Kerry unfit to be Commander in Chief say colleagues

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
so my asking "where do you come up with hundreds" is suggesting that "they didn't sign anything"? Interesting interpertation, but not accurate to say the least.

Come on, man. I quoted your own words back to you. And those weren't even the words I quoted back to you. Stop playing dumb.

The "clear implication" was that there was no letter produced. You made the (incorrect) leap to your own conclusion.

I see. You meant that the letter had been signed but was being hidden from the rest of the world. Right.

Either way, you were wrong.

really? Did I say he was a "lone wolf" (no)? I stated he was being used, just like he was 30 years ago. You do not read well do you?

There you go again, trying to insult my intelligence. We both know what that means.

There are some who signed this letter. Do they have the personal knowledge of John Kerry today? What are their motivations? Are they involved with the Republican Party? Did they sign the letter or just give O'Neill their permission to use their names? Do they believe that Bush is better qualified? Why do they believe that? Do they have the ability to qualify an individual as capable to be Commander in Chief? How do they base their evaluation? Are they of sound mind?
Who knows...

We can only look at what we do know, which is that 196 people, including all of his former commanders and 19 out of 23 officers he served with, think he's unfit to serve. I suppose you can try and attribute ulterior political motives to all 196 of them. Not a very solid argument, but if that's the best you've got, I guess you've got to go with that.

The facts say such. kerry served in Vietnam 4 months. And that was over 30 years ago.

I see. John Kerry gets to trumpet the fact that he served in Vietnam for 4 months over 30 years ago as proof that he's qualified to be President/Commander-in-Chief. You get to mock George W. Bush's service record because he didn't see active combat. But people who were WITH John Kerry during his service and actually knew/know him and saw him in action don't have very relevant opinions.

That just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I don't know these people, do you? I do know who O'Neill is, and those he worked for who include Nixon and Colson, therefore I would discount any opinion he has on John Kerry.

Discount O'Neill's opinion if you want. There are still 195 other people.

I don't know them, but they knew/know John Kerry. I'm interested in why they would feel strongly enough about the subject to attribute their name to a letter declaring him unfit to serve as Commander-in-Chief. As much as you want to minimize and discredit their opinions, those opinions are HIGHLY relevant.

[Drbio]

hhhmmm......maybe I can summarize this thread. Feel free to follow along post by post...none were excluded.










Doc: Hundreds of former servicemen who served with, over or under Kerry have expressed concern that he is unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.


reeds: waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh waaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh.......

FishFL: here is a tissue you whiney b*tch...I love W.


reeds: waaaaaaaaaaaaaah waaaaah waaaaaaah.....bush 30 years ago didn't go Nam....waaaaaaaahhh......

FishFL: You mean like your boy Kerry who disrespected every serviceman since the day he put on a uniform? Your boy Hanoi Kerry?

madape: Kerry is a fool and he admits to committing atrocities...the type of which he now condemns for political profit

Mavdog: **TOTALLY IGNORING THE FACT AND TOPIC** waaaaaaah....Nixon did this....Colson did that.....O'Neill is conspirator......wah!

kg_vet: If you can't refute the facts....attack the messenger.....dork

Ape: (Accomodating the off-topic Mavdog unecessarily) Tell us about O'Neill....

Mavdog: I cannot....I can only spew liberalese until your ears bleed.

Ape: O'Neill is right and you need a diaper change

kg_vet: O'Neill is but one of hundreds apparently accroding to the printed article.

Mavdog: Waaaaaaaaaaaah.....I can produce a list with singles of names supporting Kerry. Is 2 singles? What exactly do you call individual digits? As always, I am so confused.


kg_Vet: singles < hundreds. I'll go with the obvious.


Mavdog: *sniff* excuse me while I attempt to symantically confuse you with inuendo. Can someone please define "Is"? By the way...did I mention what GWB did 30 years ago?



kg_vet: Cites accurately the use of the "hundreds", defines the word "Is" and b*tchslaps a less prepared liberal foe.


Mavdog: waaaaaah.....it is factual because I say it is. Did I use "Is" correctly. Again...I am confused.


kg_vet: Indeed, you are confused. (additionally, kg points out the backpedal here and throws his hands in the air)


reeds: waaaaaaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah


kg_vet: reeds....I'd call you a moron but you wouldn't get it.


dude: Here are 196 names and references to others.....hundreds is supported. For those slow liberals...once again.....hundreds is more than singles.


reeds: even though you thoroughly explained it, I insist on being a retard.


dude: Mavdog, I have shown you the hundreds. Can I recommend a good math tutor?


Mavdog: *retreat...retreat...retreat*


dude: so you will take the word of two (and a few radical muslims probably) over hundreds of men who served with Kerry and understand his character?


Mavdog: waaaaaah waaaaaaaah waaaaaaah. These guys knew him over 30 years ago. It doesn't count. The only thing that happened 30 years ago that matters is GWB not going to Nam.


dude: You know Kerry better then?


Mavdog: Of course I do.


Drbio: Stop playing both sides of the 30 years ago issue Mavdog you mental midget.


kg_vet: b*tchslap!


Mavdog: *backtrack*


kg_vet: b*tchslap!!!!


Mavdog: *backtrack*

kg_vet: b*tchslap!


Mavdog: *backtrack*


kg_vet: b*tchslap!!!!


Mavdog: *backtrack*


LRB: Stupid Ignoramus.....here, let me give you a respectable way out of this unfortunate conundrum that you have put yourself in.


Madape: That idiot will never be a math professor


Madape: However, he may one day work as a wordsmith for Webster's Inc.


Mavdog: Define "Is" again for me please? I don't quite understand even though you all speak plain english.


LRB: FOOL! I gave you a way out dammit.


Madape: Please...for the love of god man....stop talking. Even reeds is crying for you.



kg_vet: You have been completely exposed as inferior.








To be continued?

[reeds]

I am a retard- and I approve this message... I will be a proud retard every day of my life if the alternative is being a right winged blind replubican like the majority of this board..thank god Dallas isnt any bigger, or this country would really be screwed...

DRBIO- my hero...I sure wish I had 22 thousand perfect posts like you...someday..perhaps...who is the real retard...hahahahaahahahahahahahaha

[kg_veteran]

who is the real retard...hahahahaahahahahahahahaha

Hmmm. Let me think about that one for a minute...



Yeah, I'll go with the guy who repeatedly employs typewritten laughter in lieu of an actual point.

[dude1394]

Damn....that was funny doc... Damn....I'm still chuckllng.

[reeds]

an actual point from your point of view....priceless

[dude1394]

huh?

[Mavdog]

Very Orwellian doc. totally ficticous, but at least well thought out.

Watch out, people may think you're "implying" something other than what you are saying...

[Drbio]

I love this section.

[LRB]

Doc you should be the official play by play man for the Polictical Arena. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Very Orwellian doc. totally ficticous, but at least well thought out.

Watch out, people may think you're "implying" something other than what you are saying...

God forbid that "people" infer anything from the comments of others. We should all just read everything literally. Throw sarcasm, nuance and other subtleties out the window.

Better yet, let's insult people when they infer something from what we said. After all, they must lack reading comprehension if they infer something from our comments. After all, we only expect people to literally interpret our comments on this message board, right?

OR, we could stop arguing about who said or meant what and have an actual, substantive discussion/debate. So I'll wrap this discussion up with what we KNOW, and we can move on to the next topic.

Without inferring anything, we know the following:

1. All of John Kerry's former commanders from Vietnam and 19 of the 23 officers he served with in Vietnam think that he's unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief;

2. Many other colleagues/fellow servicemen from Vietnam think that he's unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief;

3. The individuals referred to in No. 1 and No. 2 total 196 people in all;

4. 196 qualifies as "hundreds" under the dictionary definition of the word;

5. There are 2 guys who served under Kerry who are campaigning for him and believe he should be President; and

6. Military service is something that you should be proud of and brag about unless a bunch of people who served with you criticize you and declare you unfit to be Commander-in-Chief, in which case military service is really pretty inconsequential, happened 30 years ago, and should be disregarded when evaluating qualifications to serve as President.

[Mavdog]

God forbid that "people" infer anything from the comments of others. We should all just read everything literally. Throw sarcasm, nuance and other subtleties out the window.

God forbid a person actually admit that they (horror of horrors!) misinterpreted a point. Too much for you to admit?

Better yet, let's insult people when they infer something from what we said. After all, they must lack reading comprehension if they infer something from our comments. After all, we only expect people to literally interpret our comments on this message board, right?

Better yet, let’s all have such thin skin that when called out for their failure to understand a point- a lack of comprehension (oh, what a horrible accusation!)- that they react as if their honor was questioned.

OR, we could stop arguing about who said or meant what and have an actual, substantive discussion/debate. So I'll wrap this discussion up with what we KNOW, and we can move on to the next topic.

Without inferring anything, we know the following:

1. All of John Kerry's former commanders from Vietnam and 19 of the 23 officers he served with in Vietnam think that he's unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief;

NO, we don’t “know” that. The press release states so (the one by O’Neill, the guy with the grudge) yet there are some notable names missing...like all of his crew.

2. Many other colleagues/fellow servicemen from Vietnam think that he's unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief;

Many other colleagues/fellow servicemen from Vietnam think that he's fit to be the Commander-in-Chief

3. The individuals referred to in No. 1 and No. 2 total 196 people in all;

No, the count is 188....strangely, some who are dead have their names on the list. Odd, to say the least, to see a deceased person’s name as if they voiced an opinion, which frankly is impossible.

4. 196 qualifies as "hundreds" under the dictionary definition of the word;

Yeah, that’s really important, that (incorrect BTW) one hundreds and ninety six names…

5. There are 2 guys who served under Kerry who are campaigning for him and believe he should be President; and

There are many people who served with Kerry whose names are NOT on the list, therefore believe that he should be President.

6. Military service is something that you should be proud of and brag about unless a bunch of people who served with you criticize you and declare you unfit to be Commander-in-Chief, in which case military service is really pretty inconsequential, happened 30 years ago, and should be disregarded when evaluating qualifications to serve as President.

Oh, so you know this as a truism? Not likely… here’s the factual statement:
Military service is something that one should be proud of and other citizens should be respectful of, especially when one was placed in an environment where there was a high degree of risk to their life. When there are a group of partisan individuals, some who have an old grudge against you as well as have associations with the most infamous people to ever occupy the White House, attack and belittle that service to ur country for political gain it should be dismissed for what it clearly is.

Here’s a multi part article about John Kerry’s life. Of all the many military people interviewed and quoted in this article, 1- that’s ONE- is on this list. NONE of the crew who were with Kerry have their name on the list, and who knew his abilities better than those who actually served with him?

Kerry bio

[LRB]

There are many people who served with Kerry whose names are NOT on the list, therefore believe that he should be President.

Names please? I mean you do know who these people are, is that a correct assumption? However, just because there names aren't on a list saying that they think that Kerry isn't fit to be commander in chief, doesn't mean that they do think that he is fit. So what manner of proof do you have that they do support Kerry?

Your opponents have done a very good job of citing sources, yet I haven't seen you cite any to the "many" supposed followers of Kerry. Of course maybe 2 is "many". At least KG qualified the number for "hundreds" and even if you want to throw out 8 who are deceased but whose decendents are supposedly conveying the thoughts that were shared with them by the deceased. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt. We have a documented 188 against Kerry to a documented 2 for him. Maybe the people for Kerry are just too ashamed to have their names associated with him?

[kg_veteran]

God forbid a person actually admit that they (horror of horrors!) misinterpreted a point. Too much for you to admit?

Without getting BACK into the argument of what you meant, I think it was abundantly clear that I didn't misinterpret anything.

Better yet, let’s all have such thin skin that when called out for their failure to understand a point- a lack of comprehension (oh, what a horrible accusation!)- that they react as if their honor was questioned.

I don't have thin skin, Mavdog. I have thick skin. I just think that for a person capable of rational debate, it's a bit beneath you to resort to petty insults. The insults don't offend me; they just detract from a meaningful discussion.

NO, we don’t “know” that. The press release states so (the one by O’Neill, the guy with the grudge) yet there are some notable names missing...like all of his crew.

Okay, then give me the names of the former commanders from Vietnam and the names of the officers he served with in Vietnam that are missing from this list. If you can't do that, you have no basis (other than an ad hominem attack) to dispute the information cited in the article.

Many other colleagues/fellow servicemen from Vietnam think that he's fit to be the Commander-in-Chief

Give me their names.

No, the count is 188....strangely, some who are dead have their names on the list. Odd, to say the least, to see a deceased person’s name as if they voiced an opinion, which frankly is impossible.

To be honest, I never counted the names on the list. I relied upon Dude being correct in his count. When you mentioned this, I went back and counted. You're right that 8 of the names are on the list "ex officio". That makes 188. So let's throw out the "ex officio" people if you want.

188 is still a lot more than the 2 you have cited so far.

There are many people who served with Kerry whose names are NOT on the list, therefore believe that he should be President.

Wait just a minute. We KNOW what these people think, because they've stated their opinion (via this letter). We DON'T know what those who have not voiced their opinion believe.

Oh, so you know this as a truism? Not likely…

It's called sarcasm, Mavdog.

here’s the factual statement:
Military service is something that one should be proud of and other citizens should be respectful of, especially when one was placed in an environment where there was a high degree of risk to their life. When there are a group of partisan individuals, some who have an old grudge against you as well as have associations with the most infamous people to ever occupy the White House, attack and belittle that service to ur country for political gain it should be dismissed for what it clearly is.

If you're going to try and put together a factual statement, it needs to contain facts. You don't KNOW (one of the points I made in a prior post) that the entire group of individuals that signed this letter are "partisan". You just don't. I'll accept for the purposes of this discussion that O'Neill is acting based upon partisan motives; that doesn't account for the rest of those people.

Here’s a multi part article about John Kerry’s life. Of all the many military people interviewed and quoted in this article, 1- that’s ONE- is on this list. NONE of the crew who were with Kerry have their name on the list, and who knew his abilities better than those who actually served with him?

Kerry bio

That's right. Who knew his abilities better than those who actually served with him -- like his former commanders, and the officers that served with him.

See? We agree.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

The entire crew of his boat are missing, Schachle, Whitlow, Zaladonis, Thorson, Sandalusky, Mederis, Short and Gibson.

See above.

There were literally thousands of fellow servicemen who served. This is a small minority of those thousands. Don't you find it incredibly dishonest for a person who is deceased to be placed on the list? I certainly do.
BTW Dude's count was 153

Wait just a minute. We KNOW what these people think, because they've stated their opinion (via this letter). We DON'T know what those who have not voiced their opinion believe.

A lack of their signing the press release is indicative of their decision to NOT endorse O'Neill's effort.

here’s the factual statement:
Military service is something that one should be proud of and other citizens should be respectful of, especially when one was placed in an environment where there was a high degree of risk to their life. When there are a group of partisan individuals, some who have an old grudge against you as well as have associations with the most infamous people to ever occupy the White House, attack and belittle that service to ur country for political gain it should be dismissed for what it clearly is.

If you're going to try and put together a factual statement, it needs to contain facts. You don't KNOW (one of the points I made in a prior post) that the entire group of individuals that signed this letter are "partisan". You just don't. I'll accept for the purposes of this discussion that O'Neill is acting based upon partisan motives; that doesn't account for the rest of those people. [/quote]

The very act of adding their names to the letter make them partisan by definition.

Here’s a multi part article about John Kerry’s life. Of all the many military people interviewed and quoted in this article, 1- that’s ONE- is on this list. NONE of the crew who were with Kerry have their name on the list, and who knew his abilities better than those who actually served with him?

Kerry bio

That's right. Who knew his abilities better than those who actually served with him -- like his former commanders, and the officers that served with him.

See? We agree.[/quote]

His crew knew him best, some of those who signed the letter didn't actually serve WITH him they served at the same time. Therefore if you want the opinion of those who actually served WITH Kerry, it is his crew. Not ONE of his crew endorse the letter, therefore from the above you must agree with their perspective, right?

[LRB]

A lack of their signing the press release is indicative of their decision to NOT endorse O'Neill's effort.

Not signing means only that they didn't sign it. Anything else that you assume from this is conjecture. You've shown on evidence that they were even contacted. Even if contacted they could have refused for a large number of reasons. They may not have wanted to hurt Kerry's feelings. They may have been threatened by the Kerry camp. They could be dead. They may have wanted to sign but just procrastinated doing it. They may have had to take care of a sick kid or spouse or any number of things. Sure maybe they do indeed support Kerry, but it seems strange that they didn't sign a similar letter in support of Kerry. What does that say? That they aren't as passionate in Kerry's defense as his detractors are? Possible, but we just don't know. So I won't assume here.

His crew knew him best, some of those who signed the letter didn't actually serve WITH him they served at the same time. Therefore if you want the opinion of those who actually served WITH Kerry, it is his crew. Not ONE of his crew endorse the letter, therefore from the above you must agree with their perspective, right?

Well the commander in chief doesn't server personally with many of the troops, so while his crew could measure some aspects, they're not necessarily best for all. Still we don't know the opinion of Kerry's crew, because to the best of my knowledge they haven't come forward with any type of letter supporting Kerry. Maybe they hat Kerry so much that they can bear the pain of thinking of him long enough to just sign the letter condemning him. Maybe they object because the letter wasn't strong enough in its condemnation. Who knows what their opinions are when they haven't made them public. We don't even know if they refused to sign the letter of were not given the choice to do so or were unable to do so by circumstances not entirely in their control.

The very act of adding their names to the letter make them partisan by definition.

This is an incredibly stupid statement IMO. Because according to your definition anyone who speaks for or against John Kerry is partisan. So all your posts are purely partisan because you support Kerry. The only nonpartisan people are those who refuse to speak out at all. So it would be impossible to obtain a nonpartisan opinion other than "I don't know" or "I don't care" or "no comment". [img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img]

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Objection, nonresponsive.

Give me the names of the former commanders from Vietnam and the names of the officers he served with in Vietnam that are missing from this list.

I realize that two of those individuals (Thorson and Sandalusky) are the two that you've previously identified as campaigning for Kerry. We have no idea what the others think. You certainly haven't produced any evidence of what they think.

There were literally thousands of fellow servicemen who served. This is a small minority of those thousands. Don't you find it incredibly dishonest for a person who is deceased to be placed on the list? I certainly do.
BTW Dude's count was 153

You can try and minimize all you want. That's about the best you can do, since you can only come up with 2 actual names.

I don't find it incredibly dishonest to put a deceased person on the list when you identify them as deceased. As LRB pointed out, perhaps their family was conveying how the opinions they had expressed before they died. I don't know. Either way, the letter was honest and said they were deceased.

Also, I don't mean to disparage Dude's counting ability, but his first count was 153 and his second count was 196. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] I copied and pasted the list into a spreadsheet and let it do the counting for me. There are 196 names on the list.

Wait just a minute. We KNOW what these people think, because they've stated their opinion (via this letter). We DON'T know what those who have not voiced their opinion believe.

A lack of their signing the press release is indicative of their decision to NOT endorse O'Neill's effort.[/quote]

LRB addressed this point pretty well. There are MANY reasons a person might not sign the press release yet still not support Kerry. They may not have been contacted. The article indicates that only 12 people contacted declined to sign. They may just not have wanted to get involved at all, for any number of reasons. It's a HUGE logical leap on your part to presume what they think or believe.

If you're going to try and put together a factual statement, it needs to contain facts. You don't KNOW (one of the points I made in a prior post) that the entire group of individuals that signed this letter are "partisan". You just don't. I'll accept for the purposes of this discussion that O'Neill is acting based upon partisan motives; that doesn't account for the rest of those people.

The very act of adding their names to the letter make them partisan by definition.[/quote]

No, it makes them people with opinions that you don't like. For all you know, many of them may be Democratic voters.

Say it with me, Mavdog. "Just because someone has an opinion I don't agree with, it doesn't automatically make them "partisan".

That's right. Who knew his abilities better than those who actually served with him -- like his former commanders, and the officers that served with him.

See? We agree.

His crew knew him best, some of those who signed the letter didn't actually serve WITH him they served at the same time. Therefore if you want the opinion of those who actually served WITH Kerry, it is his crew. Not ONE of his crew endorse the letter, therefore from the above you must agree with their perspective, right?[/quote]

I know the perspective of two of the crew members. I don't know the perspective of the rest of them.

I also know the perspective of all of his former commanders and 19 of the 23 officers he served with (not merely at the same time as).

[reeds]

BOTTOM line- Reeds is still a retard- but it beats living in Dallas...

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: reeds
BOTTOM line- Reeds is still a retard- but it beats living in Dallas...

At least you got the first part right reeds. [img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img]

[MavKikiNYC]

Playin' the dozens, or the 'hundreds' as it were, D-mavs.com style

[dude1394]

Well here is another of the folks who were in 'Nam with Kerry. This guy was his officer in charge (can't let md start parsing the titles now. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img] and finally asked him to be transferred. Another vet who isn't quite enamored of Kerry. He's on the list and I guess thought he would elaborate.

Boston Strangler

Call sign: Boston strangler
May 13th, 2004

Thomas Wright was one of John F. Kerry's fellow Swift boat officers in Vietnam. Since Wright outranked Kerry, he was Kerry's sometime boat group Officer-in-Charge, so Wright had occasion to observe Kerry’s behavior and attitudes, and the circumstances surrounding his early departure from the war zone. The intervening years have not dimmed his memories.

When the Swift boats of Coastal Division 11 sailed into harm’s way from their Phu Quoc Island base of An Thoi, for missions along the rivers of Vietnam’s southwesternmost Kien Giang and An Xuyen provinces, they communicated by radio. When they did, boat captains adopted distinctive, often humorous call signs for identification purposes. Eldon Thompson was “Mary Poppins,” William Schachte was “Baccardi Charlie,” James T. Grace was “Twiggy,” and Tom Wright was “Dudley Do-Right.” When John Kerry radioed another Swift boat, he used the call sign, “Boston Strangler.”

Lieutenant Thomas W. Wright heard that call sign frequently. As OIC (Officer-in-Charge) of PCF-44, he operated with LT (j.g.) Kerry’s 94 Boat on a fairly regular basis. A 1966 graduate of the University of North Carolina’s NROTC program, Wright had served as communications officer aboard the destroyer USS Robert A. Owens before beginning Swift boat training in November 1967. He had already served for eight months with Qui Nhon’s Coastal Division 15 when the monsoon season forced its boats to be shifted to the more protected, and more challenging waters off An Thoi. He decided to extend his tour and follow his disciplined, veteran crew to the new base. As the relatively senior lieutenant there, he was the OTC, or Officer-in-Tactical Command for the majority of the 3-to-6-boat missions. On most of them he commanded 44 Boat.

The rivers and canals of Kien Giang and An Xuyen provinces were the targets of Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Rear Adm. Elmo Zumwalt’s aggressive SEALORDS operations. Looking back after all these years, Tom Wright, now a retired Commander, recalls: “We planned missions locally to try to dominate the area and disrupt the enemy’s movements. We faced significant challenges every day, every night. We would respond to intelligence reports as appropriate. It took great imagination and determination to work effectively in the rivers, and we remained deployed until material damage and casualties reduced our effectiveness. We would then rotate back to An Thoi for repair and re-arming.”

For Tom Wright and most other Swift boat officers, there were two commandments: 1. Protect the crews. 2. Win. As for Tom Wright’s 44 Boat; “we won every engagement, start to finish. I got the crew home; a few nicks, but we made it.”

Working with call sign “Boston Strangler” became problematical. “I had a lot of trouble getting him to follow orders,” recalls Wright. “He had a different view of leadership and operations. Those of us with direct experience working with Kerry found him difficult and oriented towards his personal, rather than unit goals and objectives. I believed that overall responsibility rested squarely on the shoulders of the OIC or OTC in a free-fire zone. You had to be right (before opening fire). Kerry seemed to believe there were no rules in a free-fire zone and you were supposed to kill anyone. I didn’t see it that way.”

In Wright’s view, it was important that the enemy understood that Swift boats were a competent, effective force that could dominate his location. To do that, you also had to control the people and their actions; to have them accept Swift boat crews and their authority. You couldn’t achieve that by indiscriminate use of weapons in free fire zones.

It got to a point where Wright told his divisional commander he no longer wanted Kerry in his boat group, so he was re-assigned to another one. “I had an idea of his actions but didn’t have to be responsible for him.” Then Wright and like-minded boat officers took matters into their own hands. “When he got his third Purple Heart, three of us told him to leave. We knew how the system worked and we didn’t want him in Coastal Division 11. Kerry didn’t manipulate the system, we did.”

As for medals, Commander Wright holds strong views: “No one was recognized for completely overwhelming the enemy with skill, courage and bravery. No one wanted a Purple Heart because it meant we had made a mistake. We made sure our crews were recognized, but no one took pride in a Purple Heart. Everyone who served is equally important, regardless of rank or awards.

John B. Dwyer is a military historian, and Vietnam veteran, who served in the Fourth Infantry Division


John B. Dwyer

[Drbio]

Now THAT is very interesting.

[LRB]

Wow if that story is true, and I have no reason to doubt that it isn't at this point, then it is much more damning of Kerry than I had thought this fellow servicemen's statements would be.

[Mavdog]

Ambush in the Mekong Delta

This exhausting and harrowing week was only the beginning for Kerry. On Feb. 28, 1969, Kerry's boat received word that a swift boat was being ambushed. As Kerry raced to the scene, his boat became another target, as a Viet Cong B-40 rocket blast shattered a window. Kerry could have ordered his crew to hit the enemy and run. But the skipper had a more aggressive reaction in mind. Beach the boat, Kerry ordered, and the craft's bow was quickly rammed upon the shoreline. Out of the bush appeared a teenager in a loin cloth, clutching a grenade launcher.

An enemy was just feet away, holding a weapon with enough firepower to blow up the boat. Kerry's forward gunner, Belodeau, shot and clipped the Viet Cong in the leg. Then Belodeau's gun jammed, according to other crewmates (Belodeau died in 1997). Medeiros tried to fire at the Viet Cong, but he couldn't get a shot off.

In an interview, Kerry added a chilling detail.

"This guy could have dispatched us in a second, but for ... I'll never be able to explain, we were literally face to face, he with his B-40 rocket and us in our boat, and he didn't pull the trigger. I would not be here today talking to you if he had," Kerry recalled. "And Tommy clipped him, and he started going [down.] I thought it was over."

Instead, the guerrilla got up and started running. "We've got to get him, make sure he doesn't get behind the hut, and then we're in trouble," Kerry recalled.

So Kerry shot and killed the guerrilla. "I don't have a second's question about that, nor does anybody who was with me," he said. "He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." 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."

The crewman with the best view of the action was Frederic Short, the man in the tub operating the twin guns. Short had not talked to Kerry for 34 years, until after he was recently contacted by a Globe reporter. Kerry said he had "totally forgotten" Short was on board that day.

Short had joined Kerry's crew just two weeks earlier, as a last-minute replacement, and he was as green as the Arkansas grass of his home. He said he didn't realize that he should have carried an M-16 rifle, figuring the tub's machine guns would be enough. But as Kerry stood face to face with the guerrilla carrying the rocket, Short realized his predicament. With the boat beached and the bow tilted up, a guard rail prevented him from taking aim at the enemy. For a terrifying moment, the guerrilla looked straight at Short with the rocket.

Short believes the guerrilla didn't fire because he was too close and needed to be a suitable distance to hit the boat squarely and avoid ricochet debris. Short tried to protect his skipper.

"I laid in fire with the twin .50s, and he got behind a hootch," recalled Short. "I laid 50 rounds in there, and Mr. Kerry went in. Rounds were coming everywhere. We were getting fire from both sides of the river. It was a canal. We were receiving fire from the opposite bank, also, and there was no way I could bring my guns to bear on that."

Short said there is "no doubt" that Kerry saved the boat and crew. "That was a him-or-us thing, that was a loaded weapon with a shape charge on it. ... It could pierce a tank. I wouldn't have been here talking to you. I probably prayed more up that creek than a Southern Baptist church does in a month."

Charles Gibson, who served on Kerry's boat that day because he was on a one-week indoctrination course, said Kerry's action was dangerous but necessary. "Every day you wake up and say, `How the hell did we get out of that alive?"' Gibson said. "Kerry was a good leader. He knew what he was doing."

When Kerry returned to his base, his commanding officer, George Elliott, raised an issue with Kerry: the fine line between whether the action merited a medal or a court-martial.

"When [Kerry] came back from the well-publicized action where he beached his boat in middle of ambush and chased a VC around a hootch and ended his life, when [Kerry] came back and I heard his debrief, I said, `John, I don't know whether you should be court-martialed or given a medal, court-martialed for leaving your ship, your post,"' Elliott recalled in an interview.

"But I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that," Elliott said. A Silver Star, which the Navy said is its fifth-highest medal, commends distinctive gallantry in action.

Asked why he had raised the issue of a court-martial, Elliott said he did so "half tongue-in-cheek, because there was never any question I wanted him to realize I didn't want him to leave his boat unattended. That was in context of big-ship Navy -- my background. A C.O. [commanding officer] never leaves his ship in battle or anything else. I realize this, first of all, it was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there. On the other hand, on an operation some time later, down on the very tip of the peninsula, we had lost one boat and several men in a big operation, and they were hit by a lot more than two or three people."

Elliott stressed that he never questioned Kerry's decision to kill the Viet Cong, and he appeared in Boston at Kerry's side during the 1996 Senate race to back up that aspect of Kerry's action.

"I don't think they were exactly ready to court-martial him," said Wade Sanders, who commanded a swift boat that sometimes accompanied Kerry's vessel, and who later became deputy assistant secretary of the Navy. "I can only say from the certainty borne of experience that there must have been some rumbling about, `What are we going to do with this guy, he turned his boat,' and I can hear the words, `He endangered his crew.' But from our position, the tactic to take is whatever action is best designed to eliminate the enemy threat, which is what he did."

Indeed, the Silver Star citation makes clear that Kerry's performance on that day was both extraordinary and risky. "With utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets," the citation says, Kerry "again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only 10 feet from the Viet Cong rocket position and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy. ... The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lt. Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission."

Michael Bernique, who was revered as one of the gutsiest swift boat commanders, marveled at Kerry's brazen approach to battle. Bernique recalled how Kerry one day "went ashore in an area that I thought might be mined. I said, `Get the blankety-blank out of there.' John just shrugged his shoulders and left. John just was fearless.

"If you are asking, `Was he foolhardy?' -- he survived," Bernique said. "I don't recall anybody saying they didn't want to serve with him. I would not have worried about my back if John was with me."

Roy Hoffmann, who commanded the coastal division in which Kerry served, worried about Kerry, at least at the beginning. He said Kerry and some other skippers initially "had difficulty carrying out direct orders. You know, they were playing the cowboy a little bit. John Kerry was one of them. You don't go out on your own when you are given certain type of patrols, and we were having difficulty with that."

Hoffmann said the problem was corrected and he supported the actions on the day Kerry won the Silver Star. "It took guts, and I admire that," Hoffman said.

[dude1394]

Good shooting john, wish you hadn't stabbed the same guys in the back when you got back.

[dude1394]

From Den Beste.. DenBeste

Real heroes know that decorations are only given to those who were lucky enough to be heroic while someone important was watching. Real heroes will have seen many other heroic acts which were never acknowledged by anyone, except by the other members of the team. And ultimately is the only acknowledgement they truly value, for only their teammates really understand what they went through.

A man who brags about his heroism is no hero. And the men who served with him will know it.

[madape]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...1/225546.shtml

Kerry gives veterans the middle finger at Vietnam memorial... in front of children!

[Drbio]

Wow. Kerry should just withdraw.

[dude1394]

Kerry meets communist party secretary

A Ho Chi Minh City museum that honors Vietnam war protesters features a photograph of Sen. John Kerry being greeted by the general secretary of the Communist Party, Comrade Do Muoi.

A snapshot of the display in the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum – formerly known as the "War Crimes Museum" – was acquired over the weekend by Jeffrey M. Epstein of Vietnam Vets for the Truth, a group opposing Kerry's campaign for the presidency.

.......

"The Vietnamese communists clearly recognize John Kerry's contributions to their victory," he said. "This find can be compared to the discovery of a painting of Neville Chamberlain hanging in a place of honor in Hitler's Eagle's Nest in 1945."