XXX XXXX Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 he Navy task force overseeing John Kerry's swift boat squadron in Vietnam reported that his group of boats came under enemy fire during a March 13, 1969, incident that three decades later is being challenged by the Democratic presidential nominee's critics. The March 18, 1969, weekly report from Task Force 115, which was located by The Associated Press during a search of Navy archives, is the latest document to surface that supports Kerry's description of an event for which he won a Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart. The Task Force report twice mentions the incident five days earlier and both times calls it ``an enemy initiated firefight'' that included automatic weapons fire and underwater mines used against a group of five boats that included Kerry's. Task Force 115 was commanded at the time by retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the founder of the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has been running ads challenging Kerry's account of the episode. AP No way does that report go in saying enemy fire and not have Hoffmann contradicting it in report if there was not fire. It appears this is entirely a political group unhappy with Kerry's politics and nothing to do with Vietnam. A shame and a disgrace by these veterans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 No way does that report go in saying enemy fire and not have Hoffmann contradicting it in report if there was not fire. It appears this is entirely a political group unhappy with Kerry's politics and nothing to do with Vietnam. A shame and a disgrace by these veterans. 7445[/snapback] I saw a bit on NBC news last night investigating the conflicting reports. They interviewed the one SBV, Thurow (sp), who is saying there was no enemy fire in that incident and Kerry was in no danger, nor was Rassman. The piece really didn't come to a conclusion. The SBV was criticized because he got a bronze star for that very same fight, but he says he accepted because he thought it was because he pulled a couple guys out of the water after the mine went off. He supposedly is willing to give it back if a bronze star requires enemy fire. Kerry's testimony was also criticized, since there is a report the day after assessing the condition of the boats that indicates Kerry's boat had no bullet holes or damage, which seems unlikely if it was as fierce a battle as Kerry claims. There was also a doctor who was quoted as saying Kerry's arm only had a bruise/contusion, and it was not bleeding or cut as Kerry claimed. I don't think we will ever find the whole truth. I personally think Kerry should sign the Navy 180 (?) form that gives clearance for all his records to be open to the public, which he has yet to do. After all, Kerry was the one openly criticizing Bush to reveal all his military records. I have yet to hear Bush openly criticize Kerry. I don't think this group is necessarily "unhappy with Kerry's politics". I think a lot of this stems from the hatred many Vietnam veterans have for Kerry and what he did upon returning from his 4 month tour. That, more than politics, is what is fueling these men to go this far. All in all, I just hope the isse either resolves itself or goes away so people can hear about the real issues, not what happened 30 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 I heard yesterday on ABC Radio News that only one boat had any bullet holes in it (three .30 caliber-which were explained as happening a couple of days before). If that report is true, I find it VERY hard to believe that they were under heavy automatic weapons fire and NOT one boat sustained any bullet damage. Before anyone starts, I'm passing on what I heard. I still think this is pretty fuggin' stupid. Scratch that. REALLY fuggin' stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 AP No way does that report go in saying enemy fire and not have Hoffmann contradicting it in report if there was not fire. It appears this is entirely a political group unhappy with Kerry's politics and nothing to do with Vietnam. A shame and a disgrace by these veterans. 7445[/snapback] Shame, shame, shame. These guys are bigger liars than I thought. I didn't know that a couple of these shills were awarded the Bronze Star themselves based on reports of the action they signed that said that there was indeed small arms fire. I guess their memories of the event now, 36 years later, are better than their memories were then immediatley after the event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 AP No way does that report go in saying enemy fire and not have Hoffmann contradicting it in report if there was not fire. It appears this is entirely a political group unhappy with Kerry's politics and nothing to do with Vietnam. A shame and a disgrace by these veterans. 7445[/snapback] I've been wondering all day why Kerry's campaign doesn't just point out that SVBT is contradicting the official version of events...and do they care to explain that inconsistency, or how the official report got falsified? I personally suspect in this case that reality and "the official version of reality" are two different things...but I doubt the average American is sharp enough to realize how common an occurrence that is. At the very least, it's got to be a better strategy than continually shouting "It's Bush's fault!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Shame, shame, shame. These guys are bigger liars than I thought. I didn't know that a couple of these shills were awarded the Bronze Star themselves based on reports of the action they signed that said that there was indeed small arms fire. I guess their memories of the event now, 36 years later, are better than their memories were then immediatley after the event. 7493[/snapback] Military officers lying to make themselves look better to superiors? That doesn't happen very often - especially when there are medals involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUBillsFan Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 I've been wondering all day why Kerry's campaign doesn't just point out that SVBT is contradicting the official version of events...and do they care to explain that inconsistency, or how the official report got falsified? I personally suspect in this case that reality and "the official version of reality" are two different things...but I doubt the average American is sharp enough to realize how common an occurrence that is. At the very least, it's got to be a better strategy than continually shouting "It's Bush's fault!" 7501[/snapback] I keep thinking the same thing. He just needs to say the record supports me and that's it. By talking about he just keeps it in the news like with his guys going to see the President, who cares if Bush says the guys are bad just ignore it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 For what it's worth, I saw O'Neil respond to accusations of bullet holes in the boats and he said the holes came from action they had faced the day before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Shame, shame, shame. These guys are bigger liars than I thought. they may indeed be lying. I hope you are equally as bothered by Kerry who has admitted to lying about something that was "seared-seared in me" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 For what it's worth, I saw O'Neil respond to accusations of bullet holes in the boats and he said the holes came from action they had faced the day before. 7526[/snapback] Then you probably also saw O'Neill try to explain why 30 years ago he told Richard Nixon he "was in Cambodia" and yet is now saying he wasn't. More and more of their stories get discredited and exposed for lies every day. It's actually kind of amusing to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Then you probably also saw O'Neill try to explain why 30 years ago he told Richard Nixon he "was in Cambodia" and yet is now saying he wasn't. More and more of their stories get discredited and exposed for lies every day. It's actually kind of amusing to watch. 7658[/snapback] wait.... I can't resist... link please... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 wait.... I can't resist... link please... 7669[/snapback] Listen Read JOHNS: Behind the scenes, Kerry's aides were fighting the swift boat charges with unusual ferocity. They say they have evidence one of the top members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is an outright liar. The co-author of the book "Unfit for Command," former swift boat commander John O'Neill said Kerry made up a story about being in Cambodia beyond the legal borders of the Vietnam War in 1968. O'Neill said no one could cross the border by river and he claimed in an audio tape that his publicist played to CNN that he, himself, had never been to Cambodia either. But in 1971, O'Neill said precisely the opposite to then President Richard Nixon. O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water. NIXON: In a swift boat? O'NEILL: Yes, sir. (END VIDEOTAPE) JOHNS: Now, O'Neill may have an explanation for this but he has not returned CNN's calls. What does seem clear is that a top member of the swift boat group is now being held to the same standard of literal accuracy they've tried to impose on John Kerry. "I was in Cambodia." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 wait.... I can't resist... link please... 7669[/snapback] Here is one link to a CNN transcript on the story, O'Neill is caught saying this to President Nixon, on tape: O'Neill said no one could cross the border by river and he claimed in an audio tape that his publicist played to CNN that he, himself, had never been to Cambodia either. But in 1971, O'Neill said precisely the opposite to then President Richard Nixon." O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water. NIXON: In a swift boat? O'NEILL: Yes, sir. (END VIDEOTAPE) CNN Transcript Here is another link where O-Neill was confronted with his own words: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130048,00.html Apparently, when he said he was "in Cambodia" he obviously didn't mean that he was "in Cambodia". See, it all depends on what your definition of "in" is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 And from that Fox News link comes this bit of hilarity from Sean Hannity: HANNITY: Yes. What you said to Richard Nixon was, "I worked along the border; I was in Cambodia." And what you said in this interview, "Our patrol was about 50 miles from Cambodia." Consistent statements. This would be like me saying, "I grew up in Western New York, I lived in Buffalo. My home was about 50 miles from Buffalo." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Yet another liar has been exposed today, this time by a person who shares the SBVL's outrage against Kerry's anti-war activities (which, if we're all honest with ourselves and each other, is the only thing driving their smears on Kerry's war record. Well, that and the Bush campaign, of course): Thurlow's account disputed by the man who saved him Robert E. Lambert doesn’t plan to vote for John Kerry. But the Eagle Point man challenges claims by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that there was no enemy fire aimed at the five swift boats, including the one commanded by Kerry, on March 13, 1969 on the Bay Hap River in the southern tip of what was then South Vietnam. Lambert, now 64, was a crew member on swift boat PCF-51 that day. The boat was commanded by Navy Lt. Larry Thurlow, a now-retired officer who questions why Kerry was awarded a Bronze star for bravery and a third Purple Heart for the March 13 incident. "He and another officer now say we weren’t under fire at that time," Lambert said Wednesday afternoon. "Well, I sure was under the impression we were." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Yet another liar has been exposed today... 7738[/snapback] Are you talking about Lambert, or Thurlow? And how do you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Are you talking about Lambert, or Thurlow? And how do you know? 7741[/snapback] The one telling the truth, is the one parroting your POV. Didn't you learn anything at PSAO school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Are you talking about Lambert, or Thurlow? And how do you know? 7741[/snapback] I'm talking about Thurlow, whom Lambert saved. When Thurlow does things like claim that the initials "K.J.W." on the after-action report mean that Kerry wrote the report (even though there are other after-action reports with those initials describing incidents at which Kerry wasn't even present), it's really difficult to consider him a credible witness. It's even more difficult to do so when Thurlow readily admits that the reason he is attacking Kerry's service record is because he's mad about what Kerry said after the war. I'd like a logic diagram on THAT Thurlow statement if anyone wants to provide it. Given the facts, the records, and the testimony thus far, is there a fair jury out there that would believe Thurlow's account over Kerry's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 The one telling the truth, is the one parroting your POV. Didn't you learn anything at PSAO school? 7755[/snapback] Whatever the truth is, it still remains that four months in Viet Nam is not a lot of reason to vote someone President. Don't give me the "he knows how it is" stevestojan either. Ain't gonna buy it. A REAL leader would have done his tour to take care of his people. A lot of folks talking about that crap both here and elsewhere have never spent a day in uniform, let alone heard a shot fired in anger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Here is one link to a CNN transcript on the story, O'Neill is caught saying this to President Nixon, on tape: O'Neill said no one could cross the border by river and he claimed in an audio tape that his publicist played to CNN that he, himself, had never been to Cambodia either. But in 1971, O'Neill said precisely the opposite to then President Richard Nixon." O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water. NIXON: In a swift boat? O'NEILL: Yes, sir. (END VIDEOTAPE) CNN Transcript Here is another link where O-Neill was confronted with his own words: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130048,00.html Apparently, when he said he was "in Cambodia" he obviously didn't mean that he was "in Cambodia". See, it all depends on what your definition of "in" is. 7714[/snapback] Did you read this transcript? or Did you pull an Alan.... Alan, read the next sentence.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts