking character for sure.
Another Kerry lie was exposed by the Boston Globe in April 2004:
The Kerry campaign removed a 20-page batch of documents yesterday from its website after The Boston Globe quoted a Navy officer who said the documents wrongly portrayed Kerry's service. Edward Peck had said he -- not Kerry -- was the skipper of Navy boat No. 94 at a time when the Kerry campaign website credited the senator with serving on the boat. The website had described Kerry's boat as being hit by rockets and said a crewmate was injured in an attack.
But Peck said those events happened when he was the skipper. The campaign did not respond to a request to explain why the records were removed.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1197480/posts
Yes, Kerry attributes such a wound to the rice incident, blaming it on Nung mercenaries though.
His report later attributes the seeming same wound to later enemy action, which might have been done to qualify the wound for a PH since the wound was actually self-inflicted and seemingly, from Rassman's description, not in the "heat of battle."
Yes, Kerry in Tour of Duty attributes such a wound to the rice incident, blaming it on Nung mercenaries though. His March 13, 1969 report attributes the seeming same wound to enemy action later in the day, the "mine", which might have been done to qualify the wound for a PH since the wound was actually self-inflicted and seemingly, from Rassman's description, not in the "heat of battle."
'Pilot our Swift Boat to the moon?' 'Why yes,' says Baron, 'it would be quite efficacious given the nature of my ambitions?' - John Forbes von Munchausen
Atos
Great!! Green with envy of your talent...
I saw the "KERRY MEDAL TOSSING" Swift Boat Veterans For Truth TV Advert airing on FOX news channel here in WA state today... Have not any Swiftee ads in several days, but they are back again!
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.