John Kerry the war criminal: Unfit to command, part 2

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow

I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star was language taken directly from John Kerry's report which falsely described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river.

To this day, I can say without a doubt in my mind, along with other accounts from my shipmates-there was no hostile enemy fire directed at my boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day.

I submitted no paperwork for a medal nor did I file an after action report describing the incident. To my knowledge, John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incidents that occurred on the river that day.

It was not until I had left the Navy-approximately three months after I left the service-that I was notified that I was to receive a citation for my actions on that day.

I believed then as I believe now that I received my Bronze Star for my efforts to rescue the injured crewmen from swift boat number three and to conduct damage control to prevent that boat from sinking. My boat and several other swift boats went to the aid of our fellow swift boat sailors whose craft was adrift and taking on water. We provided immediate rescue and damage control to prevent boat three from sinking and to offer immediate protection and comfort to the injured crew.

So apparently we're supposed to believe that Kerry filed an AAR descrbing a combat incident, no other boat commander filed any such AAR, and their CO not only never requested AARs from other boats engaged (which would presumably be standard procedure), but we're also supposed to believe that neither their CO nor anybody on staff ever said a word to them about this AAR, the engagement in general, or anything else - that somehow, magically, Kerry filed a bogus AAR with his CO and nobody at all ever discussed that AAR or the underlying incident?

Sorry, but my Bull****-o-meter is pegged on this one.

[Lincoln]

Well there is an easy way to find out. Read the bottom few lines of this article:

Did Kerry Himself Write Report On Which Medals Were Based?
Swift Vet Rebuts Washington Post Story

By David Freddoso



Posted August 19, 2004

Former Vietnam Swift boat commander Larry Thurlow is rebutting a story on the front-page of this morning’s Washington Post while adamantly reiterating his charge that John Kerry did not come under hostile fire during a March 13, 1969 incident for which Kerry was awarded a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart.

"Nobody received even a fragment of bullets going through the metal" of the five Swift Boats present for the incident, Thurlow told Human Events today. "Nobody was even ducking for cover."

In a piece headlined, "Records Counter a Critic of Kerry—Fellow Skipper's Citation Refers to Enemy Fire," the Post reported that the citation for the Bronze Star that Thurlow himself received for the 1969 incident contradicts Thurlow's charge that Kerry falsely claimed he came under enemy fire during that incident. The citation, the Post says, praises Thurlow "for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat 'despite enemy bullets flying about him.'"

Thurlow, however, says his own Bronze Star citation is wrong about "enemy bullets flying," although he did indeed board and prevent from sinking a Swift boat that had been damaged by a mine explosion and whose captain had suffered a concussion. Thurlow stands by an affidavit he signed on July 22, 2004 in which he says of the 1969 incident, "I never heard a shot."

Thurlow told the Post that if coming under enemy fire--rather than rescuing the damaged Swift boat--was the basis for his own Bronze Star award than the award was "fraudulent."

"In terms of receiving hostile fire, it's false," Thurlow told Human Events of his Bronze Star citation.

Why would Thurlow's Bronze Star citation be wrong about "enemy bullets flying"? Former Navy Commander George Elliott, who signed Thurlow's citation, told Human Events he based the claim that there was enemy fire that day on an after-action report that Thurlow and two other officers on the scene believe was written by Kerry. I got the information from the after-action report," said Elliott.

Thurlow and his colleagues have good reason to believe Kerry authored this report because, other than Thurlow, there were only four Swift boat commanders on the scene that day in 1969. One was Kerry. One was Donald Droz, who is now deceased. And the two others were Richard Pees and Jack Chenoweth, who back Thurlow's claim that there was no hostile fire that day.

Thurlow, Chenoweth and Pees all say they did not write the after-action report that said there was hostile fire. All say they believe Kerry wrote it. "Kerry campaign researchers dispute that assertion,” the Post reported this morning, "and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the claim."

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth—a group claiming that Kerry has been untruthful about his swift boat service, and to which Pees, Chenoweth and Thurlow belong—called again on Kerry to allow the Navy to independently release all of his military records by signing Standard Form 180, which he has thus far refused to do. A complete examination of his records, they said, could prove who wrote the report on which this commendation was based. It could also verify or falsify some of the Swift Boat Veterans' other claims that Kerry has been dishonest about his service.

Thurlow told Human Events that he will sign a Standard Form 180, allowing his own records to be publicly released.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I may not vote this year. Both sides are suing each other now. My main concern at this point is who will be the next king of Thailand. I think that almost anyone involved in politics now has thier hands dirty. There is something wrong with a system where you have to make ourself look as important and impressive as possible. Humility is a forgotten virtue. Maybe we should kill them all and let God sort it out later.

Now you're making some sense.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS


Didn't you read the last couple of pages before posting? The polling suggests that the perception is spreading to independents due to a Vietnam veterans group spending less than a half million dollars on ads. That's why Kerry's campaign is now playing catch up.

Given the extremely low number of undecided voters for months now, I don't see any indication of shifts outside the margin of error.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Lincoln


Thurlow stands by an affidavit he signed on July 22, 2004 in which he says of the 1969 incident, "I never heard a shot."

told Human Events he based the claim that there was enemy fire that day on an after-action report that

believe was written by Kerry.

have good reason to believe

who back Thurlow's claim

say they believe Kerry wrote it.

a group claiming

'Claim', 'believe', 'claim', 'believe', and an affidavit written 35 years after the events?


Yeah, their case is watertight.

[DanS]

MtG: It goes well beyond the margin of error. As stated several pages ago...

Kerry, who has been criticized by Democrats for mishandling the controversy, has been damaged by the veterans' accusations, according to two polls. Three weeks after the anti-Kerry veterans questioned whether the Democratic nominee lied to win decorations in Vietnam, a CBS poll showed Kerry dropping 18 points behind Bush among veterans. The candidates were even only weeks ago.

Although the Swift boat group says it spent just $500,000 airing its first ad in three states, a new poll by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey found that more than half of voters questioned had seen or heard of the ad, often on cable news shows. Most distressing to the Kerry camp, the survey found that 44 percent of independent voters considered the ad very or somewhat believable.

The new ad could prove even more damaging, according to several Democratic strategists. The ad, which will air next week in Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Nevada, takes selected portions of Kerry's antiwar testimony from 1971 to portray the nominee as brutally critical of Americans in Vietnam. "They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads," Kerry is shown testifying in the opening clip. A few seconds later, Ken Cordier, a veteran, says: "He betrayed us in the past -- how can we be loyal to him now?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20193-2004Aug20.html

Just watch the commercial on www.swiftvets.com -- it looks like it could be rather effective to me.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Michael the Great, you make it seem as if Democrats simply do not care whether their president is an honorable person or not.

I don't speak for other Democrats, but given that Bush is less than honorable, and less than competent in his execution of many policies, I'm really not too concerned about Kerry.

You support him and defend him regardless of the evidence, the facts and the truth

As much as you want it to be, twenty guys jumping up and down in unison 35 years after the fact. with a little help from a political PR machine. doesn't constitute much in the way of facts or the truth. The "facts" are that different parties have different claims as to what happened, and some parties on both sides have changed what they said over time. Some moreso than others. Such records as are currently admitted to be in the public domain generally support Kerry's claims.

I'm really not that impressed or interested in a bunch of "pig****er" style campaign allegations. I'm interested in which candidate will screw things up less.

simply because he is your man and because more than anything else you want to defeat Bush.

Damn straight.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS
MtG: It goes well beyond the margin of error. As stated several pages ago...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20193-2004Aug20.html

Just watch the commercial on www.swiftvets.com -- it looks like it could be rather effective to me.

I've seen it - and I'm sure with some selective editing of Bush's comments to take partial sentences and strip subordinate clauses, one could get Bush admitting to child molestation. It's already been shown that that was done in the swiftboat vets commercial. Selective editing is effective. Then again, so was Nixon's use of composited photos to show his opponents hanging out with well known commies. After all, half the electorate has a two-digit IQ.

[DanS]

Well, what happened to your "within the margin of error"?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS
Well, what happened to your "within the margin of error"?

How many polls of vets had been done previously, and by how many pollsters?

Vets don't have a special ticket for X number of designated electors, so the only numbers I care about are the overalls. If I had to deal with campaign strategy, I would care about focus group polls, but all I really care about is the overalls.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by molly bloom


'Claim', 'believe', 'claim', 'believe', and an affidavit written 35 years after the events?


Yeah, their case is watertight.

Like I said, though it seemed to sail past you, let Kerry release his records like his opponant has agreed to do. Then we can all read it for ourselves. Would that make you happy? As for me, I really don't know what to believe at this point but I do find it hard to believe that there is a grand right wing conspiracy invented out of thin air behind all this. Especially when Kerry (the man really in question in light of the office he wishes to hold) has already been caught in several lies. See Drakes signature for one of them.

[Gibsie]

"All boats commenced suppression fire in case enemy small arms fire ensued."

"Thurlow stands by an affidavit he signed on July 22, 2004 in which he says of the 1969 incident, 'I never heard a shot.'"

Thurlow and his buddies can't even put together two separate articles without ridiculously contradicting themselves.

[Ramo]

The Kerry campaign's ad response to the SBVT. It looks like it could be very effective.

http://www.johnkerry.com/video/082104_old_tricks.html

[DanS]

How many polls of vets had been done previously, and by how many pollsters?

I don't know. How many?

Vets don't have a special ticket for X number of designated electors, so the only numbers I care about are the overalls. If I had to deal with campaign strategy, I would care about focus group polls, but all I really care about is the overalls.

According to the following site, which is from the left, seems just as authoritative as any other, and lists all of the state-specific polls released, Bush has tightened the race over the last week or two substantially.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[Ramo]

Ohio flipped a couple points, which accounts for the bulk of difference in the EV from a week or so ago. And the numbers aren't from the same poll, but different polls, with different methodologies - rendering the "change" essentially meaningless.

The only meaningful difference is in CA, and I'm almost certain that those numbers are an outlier (the idea that the race is tighter in CA than in PA or WV is completely absurd).