Posted on 08/24/2004 7:41:51 PM PDT by NavySEAL F-16
Finally figured it out Posted by McQ
I've been bothered by a passage that was contained in a NYT article that all three of us had a go at this last Friday. You remember the one, it was the topic of the day. The NYT entitled it: "Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad".
But in that article there was this paragraph:
A damage report to Mr. Thurlow's boat shows that it received three bullet holes, suggesting enemy fire, and later intelligence reports indicate that one Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded, reaffirming the presence of an enemy. Mr. Thurlow said the boat was hit the day before. He also received a Bronze Star for the day, a fact left out of "Unfit for Command."
Before that time, I had never heard it suggested that there was a report in which a claim of 1 VC being KIA and 5 being WIA. It wasn't until today, when Jon sent me a link, that I found the source of the NYT claims.
They're contained in The Coastal Division Eleven Command History "Chronology of Highlights". I'm not sure how I managed to miss it up to now, but I have.
Anyway to the point at hand which will demonstrate two things:
A) The NYT deliberately left out some of the report. B) The NYT writers who used the report had no idea about the meaning of what they were reading.
First the report (you'll find it on page 8 of the pdf):
March 13, 1969: PCF's 3, 51, 43, 93 and 94 with MSF RF/PF troops conducted SEA LORDS operations in Bay Hop river and Dong Cong canal. A mine detonated under PCF 3 and units were taken under small arms fire several times during the operation. Friendly casualties were 8 USN WIA and 1 MSF KIA. Units destroyed 30 sampans and 5 structures and captured 16 booby trap grenades. Later intelligence reports indicated 1 VC KIA and 5 VC WIA.
Once I read this, I understood why the NYT had screwed up this part of the story so badly.
Let me translate it for you. Those 5 boats hauled some Mike Strike Force (MSF) Regional Forces/Popular Forces (RF/PF) on a Sea Lords operation. The Ruff Puffs apparently assaulted a village, killed 1 VC and wounded 5 VC, but that final total wasn't clear at the time. During their assault they (and possibly the PCFs) were under enemy small arms fire (stands to reason, wouldn't you say and might also explain the 3 holes in Thurlow's boat). They, the Mike Force and PCFs, destroyed 30 sampans, 5 structures and captured 16 grenades while losing 1 MSF KIA (a booby trap). The Mike Strike Force stayed there at the village site (and thus became the source for the "later intelligence").
On the way back, sans the Ruff Puffs (who are still at the village), PCF 3 hit a mine.
END OF STORY.
There was no reported small arms fire around the mine. There was no reported VC KIA or WIA at that time. Those all took place in the previous Mike Force operation, not the mine detonation.
Which explains why the PCFs were able to spend 90 minutes on site, saving the 3 boat and its crew before towing it in and not suffering one single solitary casualty from small arms or any other type of fire.
Of course if the writers at the NYT had bothered to show their source for the claim of the "later intelligence reports indicate that one Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded, reaffirming the presence of an enemy" to someone who knew what a Mike Strike Force was, or what they apparently did on that operation, they wouldn't look as foolish, as they'd know the VC KIA and WIA were killed and wounded on a previous part of the operation and not at the mine detonation.
Great research guys.
Excellent report, Thanks for posting it
bttt
The truth be told - ALL officers in Vietnam were awarded at the MINIMUM a Bronze Star thereby trashing the medal's worth won by truly deserving military members.
The Army awarded the Bronze Star to most soldiers that received the Combat Infantry Badge.
The military version of "grade inflation"
Great find bump.
Great report, thanks for the info
BTTT
John offered that a picture of the boat; taken the day before showed the windows were blown out etc.
Of course, Alan was unable to grasp; hear/see/understand the 'truth' of what O'Neil was explaining; and so Alan concluded precisely where he began; in the misrepresentation of the story.
I hope the audience, otherwise - ' got it'.
The only people who could doubt the truthfulness of John O'Neil; are those who areobviously 'blind to the truth'; period. And we know who they are. . .
(These people would/could see a lie - in the face of a baby; no doubt about it. . .if it could work for them.)
BTTT!
The NYT should run a correction. Regardless of their politics, this requires a correction for their readers.
It's amazing how those who read solely the MSM reporting of it come away with a different idea of how the events unfolded then those who actually read the reports.
Makes sense.
Have to admit, I have never read the NYTs version.
But what is contained here is what I've always thought happened. Even the WaPo agrees with the SBVT version and not the NYTs. It also fits the spot reports if you adjust for Kerry's lies. If you look at the little map the CO drew up on the spot report it makes sense. The way it was written up was decidely misleading in my mind.
I still question the battle damage for the 94 boat. It would not have been the tow boat. There is no way they repaired that kind of damage at the LST, it had to go up to An Thoi and be fixed by the USS Krishna ARL-38 or by the local boat yards. There will be records of that. And they should be available via FOI.
--A mine detonated under PCF 3 and units were taken under small arms fire several times during the operation
This sentence really says it all. While at first glance it may appear to indicate there was small arms fire when PCF 3 was hit, that is clearly not what it says! Instead this sentence summarizes the extent of enemy contact during the SEA LORDS operation and clearly lists two events-1. a mine detonating under PCF 3 and 2. Sporadic small arms fire during the course of the SEA LORD operation [not at the mine detonation]
Again thanks for the research, this is clearly 'documentation' that supports rather than refutes the Swifties.
Alan was just reciting the Kerry talking points, which apparently had been spewing forth all day.
Great job!
Absolutely this requires more than a retraction.
NSF-16: can you send this to the Ombudsman at the NYT AND as a letter to the editor to the NYT & to Hannity (and Colmes) and maybe to David Asman at FNC (try: asman@foxnews.com
....just a guess; Asman was in the Navy and has a Marine son, IIRC). You might want to expand and write it out as clearly as possible for civilians.
Just to hedge your bets, maybe send it to some of the bloggers who get a lot of readers/links.....Michelle Malkin, for example.
Good work to all concerned.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "Carville, Davis, and Other Pests -- 'Those We Don't Speak of' "
If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.
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.