West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Trauma-san on August 21, 2004, 03:20:57 PM
-
Military records support Kerry's account of Vietnam service
BY Joseph L. Galloway
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Military records back John Kerry's account of his service in Vietnam and have backed at least two of his accusers into a corner.
Kerry this week was forced to defend himself against accusations by a group of fellow Navy veterans of Vietnam that he was a liar and a coward. The charges were made in a book and in an attack ad that polls show have chipped away at Kerry's standing with veterans in three critical states - West Virginia, Wisconsin and Ohio.
The long-ago Vietnam War has suddenly become a central issue in the presidential campaign. The attacks by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have called into account Kerry's conduct during the war, when he volunteered for one of the most dangerous duties - the so-called Brown Water Navy, which regularly penetrated Viet Cong-controlled territory via the maze of waterways in the sodden Mekong Delta.
Although the 15 veterans featured in the attack ad all state "I served with John Kerry," none of them served on the same boat with him. Those who did, such as retired Chief Petty Officer Del Sandusky, 60, of Clearwater, Fla., praise Kerry for his leadership and credit him with keeping them alive to make it home.
"We are really upset at this stuff," Sandusky told Knight Ridder. "They are calling us all liars. They dishonor us and they dishonor all those who died over there. They are getting awfully desperate. Last year many of them were on board with us. Now they are telling outrageous lies."
Kerry has said that members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth lied when they said he inflated his role in various combat actions in the Mekong Delta in 1968 and 1969 and had manipulated the award of three Purple Heart medals for wounds and Bronze and Silver Star medals for valor in combat.
Kerry released a stack of his military records - including after-action reports, citations for his medals, boat battle damage reports and his officer efficiency reports. These records - and the military records of at least one of his accusers - cast serious doubt on some of the more inflammatory charges raised by the group.
It didn't help the cause of the Swift Boat Veterans group that some of them, including their leader, retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, were on the record praising Kerry for his service in Vietnam.
Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam, George Elliott, said in an attack ad: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."
But during the Vietnam War, Elliott recommended Kerry for the Silver and Bronze Star medals for valor in combat and gave him the highest possible praise in his officer efficiency reports.
"In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTjg Kerry was unsurpassed," Elliott wrote in 1969. He went on to rate Kerry as "calm, professional and highly courageous in the face of enemy fire."
Elliott added: "(Kerry) emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group." In 16 categories on Kerry's officer efficiency report, ranging from professional knowledge to moral courage to military bearing to reliability, Elliott gave Kerry the highest possible rating - "is not exceeded" - in 11 categories, and the second highest, "one of the top 10" in five other categories.
Elliott in 1996 supported Kerry in his re-election campaign for the Senate and during an appearance in Boston declared that Kerry had earned the Silver Star "for an act of courage."
Another critic, Larry Thurlow, a fellow Swift boat commander in the Mekong Delta in 1969, disputed Kerry's claim that his boat and others in the five-boat patrol came under enemy fire during a March 13, 1969, mission that earned Kerry a Bronze Star.
Thurlow said that although one of the Swift boats was disabled by a mine explosion, there was no enemy fire from shore, as Kerry and others testified, and that Kerry's account was "a total fabrication." Thurlow said in an affidavit: "I never heard a shot."
However, a citation for the Bronze Star with valor awarded to Thurlow for that same mission stated that his actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire which (Thurlow) completely ignored" while he provided assistance to the damaged Swift boat and the wounded aboard.
Thurlow said he had lost his medal citation for that incident over two decades ago and stood by his account that there was no enemy fire at the time.
His account was further called into question by a battle damage assessment report on another Swift boat, PCF-51, involved in the March 13 action. The report listed three .30-caliber bullet holes in the superstructure of the 50-foot patrol boat.
The Swift boat veterans also have cast doubt on Kerry's account that a second mine explosion damaged his boat, PCF-94, and blew an Army Special Forces officer, Jim Rassmann, overboard. Kerry's Bronze Star was awarded for his rescue of Rassmann, who credited Kerry with saving his life.
Among the records was a battle damage report filed the following day, March 14, which stated that PCF-94 had three windows blown out, radios and radar inoperable, the boat's auxiliary generator inoperable, screws curled and chipped, aft helm steerage control not working. The boat was judged incapable of executing patrols without repairs.
In the TV ad Swift Boat veteran Adrian Lonsdale declared Kerry "lacks the capacity to lead." Yet he, too, appeared to support Kerry in 1996, saying of him: "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."
In a month when the Democratic nominee had hoped to avoid running any ads to conserve funds for the final sprint this fall, Kerry strategists instead prepared to spend nearly $200,000 responding to the attack ads of the veterans group in key states.
The bulk of the funding for the Swift Boat veterans' group comes from wealthy Texas Republicans.
A new ad was scheduled to begin running shortly, focusing this time on Kerry's testimony against the Vietnam War in 1971.
-
I don't know why Kerry serving in Vietnam is such a big deal. We attacked a poor, little country, that had done nothing to us. In my opinion, service in Vietnam would not be something to brag about.
-
That's because you have absolutely no definition of respect, loyalty, courage, or any idea of commitment. I don't like John Kerry's policies, and I don't have a positive view of the Vietnam War, but his service there is something to be extremely proud of. You wouldn't know anything about that, however.
-
That's because you have absolutely no definition of respect, loyalty, courage, or any idea of commitment. I don't like John Kerry's policies, and I don't have a positive view of the Vietnam War, but his service there is something to be extremely proud of. You wouldn't know anything about that, however.
You just admitted the war was morally wrong, so please tell me why it is good that he fought and killed in Vietnam. And are you a Christian, what would Jesus say about killing someone in a War, that had done nothing to you, or your people?
-
I am against the Iraq War, but in 30 years, if any of the soldiers runs for public office, I would look at service as a plus in times of war, because if we have a war time like Bush says, I think it is better to have someone who has served in war, because they know war, and can relate to the soldiers. The soldiers need someone who would lead them into another Vietnam. Vietnam was a war that we fought for the south, but in the end we lost. I don't see myself agreeing with it back in the 60's, but I don't hold that against the soldiers, in fact I hold that as a plus because the soldiers were willing to put their lives on the line for our country, like my father, and that is something have shown I am not willing to do, so it should matter if a person who runs does such a thing. Someone like Clinton, and Bush, yeah, they won elections, but in time of war, military time I think is very important.
-
I am against the Iraq War, but in 30 years, if any of the soldiers runs for public office, I would look at service as a plus in times of war, because if we have a war time like Bush says, I think it is better to have someone who has served in war, because they know war, and can relate to the soldiers. The soldiers need someone who would lead them into another Vietnam. Vietnam was a war that we fought for the south, but in the end we lost. I don't see myself agreeing with it back in the 60's, but I don't hold that against the soldiers, in fact I hold that as a plus because the soldiers were willing to put their lives on the line for our country, like my father, and that is something have shown I am not willing to do, so it should matter if a person who runs does such a thing. Someone like Clinton, and Bush, yeah, they won elections, but in time of war, military time I think is very important.
MDogg. I got respect for you. Just asking a question. As a Christian, how can you "hold it as a plus" the killing of the North Vietnamese, considering they had never attacked or done anything to any American's? Are you saying you put the flag of your country above the Cross?
-
Although i'm honestly tired of hearing about his war record, he does have a honorable record. Granted getting purple hearts is pointless, the stars are worth recieving. On the other hand, i dont think you should base a vote by how he served during war. Clinton was an example that you shouldnt base your vote on their military record (bush for that fact).
I wouldnt go far in saying the vietnam war was morally wrong, but it was a lost cause. The north eventually took over the south when we pulled out anyway.
How can you say the Vietnam war wasn't morally wrong? We laid siege on a country and people that had never attacked or done anything to us!
-
I am against the Iraq War, but in 30 years, if any of the soldiers runs for public office, I would look at service as a plus in times of war, because if we have a war time like Bush says, I think it is better to have someone who has served in war, because they know war, and can relate to the soldiers. The soldiers need someone who would lead them into another Vietnam. Vietnam was a war that we fought for the south, but in the end we lost. I don't see myself agreeing with it back in the 60's, but I don't hold that against the soldiers, in fact I hold that as a plus because the soldiers were willing to put their lives on the line for our country, like my father, and that is something have shown I am not willing to do, so it should matter if a person who runs does such a thing. Someone like Clinton, and Bush, yeah, they won elections, but in time of war, military time I think is very important.
MDogg. I got respect for you. Just asking a question. As a Christian, how can you "hold it as a plus" the killing of the North Vietnamese, considering they had never attacked or done anything to any American's? Are you saying you put the flag of your country above the Cross?
I don't look at killing at all as a plus. But, I think someone that has been through war, any war, for his country is better suited to determain if we should go to war or not, as oppose to someone who does not know what war is like, and uses war as a political tool. Someone like John F. Kennedy, who was a World War II hero, had been through war, managed to aviod a war with Cuba because he knew the impact of war. Someone like John Kerry, he served in Vietnam, and then came back and protested the war. He saw war, he served his country, and then came to the conclusion that infact the war in Vietnam was wrong, and protested it. I see that as a plus, as oppose to a person that has never seen war, and then calls himself a wartime president, not knowing the mess he is putting the soldiers he leads into.
And I don't put no form of anything over the cross. I seperate what goes on in government and what goes on in religion. My father got married to my mother in Las Vegas, and they came back to California and went to the Catholic church, and the priest flat out said, the church does not recognize your marriage. That tells me right there, that what the government does, does not concern the church, therefore does not concern me. I take religion as I am God's soldier, and my job is to help carry the religion, and when people ask, I pray they find the truth. I know only two things in life that are true, God exist, and I am not God. I am still looking for the whole truth myself, so I pray for others. But what the government does, since we live in a sort of democracy, I vote the way I feel the government should be. But when things like homosexual marriage, and abortians, I don't worry about them, because the church does not recognize them therefore I don't recognize them. The choices those people made are up to them and God, and I pray for their forgiveness. Honestly, I put the church in higher regards than the government.
-
I am against the Iraq War, but in 30 years, if any of the soldiers runs for public office, I would look at service as a plus in times of war, because if we have a war time like Bush says, I think it is better to have someone who has served in war, because they know war, and can relate to the soldiers. The soldiers need someone who would lead them into another Vietnam. Vietnam was a war that we fought for the south, but in the end we lost. I don't see myself agreeing with it back in the 60's, but I don't hold that against the soldiers, in fact I hold that as a plus because the soldiers were willing to put their lives on the line for our country, like my father, and that is something have shown I am not willing to do, so it should matter if a person who runs does such a thing. Someone like Clinton, and Bush, yeah, they won elections, but in time of war, military time I think is very important.
Thats why we got Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield, and all of our gererals. When it comes to War and Terriosm, we got some tough mutherfuckers on the adminstration.
-
I am against the Iraq War, but in 30 years, if any of the soldiers runs for public office, I would look at service as a plus in times of war, because if we have a war time like Bush says, I think it is better to have someone who has served in war, because they know war, and can relate to the soldiers. The soldiers need someone who would lead them into another Vietnam. Vietnam was a war that we fought for the south, but in the end we lost. I don't see myself agreeing with it back in the 60's, but I don't hold that against the soldiers, in fact I hold that as a plus because the soldiers were willing to put their lives on the line for our country, like my father, and that is something have shown I am not willing to do, so it should matter if a person who runs does such a thing. Someone like Clinton, and Bush, yeah, they won elections, but in time of war, military time I think is very important.
Thats why we got Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield, and all of our gererals. When it comes to War and Terriosm, we got some tough mutherfuckers on the adminstration.
and they did a swell job!
-
Please explain to me what makes rumsfeld and cheney "tough muthafuckers"?
They are tough because they invade two defenseless countries with the largest army in the world?
-
Thats why we got Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield, and all of our gererals. When it comes to War and Terriosm, we got some tough mutherfuckers on the adminstration.
and they did a swell job!
Yea they have, and there not over yet!
Here are SOME reasons why:
1. We haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11.
2. We have gotten rid of 2/3rds of Al Quada.
3. We removed the Brutal Dictator Saddam Hussein.
4. Iraq has became an ally with us on the war against terrorism and have became a stable country with a democracy.
5. We have removed the evil Taliban Government in Afghanistan, and now Afghanistan is an ally against terrorism.
ECT...
-
1. We haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11.
That has got to be the dumbest comment ever spoken.
-
Thats why we got Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield, and all of our gererals. When it comes to War and Terriosm, we got some tough mutherfuckers on the adminstration.
and they did a swell job!
Yea they have, and there not over yet!
Here are SOME reasons why:
1. We haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11.
2. We have gotten rid of 2/3rds of Al Quada.
3. We removed the Brutal Dictator Saddam Hussein.
4. Iraq has became an ally with us on the war against terrorism and have became a stable country with a democracy.
5. We have removed the evil Taliban Government in Afghanistan, and now Afghanistan is an ally against terrorism.
ECT...
u sure about that?
-
I am against the Iraq War, but in 30 years, if any of the soldiers runs for public office, I would look at service as a plus in times of war, because if we have a war time like Bush says, I think it is better to have someone who has served in war, because they know war, and can relate to the soldiers. The soldiers need someone who would lead them into another Vietnam. Vietnam was a war that we fought for the south, but in the end we lost. I don't see myself agreeing with it back in the 60's, but I don't hold that against the soldiers, in fact I hold that as a plus because the soldiers were willing to put their lives on the line for our country, like my father, and that is something have shown I am not willing to do, so it should matter if a person who runs does such a thing. Someone like Clinton, and Bush, yeah, they won elections, but in time of war, military time I think is very important.
Thats why we got Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield, and all of our gererals. When it comes to War and Terriosm, we got some tough mutherfuckers on the adminstration.
Cheney was never in the military. Rumsfield has dropped the ball. The only person that I would trust with this war in Bush's side is Powell, and he has been very silent since they found no weapons. I expect a tell all book from him someday... lol... and Bush wouldn't be praised.
-
1. We haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11.
That has got to be the dumbest comment ever spoken.
What you said has to be the dumbest comment ever spoken.
-
1. We haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11.
That has got to be the dumbest comment ever spoken.
What you said has to be the dumbest comment ever spoken.
LMAO, you really don't get it, do you?
-
1. We haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11.
That has got to be the dumbest comment ever spoken.
What you said has to be the dumbest comment ever spoken.
LMAO, you really don't get it, do you?
No i dont because Bush and his admistration have took every precaution to stop another terriost attack from happening and its working...
Americans are safe with him in office.
-
jesus.. most of afghanistan is in control of war lords, not a democracy.... iraq isnt stable yet..
the real point of this post...
= dirty tricks by bush's camp..
-
jesus.. most of afghanistan is in control of war lords, not a democracy.... iraq isnt stable yet..
the real point of this post...
= dirty tricks by bush's camp..
There may be war lords in Afganistan, but there not controlling the country! It has a president and a democracy in place. Afangistan is stable, and the only part that is not, is the Pakistan border.
Iraq is now 4/5 stable since Najaf is now in control by the Iraqui government. Elections are gunna take place in November and a democracy is in place.
By the end of this year I suspect that Iraq will become a fully stable country and they will declare war on Iran, and the USA will be an allly.
-
There may be war lords in Afganistan, but there not controlling the country! It has a president and a democracy in place. Afangistan is stable, and the only part that is not, is the Pakistan border.
Dude, you're talking shit again. I know an Afghan who would love to go back to his country, but he can't because it's not safe and he's from somewhere in the middle of Afghanistan :-X There are a lot of stable places in Afghanistan, but what you're saying is pure bullshit.
Iraq is now 4/5 stable since Najaf is now in control by the Iraqui government. Elections are gunna take place in November and a democracy is in place.
By the end of this year I suspect that Iraq will become a fully stable country and they will declare war on Iran, and the USA will be an allly.
Right ::)
-
Dude, you're talking shit again. I know an Afghan who would love to go back to his country, but he can't because it's not safe and he's from somewhere in the middle of Afghanistan :-X There are a lot of stable places in Afghanistan, but what you're saying is pure bullshit.
Not my fault your Afghan friend is a pussy.
How is what im saying bullshit? Its all fact.
Right ::)
Great answer! You gave me very good reasoning and explanation.
-
1. We haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11.
That has got to be the dumbest comment ever spoken.
What you said has to be the dumbest comment ever spoken.
I dont know how your 4th grade teacher usually explains things to you, but ill try my best. Let's see if you know your american history. How many attacks have been made on american soil? (from an enemy outside the US) Well lets think.
1. British invading america during the revolutionary war (No president at the time)
2. Bin ladens first attempt in the bombing of the WTC (Bill clinton was president)
3. Bin ladens 2nd attempt crashing planes into the WTC. (Bush was president)
Now that is 3. Spanning over 200 years. Now here is why i think your statement is dumb. You said bush is a great president because he has prevented an attack on american soil since 9/11. Now i would be agreeing with you if terrorist attacks happened often, but having only 3 really isnt saying much.
So really its not Bush stopped them, rather they barely happen. Do you understand, i could draw pictures.
-
I dont know how your 4th grade teacher usually explains things to you, but ill try my best. Let's see if you know your american history. How many attacks have been made on american soil? (from an enemy outside the US) Well lets think.
1. British invading america during the revolutionary war (No president at the time)
2. Bin ladens first attempt in the bombing of the WTC (Bill clinton was president)
3. Bin ladens 2nd attempt crashing planes into the WTC. (Bush was president)
Now that is 3. Spanning over 200 years. Now here is why i think your statement is dumb. You said bush is a great president because he has prevented an attack on american soil since 9/11. Now i would be agreeing with you if terrorist attacks happened often, but having only 3 really isnt saying much.
So really its not Bush stopped them, rather they barely happen. Do you understand, i could draw pictures.
LOL...you forgot about:
Pear Harbor(1941)
British invasion (1812)
Mexican War(1848)
i could go on....
But anyways, my point is that during this time(21st Century) terrorist attacks are likely. It wasn't common for people to strap bombs to themselves or use airplanes as missiles 100 years ago. ::) We are facing terrorist threats everyday fucking day! We weren't before! And if wasn't for the Bush administration we would of probably of had another terrorist attack!
So your explanation that attacks on American soil happen rarely is irrelevant to today.
-
How many terrorist attacks have there been at all in Europe and North America? Rampant was right, you are allowed to admit that. :-*
-
How many terrorist attacks have there been at all in Europe and North America? Rampant was right, you are allowed to admit that. :-*
Not really, because hes comparing 100 years ago to today, which is fucking dumb
Also, the reason why there haven't been many terrorist attacks in Europe and in North America is because of such good security and Prescautions that is being taken today. But if there weren't any of these Precautions and tighter security that has been going on, you would see a 9/11 everyday.
-
Ok so were just discussing nowadays terrorist attacks (this is even easier to make you look stupid) and the grand total is....
2. These attacks, if memory serves me right, happened in 1992(?) and 2001. Which is 9 years apart. So dont be so dumb and say bush has stopped terrorism since 9/11, because its not like we live in israel and there happening all the time.
beacuse of such good security and Prescautions that is being taken today. But if there werent any of these Precaustions and tighter secrutiy that has been going on, you would see a 9/11 everyday.
lmao
-
the real point of this post...
= dirty tricks by bush's camp..
No; I posted it, and that was not the point of this post.
-
Ok so were just discussing nowadays terrorist attacks (this is even easier to make you look stupid) and the grand total is....
2. These attacks, if memory serves me right, happened in 1992(?) and 2001. Which is 9 years apart. So dont be so dumb and say bush has stopped terrorism since 9/11, because its not like we live in israel and there happening all the time.
beacuse of such good security and Prescautions that is being taken today. But if there werent any of these Precaustions and tighter secrutiy that has been going on, you would see a 9/11 everyday.
lmao
I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing with anybody that's posted about this, but there have been more terrorist attacks in the United States in the last 10 years, besides Bin Ladin's two. However, since 9/11, there haven't been any. A couple that pop into mind, for instance, are the bombing of the Govt. Building in Oklahoma City, for instance, or how about the Una-Bomber's mailing of bombs to people all over America? We also had several instances where anti-abortionists were bombing clinics, we had people burning down Black Churches in the south, we had a guy try and bomb the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, etc. etc. etc. Lots of terrorism, but none since 9/11.
-
Ok so were just discussing nowadays terrorist attacks (this is even easier to make you look stupid) and the grand total is....
2. These attacks, if memory serves me right, happened in 1992(?) and 2001. Which is 9 years apart. So dont be so dumb and say bush has stopped terrorism since 9/11, because its not like we live in israel and there happening all the time.
9 years is a long time. Things have changed in 9 years. There are MUCH more terriost attacks and attemps being made now. Bush has stopped terrorosm since 9/11, its a fact! Has there been one? NO!
Also, it could be happening all the time, except we are the USA and we have such good security. You cant compare Isreal to the USA.
-
Ok so were just discussing nowadays terrorist attacks (this is even easier to make you look stupid) and the grand total is....
2. These attacks, if memory serves me right, happened in 1992(?) and 2001. Which is 9 years apart. So dont be so dumb and say bush has stopped terrorism since 9/11, because its not like we live in israel and there happening all the time.
9 years is a long time. Things have changed in 9 years. There are MUCH more terriost attacks and attemps being made now. Bush has stopped terrorosm since 9/11, its a fact! Has there been one? NO!
Also, it could be happening all the time, except we are the USA and we have such good security. You cant compare Isreal to the USA.
Your so nieve. Do you honestly think that we have stopped terrorism from happening? Look at 9/11, Do you honestly think they spent a couple weeks planning that attack? The short answer is no. There is alot of thought and time spent into attacks.
Whether or not anyone will admit it, the fact is, we will not stop terrorism. Our country is too large. The terrorists will always be a step ahead of us.
So dont be so stupid to think that its because of Bush and our nations great security, that attacks havent happened since 9/11.
btw, did i mention your a dumbass?
-
Your so nieve. Do you honestly think that we have stopped terrorism from happening? Look at 9/11, Do you honestly think they spent a couple weeks planning that attack? The short answer is no. There is alot of thought and time spent into attacks.
Yes, we have stoped terriorsm from happening since 9/11.
Whether or not anyone will admit it, the fact is, we will not stop terrorism. Our country is too large. The terrorists will always be a step ahead of us.So dont be so stupid to think that its because of Bush and our nations great security, that attacks havent happened since 9/11.
Not really, its gunna take alot of years but its gunna be done, just like the cold war.
If we keep going after the terriosts and taking the war to them, it will be acomplished.
btw, did i mention your a dumbass?
No you forgot to mention it.