John Kerry saved my life. Now his heroism is being questioned.
BY JIM RASSMANN
Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
I came to know Lt. John Kerry during the spring of 1969. He and his swift boat crew assisted in inserting our Special Forces team and our Chinese Nung soldiers into operational sites in the Cau Mau Peninsula of South Vietnam. I worked with him on many operations and saw firsthand his leadership, courage and decision-making ability under fire.
On March 13, 1969, John Kerry's courage and leadership saved my life.
While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.
When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.
For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire. I learned only this past January that the Navy awarded John the Bronze Star with Combat V for his valor. The citation for this award, signed by the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, read, "Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." To this day I am grateful to John Kerry for saving my life. And to this day I still believe that he deserved the Silver Star for his courage.
It has been many years since I served in Vietnam. I returned home, got married, and spent many years as a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County. I retired in 1989 as a lieutenant. It has been a long time since I left Vietnam, but I think often of the men who did not come home with us.
I am neither a politician nor an organizer. I am a retired police officer with a passion for orchids. Until January of this year, the only public presentations I made were about my orchid hobby. But in this presidential election, I had to speak out; I had to tell the American people about John Kerry, about his wisdom and courage, about his vision and leadership. I would trust John Kerry with my life, and I would entrust John Kerry with the well-being of our country.
Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans. I volunteered for his campaign because I have seen John Kerry in the worst of conditions. I know his character. I've witnessed his bravery and leadership under fire. And I truly know he will be a great commander in chief.
Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.
As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is "dishonest and dishonorable." Sen. McCain called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored Sen. McCain's advice.
Does this strategy of attacking combat Vietnam veterans sound familiar? In 2000, a similar Republican smear campaign was launched against Sen. McCain. In fact, the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry. Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad. Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam.
But when the noise and fog of their distortions and lies have cleared, a man who volunteered to serve his country, a man who showed up for duty when his country called, a man to whom the United States Navy awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, will stand tall and proud. Ultimately, the American people will judge these Swift Boat Veterans for Bush and their accusations. Americans are tired of smear campaigns against those who volunteered to wear the uniform. Swift Boat Veterans for Bush should hang their heads in shame.
Mr. Rassmann, a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, served with the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam 1968-69.
posted on August 10, 2004 11:49:30 PM
Bunni, doesn't anybody wonder about the demoralizing effect the slanderous attack on a soldier who fought and served his country will have on our troops ????
The neocons thought Michael Moore's movie was SO terrible because seeing it would cause a drop in troop morale.....now they don't give a damn.....what flip floppers !!!!!!
posted on August 11, 2004 10:39:38 AM
Thanks Bunni. I was waiting for one of you to open the door to kerrys hand puppet and co conspirator. He's as much a fraud as kerry.
-------------------
Rassman's TWO Versions of the Big Rescue Story
First he was on the boat behind Kerry and NOW he was actually on the boat with Kerry. Seems these two may have more in common than just being in VN at the same time.~Amelia~ KERRY, VIETNAM & CAMBODIA [KJL]
Blogger Captain Ed e-mails (I’m slow to the e-mail): “I've found a major inconsistency in Jim Rassman's account of the Bronze Star incident. It appears that Rassman has told different stories about this Bronze Star incident. Story 1, January 2004 -- he's on a boat following the one Kerry commanded:”
Former Lieutenant John Kerry was reunited today with fellow Vietnam veteran Jim Rassman, who says Kerry saved his life during combat.
On March 13, 1969, Rassman, a Green Beret, was traveling down the Bay Hap river in a boat behind Kerry’s when both were ambushed by exploding land mines and enemy fire coming from the shore. Kerry was hit in the arm, while a mine blew Rassman’s boat out of the water. With enemy fire coming from both sides of the river and swift boats evacuating from the area, Kerry’s crew chose to turn their boat toward the ambush to save Rassman.
“Story 2, [yesterday’s] WSJ -- Rassman was on Kerry's boat:?
While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.
=================
Jim Rassman, the Kerry campaign mainstay who reminds everyone that the young lieutenant saved his life under fire, attempts to return the favor in today's Wall Street Journal On Line. Rassman attempts to do this with a handy bit of misdirection and a few ad hominem attacks on the Swiftvets, in whose company he spent a few days back in 1969:
While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.
When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.
For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire. I learned only this past January that the Navy awarded John the Bronze Star with Combat V for his valor. The citation for this award, signed by the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, read, "Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." To this day I am grateful to John Kerry for saving my life. And to this day I still believe that he deserved the Silver Star for his courage.
Rassman then goes on to excoriate the more than 200 veterans who served in Kerry's unit for the months before, during, and after his abbreviated tour of duty as liars and partisan hacks. Rassman notes that he has voted "largely Republican" most of his life, but presumes that the Swiftvets are all of the same diabolical VRWC first exposed by Hillary Clinton:
Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.
People who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat? The Swiftvets number more than 200 men who did serve together in combat -- and in fact served together for far longer than Rassman did with Kerry. The notion that this underfinanced group of Viet Nam veterans (who only raised $150,000) somehow represents the spearpoint of a huge Republican smear machine attack is laughable. Rassman wants us to take his word based on his combat experience, but then denigrates hundreds of other combat veterans as unworthy of speaking their minds about a colleague they knew a hell of a lot better than he did.
Rassman is correct in one point in his essay. In their response to John Kerry's threat to sue them into silence, the Swiftvets indicate tha the incident for which Kerry won that Bronze Star included no enemy fire at the time of the rescue, that the disabling fire came from a mine and not enemy fire, and they also indicate that they have evidence to back that claim up. If true, it does undermine Rassman's credibility, even if it just means that he was too dazed to understand what the circumstances of his rescue really was:
As recounted in the attached affidavits of three on-scene participants (and verified by many others present) Kerry's operating report, Bronze Star story, and subsequent "no man left behind" story are a total hoax on the Navy and the nation. As recounted in the affidavits of Van Odell (Exhibit 6), Jack Chenoweth (Exhibit 7), and Larry Thurlow (Exhibit 10) (and verified by every other officer present and many others), a mine went off under PCF 3 -- some yards from Kerry's boat. The force of the explosion disabled PCF 3 and knocked several sailors, dazed, into the water. All boats, except one, closed to rescue the sailors and defend the disabled boat. That boat -- Kerry's boat -- fled the scene. After a short period, it was evident to all on the scene that there was no additional hostile fire. Thurlow began the daring rescue of disabled PCF 3, while Chenoweth began to pluck dazed survivors of PCF 3 from the water. Midway through the process, after it was apparent that there was no hostile fire, Kerry finally returned, picking up Rassman who was only a few yards from Chenoweth's boat which was also going to pick Rassman up. Each of the affiants (and many other Swiftees on the scene that day) are certain that Kerry has wholly lied about the incident. Consider this: How could the disabled PCF abandon the scene of the mine? Why did Kerry have to "return" to the scene?
A CQ reader who wishes to remain anonymous sent this over to me this morning. The reader claims that he had Special Forces experience in Viet Nam and has this to say about Rassman:
There are a lot of angles to the Kerry saga. I doubt anyone gets to every question, but some are compelling to me. The question that goes begging today is why was Rassman there at all?
I don't believe SF will take an official position on this, so I'll post what I have heard. I have never bad mouthed fellow SFers before, but I do have these comments from some sources I trust.
Rassman was reportedly the Asst S-1, which means he was the assistant admininistrative officer. Not exactly a key sought after job for an SF officer LOL. In fact I don't recall knowing of any official Asst S-1 officer slots in the field. Jobs like that are created to keep idiots off the teams.
He was supposedly in charge of awards and decorations (A&D) in a field unit. SF didn't issue many, so it was hardly a taxing assignment. The man doing that job at SF HQ RVN was a Sergeant. Giving it to an officer in a field unit as a primary duty is beyond unusual.
He was probably AWOL when he was with Kerry. At best someone may have said, OK go, just to get him out of the way.
My comments and speculation.
If Rassman was an A&D clerk, his knowledge of how to get awards approved was probably very interesting to Kerry. Since reports indicate he wrote the citation for Kerry's SS, I believe this speculation is well-founded.
And how does an SF LT fall out of a 50' boat? I have been through days and weeks of small boat training and drills, we never had anyone fall out.
Rassman says he was under fire. Anytime anyone was shooting within 50 yds of me I always assumed I was the target until I could prove otherwise. Rassman could not do that while in the drink. I will take the word of the other boat crews that there was no enemy fire at all. They had the best view to assess the situation. My mind keeps going back to Rassman's A&D job. He knew if there was no enemy fire there would be no award citations.
This entire operation smells bad to me. Kerry was in command he gets credit for everything his unit did and everything it failed to do. The Swiftvets are getting heavy pressure and questioning. I would like to see a reporter question Rassman in detail.
To me, the Bronze Star story is really the least of Kerry's problems. However, if the official after-action reports ever come out from the other teams there that day, it may prove rather embarrassing for Rassman, regardless of how many times he can say Spaeth Communications and John McCain in a 1500-word essay. And that's really the crux of the matter: we need to see the entire file on John Kerry to determine who's telling the truth. Is it John Kerry and a handful of people, or over 200 combat veterans who were also there and saw him in action?
Until John Kerry releases his complete military records, the credibility of the Swiftvets will continue to grow. As long as Kerry keeps answering their well-documented allegations with nothing but intimidation tactics, his credibility will be completely suspect. Jim Rassman cannot save John Kerry from himself.
posted on August 11, 2004 01:46:06 PM
And it just gets better ..... More from the liar who wrote Unfit for Command..
Anti-Kerry Book Scribe Sorry for Slurs
Tue Aug 10, 5:36 PM ET
By JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - One of the authors of a new anti-John Kerry (news - web sites) book frequently posted comments on a conservative Web site describing Muslims and Catholics as pedophiles and Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II as senile.
But as he prepared to launch the book, "Unfit for Command," Jerry Corsi apologized for the remarks in an interview with The Associated Press Tuesday, saying they were meant as a joke and he never intended to offend anyone.
In chat room entry last year on freerepublic.com, Corsi writes: "Islam is a peaceful religion — just as long as the women are beaten, the boys buggered and the infidels are killed."
In another entry, he says: "So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the lawyers rip the gold off the Vatican (news - web sites) altars. We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that's probably about it."
Corsi, who described himself as a "devout Catholic," said the comments are being taken out of context. "I considered them a joke," said Corsi, who owns a financial services company and has written extensively on the anti-war movement.
In a March posting, Corsi discussed Kerry's faith, writing: "After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judaism? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"
Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, are Catholic.
"I don't stand by any of those comments and I apologize if they offended anybody," Corsi said.
The Kerry campaign called Corsi's Web chat postings disgusting.
"President Bush should immediately condemn this sleazy book written by a virulent anti-Catholic bigot. It says something about the smear campaign against John Kerry that it has stooped to enlist a hatemonger," said campaign spokesman Chad Clanton.
Calls to the Bush-Cheney campaign were not immediately returned.
"Unfit for Command," which goes on sale Wednesday, accuses the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his decorated wartime record and betraying comrades by returning from Vietnam and alleging widespread atrocities by U.S. troops.
The book claims that Kerry earned his Silver Star not in a barrage of enemy fire, but rather by killing a fleeing Viet Cong teenager. It also questions the three Purple Hearts that Kerry earned, saying that none was for serious injuries and two wounds were self-inflicted.
According to medical records from his naval service, Kerry still has shrapnel in his thigh from a war injury.
"I think it's important the country have the facts about John Kerry so that they can reach a reasonable decision," said co-author John O'Neill, who succeeded Kerry in command of a swift boat. O'Neill also is spokesman for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which began airing an anti-Kerry ad last week.
posted on August 11, 2004 02:05:54 PM
If Dubya did not report and his superiors were approving of that, he got an Honorable discharge, your allegation is slanderous and not honorable. He did his duty to the satisfaction of his superiors, deal with it.
I am curious, everybody out there that thinks Kerry would have had five purple hearts if that's what it took to get out of 'Nam, raise your hands. Don't bother counting, it is a clear majority. Oh, wait, that's right, Reamond is much more credible than a bunch of Veterans that served with 'get me out of here Kerry'.
posted on August 11, 2004 02:20:00 PMIf Dubya did not report and his superiors were approving of that, he got an Honorable discharge, your allegation is slanderous and not honorable. He did his duty to the satisfaction of his superiors, deal with it.
Better read the record park- one of Bush's COs put right in the report that he had not seen Bush.
So you think that a Congressman's son who got into a NG unit that was already completely staffed and by-passed an 18 month waiting list could not get an honorable discharge after being AWOL for months? You're prettt naive.
Oh, wait, that's right, Reamond is much more credible than a bunch of Veterans that served with 'get me out of here Kerry'.
Reamond is much more credible than any of those liars. Their head liar is an old Nixon hack, who admitted he wasn't even in Vietnam when Kerry was there.
posted on August 11, 2004 03:32:55 PM
There's absolutely NO reason for shame ....they have as much right to speak out as those who are doing the same for kerry. The have all earned that right. No shame involved at all. That's what's great about being an American....we are free to speak out.
----
Secondly the thread title is VERY misleading....Swift Boat Veterans for Bush. They are quoted as saying they are not making a political stand....just want the people to hear both sides of the story before they decide IF they're giving their vote to kerry - IF they decide they want a man whose actions were as kerrys were to be our Commander In Chief.
They have stated they are Republicans AND democrats and Independents....who want their story told.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on August 11, 2004 04:09:07 PM
Somebody is lying. Either kerry or the swift boat vets. The swift boat vets have quite a bit of evidence against kerry and kerry is not publicly denying their allegations. I believe kerry is the liar and fraud. Just a pathetic JFK wannabee.
posted on August 11, 2004 04:21:35 PM
Yea...literally needing a bandade on one of his injuries he used to get out of VN... might not look so heroic to some.
posted on August 11, 2004 07:50:44 PMYea...literally needing a bandade on one of his injuries he used to get out of VN... might not look so heroic to some.
Even if it was just a "bandade" wound, it required more guts to get it than any wound Bush received while laying around drunk here at home when he was supposed to be serving his country.
Where are the witnesses that Pres Bush did not serve.
Bush's own records and Bush's CO's report that he had not even seen Bush.
But it is amazing that all you "patriots" slander Kerry in favor of a military deserter.
And even if you still turn a blind eye to the proof of Bush's desertion, you can not deny Bush's cowardice in using his father's influence to get into a NG unit and avoid combat.
But the mess this country is in right now is the direct result of our commander-in-chief being a coward and deserter.
posted on August 11, 2004 10:05:23 PMBush's own records and Bush's CO's report that he had not even seen Bush. But it is amazing that all you "patriots" slander Kerry in favor of a military deserter.
Wrong as usual Reamond.
"Let me get this straight: Vietnam vets -- especially those who served with Kerry -- are allowed to praise him to the skies. But Vietnam vets -- including those who served with Kerry -- are not allowed to criticize him. We revere veterans when they're for Kerry; we revile them when they're against." --Jay Nordlinger
posted on August 12, 2004 10:55:12 AM
"Let me get this straight: Vietnam vets -- especially those who served with Kerry -- are allowed to praise him to the skies. But Vietnam vets -- including those who served with Kerry -- are not allowed to criticize him. We revere veterans when they're for Kerry; we revile them when they're against." --Jay Nordlinger
Only one of the 3500 actually served with Kerry, and he offered only two criticisms that didn't amount to squat.
These silly little liars want to re-write history and make the Vietnam war into some noble cause. Vietnam was a HUGE mistake, they'll just have to get over it. They're after Kerry becuase he came back and told power the truth. That's why they slander and libel him.
But if they're sooo interested in a president's military record, why do they remain silent about the military deserter currently in the White House?
We have a military deserter in the White House and these liars want to slander and libel a true war hero.
posted on August 12, 2004 05:13:29 PM
So Reamond, when they suit YOUR purpose they are honorable, but when they [b/STATE THEIR OWN PERSONAL OPINIONS[/b] of kerry they are shameful.
In the 132 days kerry was in the boats he only came in contact with approx 250 others assigned to the boats. So your statement that 3500 swifties served with kerry is totally wrong.
Have you reqad the thread I posted that interperted his FitRep? That is the real reasion he left Vietnam early. There was no chance of advancement & even the Admiral he server under slammed him.
What a load of crap you kerry (or carry) for kerry.
Apparently you don't understand what role a office in the military serves to men assigned to him.
posted on August 12, 2004 05:33:06 PM
And of course of those 250, a couple of Kerry's friends from the time who are still with him say one thing, the rest say the opposite.
Skepticism is one thing, but 100:1 is a little silly.
posted on August 13, 2004 07:45:33 AMIn the 132 days kerry was in the boats he only came in contact with approx 250 others assigned to the boats. So your statement that 3500 swifties served with kerry is totally wrong.
Oh so the standard is that anybody that came into contact with Kerry is credible as to things they never witnessed ?
The FACT remains that of the 3500 in the group only one served with Kerry.
The Nixon puppets have a political ax to grind and are liars as it has been proven time and again. Just like the "doctor" that said he treated Kerry but it turns out he lied.
But if they're sooo interested in a the next president's military record, why do they remain silent about the military deserter currently in the White House?
We have a military deserter in the White House and these liars want to slander and libel a true war hero.
posted on August 13, 2004 09:18:43 AM
All 250+ SERVED with kerry & OBSERVED his actions daily. As I previously stated, these boats did not operate singly but in packs of 3 to 6. What don't you understand about that?
Bush served, Has the honorable discharge to prove it. Case closed. Hey, hey Ho, ho Kerry - sign the 1-8-0
posted on August 13, 2004 09:56:23 AM
What I love is vets who were there will say how a military unit operated which will be in contradiction to what a politician says and his supporters call them all liars because they support him.
posted on August 13, 2004 10:25:21 AMThere's absolutely NO reason for shame ....they have as much right to speak out as those who are doing the same for kerry. The have all earned that right. No shame involved at all. That's what's great about being an American....we are free to speak out.
Linda, your statement reminds me of a quote by Lord Napier that I always liked, 'dat goes like this: "The withholding of truth is sometimes a worse deception than a direct misstatement. There is a idiom in truth which falsehood never can imitate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on August 13, 2004 10:43:01 AMWhat I love is vets who were there will say how a military unit operated which will be in contradiction to what a politician says and his supporters call them all liars because they support him.
It has been proven time and again that this group is full of liars.
Just like the "doctor" in the group that said he treated Kerry's small scrape for a purple heart. Turns out he flat lied. The attending doctor in the written records wasn't even this liar.
And then Bill O'Reilly has the one vet in that 3500 member group on that actually served with Kerry and all he can say is that Kerry gave an inflated body count once and they killed a young boy in a fight with the VC and didn't report it. The other issue he spewed about was the Cambodian incident. The guy even said they operated within a 50 mile area that included the border with Cambodia and that they weren't there at zmas, but were at a nearby camp. Even O'Reilly said that the exact date wasn't as important as if they engaged fire across the border. And the vet couldn't or wouldn't address that question. That is all the guy could say that actually served with Kerry.
All 250+ SERVED with kerry & OBSERVED his actions daily. As I previously stated, these boats did not operate singly but in packs of 3 to 6. What don't you understand about that?
No they did not. Only one person in the 3500 actually served with Kerry.
And if what you said were true, then they sure would have denied it when Bill O'Reilly stated that only one of their members served with Kerry. O'Reilly repeated it several times and they still counldn' deny it.
What don't you understand about it ? Only one person in this 3500 member group served with Kerry, and even Bill O'Reilly made this clear.
Under your standards anyone in South East Asia at the same time with Kerry is free to lie about him.
posted on August 13, 2004 11:09:47 AM
"Just like the "doctor" in the group that said he treated Kerry's small scrape for a purple heart. Turns out he flat lied. The attending doctor in the written records wasn't even this liar."
Lies propagate in many ways. For instance this is the 3rd time you've posted this bit of nonsense AFTER it was acknowledged that the unit's medical corpman signed all the paperwork for the men seen by the doctor in question.
You can choose to believe the 2 vs 200. Design the "big conspiracy". As of yet, I have not become that stupid.
posted on August 13, 2004 01:51:27 PMit was acknowledged that the unit's medical corpman signed all the paperwork for the men seen by the doctor in question.
The only person saying that is the doctor himself. So the liar Doctor now makes up more BS to cover his first lie. The record clearly shows that this doctor did not treat Kerry.
Since when is truth known by the number of people telling it ?
The written record from 35 years ago supports Kerry versus new found memories of a group with a clear political agenda.
But it still doesn't answer the question why this group remains silent about the deserter Bush.
The meaning of a Purple Heart
By David H. Hackworth
The patrol boat slipped quietly up the canal until the eerie silence was suddenly shattered by enemy automatic-weapon fire from both heavily vegetated riverbanks. The U.S. Navy crew instantly responded with a barrage of machine-gun, mortar and grenade-launcher fire while I looked for cover.
But I was in South Vietnam's Mekong Delta, stuck on the deck of the ultimate moving target, and there was no place to hide. The only protection I had from the singing slugs was my paper-thin U.S. Army jungle-fatigue jacket.
Soon, U.S. Navy helicopter gunships were hosing down the Viet Cong, who were dug in no more than 100 yards from us. Then we continued our surreal surf upstream through the miasma of cordite and smoke.
A Navy petty officer asked, "How's it going, colonel?"
"I gotta tell you, chief, this isn't my bag," I responded.
"What just happened is pretty much standard down here, sir," he replied. "Welcome to the Brown Water Navy."
This Apocalypse Now-type vignette took place in 1970, when I was running the advisory side of the 44th Special Zone. Along with primarily U.S. Army Special Forces and South Vietnamese Ranger units, a number of Brown Water naval units also fell under my control. Our combined job was to cut off the movement of communist troops and supplies out of Cambodia.
Staying close to troops
Since it was always my standard drill as a commander to stay in close touch with what was going down, I spent a lot of time in the boonies with the troops under my control. But during that year, I did the small-boat thing only twice. Why? Because as an infantry grunt, I simply didn't like the odds. And since those hair-raising trips, my steel pot has always been off to those sailors.
Now a number of war veterans have picked the campaign-stumping season to question the first Purple Heart that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry received during his four months as a small-boat skipper — where one day out on Vietnam's rivers and canals was a lifetime, and four months had to have been an eternity.
That Purple Heart was one of three awarded to Kerry. (He also won Silver and Bronze stars.) His critics — who incidentally never served under Kerry on his swift boat — are saying his particular wound wasn't serious enough to warrant the award.
But the Pentagon regulation governing the Purple Heart reads: "A wound which necessitates treatment by a medical officer and which is received in action with an enemy."
So — minor or major — a wound is a wound.
Does that fact cheapen the value of the medal? During the ongoing conflict in Iraq, several U.S. military grunts have complained to me that while their bravery has gone generally unrecognized, the awards system has been unfairly tipped in favor of officers. In fact, I've written about an Army general who put himself in for a Silver Star merely for being in Iraq. And an Air Force bomber crew received the Distinguished Flying Cross for dropping a bomb from 30,000 feet onto a home where Saddam Hussein was believed to be hiding.
More recently, plans to award Bronze Stars to the Army's 800th Military Police Brigade were dropped after a report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba and photographs were released about prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.
The awards system has always been fraught with abuse, but for anyone who has ever served in combat, the difference between earning a Purple Heart and death is, indeed, very slim.
Former Navy doctor Louis Letson clearly recalls treating Kerry and removing a small piece of metal from his arm with forceps, bandaging that wound and returning him to duty. And when Kerry was hit, he was certainly engaged with the enemy and in harm's way.
In fact, if the fragment Letson removed had been slightly larger and struck the lieutenant between the eyes, Kerry's award would no longer be a current-events issue — since he'd be planted in Arlington National Cemetery instead of campaigning to be the next occupant of the Oval Office nearby.
Medals were prized
Reports say Kerry was an aloof, gung-ho, super-ambitious, young stud whose eye was already on the White House and whose role model was Navy war hero Jack Kennedy. Like a lot of soldiers and sailors who valiantly served in Vietnam, he was eager to come home, but probably just as eager to scoop up the golden gongs that came his way. It's also worth noting that medals for officers were especially prized as magic steppingstones that could help propel the recipients onward and upward.
Under the circumstances, it wouldn't have made sense for Kerry to ask his commander to rescind the automatic orders for a Purple Heart — our country's first decoration. (It was instituted in 1782 and awarded originally only for bravery in combat. Subsequently, it was changed to honor our wounded and dead.)
On an earlier tour in Vietnam, one of my gallant soldiers, a draftee named Don Wallace, picked up seven Purple Hearts in less than a year without ever being hospitalized. Most of "Ole Magnet Butt's" wounds were easily patched up by "Doc" Holley, our battalion surgeon. But any one of them could have shut off his lights forever.
Jerry Sullivan, another trooper in the same "Hardcore Battalion," was wounded just once. He spent five years in hospitals and still lives in agony.
Whose Purple Hearts were more deserved? Should Wallace have measured his hits and turned down Purple Hearts for his smaller wounds? I don't think so.
But I do think that Kerry's Purple Heart wouldn't be considered problematic if he weren't a presidential candidate. The grousers, to a man, seem to be simply passing on secondhand bilge that they ought to stow in their sea bags and lay off.
The Purple Heart deserves less petty quantifying and more respect.
No one should play politics with any warrior's wounds.
David H. Hackworth, a retired U.S. Army colonel, is a King Features syndicated columnist and author of the recent best seller about Vietnam, Steel My Soldiers' Hearts. He was awarded eight Purple Hearts during 26 years as a soldier.
posted on August 13, 2004 02:18:05 PM
Here's the MO on the Swift boat group of liars:
• George Elliott, who came to Kerry's defense during his 1996 Senate campaign when questions were raised about his Silver Star. Kerry received the award after beaching his boat to chase a Viet Cong guerrilla who was firing from shore. Kerry jumped ashore and killed the guerrilla. As Kerry's commander, Elliott approved the award and gave him glowing marks in fitness reports. But in an affidavit last month, Elliott said he "was never informed that (Kerry) had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back." Last week, Elliott recanted that affidavit in a statement to The Boston Globe, saying he had made "a terrible mistake." But the Swift Boat Veterans group has since issued a statement reaffirming Elliott's affidavit.
Elliott was not available for comment, but in an interview with USA TODAY earlier this year, he said that while he strongly disagreed with Kerry's anti-war activities, "I don't know how anyone would have taken the risks he took in combat just for the glory of running for office."
• Adrian Lonsdale, who in 1996 called Kerry "among the finest of those swift boat drivers." But he has since changed his mind. Lonsdale, who outranked Kerry, recalls meeting him only once at an officers club. "The only thing I remember is he whined a lot about the lack of air support," he said.
• Charles Plumly, a retired Navy captain who was Hoffmann's chief of staff. He says Kerry "required a lot of supervision" and "did things without permission." Asked in an interview for examples, he said, "I can't give you exact specifics."
• Van O'Dell and Jack Chenoweth, who are among those who say Kerry lied about an incident on March 13, 1969, for which he received a Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart. Kerry was cited for pulling Army Special Forces Lt. Jim Rassmann from a river during a firefight, despite an arm injury. O'Dell says there was no enemy fire and Kerry "fled the scene." Chenoweth says that Kerry's arm was not bleeding and that the official reports were "completely different than" what he saw.
Rassmann has dismissed such accounts as "pure fabrication." Del Sandusky, Kerry's boat driver, says, "I saw the gun flashes in the jungle, and I saw the bullets skipping across the water," adding that the contrary accounts are "part of the Republican slime machine."
• Louis Letson, a doctor who says he treated Kerry. He says Kerry didn't deserve his first Purple Heart because he "inadvertently wounded himself" and "there was no hostile fire." Medical records, however, note that Kerry was treated for shrapnel by J.C. Carreon, not Letson. Bill Zaladonis, who was on Kerry's boat at the time, says the men believed they were shooting at Viet Cong.
FactCheck.org, a non-partisan group that monitors political ads, says Letson's story is "based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that." It concludes, "There is reason to doubt" the Swift Boat Veterans' ad because of its funding and because of the discrepancies in memory between Kerry's defenders and attackers.
posted on August 14, 2004 06:05:46 AM
You notice though that none of the people calling for a halt to the Unfit for Command book are not advocating that peice of trash farhenlie 9/11 to be stopped.
US Army is not going to show it on bases but has said they will sell the DVD's when they come out.
Bear, people screaming that President Bush is a deserter have no idea what the military is about... or how it works... you might as well scream in an empty 55 gallon drum and listen to the echo... same thing.
Small boat units are just that units... they patrol from one central point and return to that base they lived together and fought together... not "serving" on the same boat means nothing, very few ever went out solo...
President Bush received and honorable discharge, some people will never accept that, but it doesn't change that fact....
kerry's claims have been refuted by more credible sources than post here against President Bush... kerry is trying to ignore the situation, because he knows they speak the truth and is hoping that it goes away... probably wishes he had not tried to ride his VN service as part of his campaign...
getting wounded 3 times in 4 mos makes kerry an incompetent idiot... his traitorous lies after he returned make him just that a traitor and to say that was just anger speaking is BS, do we want a traitor in the white house? Nope...
posted on August 14, 2004 06:11:46 AM
Again because the neocons keep forgetting:
Kerry went and fought IN COMBAT for his country. This is true no matter what the Republican paid detractors say.
Will they say the same about the brave men and women who have fought in Iraq for us???
Will decorated heroes from that war face slander if someday THEY run for office?
YES, they will because the Republicans will stoop to anything to win.
How demoralizing for them knowing that so-called flag waving "patriotic" Republicans will only slander their efforts and sacrifices.
Bush stayed home drunk aiding and abetting the enemy by not fighting. A traitor and a coward.
posted on August 17, 2004 11:23:37 AM
"The stalwart Brown Water Navy warriors who fought at Kerry's side say he was A-OK, which is good enough for me. The muckrakers such as John O'Neill and his SWIFT-boat snipers – who didn't sail on his boat but served anywhere from 100 meters to 300 miles away – are now coming off like eyewitnesses when in fact not one of their testimonies would hold up in a court of law. A judge would call these men liars and disallow their biased statements."
Col. David H. Hackworth, author of his new best-selling "Steel My Soldiers' Hearts," "Price of Honor" and "About Face," has seen duty or reported as a sailor, soldier and military correspondent in nearly a dozen wars and conflicts – from the end of World War II to the recent fights against international terrorism.
[ edited by Bear1949 on Aug 11, 2004 10:41 AM ]
