OT: The Swiftees

[pk500]

OK, now that you've opened up the personal attacks and dropped this debate into the tar pits, I guess the gloves are off.

You're right, Randy. You're always right, although that's a redundant affirmation.

Happy now?

I'm not surprised that you're coming at me with such zeal and a bit of a personal edge. You've had a hard-on for me since the long-ago days of our CART-IRL debates. Some people can let it go; some can't. It's predictable and funny, actually.

In closing, I'm glad arrogance isn't contagious. Have a nice day.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

whoa....cool off there a little bit, Randy. We agree quite a bit on substance, but not so much on presentation. I admire your spirit, but you may want to think about toning it down a notch...

Teal:

That's not possible with infallible beings.

I'll be the first to admit that my opinions on Bush are just that, opinions. But unlike many partisans, I admit the man has done some good, just as Democrats have done some good. And the fact I don't have a stake in either party does give me objectivity that a partisan lacks. Omniscient objectivity? No. We'll save that for Randy as his exclusive domain.

The part of my prior case for objectivity that Randy conveniently overlooked was the part where I wrote, "I may be wrong," probably because Randy never has been wrong on this board or at least ever admitted it publicly.

So again, my positions may be wrong, but they're based on what I've read and how I distill that into opinion. I just think there's a hell of a lot of fishy stuff behind Bush's case for war. And no one, including Randy, has provided a "slam dunk" of proof -- apologies to George Tenet -- that Bush and his team didn't deceive the public while devising its war strategies.

So, yes, I provide little proof, but the pro-war hawks aren't exactly burying us with credible evidence, either. Their case depends on Bush's word, which isn't 100 percent trustworthy.

I'm glad you and I can at least have a civil discussion in here. We've gone back and forth on this and other political issues for months yet our conversations have a certain civility that's refreshing. I appreciate that and again applaud you.

Take care,
PK

[Badgun]

whoa....cool off there a little bit, Randy. We agree quite a bit on substance, but not so much on presentation. I admire your spirit, but you may want to think about toning it down a notch...

Teal:

That's not possible with infallible beings.

I'll be the first to admit that my opinions on Bush are just that, opinions. But unlike many partisans, I admit the man has done some good, just as Democrats have done some good. And the fact I don't have a stake in either party does give me objectivity that a partisan lacks. Omniscient objectivity? No. We'll save that for Randy as his exclusive domain.

The part of my prior case for objectivity that Randy conveniently overlooked was the part where I wrote, "I may be wrong," probably because Randy never has been wrong on this board or at least ever admitted it publicly.

So again, my positions may be wrong, but they're based on what I've read and how I distill that into opinion. I just think there's a hell of a lot of fishy stuff behind Bush's case for war. And no one, including Randy, has provided a "slam dunk" of proof -- apologies to George Tenet -- that Bush and his team didn't deceive the public while devising its war strategies.

So, yes, I provide little proof, but the pro-war hawks aren't exactly burying us with credible evidence, either. It's Bush's word, which isn't 100 percent trustworthy.

I'm glad you and I can at least have a civil discussion in here. We've gone back and forth on this and other political issues for months yet our conversations have a certain civility that's refreshing. I appreciate that and again applaud you.

Take care,
PK

pk,
I've always disagreed with you on Bush and I always will...there is no need to go into the whys and why nots. Obviously, I feel the same way teal and Randy do about the war in Iraq and the reason we went there in the first place. Not once have I ever felt betrayed, lied to, or misled by Bush. I am able without hesitation to buy into the misinformation excuse about WMDs. I also understand that something even bigger than WMDs needed to be taken care of and that was Saddam Hussein.

I don't think for even a minute that on the eve of our attack on Iraq if Bush had been told that there were no WMDs that he would have called off the dogs, and I wouldn't expect him to. There was a bigger picture here and I see it, but unfortunately you don't. War is harsh and lives will always be lost. God bless those that have given their life for our country, whether you agree with the reason or not.

But to get to the point of my post is that if someone as intelligent as yourself can get sold on the whole "Bush lied to us" theory, then just think of how many uneducated people are going to vote for Kerry on this falicy alone. So if Bush really did lie to us about Iraq, is that so bad? It's not like he lied about getting a blowjob in the White House or if he hid money he made on land deals. To go even deeper, Kerry has obviously been lying to us for 40 years, so who is the lesser of two evils?

Personally, I agree that the Kerry's military background should not come into play in this election, but I hope that it costs him the election for the very reason that he tried to cover it up. He's up there pointing fingers at Bush, when his sorry ass isn't any better.

It just amazes me how many people believe that Bush lied to us, but we should leave Kerry alone.

[pk500]

>>>So if Bush really did lie to us about Iraq, is that so bad? It's not like he lied about getting a blowjob in the White House or if he hid money he made on land deals.<<<

Are you serious? You think a lie -- if it was a lie, to be fair -- that has cost nearly 1,000 American lives is less serious than a lie that dropped semen on the floor of the Oval Office or a lie that lined the pockets of a president-to-be and his realtor?

I shudder.

I think Bush and Kerry are both stretchers of the truth. But Kerry's stretch Armstrong routine has insulted some vets and caused himself and his campaign to lose credibility. Bush's spinning of the truth arguably has cost hundreds of American lives.

Some manipulation of the truth is more costly than others. You simply can't put both on the same level. But of course, that's not to say Kerry couldn't do the same thing as Bush if he became president. But he isn't president.

And I'll give my standard reply to those who saw Saddam as an imminent threat, whether WMD's were present or not. Kim has threatened his neighbors with nukes, something Saddam never did. Kim flaunts his nuclear program in the U.S. face.

Syria and its government are known harbors for terrorists. Proof has just emerged today that once again the Sudanese government has launched attacks on innocent civilians, and genocide has occurred there, one of Saddam's evils when he gassed Kurds.

So why aren't we invading North Korea, Syria or the Sudan? Why Saddam first when there were equal or graver threats to the U.S. on the world map?

We had rumors of WMD's in Iraq. We have PROOF of WMD's -- nukes -- in North Korea. We had a maniacal ruler in Iraq who has killed and tortured his people, which also has been and is being done in North Korea and the Sudan, respectively.

So why Iraq and not those countries? I've never understood that and probably never will.

Take care,
PK

[dougb]

[quote="pk500
We had rumors of WMD's in Iraq. We have PROOF of WMD's -- nukes -- in North Korea. We had a maniacal ruler in Iraq who has killed and tortured his people, which also has been and is being done in North Korea and the Sudan, respectively.

So why Iraq and not those countries? I've never understood that and probably never will.

Take care,
PK[/quote]

You just answered your question. You don't invade a country with nukes. And I doubt that The United States has the capacity to do much in the Sudan with so many troops tied up, for the forseeable future, in Iraq.

Of course, the rest of the world isn't doing anything to halt the attrocities in the Sudan either. Just like the rest of the world didn't do much about Bosnia and Kosovo until the United States intervened.

Best wishes,

Doug

[pk500]

Doug:

Interesting premise.

It's smart to invade a country that has WMD's that still could wreak havoc and kill thousands in a region, especially if launched an anthrax- or smallpox-tipped missile toward Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, but it's not smart to invade a country if those WMD's are radioactive?

I didn't realize there were different levels of death. I guess the death of tens thousands is a smarter risk than the death of hundreds of thousands or millions. Damage limitation, huh?

But what happens when those WMD's aren't found?

The occupation of Iraq won't be over before a Bush second term ends. But even if it did, I highly doubt he would go after Iran, Sudan, North Korea or Syria because the expenditure of political capital and U.S. taxpayer dollars would be too high, as proven by this war.

I firmly believe Bush had it in for Iraq and Saddam from the minute he was elected, and Sept. 11 gave him carte blanche to enact his plans. That's my opinion -- not a provable fact.

And don't interpret this belief as stating that Bush was happy Sept. 11 happened. Only a fool would believe that, and I don't believe it for a second. But the terrorist attacks certainly gave Bush the open door he needed to go after Iraq.

Good thing I'm not a diplomat, I guess.

Take care,
PK

[dougb]

Doug:

Interesting premise.

It's smart to invade a country that has WMD's that still could wreak havoc and kill thousands in a region, especially if launched on a missile toward Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, but it's not smart to invade a country if those WMD's are radioactive?

I didn't realize there were different levels of death. I guess the death of tens thousands is a smarter risk than the death of hundreds of thousands or millions. Damage limitation, huh?

But what happens when those WMD's aren't found?

The occupation of Iraq won't be over before a Bush second term ends. But even if it did, I highly doubt he would go after Iran, Sudan, North Korea or Syria because the expenditure of political capital and U.S. taxpayer dollars would be too high, as proven by this war.

I firmly believe Bush had it in for Iraq and Saddam from the minute he was elected, and Sept. 11 gave him carte blanche to enact his plans. That's my opinion -- not a provable fact.

And don't interpret this belief as stating that Bush was happy Sept. 11 happened. Only a fool would believe that, and I don't believe it for a second. But the terrorist attacks certainly gave Bush the open door he needed to go after Iraq.

Good thing I'm not a diplomat, I guess.

Take care,
PK

Well, You say what you mean and mean what you say. Might be a pretty good attribute for a diplomat if it meant there were no more mis-understandings

Isn't damage limitation really a wonderful concept?

I think alot of the calculation regarding Iraq was that Saddam was not going to go after Israel with chemical weapons when Israel could (and would) retaliate with nuclear weapons. After all, look at the record of Gulf War I. Iraq definitely had chemical and biological weapons back then and he did not use them against Israel (or the United States, which had indicated to Saddam that they would also retaliate with nuclear weapons).
Instead, he attacked Tel Aviv and U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia with conventional explosives. A man armed with a pea shooter does not fire at someone armed with a shotgun.

That's of course assuming that Bush & Co. really believed that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. I'm not so sure that opinions within the Administration and Intelligence Community were as unanimous on this point as we've been led to believe.

I totally agree with your assessment that they were looking for a pretext to invade Iraq even before 9/11. I also agree with you that seeing 9/11 as an opportunity to go after Iraq does not mean that George Bush welcomed 9/11. I think George Bush was as horrified and angered by 9/11 as the rest of us were.

Best wishes,

Doug

[Badgun]

>>>So if Bush really did lie to us about Iraq, is that so bad? It's not like he lied about getting a blowjob in the White House or if he hid money he made on land deals.<<<

Are you serious? You think a lie -- if it was a lie, to be fair -- that has cost nearly 1,000 American lives is less serious than a lie that dropped semen on the floor of the Oval Office or a lie that lined the pockets of a president-to-be and his realtor?

I shudder.

Take care,
PK

pk,
you missed my joke. I said that I never felt lied to by Bush, but we all know for a fact that Clinton lied to us on national tv.

I shudder

And for the record, if Bush did lie, which I don't think he did, his lie did not cost us 1000 lives in Iraq. This war was going to happen whether Bush fabricated reasons for it or not. I find it extremely naive of you to think that this war would not have happened at some point WMDs or not.

[Brando70]

Well, regarding the first Purple Heart and the lack of enemy fire, the testimony of Admiral Schachte is encountering some rocks. First, the two enlisted men with Kerry say Schachte wasn't on the boat with them. Second, they "do not recall" having an M-79 on board, which is what Schachte says Kerry injured himself with. They also said they believe they were fired upon.

Now their memories could be equally flawed. But when this incident came up last year, Schachte didn't say anything about self-inflicted wounds. The Boston Globe interviewed Schachte specifically about this:

"Unfortunately, Robin had engine trouble, and Batman's exit was delayed until the boats could depart in unison. The Batman crew encountered some Viet Cong, engaged in a firefight, and Kerry was slightly wounded on his arm, earning his first Purple Heart on his first day of serious action.

"'It was not a very serious wound at all,' recalled William Schachte, who oversaw the mission and went on to become a rear admiral."

There is no mention of Schachte being in the boat. No mention of the M-79. Yet, consider this exchange from Hardball recently between Schachte and Lisa Myers:

MYERS: Schachte claims Kerry accidentally hurt himself when he fired the grenade launcher too close to the boat and shrapnel came back and hit his arm.

(on camera): You have absolutely no doubt that he injured himself accidentally?

SCHACHTE: There was no other fire. There were no muzzle flashes.

There was nothing coming at us from the beach.

MYERS: And there was no enemy fire involved?

SCHACHTE: None.

MYERS: Period?

SCHACHTE: Yes.

MYERS: You‘re absolutely certain?

SCHACHTE: Yes.

MYERS: Thirty-six years later?

SCHACHTE: Hey, listen, when somebody is shooting at you, you know it.

MYERS: But you are in a sense saying Senator Kerry is lying and did not deserve his first Purple Heart.

SCHACHTE: I‘m saying that he did not deserve the first Purple Heart from what I saw. You can characterize it any way you want.

MYERS: But when interviewed briefly last year, Schachte did not make such a charge. And he has no documents to back up his claim to have been with Kerry that night.


So Admiral Schachte, who seems absolutely certain he was in the boat and that Kerry wounded himself, says nothing to that effect in June 2003, when Kerry was just one of many Democratic contenders. Wouldn't you think he would have said something about it? And I am pretty sure the Globe would have printed his current version had it been mentioned -- that would be too juicy to sit on.

I'm not accusing the admiral of being a liar, just of being mistaken. There are still a lot of questions unanswered, but the Swift Boat anti-Kerry group hardly has a slam dunk case. Furthermore, if you start to actively gather groups of people together and discuss old history, there's a good chance their stories will start to agree. There's a reason why witnesses don't get to huddle together before a trial.

[pk500]

>>>I find it extremely naive of you to think that this war would not have happened at some point WMDs or not.<<<

Which further reinforces my belief that Bush had it in for Iraq and Saddam and was preparing for war from the moment he was elected. It also reinforces that WMD's were a convenient reason for Bush to launch a war that he had planned in his mind long before Sept. 11, 2001.

Bush wanted to lead America into war against Iraq from the minute he was elected, which was far from what he told us in the State of the Union speech or in the speech 48 hours before the war started. He almost made it sound like this was a reactive conflict by the U.S. to a threat that had been magnified since Sept. 11, 2001, when in reality Iraq was much more of a threat when it actually had WMD's in the 1990s.

The Iraq War was not a reactive operation or an operation to retaliate like the Afghan War was. I completely support the Afghan War as defense of our nation's interests and retaliating for an attack on our homeland.

I can't say the same about the Iraq War. If we invade Iraq, then we better start invading every other country that poses a threat, and in some cases an even greater threat, than Iraq.

Do you think the U.S.' role is to start wars around the world to protect its interests and remove people it doesn't like? If so, then you better prepare for a generation or more of military conflict.

That's a vision of the world that I don't like one bit.

Take care,
PK

[Teal]

"Their case depends on Bush's word, which isn't 100 percent trustworthy."


PK:
That's true, inasmuch as no one's word is 100 percent trustworthy. But it's not just the president's word at work, here. The intelligence said, and still says, that WMD's were present in Iraq. John Kerry looked at it. He saw a threat. Tom Daschle saw it. He, too, saw the threat. In fact, most of the anti Bush politicians running around flapping their tongues now saw the same threat that the president saw, and voted for the use of force in Iraq. As far back as 1998, then VP Gore made an impassioned speech about the danger of Hussein and his WMD's, and the need for regime change. Clinton has said the same. Alot of this backlash about not yet finding those WMD's ,that so many on both sides of the isle knew were there, has to do with not much more than political expediency, I think. Call it exploiting the breach, I guess. Why risk having your own words used against you, as Kerry, Gore, Edwards, Clinton, and so many others have, if not because of the thought that they'd somehow backed Bush into a corner, and that it'd stick. I don't think, in the majority anyway, that it has stuck, and those who still hold on to the idea of "BUSH LIED" had that idea from the outset. If I'm not mistaken, you never believed it from the first.(I may be wrong) At least, if so, you're consistent. That's more than I can say for some people, mostly politicians, who stick their fingers into the wind 24/7 to see if it's changed directions...




"I'm glad you and I can at least have a civil discussion in here. We've gone back and forth on this and other political issues for months yet our conversations have a certain civility that's refreshing. I appreciate that and again applaud you."



Months? More like years. We've bantered back and forth for about 3 years, going back to SR.(shudder ) Ever wonder why we keep it up, given that neither of us has changed our views? Religion, politics...we're just old codgers who are set in our ways, I suppose...but I have come away from sparring sessions with you just about every, no, every time we've gone at it having enjoyed the trip. It is indeed refreshing. And I return the appreciation and applause...(awkward moment ) YOU DUMBASS!

[J_Cauthen]

As for the Libertarian party, it would seem DSP is a bit overrepresented. They peaked in 1980 in terms of presidential results, getting nearly 1 million votes, and have been steady in the 350-450,000 range since. You can see a lot of good info at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election

Brando, this is a trend that I notice in most of the forums I frequent. The number of Libertarians I encounter is way disproportionate to the general populous. I visit everything from computer geek forums, to sports gaming, to ufology, to Mars anomalies, to music, to herbal medicine forums. I'm amazed at how many of them are composed of a heavy proprotion of hard core libertarians.

I think it says a little something about internet messaging itself. People who are put off with the mainstream news and information sources, or who distrust the information they get from "accepted" channels, seem to go for this medium. That personality type is more likely to be libertarian than average. That's my thought on it anyway. I think it would make for a great psychological study.

And sadly, you're right... the % of libertarian voters - in general - is diminishing with time. However, the freedoms I see us losing makes me that much more staunch in my libertarian beliefs. But I take the dwindling numbers as a sign the the Borg are assimilating more and more of us!

BTW, I'm following this thread, and you guys are doing a good job of stating the span of views on it. I personally don't take this as a political issue; I see it more as a vendetta being settled between the "Swifties" and one of their kind who broke ranks and in their eyes "betrayed" them. I work with a former RAG boat crewmember (a smaller version of a Swift boat). He's a democrat, but he despises Kerry for defiling the honor of those with whom he served. It's a bitter, personal issue with him, and it goes far beyond any sort of political ideology. You really have to see how this affects him to understand the anger he harbors. I don't dare bring it up when he's around because he gets so mad about it that he starts hyperventilating. His reaction has helped me to understand why these "swifties" stick to their guns no matter who's allegedly trying to call them off.

[JRod]

John,

Problem with these swiftees is that they stayed silent until now. There is very little that did in any of his other races. I'm not going to that they changed their tune just because he was president. Although some of the "Swiftees have appeared pro-kerry in the past".

The now have the connections to attack kerry. Money is everythign and Rove has given this guys money to attack Kerry. Plain and simple.

I have one problem with the swiftees. That are so mad at John Kerry for breaking ranks yet they don't understand what he was really trying to do. Saying that the US Government put young men in a position where no good can come to them. If you dislike Kerry thats fine but not to understand what is really going on gets me. These vets at the very least need to acknowledge that Kerry thought the US government at the time put young men in a bad situation and without proper support. If they still hate Kerry after admintting that, fine but that can't just hate kerry because they think he betrayed him.

There's a reason why Bush has so much support and its not elightenment but ignorance.

[pk500]

>>>but we all know for a fact that Clinton lied to us on national tv.<<<

Bad:

Indeed. Clinton was the most morally bankrupt president in a long time. He also is a perjurer, which has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with breaking the law.

In other words, Clinton is the ultimate scumbag who took America for an 8-year joyride to feed his insatiable ego.

Take care,
PK

[bdoughty]

In other words, Clinton is the ultimate scumbag who took America for an 8-year joyride to feed his insatiable ego.

You say insatiable ego, I say insatiable libido

[pk500]

In other words, Clinton is the ultimate scumbag who took America for an 8-year joyride to feed his insatiable ego.

You say insatiable ego, I say insatiable libido

Brent:

Good point. Clinton had dual hard-ons during his terms. One for power and one for strange p*ssy.

Take care,
PK

[Badgun]

In other words, Clinton is the ultimate scumbag who took America for an 8-year joyride to feed his insatiable ego.

You say insatiable ego, I say insatiable libido

Brent:

Good point. Clinton had dual hard-ons during his terms. One for power and one for strange p*ssy.

Take care,
PK

Hell, all he had to do was roll over to get some strange.

[pk500]

Bad:

LOLOLOLOLOL! Best laugh I've had all day, man!

Take care,
PK

[RandyM]

FWIW, the reason I jumped in was because I felt that PK was claiming objectivity and "Bush Lied" in the same post, and the two comments are NOT compatible. Apparently challenging him on that is a "personal attack". What...EVER.

And no one, including Randy, has provided a "slam dunk" of proof -- >>apologies to George Tenet -- that Bush and his team didn't deceive the public while devising its war strategies. >>

I see, so we have to prove Bush didn't lie? How about we go with "innocent until proven guilty" here? The allegations that Bush lied are coming from his detractors - so let them substantiate their charges or drop them. You seriously don't think it's absurd to say that Bush supporters have to prove he did NOT lie?!

As far as the rest of PK's dragging of CART/IRL into this, and otherwise badmouthing me, etc. I've developed a thicker skin for this kind of stuff. PK, if you want to believe that this is some extension of CART/IRL, then that's YOUR opinion, but it's not true. I bounced into this thread and went after Jared, dougb and others whom I felt were crossing the line into ridiculousness....and I have no flipping idea where they stand on the CART/IRL split, which as far as I'm concerned is dead and ancient history and I could no longer care less, and no I don't actually hold any bitterness towards you. We had our fights, sometimes heated, and that's a dead, dead horse. I couldn't care less.

If anyone else had come in and pronounced themselves to be "objective" while accusing someone else of NOT being objective, and then at the same time delivered a totally SUBJECTIVE assessment of Bush, I would have called them on it, same as I did you. Just because we used to argue over a totally unrelated topic, I'm therefore somehow censored from ever challenging anything you say again? That somehow it has to relate to a tired old argument? Don't flatter yourself, PK. I tried to bury that hatchet a long time ago. But you stepped in a thread and I took issue with something you said. I woulda done the same REGARDLESS of who it was.

So if you want to get personal and drag up as much history as you can - be my guest. I'm not going to jump into that pool with you. You're on your own there.

Randy

[pk500]

>>>because we used to argue over a totally unrelated topic, I'm therefore somehow censored from ever challenging anything you say again?<<<

Who said anything about censorship, Don Quixote? Challenge away.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

I don't think Bush lied about Iraq. But if you look at how the intelligence was filtered before the war, it circumvented a lot of the natural checks and balances designed to keep the intelligence process apolitical. The administration accepted the Iraq intel that said Hussein had weapons, and ignored or dismissed the intel that said he didn't. They (especially the DoD) relied very, very heavily on intel from the Iraqi National Congress, which may have been infiltrated by Iranian intelligence.

Intelligence work is never 100% accurate. A lot of times you go have to take an educated guess. However, when you approach a situation like Iraq having already made up your mind, and are simply looking for justification for your actions, it's probably not hard to find intelligence that supports your position. I think that sets a dangerous precedent.

Lastly, Bush's Iraq policy, as far as preventing WMD proliferation goes, fails on either side of the coin:

--If Hussein had dismantled his programs and destroyed his weapons, we have tied our military up in a non-immediate theater when we have a lot of pressing terror concerns elsewhere.

--If Hussein had the weapons and moved them out, as has been suggested, then the preemptive invasion actually promoted their spread outside Iraq and Hussein's control, and now we have lost track of them.

There is of course the possibility that they could still be hidden in Iraq, but after 18 months of searching I think that's highly unlikely. The main point is, regardless of who you support, you should be perturbed that our government was convinced that Hussein had WMD and now we have absolutely no idea where those weapons are. That is a lot more pressing to me than whether a piece of shrapnel can get you a Purple Heart.

[Teal]

Another discrepancy
erodes Kerry's story
Conflicting version of Rassman heroics
supports claim made by swiftboat vets

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 31, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Art Moore


In a eulogy entered into the Congressional Record six years ago, John Kerry gave a conflicting version of the now-famous incident during the Vietnam War in which he rescued Special Forces officer Jim Rassman.


Kerry reunited with Jim Rassman in Iowa.

Rassman's dramatic on-stage reunion with Kerry 34 years later, just before the crucial Iowa caucuses in January, is regarded by some political analysts as the campaign's catalyst to victory and the eventual Democratic presidential nomination.

Rassman, a former Green Beret, wrote recently in a Wall Street Journal editorial posted on the Kerry campaign website that he was blown off of Kerry's swiftboat, PCF-94, by a mine blast on March 13, 1969.


But in a eulogy for crew member Thomas Belodeau, which Kerry entered into the Congressional Record in 1998 [pdf file], the senator said Rassman fell overboard when the swiftboat made an abrupt turn on the Bay Hap River, not as a result of the mine blast.


"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 [Rassman] 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."

That apparent conflict in Kerry's own retelling of events adds to already existing confusion over whether Rassman was on Kerry's boat or on another of the five boats on that mission. For example, Douglas Brinkley, author of Kerry's authorized war biography "Tour of Duty," wrote in an article published by American History magazine that Rassman was on another boat, PCF-3, when he was blown overboard by a mine. But Rassman and the Kerry campaign say the Special Forces officer was on Kerry's boat.

'All news to me'

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the 254 former officers and enlisted men who contend Kerry is unfit to be commander in chief, has offered numerous eyewitness affidavits to tell a story that differs radically from Kerry's various accounts. But the 1998 eulogy version actually agrees with the swiftboat group's description of how Rassman went into the water.


Larry Thurlow appeared in a television ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Lt. (j.g.) Larry Thurlow, who commanded PCF-51 on that mission, told WorldNetDaily he's certain Rassman was not blown from Kerry's boat by a mine.

"I will guarantee you that didn't happen," he said, noting the eulogy was "all news to me."

The eulogy was unearthed from the Congressional Record in a report by the weblog BeldarBlog.

The Kerry campaign's veterans affairs section, headed by John Hurley, did not respond to WND's request for comment.

Thurlow said while Kerry's 1998 eulogy may help resolve one contentious aspect of the story, it presents other problems.

In addition to denying the mine blast, Thurlow claims Kerry's boat was near the right side of the river, which means the bow would have plowed into the bank if it indeed had made a "high speed turn to starboard," or the right.

Thurlow, and other eyewitnesses in the swiftboat group, also contend there was no enemy fire. Further, Thurlow believes it's unlikely Rassman would have been sent to retrieve another M-60, because each boat normally had only one of those heavy weapons, which was fired from a set position on the bow.

"That's a great eulogy for a shipmate," Thurlow said, "and I'm sure that made [Belodeau's] family proud, but ... this is where, to me, John is always getting himself in trouble. He loves to tell a good story, and he loves to be in the center of it."

Thurlow appears in the first television ad launched by the swiftboat vets group, saying "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry."

Which boat?

Jerome Corsi, co-author with former swiftboat commander John O'Neill of "Unfit for Command: Swiftboat Veterans Speak out Against John Kerry," says he and his colleagues noticed the inconsistenices in Kerry's stories as they compiled the best-selling book, set to top the New York Times list.

The question of which boat Rassman was on has not been resolved by the Kerry campaign, he said, but the eulogy is the first evidence of an admission that it was the acceleration of Kerry's boat that caused Rassman to fall off.

"If you put any two John Kerry versions together, you end up with three stories," Corsi told WND.

Thurlow acknowledged, however, that one of his crew members, retired Chief Petty Officer Robert E. Lambert, of Eagle Point, Ore., recently has come forward to back Kerry's and Rassman's assertion they were under enemy fire.

Lambert's account supports the Navy record, but Thurlow and others contend that record is based on Kerry's false after-action report.

Lambert, Thurlow and Kerry all were awarded Bronze Stars for their efforts during that incident. Kerry received a third Purple Heart, allowing him to leave Vietnam, but the swiftboat vets' group claims one wound was self-inflicted, from an event earlier that day, and another was only a minor contusion.

"I thought we were under fire, I believed we were under fire," Lambert told the Associated Press.

Thurlow called Lambert a "fantastic sailor" and doesn't doubt his sincerity.

"He does have a different remembrance," Thurlow said. "I'm not questioning his memory, but my memory is not of any [enemy] fire."

Dead in the water

Thurlow, along with swiftboat skippers Jack Chenowith and Richard Pees and gunner Van Odell, say the March 13 incident was touched off when the five boats approached a fishing weir across the river, a series of poles to which nets attach.

The boats were moving in an inverted spear formation, Thurlow said, with Kerry's boat on the right, running parallel to Pees' PCF-3. Each one had a boat following closely behind, and Thurlow brought up the rear, in the middle.

Kerry's boat moved around the weir on the right while Pees went to the left when suddenly a mine detonated beneath Pees' boat, sending it several feet into the air and knocking some crew members overboard, according to Odell.

With one of its diesel engines disabled, the badly damaged PCF-3 began to weave wildly as the other engine remained stuck at 500 RPM.

Thurlow said his gunner sent a hail of bullets across the shoreline then stopped when it became apparent there was no enemy fire.

All of the remaining boats, except Kerry's, closed in on PCF-3 to rescue its crew members, contend Thurlow, Chenoweth, Pees and Odell.

Kerry's boat fled, they say, and by the time it returned, the rescue operation already was underway. Kerry plucked Rassman out of the water, they assert, just before Chenowith was about to reach him.

Kerry has stated his boat was the only one to stay back and rescue Rassman, and Rassman has insisted he was the only one in the water.

But Kerry's campaign has had to concede that PCF-3, at the very least, could not have left the scene because it was dead in the water from the mine blast.






...I know, I know...I hate to keep beating this drum, but this is a pretty interesting find...

[Teal]

""If you put any two John Kerry versions together, you end up with three stories," Corsi told WND."


That's a pretty funny line...

[wco81]

They wanted to believe it. They bought everything the INC and Chalabi was selling, lock, stock and barrel.

Then they set up the OSP to stovepipe intelligence.

Notice that the 9/11 commission and the commission investigating the "intelligence failures" will not look at the OSP and Cheney's office?

Whitewash at work.

[RandyM]

I'm actually wondering right now if any of the Bush-bashers here saw the speeches by McCain and/or Giuliani last night and what they thought of them.

Randy