Swift Boat Veterans for Truth launched its fifth ad today, titled "Dazed and Confused," charging Kerry's contradictory explanations of a 1971 protest in which he threw away war decorations is another reason not to trust him.
The ad, which can be viewed at the group's website, flips back and forth between Kerry's April 26 interview with ABC's Charles Gibson and a 1971 interview with WRC television in Washington.
The creator of the 30-second spot, Chris LaCivita, told WorldNetDaily the 527, or soft-money, group has a $310,000 TV buy in the battleground states of Nevada and New Mexico.
He anticipates the Kerry campaign will charge the fast-paced ad unfairly manipulates the candidate's remarks.
"Obviously that spot is edited," LaCivita said, "but I can assure you nothing is taken out of context. If you read the transcript of the "Good Morning America" interview, it all flows."
At the end of the spot, LaCivita pieces together two Kerry phrases obviously designed to pack a punch with patriotic Americans, " ... we threw away the symbols of what our country gave us ... and I'm proud of it."
The group's previous ad has a similar theme, asking, "How can the man who renounced his country's symbols now be trusted?"
That ad ran for one week on CNN, CNN Headline News, the Fox News Channel, MSNBC and the History Channel, LaCivita said.
The new ad reads:
KERRY in 2004: I've been accurate about precisely what took place ...
KERRY in 1971: ... renounce the symbols ...
2004: ... I threw my ribbons over ...
1971: ... I threw back, I can't remember, six ...
2004: ... ribbons ...
1971: ... seven, eight ...
2004: ... and took the ribbons ...
1971: ... nine ...
2004: ... I didn't have my medals ...
1971 ... and that was the medals themselves.
2004: ... that is absolutely incorrect ... medals, ribbons ... we threw away the symbols of what our country gave us ... and I'm proud of it.
VOICE OVER: John Kerry, can you trust anything he says?
'Charlie, you're wrong'
In the 1971 interview with WRC, Kerry admitted throwing away his medals over a fence at the U.S. Capitol.
But earlier this year, Kerry told Gibson on "Good Morning America" he didn't toss his medals, insisting he threw away ribbons, which he regarded as the same thing.
"I stood up in front of my nation and took the ribbons off my chest" and then threw them over the fence, Kerry said.
Back then, he emphasized, "ribbons, medals were absolutely interchangeable."
Gibson said he was a witness of Kerry's actions 33 years ago.
"I saw you throw medals over the fence, and we didn't find out until later ... that those were someone else's medals," Gibson said.
"Charlie, Charlie, you're wrong," Kerry interjected. "That is not what happened. I threw my ribbons across ... ."
After interrupting several times, Kerry clarified that in addition to his own ribbons, he tossed two medals belonging to two veterans. Kerry's campaign website says he "threw his ribbons and the medals of two veterans who could not attend the event."
The Boston Globe quoted Kerry after the April 23, 1971 event, saying, "In a real sense, this administration forced us to return our medals because beyond the perversion of the war, these leaders themselves denied us the integrity those symbols supposedly gave our lives."
But Kerry revealed during his first U.S. Senate run in 1984 he still had his medals, having invited a wary union official to his home to inspect his Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts.
In an interview with the National Journal in 1988, Kerry clarified his statement again, declaring he threw out the ribbons awarded for his Purple Hearts, but not the medals.
In 1996, he told the Boston Globe he tossed his ribbons but not his medals because he "didn't have time to go home [to New York] and get them."
The swiftboat vets' second ad, featuring POWs recounting the demoralizing impact of Kerry's claim that U.S. soldiers systematically committed atrocities, has been run nationally with an $800,000 cable-TV buy.
In the group's third ad, one of Kerry's crew members accuses the presidential candidate of lying, charging he falsely claimed to have spent Christmas in Cambodia in 1968.
The first TV commercial quoted Kerry's Vietnam comrades calling him a liar, questioning his honor, accusing him of misrepresenting his actions for medals and attacking his character.
posted on September 17, 2004 05:43:28 PM new
Poor bear, still trying to throw mud on a combat veteran because the "man" he supports, bush, was a yellow-bellied coward, did coke, was a slobbering drunk too chicken #*!@ to defend his country.
Trying to dishonor ANY person who fought in combat for our country is un-patriotic in the extreme.
On behalf of my father, who fought IN COMBAT, in WWII, and all other combat veterans who risked their lives so you could have the freedom to slander one of their own......
....bear, SHOVE IT!
[ edited by crowfarm on Sep 17, 2004 06:06 PM ]
posted on September 17, 2004 07:10:06 PM new
"Trying to dishonor ANY person who fought in combat for our country is un-patriotic in the extreme."
I agree. So why did he call so many of them war crimals? Why did he throw away his medals when others were DYING to get them?
You don't like Bush. I get that. But that doesn't make Kerry a better man. He's a reprehensible, two-faced, hypocrite. A true... politician.
Maybe Bush did avoid the war. Maybe not. At least since then he's proven that he can command our military. Unlike the man who couldn't even command one swiftboat competently, and then voted against every major military spending bill since.
And yeah, I finally DID decide which way I'm voting
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on September 17, 2004 07:19:58 PM new
Well I'm super happy to see another ad like this going out...I'm so happy think I'll send off another check to the SWBT vets. Hope they're able to afford more of these ads to really let the voters see how he sided against his own country.
Let them get a picture of the true kerry character....a man who sided with our enemies and sh!t on his fellow soldiers. Then they can make up their minds if they'd want him for their C-I-C. I don't think they will.
posted on September 17, 2004 07:23:03 PM newbear, SHOVE IT!
OPEN WIDE CROW
kerry IS dishonoring ALL Vets who fought in combat for our country and is un-patriotic to the extreme.
kerry falsified ALL the after action reports to place himseld in the most favorable light,
He has been proven to be a liar about the 1st PH. He has been proven to be a liar about being in Cambodia on Christmas 1968.
He has been provem to be a liar about the "No man left behind" insident, when he ran away down river leaving 4 other Swift boats behind.
He lied about the actions resulting in the his receiving the Silver Star.
He is the first ADMITTED WAR CRIMINAL to run for presidemt.
His own web site propogates more lies about the Silver Star with "V" devices, because no "V" devices have EVER been awarded to a Silver Star.
He lies about two tours in VietNam, 5 weeks 100 miles offshore on the Gridley doesn't count as a tour.
In fact 16 WEEKS on the Swift boats making 18 missions from 30 Jan 69 until 18 Mar 69 @ approx 12 hrs ea. = 216 hrs of possible combat hardly counts as a tour.
Your hero Kerry's image is hanging in the ENEMY'S WAR MEMORIAL HALL OF FAME as one of the "heroes" contributing to their victory over America.
kerry without authorization routinely left his assigned river patrol station to go for joyrides, leaving his assigned section of river open to enemy action, placing other boats in unnecessary danger.
kerry was part of a VVAW conspiracy with Scott Camil who proposed the murder of several US Senators that supported the Vietnam war.
kerry has admitted committing "atrocities" in Vietnam, including the burning down of villages, and eyewitnesses corroborate his burning of a village.
kerry lied to his biographer about his experiences on the USS Gridley
Despite promising on national television to release all of his military records, kerry has refused to do so. The Navy department admits that there are 100 pages of kerry documents it has not released.
Kerry by his own words & actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare. ). The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
NO HONORABLE COMBAT WOULD EVER SUPPORT A LOW LIFE LIKE KERRY
I KNOW MY FATHER, A COMBAT VET IN WW1, MY STEP FATHER, A CONBAT VET IN WW11, MY 2 BROTHERS IN LAW, WWII COMBAT VETS AND MY NUMERIOUS FRIENDS & MYSELF THAT ARE VIET VETS WOULD NEVER SUPPORT A DESPICABLE LIAR AS kerry
Sen. Kerry's Vietnam Medals Evaluation Report
Medal: Purple Heart No. 1, December 2, 1968
Action: December 2, 1968 while patrolling in a small foam-filled boat, known as a Boston Whaler or "skimmer" that floats silently on a river without its engines running, with three other men in the darkness of early morning. The mission, apparently, was a training patrol in an area that was known for contraband trafficking. Upon approaching the objective point, the crew noticed a sampan crossing the river. As it pulled to shore, Kerry and his fellow crew opened fire, destroying the boat and whatever its cargo might have been. In the confusion, Kerry claims to have received a "stinging piece of heat" in the arm, the result of a tiny piece of shrapnel.
Analysis: Sen. Kerry has insisted that the above action qualifies as combat and that it was one of the most frightening episodes in his life. As with any Purple Heart the basic requirement is that any wound is the result of enemy action, whether direct or indirect. Kerry's website describes it this way: "December 2, 1968: Kerry experiences first intense combat; receives first combat related injury."
The following morning after Kerry's alleged first intense combat engagement, he requested a Purple Heart from his commanding officer, Grant Hibbard (Ret.). This is what Grant Hibbard recalls of the incident:
"While in Cam Rahn Bay, he [Senator Kerry] trained on several 24-hour indoctrination missions and one special skimmer operation with my most senior and trusted Lieutenant [William L. Schachte]. The briefing from some members of that crew the morning after revealed that they had not received any enemy fire, and yet Lt.(jg) Kerry informed me of a wound - he showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own M-79s. It was later reported to me that Lt.(jg) Kerry had fired an M-79, and it had exploded off the adjacent shoreline. I do not recall being advised of any medical treatment, and probably said something like 'Forget it.' He later received a Purple Heart for that scratch, and I have no information as to how or whom."
The question here is was Sen. Kerry's shrapnel wound the result of enemy combat action?
According to Kerry's own description in Douglas Brinkley's Tour of Duty, the December 2, 1968 incident described above was "a half-assed action that hardly qualified as combat."
Douglas Brinkley also reports in his book on page 189 that soon after Sen. Kerry turned 25 on Dec. 11, 1968, he headed out on his first mission: Kerry had wrote in his notebook, 'A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky'. "
Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. has come out and said ”I was absolutely in the skimmer" in the early morning on Dec. 2, 1968, when Lt. (j.g.) John Kerry was involved in an incident which led to his first Purple Heart.
Schachte, who also was then a lieutenant junior grade, said he was in command of the small Boston whaler or skimmer, with Kerry aboard in his first combat mission in the Vietnam War. "Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 (grenade launcher)," Schachte said in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C. He said, "Kerry requested a Purple Heart."
Adm. Schachte described the use of the skimmer operating very close to shore as a technique that he personally designed to flush enemy forces on the banks of Mekong River so that the larger Swift boats could move in. At about 3 a.m. on Dec. 2, Schachte said, the skimmer -- code-named "Batman" -- fired a hand-held flare. He said that after Kerry's M-16 rifle jammed, the new officer picked up the M-79 and "I heard a 'thunk.' There was no fire from the enemy," he said.
Patrick Runyon was operating the skimmers engineman during this incident has said "I can't say for sure that we got return fire or how [Kerry] got nicked," Runyon is quoted as saying in Unfit for Command. "I couldn't say one way or the other. I know he did get nicked, a scrape on the arm," he added.
It should be noted that another alleged witness to Kerry's actions on December 2, 1968 is William Zaladonis. He was interviewed by NBC's Lisa Myers after Adm. Schachte had come forward in attempts to cast doubt over whether Schachte could have been confused with being with Kerry in the skimmer that night.
Pat Runyon is listed as being in Qui Nhon/Cam Ranh Bay from 10/68 to 3/69 which provides him the opportunity to have been in the right place to have been with Kerry on December 2.
Also to be noted that any skimmer training mission consisted of at least one senior officer and a junior grade with one enlisted man - an engineman. Both Runyon and Zaladonis were enginemen. There wouldn't been no need for two enginemen.
Runyon aids in confirming both Adm. Schachte and Grant Hibbard's account about the absence of any enemy fire while also clearly confirming the absence of any possible explosions from enemy rockets/grenades/mortars that could account for any flying shrapnel that had struck Sen. Kerry. If there were no enemy rocket or grenades explosions than Kerry's shrapnel most likely was the result of firing a M-79 too close.
Conclusion: This is a rather easy and straight forward issue to sort out and judge from a purely military perspective. It doesn't matter who is telling the truth or who isn't about minor recollections. The fact is Sen. Kerry was denied a Purple Heart in the issuing hours of the incident and this speaks volumes on this issue. You have someone who was supposedly wounded who visits his commanding officer -- who has no axe to grind at the time -- who was briefed within hours of the incident and determines no Purple Heart was warranted. Furthermore, Sen. Kerry seeks medical assistance for such an obviously minor wound for the sole purpose to document his insignificant wound so he may further pursue his Purple Heart from his next transfer designation.
Two Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart:
• Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.
• Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.
There is no documented evidence of any enemy encounter at the time of Sen. Kerry's minor wound and the fact Sen. Kerry himself has cast reasonable doubt for any hostile enemy action being encountered. What was presumed to be potential enemy turned out to be non-combatant civilians. The only chance Sen. Kerry has in making a Purple Heart case is if he had been wounded in the heat of battle. But since there was no heated battle with enemy combatants he would lose this line of argument.
Sen. Kerry has released no "after action" report, as one would have been required if there was combat engagement involved.
A Purple Heart normally is not requested but is awarded de facto for a wound inflicted by the enemy - a wound serious enough to require medical attention. The Naval Historical Center keeps all documents connected to such awards to U.S. Navy and Marine personnel.
Typewritten "casualty cards" list the date, location and prognosis of the wound for which the Purple Heart is given, and they are produced by the medical facility that provides medical treatment. There are two such cards for Kerry - for his slight wounds on Feb. 20 and March 13, 1969, but none for his December 1968 claim.
Thus, it can be concluded that Sen. Kerry's Purple Heart for this incident was awarded in error due to material misrepresentation on the part of Sen. Kerry to the U.S. Navy by declaring his wound was the result of enemy action. Sen. Kerry's Purple Heart should be rescinded by the Department of Defense.
Medal: Silver Star Award, February 28, 1969
Action: On February 28 lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as Officer in Charge (OINC) of PCF-94 and Officer in Tactical Command of a three-boat mission. As the force approached the target area on the narrow Dong Cung Canal, it is alleged all units came under intense automatic weapons and small arms fire from an entrenched enemy force less than fifty-feet away. It is alleged Kerry attacked a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire that lead to a highly successful mission. His actions were said to be in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service. It is further alleged that LTJG Kerry saved his boats and crews life by killing a enemy Viet Cong guerilla who was preparing to fire a B-40 rocket at Kerry's beached PCF-94 swift boat.
Analysis: A Silver Star is awarded for "conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action," and therefore, any analysis of February 28, 1969 must first determine what actions meet this standard. In 10 U.S.C. 6244 defines the standards for awarding anyone the Silver Star:
(1) Awarded to a person who, while serving in any capacity with the Navy or Marine Corps, is cited for gallantry in action that does not warrant the Medal of Honor or Navy Cross
(a) while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States;
(b) while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or
(c) while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.
(2) The heroic act(s) performed must render the individual conspicuous and well above the standard expected. An accumulation of minor acts of heroism normally does not justify the award, but unusual or exceptional cases will be decided on their merits.
What Kerry Did
There appears to have been two ambush sites that day of February 28; separated by a distance of anywhere from 100 to 800 yards depending on who you ask who were there. The first ambush was an uneventful event according to Coastal Division 11 Command History summary. It has been almost a given fact for years that after first sweep of the first ambush site that both the PCF-23 and PCF-94 traveled together further up the narrow (width of a four lane highway) Dong Cung Canal leaving swift boat PCF-43 commanded by LTJG Droz behind at the first ambush site. At some point the two boats either detected or came under fire from an enemy initiated ambush and at this point Sen. Kerry ordered both boats to beach directly in front of the second ambush.
It cannot be determined if there was in fact any in-coming enemy fire directed at any of the boats during the second ambush (or the first ambush for that matter.) Bill Rood describes it this way: "It happened again, another ambush. And again, Kerry ordered the turn maneuver, and again it worked. As we headed for the riverbank, I remember seeing a loaded B-40 launcher pointed at the boats. It wasn't fired as two men jumped up from their spider holes."
If there was any significant gunfire received from the second ambush than Bill Rood would certainty had pointed this out in his recent recollections of the ambush. Being in such a narrow canal the boats would have suffered damage in any firefight -- especially if the boats were stationary while beached on the shoreline. There are no damage reports released to describe any boat damage from these two ambushes to support any enemy weapons fire against the boats. Because of the lack of any boat damage reports that certainty would have describe the number bullets holes the boats suffered during any of these two ambushes, and the fact no one was ever injured -- it is most likely no enemy fire was encountered during the ambush -- just the visual spotting of two Viet Cong guerillas along the canals banks.
One witness on Bill Rood's PCF-23 boat was a army advisor by the name of Doug Reese (a Kerry supporter), who indicates that the PCF-23 had beached before Sen. Kerry's boat had beached and had already begun sweeping the area with Regional and Popular Forces who were being transported by the PCF-23. It is when Sen. Kerry beached his boat some one hundred yards from the beached PCF-23 does he encounters the famous lone VC soldier with a loaded B-40 rocket launcher. The distance of 100 yards is a rough estimate based upon how far Mr. Reese says he was from Sen. Kerry when Kerry had encountered the VC guerilla with a B-40 rocket.
This account is supported by LTJG Bill Rood who recently had this to say:
"With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire nearby....Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation."
This is still rather confusing in regards to whether the two boats (PCF-94 and PCF-23) were together when approaching the second ambush site from the first. But from what can be gathered from witness accounts is that indeed both boats traveled together from the first ambush site and at some point PCF-23 beached and begun sweeping the area before Sen. Kerry's PCF-94 had beached. Rood makes it clear where he was when Kerry had allegedly killed the VC soldier as well as Doug Reese who has repeatedly has said over the last two years that he was some 60-80 yards or more from where Kerry had killed the enemy guerilla with a B-40. Reese also goes on to say he walked over to where Sen. Kerry was standing over the dead Viet Cong within ten minutes of the shooting. Reese confirms a leg wound, but no other wounds were visible to him.
Reese also makes it clear that his observation does not rule out the possibility of another wound on the back side of the body, suggesting the dead VC was found lying on his back. In any case, Sen. Kerry and his crew clearly had engaged and killed one Viet Cong guerilla within the immediate area of their swift boat. The question now is whether Sen. Kerry had actually turned his boat into an ambush or simply spotted a guerilla with a rocket launcher along the banks and Kerry's forward M-60 gunner shot him.
Were there any witnesses to Sen. Kerry's tactic of beaching in front of a second ambush? Apparently the only witnesses was Sen. Kerry and his crew since the PCF-23 and those onboard was a distance away and members of the boat already involved in a ground sweep. Did anyone see Sen. Kerry kill the VC guerilla with a rocket launcher? Apparently not, even though the guerilla by all accounts was anywhere from 15 to 30 yards from Kerry's boat.
We do know that Sen. Kerry dealt with an already wounded Viet Cong because his forward gunner, the late Tom Belodeau said, "You know, I shot that guy. He jumped up, he looked right at me, I looked at him. You could tell he was trying to decide whether to shoot or not. I expected the guy on Kerry's boat with the twin 50s to blast him but he couldn't depress the guns far enough. We were up on the bank." Belodeau said he fired at the man, wounding him.
Sen. Kerry himself confirms the VC guerilla had already been wounded when he told the Boston Globe in June of 2003 that "Tommy clipped him, and he started going [down.] I thought it was over."
But apparently the wounded VC did not stay down and as Kerry's first Silver Star citation and Bill Rood suggests, Kerry either followed or shot the the wounded VC when he made it behind a hooch. Did anyone see Kerry kill the wounded guerilla? According to Sen. Kerry during a October 1996 press conference:
"I was never out of sight of Tom Belodeau or Mike Medeiros," Kerry said. "I went straight out from the boat to the path so I had a line of fire. I never went behind the hootch, and this is the first time in 30 years that anybody has suggested otherwise." Problem here is this is exactly what his first Silver Star citation has been suggesting for the last 30 years as it reads:
". . . Without hesitation Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hootch, and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."
One of Kerry's crewmembers, Michael Medeiros, who by his own account was running behind Sen. Kerry and the fleeing soldier said at the same press conference that he did not see Sen. Kerry kill him but had no doubt that the senator did so. "The only one that was there was Senator Kerry."
This did not stop Tom Belodeau, who was standing beside Kerry at the same press conference to state: "The soldier that Sen. John Kerry shot was standing on both feet with a loaded rocket launcher, about to fire it on the boat from which (Sen. Kerry) had just left, which still had four men aboard," Belodeau said.
Years later Medeiros would add: "With my adrenaline racing, I started following him off the boat," Michael Medeiros recalls in Douglas Brinkley's book, Tour of Duty. "So I was right behind him. . . . As the VC guerrilla got 20 or 30 meters down the path, just about in front of a lean-to, the (future) senator shot the guy. He had been standing on both feet with a loaded rocket launcher about to fire. He fell over dead."
To add yet another twist to the to the fleeing wounded VC story is from another witness and former Kerry crewmate, Del Sandusky. He told the LA Times on August 8, 2004 that no one had a clear view of the shooting. But "next thing we know, there's Kerry with the B-40 in his hand."
Was Mr. Medeiros simply being rhetorical? It would appear so because both of his accounts are as different as night and day. What does Sen. Kerry have to say about the killing himself? Here is what he told the Boston Globe in June of 2003:
"He [wounded VC guerilla] was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." Globe writer, Michael Kranish, asked whether that meant Kerry shot the guerrilla in the back, Kerry said, "No, absolutely not. He was hurt, other guys were shooting from back, side, back. There is no, there is not a scintilla of question in any person's mind who was there [that] this guy was dangerous, he was a combatant, he had an armed weapon."
Here we have Sen. Kerry being very clear that the guy was running away and not being so clear how he shot him, like whether front or back. From the reading it appears Sen. Kerry wanted to prevent the guy from turning around to get off a last ditch shot off, and thus, really shot him as he was fleeing from behind. This of course this fits with what Doug Reese said when he said he could not observe any obvious wounds from the front side of the dead man other then the leg wound.
One other aspect of this Silver Star controversy needs to be addressed: the tactics employed that day. It has been written that Kerry may have really been awarded for his aggressive tactics of taking the fight right to the enemy. There is nothing inherently wrong with this line of reasoning provided there is some accurate intelligence of enemy strength and positions prior to employing this tactic. Sen. Kerry simply assumed beforehand if the ambushed appeared to not be a serious one they would beach their boat directly in front of the attackers.
In an interview with the New Yorker, Kerry reasoned that if he turned his boats toward the shore he would transform a long, horizontal target into a narrower, vertical one. "It would concentrate both of our machine guns directly on the point of fire and surprise the hell out of them," and it would keep the twenty soldiers each boat was carrying astern out of the line of fire, Kerry recalled.
There is several problems with this line of reasoning for the canals of the Mekong Delta. One is that the canals are too narrow, thus not allowing Kerry to reduce the exposure of his boat by turning into an ambush. Secondly, often ambushes occurred from both banks of a canal or river. You would never want your boat stationary on one bank of a canal so it would be fully exposed to rockets and machine guns from the opposite bank unless you were absolutely sure there were no enemy ambushers hiding behind the opposite bank.
Kerry was lucky that day in that this was a typical 1-4 man enemy ambush where they strike for less than a minute and then flee the scene before the swift boat guns could mow down all the vegetation within sight. This isn't the kind of tactic that would ever be employed because the enemy could easily organize a response to such tactics and end up easily destroying the boats while killing everyone onboard them.
Some might argue that Kerry's commanders were pleased and had sent congratulatory messages. This by itself means absolutely nothing. If it was felt morale was down than commander's would reap praise upon one for tying their own shoe laces. Real praise, like in Fitness Reports, comes in the form of promotion or the recommendation for promotion. Absence of promotion is a sure sign that commander's are not personally excited about you.
Summary of what can be established:
• Sen. Kerry's PCF-94 had beached alone and an estimated one hundred yards plus/minus from Bill Rood's PCF-23 boat.
• There was at least one VC guerilla with a loaded B-40 rocket launcher from where Kerry beached his boat.
• The allege guerilla Sen. Kerry killed was already wounded by Kerry's forward gunner and fleeing.
• The distance of the VC guerilla from Kerry's boat did not provide an opportunity for any chasing on Kerry's part. That is, everything happened in less than a minute because the wounded VC never got much further than 15 yards (Rood says 15 yards and Reese has estimated the distance at anywhere 60 to 100 feet.).
• Unlikely that the boats experienced any serious enemy weapons fire during the second ambush.
• Kerry's tactical plan for responding to the ambush was reckless and foolish.
Conclusion: We can debate the fine details till the end of time but such a debate would add little to what can already be clearly determined: LTJG Kerry did not exhibit any actions that rises to the level of "conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action" on February 28, 1969. LTJG Kerry did not exhibit any tactical actions that would warrant the awarding of a Silver Star.
It would be advisable for the Secretary of the Navy to order an examination of all records related to this event to determine how top brass officials could approve the third highest award in two days and have presented it to LTJG Kerry in only six days. Obviously there was no investigation on part of the Navy (as required) at the time or they would have come to the same obvious conclusion presented here.
Top commanders can award anyone for almost any reason they desire -- Gen. MacArthur awarded Lyndon B. Johnson a Silver Star for simply being an observer on his first and only uneventful bombing flight -- but if such awards are ever seriously challenged than such awards deserve a investigation to insure that the award meets the basic required standards of qualification. If the award is found to be merit less or obtained through deception then the medal deserves to be revoked in order to maintain the integrity of the thousands of other awarded medals that had been held to the same standards for which the medal is authorized to be awarded.
There are cases in which it took thirty years for the Silver Star to be awarded simply because at the time there was only one recorded witness and not the required two. To simply throw a Silver Star at anyone without at least meeting the very basic of basics is a black eye to the entire awarding process and to the thousands of recipients of the Silver Star. The Department of Defense should rescind the awarding of Sen. Kerry's Silver Star on the grounds it was erroneously handed out based upon misrepresentation and the fact LTJG Kerry's actions do not meet the
qualifications for the award.
Medal: Bronze Star & Purple Heart No. 3, March 13, 1969
Action: Sen. Kerry's Purple Heart was awarded because he had "suffered shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks and a contusion (minor) on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94."
Sen. Kerry was awarded the Bronze Star because "while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain, with disregard for his personal safety," he pulled a man by the name of James Rassman from a river.
Analysis: The Kerry for President Campaign has released a few official spot reports that were prepared and sent out by LTjg Kerry himself after he had returned from the March 13, 1969. We know it was Sen. Kerry who prepared the spot reports because he was the officer in charge of the four boat TE (Task Element.) Looking at the spot report we find the line that is responsible for the contents: "MARKET TIME SPOT REPORT 13/1/TE 194.5.4.4/1."
The 194.5.4.4/1 identifies the officer in charge of the four boat TE, which would had been LTJG Kerry, who also would have been responsible for all the after-action reporting. It has been mistakenly reported that the initials "JKW" at the bottom of some of the spot reports was evidence that Sen. Kerry was the author. This is false, it is just the initials of who ever had received the report at An Thoi, which in this particular case it was "JKW" who was on duty at the time LTJG Kerry was sending in his spot reports.
CTE command structure works out like this:
CTE 194 = Zumwalt
CTE 194.5 = Hoffman
CTE 194.5.4 = Lonsdale
CTE 194.5.4.4 = Elliott
CTE 194.5.4.4/1 = Kerry because he had Tactical Command of the boats.
There are other available references from Sen. Kerry that confirms he was the author of these spot reports describing the action that had occurred on March 13th. According to the authors of "John F. Kerry", "All events described were checked against official navy records, most in `spot reports' filed by commanders just after action, many of them written by Kerry." Kerry also has told a Senate Committee on April 22, 1971, "...I can recall often sending in the spot reports which we made after each mission.”
Sen. Kerry's spot report for his March 13, 1969 mission can be summarized as follows:
PCFs 3, 23 and 43 proceeded up Bay Hap River to Cai Nuoc district town and embarked 50 RF/PF troops and advisors. PCFs 94 and 51 proceeded up Bay Hap River and joined PCFs 3, 23 and 43. All units then proceeded up Rach Dong Cung and inserted troops at two locations. One MSF (Mike Strike Force) soldier was killed during this operation from a booby trap. One of the inserted MSFs was involved in a fire fight that lasted over an hour and was broken when troops were extracted. During ground operations troops destroyed 30 sampans, 5 structures and rice bins. It was during the five hour (per Kerry Bronze Star Recommendation) ground support operations that the PCFs would experience small enemy weapons fire several times.
After ground operations all five PCFs returned to Cai Nuoc district town. At 1445 Hours all five PCFs departed Cai Nuoc and proceeded down the Bay Hap River to their LST in the Gulf of Thailand.
It was during this return trip that that a mine detonated under the PCF-3 lifting it 2-3 feet out of the water. The spot report also states two other mine explosions were observed and that the boats received both small and heavy automatic weapons fire from both banks. The spot report for the incident suggests that they took incoming enemy weapons fire for 5000 meters (little over 3 miles.) PCF-94 attempted to assist the stricken PCF-3 and picked up a MSF advisor (Rassman) who fell overboard. Spot report does not say how or from what boat Rassman fell off. PCF-43 took all the wounded to the USCG cutter Spencer for medical attention. PCFs 94, 51 and 23 stayed with the stricken PCF-3 while a Bucket Brigade was brought in to help with the boats flooding. Once the flooding could be eased the PCF-94 then towed the heavily damaged PCF-3 away.
Both Sen. Kerry's Casualty Report and Bronze Star citation make it clear that he suffered shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks from a mine that had detonated close aboard PCF-94. It is this same mine that allegedly knocked Jim Rassman off the boat. However, Kerry's Bronze Star recommendation makes no mention of Kerry receiving a shrapnel wound to his buttocks, only a bruise to his arm.
In Coastal Division 11 Command History only one mine is mentioned and not three. Hand written notation on Sen. Kerry's spot report says "HF encountered plus MINE." It would seem a few had reason to believe there was only one mine involved and not the three Sen. Kerry describes.
We can be certain now that Sen. Kerry did not receive any shrapnel to his buttocks from a mine explosion. Jim Rassman in the Washington Post describes how Sen. Kerry really picked up a tiny piece of metal that day. As they were heading back to the boat, Kerry and Rassman decided to blow up a five-ton rice bin to deny food to the Vietcong. In an interview, Rassman recalled that they climbed on top of the huge pile and dug a hole in the rice. On the count of three, they tossed their grenades into the hole and ran.
Evidently, Kerry did not run fast enough. "He got some frag and pieces of rice in his rear end," Rassman said with a laugh. "It was more embarrassing than painful." At the time, the incident did not seem significant, and Kerry did not mention it to anyone when he got back on the boat. An unsigned "personnel casualty report," however, erroneously implies that Kerry suffered "shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks" later in the day, following the mine explosion incident, when he also received "contusions to his right forearm."
What is troubling about the above is why Jim Rassman has never come forward and correct the record of how Sen. Kerry became wounded when he had first hand knowledge that refutes the mine injury claim?
What makes the entire March 13th Bronze Star incident so bizarre is not so much how it is being described today in the press by the people who were there -- but how Sen. Kerry first described the entire incident back in 1998.
Kerry had the following eulogy entered into the Congressional Record on January 28, 1998 (Senate) Page S186-S187:
"There was the time we were carrying Special Forces up a river and a mine exploded under our boat sending it 2 feet into the air. We were receiving incoming rocket and small arms fire and Tommy was returning fire with his M-60 machine gun when it literally broke apart in his hands. He was left holding the pieces unable to fire back while one of the Green Berets walked along the edge of the boat to get Tommy another M-60. As he was doing so, the boat made a high speed turn to starboard and the Green Beret kept going--straight into the river. The entire time while the boat went back to get the Green Beret, Tommy was without a machine gun or a weapon of any kind, but all the time he was hurling the greatest single string of Lowell-Chelmsford curses ever heard at the Viet Cong. He literally had swear words with tracers on them! "
Sen. Kerry makes it clear in his eulogy that it was his boat that directly hit a mine and lifted 2 feet out of the water and that Jim Rassman fell overboard not because of a mine, but because of a high speed turn. Note also that Sen. Kerry never mentions multiple mines and that he suggests that the "entire time while the boat went back" is a indication that Sen. Kerry's boat continued past the ambush for some distance, a scenario supported by another Kerry crewmember below who was on Kerry's boat that day: Michael Medeiros.
Kerry Describes a Non-Typical Ambush
It is rare for river ambushes to last more then one minute. Generally you have 1-4 Viet Cong involved in a ambush who may have wired a under water explosive device to activate when a boat travels either over it or near it. Once the mine is detonated ambusher's may jump up and fire off some AK-47 rounds and rockets and then flee quickly before the boats guns can turn on them. It would be especially rare and unusual for ambusher's to hang around and take pop shot's of someone in murky water being pushed along by the river's flow with the fire power of three swift boats there on the scene.
Sen. Kerry suggests there was a 3 mile gauntlet of enemy weapons fire along the river. If this was true, the Viet Cong would had to have a at least two full size battalions available to them to place along the river. If this was the case there would have been much boat damage and injuries reported from enemy fire.
PCF-94 Damage Report
On March 14, a CASREP was prepared and sent outlining the damage and condition of Kerry's PCF-94 and PCF-3. Only page two describing the PCF-94 damage was released by the Kerry Campaign. The PCF-94 was declared unable to continue Market Patrol due to a host of damage that included steering problems; loss of RPM in both engines and curled and chipped propellers. If the PCF-94 never hit a mine then how was it damaged?
Michael Medeiros, a former Kerry crew member who was there that day provides us with a clue when he recently suggested in a interview with the Washington Post: "When the mine went off, we were still going full speed," he recalled. Medeiros said Kerry's boat raced off down the river, away from the ambush zone.
Del Sandusky, another Kerry crewmate who was on Sen. Kerry's boat that day believes there was never a second mine explosion but more likely a rocket or rocket-propelled grenade, as a mine would have inflicted more damage. Mr. Sandusky is correct about not being a mine explosion, but it wasn't a rocket -- but a obstacle in the river that the boat had run over at high speed as they were fleeing the ambush site. A rocket would not had curled and chipped the boats screws. This explanation explains the boats damage and what some might have mistaken for a mine explosion.
It should be noted that other damage the CASREP describes are non-critical to a swift boat's operation and easily could have been caused weeks earlier during other missions. We know that some forward windows were damaged a day earlier from another ambush according to Coastal Division 11 Command History which describes the damage suffered the day before on March 12 as "minor."
The Rescue
Sen. Kerry's Bronze Star recommendation makes no mention of Sen. Kerry being under enemy small arms fire. Here is how his Bronze Star recommendation describes the rescue: "LTjg KERRY from his exposed position on the bow of the boat, managed to pull RASSMAN aboard despite the painful wound in his right arm."
Jim Rassman claims he was the one who recommended Sen. Kerry for a award, originally recommended Kerry for the Silver Star that later was reduced to a Bronze Star. However, Sen. Kerry's Bronze Star recommendation only lists one eyewitness for the rescue of Jim Rassman: Kerry for President supporter, Del Sandusky.
This is the same Del Sandusky who told CNN NewsNight on May 31, 2004 that "John, shot and bleeding, laid down and pulled up Rassman by his belt."
Conclusion: It has been demonstrated that Sen. Kerry was never wounded in his buttocks by a enemy mine. It has also been demonstrated that Sen. Kerry knowingly filed a false casualty report for himself. Sen. Kerry's Purple Heart for the March 13, 1969 incident was not caused by enemy action, but from a careless act of destroying rice for which one eyewitness thought was more funny than serious.
Sen. Kerry has been shown in one account of the mine incident to have described his boat as directly hitting a mine and being lifted out of the water several feet knowing very well this wasn't possible. The PCF-94 damage report supports the conclusion that Sen. Kerry had run over an under water obstacle as he kept going at full speed after the PCF-3 had struck a mine, and it was this impact that caused the screws to be curled, chipped and what appeared to the crew to have been the result of a mine explosion.
It would appear that Sen. Kerry wanted to use the illusion of a enemy mine explosion to account for shrapnel to his buttocks instead of being self-inflicted.
The entire event as described by Sen. Kerry in his spot reports and by his supporters who were on his boat for the March 13, 1969 incident is exaggerated and riddled with inconsistencies and factually incorrect events. The Department of Defense should rescind the awarding of both Kerry's Purple Heart and the Bronze Star for the March 13th incident due to the above and knowingly making material false statements to the U.S. Navy.
posted on September 17, 2004 07:46:31 PM new
Excuse me, Bear1949, this bears repeating. Thanks for doing the research and aligning my previous allegations with the laws Senator Kerry violated.
Bear1949 posted:
Kerry by his own words & actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare. The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
I urge everyone to contact their representatives in Washington, D.C. and question as to why Senator Kerry has been allowed to maintain an illegal presence in that august body, in light of his admitted and obvious violation of these statutes.
Hebrews 13:8
posted on September 17, 2004 07:49:21 PM new
YOU NEVER OFFERED ONE WORD IN THE DEFENSE OF the slimey coward, yellow-bellied, coked up DRUNK Bush who AIDED THE ENEMY BY NOT FIGHTING AT ALL.
YOU are on his level, you support a TRAITOR!
AND SLING MUD at a COMBAT VETERAN!
posted on September 17, 2004 08:18:25 PM new
Nice going Bear, have said before; people still voting for kerry are just voting out of hate... nothing logical can possibly be gained... he is going to lose and we can see the melt down begin... LOL
posted on September 17, 2004 08:26:53 PM new
I already have parklane...and I also encourage everyone else to do the same. They need to hear how we feel about this.....again.
------------------
TWO WORDS -
honorable discharge.
-----------
You're right twelve, only the 'anybody but Bush crowd'. It's hard for me to understand those who have read all about kerry....watch his 100 flip-flops and still plan to vote for him. Either they're rabid anti-war people or Bush haters. They can't be choosing him because of what he's done for this countr, nor his past Senate record, nor his war solution....because he won't stay one.
posted on September 17, 2004 09:50:12 PM new YOU NEVER OFFERED ONE WORD IN THE DEFENSE OF the slimey coward, yellow-bellied, coked up DRUNK
You know kerry doesn't appreciate your talking about him like that....
Jay Leno.... Did you see the pictures in the paper the other day of John Kerry windsurfing? He's was at his home in Nantucket, doing his favorite thing, windsurfing. Even his hobby depends on which way the wind blows. ....
"[kerry] voted NO on Desert Storm in 1991 and YES on Desert Shield today. Then he voted NO
on troop funding, just after he had voted YES. He's campaigned against the war all year, but says he'd vote YES today. I don't want Presidential leadership that comes in 57 varieties! I want a strong President who stands his ground." --Mitt Romney
posted on September 18, 2004 03:46:35 AM new
Still not one word of defense because there isn't any.
Honorable Discharge? HA! Handed out like candy and if if Bush got away with being AWOL for a year, disobeying commands, how hard can it be to get an "Honorable Discharge".
You're the ones voting out of hatred for Kerry! Look at how you keep insisting he's a flip flopper.....out of sheer ignorance.
posted on September 18, 2004 10:28:24 AM new
"Still not one word of defense because there isn't any."
What's the point?
A) That was thirty years ago, if it was even true then. He's aboviously not "coked up" anymore. Your guy is still a wishy-washy flip-flopper and admitted war criminal.
B) You wouldn't listen to a logical argument if someone DID take the time to answer you. Your mind is made up- you'd vote for Barney the Dinosaur or Adolph Hitler before you'd vote for Bush. Why would anyone want to answer you?
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on September 18, 2004 10:44:50 AM new
"Dazed & Confused: can you trust anything [he says
sure doesn't look like it.
You have to admit how much effort has been put behind President Bush's old military records being disclosed. ALL of them. But don't see the kerry supports DEMANDING the same of kerry's records that he says are ALL out there.
-----
Navy Contradicts Kerry on Release of Military Records
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
September 16, 2004
(CNSNews.com) -
The U.S. Navy released documents Wednesday contradicting claims by Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry that all of his available military records have been released.
The Navy, responding to a Freedom of Information Act request from the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, also referred interested parties to Kerry's campaign web site for government military documents.
Navy Personnel Command FOIA Officer Dave German wrote in an e-mail to Judicial Watch that the Navy "withheld thirty-one pages of documents from the responsive military personnel service records as we were not provided a release authorization."
A "release authorization" would have to come from Kerry filling out and signing a Standard Form 180, something he has yet to do. A Standard Form 180 would authorize the complete release of all his military records.
Judicial Watch filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in August to obtain Kerry's military records.
The official U.S. Navy response was received by Judicial Watch on Wednesday, the same day that Kerry told syndicated radio and MSNBC TV host Don Imus that "[i]We've posted my military records that they sent to me, or were posted on my website. You can go to my website, and all my -- you know, the documents are there."
[YEP....ANOTHER LIE!!]
When Imus pressed Kerry as to whether all of his documents were in fact included on the campaign website, Kerry responded, "To the best of my knowledge. I think some of the medical stuff may still be out there. We're trying to get it.
"We released everything that they (the Navy) initially sent me," he added.
[All you have to do kerry, and you KNOW IT, is sign the 180]
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the Navy's correspondence confirms that Kerry has not been forthright in releasing his military files.
"It's written confirmation from the U.S. Navy that there are additional documents from Kerry's service record that have yet to be made publicly available," Fitton told CNSNews.com.
Fitton called the Kerry campaign's contention that all of the candidate's military files have been released, "wrong."
"They (the Kerry campaign) are either ignorant or misleading us. The simple solution is to authorize the release of all records related to his service," Fitton said.
German in a letter dated September 15, also referred Judicial Watch to Kerry's campaign website for more information on Kerry's military records.
"Numerous responsive U.S. Navy service record documents, as well as service record documents not subject to disclosure requirements under the FOIA, may be accessed at" the Kerry campaign's website applying to his military records, wrote German.
"Right now we are in the 'Alice in Wonderland' situation, where the U.S. Navy is telling us to go to a campaign Internet site to get government FOIA documents," Fitton said.
"I am not aware of any other instance where [a government agency] told us to go to a political website for documents," he added. "It's not a reliable repository of government documents."
In additional correspondence with Judicial Watch dated Sept. 15, the Navy stated that it did not have a copy of Kerry's Discharge Certificate (DD Form 256N), adding that the Navy did not keep files of the certificate in its records. German wrote in a letter dated Sept. 15, "A copy of an honorable discharge certificate (DD256N) is not placed in the U.S. Navy Service record when issued."
Jerome Corsi, co-author of the best-selling book "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," told CNSNews.com the he was "surprised" the Navy did not have a copy of Kerry's discharge file.
"That means [Kerry's] got it," Corsi said. "It goes against his contention that he has released everything that is in his possession, because certainly that form is in his possession."
Corsi believes that the Navy's official response proves that "it's Kerry who is blocking the release of the [military] documents and nobody else."
"What's Senator Kerry got to hide?" Corsi asked. "By not releasing these files, he is creating the impression that there is something there he doesn't want anybody to see. What is it?"
Judicial Watch is also awaiting the U.S. Navy's response to its inquiry regarding Kerry's "Silver Star with combat V." The citation appears in Kerry's DD214 military form on his website, but according to military officials, no such medal exists.
"Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star," said a Naval official to reporter Thomas Lipscomb in an article for the August 27th Chicago Sun Times.
According to the Sun Times article, "Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a 'combat V' for the Silver Star, the third-highest decoration the Navy awards. None of the other services has ever granted a Silver Star 'combat V,' either."
All clickable links for anyone interested in reading them on on the url I have provided.
Kerry Blamed for Viet Vets Being Dubbed 'Atrocity Committing Monsters' POW Say (Sept. 10, 2004)
Kerry, in 1971, Admitted Writing Combat Reports (Aug. 26, 2004)
FBI Files Show Kerry Met With Communists More Than Once (June 4, 2004)
Kerry's Meeting With Communists Violated US Law, Says Author (May 20, 2004)
Kerry Lying About Anti-War Past, Supporter Alleges (March 18, 2004)
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don´t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." - john kerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"These dizzying contradictions -- so glaring, so public, so frequent -- have gone beyond undermining anything Kerry can now say on Iraq. They have been transmuted into a character issue."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"What kind of man, aspiring to the presidency, does not know his own mind about the most serious issue of our time?" - Charles Krauthammer
-------
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 18, 2004 10:50 AM ]
posted on September 18, 2004 11:34:56 AM newWhy Bush Left Texas
By Russ Baker
Growing evidence suggests that George W. Bush abruptly left his Texas Air National Guard unit in 1972 for substantive reasons pertaining to his inability to continue piloting a fighter jet.
A months-long investigation, which includes examination of hundreds of government-released documents, interviews with former Guard members and officials, military experts and Bush associates, points toward the conclusion that Bush's personal behavior was causing alarm among his superior officers and would ultimately lead to his fleeing the state to avoid a physical exam he might have had difficulty passing. His failure to complete a physical exam became the official reason for his subsequent suspension from flying status.
This central issue, whether Bush did or did not complete his duty--and if not, why--has in recent days been obscured by a raging sideshow: a debate over the accuracy of documents aired on CBS's 60 Minutes. Last week CBS News reported on newly unearthed memos purportedly prepared by Bush's now-deceased commanding officer. In those documents, the officer, Lieut. Col. Jerry Killian, appeared to be establishing for the record events occurring at the time Bush abruptly left his Texas Air National Guard unit in May 1972. Among these: that Bush had failed to meet unspecified Guard standards and refused a direct order to take a physical exam, and that pressure was being applied on Killian and his superiors to whitewash whatever troubling circumstances Bush was in.
Questions have been raised about the authenticity of those memos, but the criticism of them appears at this time speculative and inconclusive, while their substance is consistent with a growing body of documentation and analysis.
If it is demonstrated that profound behavioral problems marred Bush's wartime performance and even cut short his service, it could seriously challenge Bush's essential appeal as a military steward and guardian of societal values. It could also explain the incomplete, contradictory and shifting explanations provided by the Bush camp for the President's striking invisibility from the military during the final two years of his six-year military obligation. And it would explain the savagery and rapidity of the attack on the CBS documents.
In 1972 Bush's unit activities underwent a change that could point to a degradation of his ability to fly a fighter jet. Last week, in response to a lawsuit, the White House released to the Associated Press Bush's flight logs, which show that he abruptly shifted his emphasis in February and March 1972 from his assigned F-102A fighter jet to a two-seat T-33 training jet, from which he had graduated several years earlier, and was put back onto a flight simulator. The logs also show that on two occasions he required multiple attempts to land a one-seat fighter and a fighter simulator. This after Bush had already logged more than 200 hours in the one-seat F-102A.
Military experts say that his new, apparently downgraded and accompanied training mode, which included Bush's sometimes moving into the co-pilot's seat, can, in theory, be explained a variety of ways. He could, for example, have been training for a new position that might involve carrying student pilots. But the reality is that Bush himself has never mentioned this chapter in his life, nor has he provided a credible explanation. In addition, Bush's highly detailed Officer Effectiveness Reports make no mention of this rather dramatic change.
A White House spokesman explained to AP that the heavy training in this more elementary capacity came at a time when Bush was trying to generate more hours in anticipation of a six-month leave to work on a political campaign. But, in fact, this scenario is implausible. For one thing, Guard regulations did not permit him to log additional hours in that manner as a substitute for missing six months of duty later on. As significantly, there is no sign that Bush even considered going to work on that campaign until shortly before he departed--nor that campaign officials had any inkling at all that Bush might join them in several months' time.
Bush told his commanding officers that he was going to Alabama for an opportunity with a political campaign. (His Texas Air National Guard supervisors--presumably relying on what Bush told them--would write in a report the following year, "A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama." ) But the timing of Bush's decision to leave and his departure--about the same time that he failed to take a mandatory annual physical exam--indicate that the two may have been related.
Campaign staff members say they knew nothing of Bush's interest in participating until days before he arrived in Montgomery. Indeed, not one of numerous Bush friends from those days even recalls Bush talking about going to Alabama at any point before he took off.
Bush's behavior in Alabama suggests that he viewed Alabama not as an important career opportunity but as a kind of necessary evil.
Although his role in the campaign has been represented as substantial (in some newspaper accounts, he has been described as the assistant campaign manager), numerous campaign staffers say Bush's role was negligible, low level and that he routinely arrived at the campaign offices in the afternoon hours, bragging of drinking feats from the night before.
According to friends of his, he kept his Houston apartment during this period and, based on their recollections, may have been coming back into town repeatedly during the time he was supposedly working full-time on the Alabama campaign. Absences from the campaign have been explained as due to his responsibilities to travel to the further reaches of Alabama, but several staffers told me that organizing those counties was not Bush's de facto responsibility.
Even more significantly, in a July interview, Linda Allison, the widow of Jimmy Allison, the Alabama campaign manager and a close friend of Bush's father, revealed to me for the first time that Bush had come to Alabama not because the job had appeal or because his presence was required but because he needed to get out of Texas. "Well, you have to know Georgie," Allison said. "He really was a totally irresponsible person. Big George [George H.W. Bush] called Jimmy, and said, he's killing us in Houston, take him down there and let him work on that campaign.... The tenor of that was, Georgie is in and out of trouble seven days a week down here, and would you take him up there with you."
Allison said that the younger Bush's drinking problem was apparent. She also said that her husband, a circumspect man who did not gossip and held his cards closely, indicated to her that some use of drugs was involved. "I had the impression that he knew that Georgie was using pot, certainly, and perhaps cocaine," she said.
Now-prominent, established Texas figures in the military, arts, business and political worlds, some of them Republicans and Bush supporters, talk about Bush's alleged use of marijuana and cocaine based on what they say they have heard from trusted friends. One middle-aged woman whose general veracity could be confirmed told me that she met Bush in 1968 at Hemisphere 68, a fair in San Antonio, at which he tried to pick her up and offered her a white powder he was inhaling. She was then a teenager; Bush would have just graduated from Yale and have been starting the National Guard then. "He was getting really aggressive with me," she said. "I told him I'd call a policeman, and he laughed, and asked who would believe me." (Although cocaine was not a widespread phenomenon until the 1970s, US authorities were struggling more than a decade earlier to stanch the flow from Latin America; in 1967 border seizures amounted to twenty-six pounds.)
Bush himself has publicly admitted to being somewhat wild in his younger years, without offering any details. He has not explicitly denied charges of drug use; generally he has hedged. He has said that he could have passed the same security screening his father underwent upon his inauguration in 1989, which certifies no illegal drug use during the fifteen preceding years. In other words, George W. Bush seemed to be saying that if he had used drugs, that was before 1974 or during the period in which he left his Guard unit.
The family that rented Bush a house in Montgomery, Alabama, during that period told me that Bush did extensive, inexplicable damage to their property, including smashing a chandelier, and that they unsuccessfully billed him twice for the damage--which amounted to approximately $900, a considerable sum in 1972. Two unconnected close friends and acquaintances of a well-known Montgomery socialite, now deceased, told me that the socialite in question told them that he and Bush had been partying that evening at the Montgomery Country Club, combining drinking with use of illicit drugs, and that Bush, complaining about the brightness, had climbed on a table and smashed the chandelier when the duo stopped at his home briefly so Bush could change clothes before they headed out again.
It is notable that in 1972, the military was in the process of introducing widespread drug testing as part of the annual physical exams that pilots would undergo.
For years, military buffs and retired officers have speculated about the real reasons that Bush left his unit two years before his flying obligation was up. Bush and his staff have muddied the issue by not providing a clear, comprehensive and consistent explanation of his departure from the unit. And, peculiarly, the President has not made himself available to describe in detail what did take place at that time. Instead, the White House has adopted a policy of offering obscure explanations by officials who clearly do not know the specifics of what went on, and the periodic release of large numbers of confusing or inconclusive documents--particularly at the start of weekends and holiday periods, when attention is elsewhere.
In addition, the Bush camp has offered over the past few years a shifting panoply of explanations that subsequently failed to pass muster. One was that Bush had stopped flying his F-102A jet because it was being phased out (the plane continued to be used for at least another year). Another explanation was that he failed to take his physical exam in 1972 because his family doctor was unavailable. (Guard regulations require that physicals be conducted by doctors on the base, and would have been easily arranged either on a base in Texas or, after he left the state, in Alabama.)
One of the difficulties in getting to the truth about what really took place during this period is the frequently expressed fear of retribution from the Bush organization. Many sources refuse to speak on the record, or even to have their knowledge communicated publicly in any way. One source who did publicly evince doubts about Bush's activities in 1972 was Dean Roome, who flew formations often with Bush and was his roommate for a time. "You wonder if you know who George Bush is," Roome told USA Today in a little-appreciated interview back in 2002. "I think he digressed after awhile," he said. "In the first half, he was gung-ho. Where George failed was to fulfill his obligation as a pilot. It was an irrational time in his life." Yet in subsequent years, Roome has revised his comments to a firm insistence that nothing out of the ordinary took place at that time, and after one interview he e-mailed me material raising questions about John Kerry's military career. Roome, who operates a curio shop in a Texas hamlet, told me that Bush aides, including communications adviser Karen Hughes, and even the President himself stay in touch with him.
Several Bush associates from that period say that the Bush camp has argued strenuously about the importance of sources backing the President up on his military service, citing patriotism, personal loyalty and even the claim that he lacks friends in Washington and must count on those from early in his life.
In 1971 Bush took his annual physical exam in May. It's reasonable to conclude that he would also take his 1972 physical in the same month. Yet according to official Guard documents, Bush "cleared the base" on May 15 without doing so. Fellow Guard members uniformly agree that Bush should and could have easily taken the exam with unit doctors at Ellington Air Force Base before leaving town. (It is interesting to note that if the Killian memos released by CBS do hold up, one of them, dated May 4, 1972, orders Bush to report for his physical by May 14--one day before he took off.)
Bush has indicated that he departed from Ellington Air Force Base and his Guard unit because he had been offered an important employment opportunity with a political campaign in Alabama. The overwhelming evidence suggests, however, that the Alabama campaign was a convenient excuse for Bush to rapidly exit stage left from a Guard unit that found him and his behavior a growing problem. If that's not the case, now would be an excellent time for a President famed for his superlative memory to sit down and explain what really happened in that period.
posted on September 18, 2004 12:44:19 PM new
Replay says," You wouldn't listen to a logical argument if someone DID take the time to answer you. Your mind is made up- you'd vote for Barney the Dinosaur or Adolph Hitler before you'd vote for Bush. Why would anyone want to answer you? "
The last sentence is the best answer I've gotten about the yellow-bellied turncoat bush.
When backed into a corner about their great leader out comes the flimsy excuses, too bad it doesn't change bush's character to one with a backbone.
Funny you should use Barney and Hitler.....Bush is a ridiculous combination of BOTH!
posted on September 18, 2004 04:13:09 PM new
"Now say someone comes to you looking for a job. Right off the bat, you notice something strange about his rèsumè: It goes on for page after page about a job he held for four months, more than 35 years ago, but makes only the barest mention of anything he's done since. You have him in for an interview, and he can't give you a straight answer to any question about what he plans to do in the job if you hire him. ... Still, you decide to check out his references. (John Edwards: "If you have any question about what John Kerry is made of, just spend three minutes with the men who served with him." Some sing his praises quite extravagantly, but a greater number describe him harshly as a man of dubious character, and some accuse him of lying on his rèsumè. He acknowledges a few embellishments but refuses to provide you with documents that would shed light on the other accusations. Would you hire this man? And would you fire an employee of four years' standing in order to create an opening for him?" --James Taranto
