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

[Ned]

What I'd like to hear and see are people who were at the scene of these various events who support Kerry's version of events. I am tried of having Democrat political hacks get on the air and simply blame this all on Bush, try to change the topic to the "issues" or instead try to smear the SBvfT.

To date, the only person I have actually scene supporting Kerry is Rassmann. But, honestly, he could have mistaken the fire from the other PCF boats as enemy fire.

The crew who were with Kerry in when he shot the M79 grenade do not confirm enemy fire.

Noone confirms Kerry being in Cambodia on Christmas day 1968 being shot at by the Khmer Rouge and drunken ARVN, even while President Nixon (who was not president then) denied that our troops were in Cambodia.

Noone confirms "5000 meters" of small arms and automatic weapons fire at the Bronze star incident.

Noone confirms that Kerry ordered warning shots in the sanpan incident rather than being asleep at the wheel.

Noone confrims that Kerry charged ashole against "superior forces" when he shot the fleeing, wounded, half naked Cong teenager in the back.

The Post story focuses sole on the Bronze star incident and mistates the inquiry into whether there was enemy fire at all, when the real inquiry is whether there was 5000 meters of enemy fire as Kerry's AAR states.

As I said earlier in this thread, the publication of Kerry's book is what brought all this out. Most of his fellows did not know just how much Kerry had exaggerated or downright lied about what happened in Vietnam, mostly to get purple hearts and medals which he even then intended to turn into a reason to vote for him as president.

[Ned]

When Gore screamed, "He betrAAAAAY this country. He liIIIIIIIIed to us....," you might have thought he was screaming about Bush.

He wasn't.

[Ned]

I don't know if this was posted before, but it is a first hand account of another officer who was at the "silver star" incident. He supports Kerry's version of events.

We should have more of this kind of "rebuttal."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&u=/latimests/20040822/ts_latimes/officerrecallsboatmissionwithkerry&printer=1

[Ramo]

That's the point -- everyone served for a relatively short time on each boat, if I heard corectly. There were a lot of guys that were under his command for a few weeks to a month; add it all up and you don't get near full crews over all four months, if you only count the guys with him.

Sounds like you're stringing together a bunch of assumptions to make your supposed inconsistency. I don't buy it.

Where are the others?[/q]

Do your own research. Find me the rest of the people who have served in Kerry's boats. Everything that I've read says that he has 10 living shipmates.

[Ned]

Bob Dole has asked Kerry to apologize for falsely accusing our forces in Vietnam of systematic attrocities.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040822/D84KGLT00.html

(Kerry's Senate testimony reminds me of the statement by Wesley Clark (and many other Democrats) shortly after the Abu Grab scandal that the abuses were "systemic" and not the isolate acts of out-of-control soldiers.)

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I don't know how much experience you've had with the M79 / M203 / Mk19, but I really doubt it's possible to frag yourself with one, since the fuze is designed to prevent self-injury.

With the M383 or M384 40mm HE grenade, blast radius is a maximum of 15 meters, while the arming distance of the M533 fuze is 18-36 meters. There's also not enough casing mass in the grenade to have very effective fragment density at 15 meters, so the effects at that range are generally limited to concussive effects.

Unless the Swiftboat vets come up with (and they haven't, it's just another inconsistency of many) a real good explanation for self-inflicted injury, I think it's safe to just disregard those allegations as the sort of stories that go around after the fact about somebody you didn't like. Typical FNG stories, but in this case, not possible as described.

I dont think its a self-inflicted injury at least not in the sense that he did it on purpose. No matter my dislike and distrust of kerry, I dont think he's a coward. He did, after all, serve in combat with some distinction. AFAIK the reports from that action do not report grenade fire from the vietnamese, only rifle fire. Supposedly though, kerry fired a grenade that landed too close to the ship. Its possible that he was wounded by a fragment from a bullet that broke up after contact with something solid, but descriptions of the fragment are more consistent with a grenade fragment.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Alleged 'lie', isn't it?

Nothing alleged about the Cambodia lie. That's why the media won't touch it. It's simple and proven, thus making it impossible to spin.

And you have 'proof' it's a lie?


The Kerry friendly media like the 'Washington Post' won't touch it?

Sorry but that just doesn't make sense- if it's so easy to prove it's a lie, wouldn't the anti-Kerry hacks and media be all over it like flies on dung?


And yes, Straybow, I both watch and read what conservative pundits do and say- it's called having access to television and newspapers and the internet.

Funny how you think Savings and Loan was nothing to do with President Bush or Reagan- during which Republican Presidents' terms did greatest deregulation occur, and which Republican President's family was embroiled in the savings and loan scandal, and which current Republican President's relative was bailed out by the taxpayer?


I don't know, but for some reason I'm getting 'Bush' coming through the aether.

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/corporatefraud.html

As for 'Iran-Contra' - two Presidents 'claim' not to have known what was going on- one, an ex-C.I.A. head was 'left out of the loop', the other was so semi-detached from his job and reality I suppose I could believe his 'claim' not to have known what was going on, but it hardly reflects well on the most powerful man in the world does it?

Frankly your trying to lightly dismiss the two scandals speaks volumes about how smears and scandals work in the United States- a Democrat President has oral sex with an intern and we get months and months of tedious investigation and millions of dollars wasted, and an attempt at impeachment, and a Republican administration breaks American laws, supports terrorists, and sells weapons to a country which held Americans hostage and aided terrorist groups in the Lebanon, and you say it's just a 'pissing contest' between congress and the administration.

'
1) Robert C. McFarlane: pleaded guilty to four counts of withholding information from Congress;

(2) Oliver L. North: convicted of altering and destroying documents, accepting an illegal gratuity, and aiding and abetting in the obstruction of Congress; conviction reversed on appeal;

(3) John M. Poindexter: convicted of conspiracy, false statements, destruction and removal of records, and obstruction of Congress; conviction reversed on appeal;

(4) Richard V. Secord: pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress;

(5) Albert Hakim: pleaded guilty to supplementing the salary of North;

(6) Thomas G. Clines: convicted of four counts of tax-related offenses for failing to report income from the operations;

(7) Carl R. Channell: pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States;

(8) Richard R. Miller: pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States;

(9) Clair E. George: convicted of false statements and perjury before Congress;

(10) Duane R. Clarridge: indicted on seven counts of perjury and false statements; pardoned before trial by President Bush;

(11) Alan D. Fiers, Jr.: pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress;

(12) Joseph F. Fernandez: indicted on four counts of obstruction and false statements; case dismissed when Attorney General Richard L. Thornburgh refused to declassify information needed for his defense;

(13) Elliott Abrams: pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress;

(14) Caspar W. Weinberger: charged with four counts of false statements and perjury; pardoned before trial by President Bush.

At the time President Bush pardoned Weinberger and Clarridge, he also pardoned George, Fiers, Abrams, and McFarlane.'

http://www.webcom.com/pinknoiz/covert/icsummary.html

That's some piss streak all right.

[Lincoln]

Do me a favor molly and start your own thread about Iran Contra etc. Try to stay on topic. I know this is the Apolyton Off Topic forum but really...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Do me a favor molly and start your own thread about Iran Contra etc. Try to stay on topic. I know this is the Apolyton Off Topic forum but really...

Gosh, I thought I was replying to someone about how different scandals are perceived, and how smears operate.

But thanks for your kind advice, I'll really bear it in mind.

[Lincoln]

Yes, the name is rather confusing...

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Ned
Bob Dole has asked Kerry to apologize for falsely accusing our forces in Vietnam of systematic attrocities.

Fat chance. He is both proud of his service, proud he threw away his medals (or ribbons or someone elses ribbons or medals or whatever) and proud that he betrayed his fellow fighting men. He is a man for all seasons. He is trying to appeal to the hippies and their modern cohorts and the vets.

The funny thing is he sees no contradiction. He apparently just counts the potential votes from all the groups.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by SpencerH


I dont think its a self-inflicted injury at least not in the sense that he did it on purpose. No matter my dislike and distrust of kerry, I dont think he's a coward. He did, after all, serve in combat with some distinction. AFAIK the reports from that action do not report grenade fire from the vietnamese, only rifle fire. Supposedly though, kerry fired a grenade that landed too close to the ship. Its possible that he was wounded by a fragment from a bullet that broke up after contact with something solid, but descriptions of the fragment are more consistent with a grenade fragment.

I to don't think that Kerry self-inflicted himself. He throw it and did not get far enough away from the blast before it went off and got hit.
But how did he get a PH for it?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
I don't know if this was posted before, but it is a first hand account of another officer who was at the "silver star" incident. He supports Kerry's version of events.

We should have more of this kind of "rebuttal."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...erry&printer=1

Why? If these people who don't like Kerry didn't have the balls or the integrity to raise these allegations when he testified, or each of his three campaigns for Senate, why should they be given any great credence now?

Where's the braying about not raising these claims in a reasonable time, like when all those conservatives were braying in defence of Clarence Thomas over charges that were less than ten years old?

**** 'em if they didn't have any reason to speak out before, and the "we didn't know anything until Kerry's book" excuse is bull****. Kerry's been vocal for quite some time, and most of these guys, if not all, were well familiar with his role in VVAW decades ago.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SpencerH


I dont think its a self-inflicted injury at least not in the sense that he did it on purpose. No matter my dislike and distrust of kerry, I dont think he's a coward. He did, after all, serve in combat with some distinction. AFAIK the reports from that action do not report grenade fire from the vietnamese, only rifle fire. Supposedly though, kerry fired a grenade that landed too close to the ship. Its possible that he was wounded by a fragment from a bullet that broke up after contact with something solid, but descriptions of the fragment are more consistent with a grenade fragment.

Given the construction of those boats, I'd also consider a piece of sheet metal or fragment from some part of the boat to be a possibility.

Even if Kerry fired forward and the boat was going full speed, the velocity on the grenade is too great - Kerry still couldn't get himself into the max blast radius of the grenade.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Why? If these people who don't like Kerry didn't have the balls or the integrity to raise these allegations when he testified, or each of his three campaigns for Senate, why should they be given any great credence now?

Where's the braying about not raising these claims in a reasonable time, like when all those conservatives were braying in defence of Clarence Thomas over charges that were less than ten years old?

**** 'em if they didn't have any reason to speak out before, and the "we didn't know anything until Kerry's book" excuse is bull****. Kerry's been vocal for quite some time, and most of these guys, if not all, were well familiar with his role in VVAW decades ago.

A lot of those guys were still in the Navy when Kerry testified and as such are not allow to testified.
As I read some of these statements from some of you, I'm amaze at the lack of knowledge of how the military works. There are several Vets and several current military personnel posting here and you would think that the civilian posting here would get a sense of what it is like serving on active duty, but I guess not.