# John Kerry and Vietnam **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 4, 2004, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262 "2004-08-04T11:19:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 32
**Author:** ![Club\_33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df705f/32.png) [@Club\_33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Club_33)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/621 "2004-08-24T15:11:39Z")
Anyone see what Drudge is claiming this morning > [@](#): > > Kerry’s campaign now says is possible first Purple Heart was awarded for unintentional self-inflicted wound… > Kerry received Purple Heart for wounds suffered on 12/2/68… > In Kerry’s own journal written 9 days later, he writes he and his crew, quote, ‘hadn’t been shot at yet’… Developing… I’m seeing lots of pubbies this morning proclaiming that this is proof that Kerry is lying. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/622 "2004-08-24T15:14:59Z")
At what range would an AK 47 punch a hole into a “swift boat”, **Sam**. You claim the lack of such holes constitutes “physical evidence”. On what basis do you make this claim? Cite? This is, what?..the fourth or fifth time I’ve asked this question? WhadIgodda do? Jump and down and wave my arms? **Sam! Sam!** Over here, **Sam**! Yoooooo-hooooo! AT…WHAT…RANGE…WOULD…AN AK-47…PUT A HOLE…IN A SWIFTBOAT!!! ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/623 "2004-08-24T15:22:03Z")
You know, one way to determine which side is being more truthful in a situation like this is to look at which side is changing its story. And Kerry has been changing his stories like mad. We’re on about the third or fourth revision of the ‘Christmas in Cambodia’ story now. A Kerry spokesman has now said that the buttocks wound was caused by accident earlier in the day. James Rassmann has changed his story a couple of times. There’s a [good Op-Ed](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27211-2004Aug23.html?referrer=emailarticle) in the _Washington Post_ this morning regarding “Christmas in Cambodia”: > [@](#): > > Most of the debate between the former shipmates who swear by John Kerry and the group of other Swift boat veterans who are attacking his military record focuses on matters that few of us have the experience or the moral standing to judge. But one issue, having nothing to do with medals, wounds or bravery under fire, goes to the heart of Kerry’s qualifications for the presidency and is therefore something that each of us must consider. That is Kerry’s apparently fabricated claim that he fought in Cambodia. . . . > > Two weeks ago Kerry’s spokesmen began to backtrack. First, one campaign aide explained that Kerry had patrolled the Mekong Delta somewhere “between” Cambodia and Vietnam. But there is no between; there is a border. Then another spokesman told reporters that Kerry had been “near Cambodia.” But the point of Kerry’s 1986 speech was that he personally had taken part in a secret and illegal war in a neutral country. That was only true if he was “in Cambodia,” as he had often said he was. If he was merely “near,” then his deliberate misstatement falsified the entire speech. The problem isn’t just that it didn’t happen at Christmas. The problem is that the Kerry camp can’t even get the number of times he went into Cambodia straight: > [@](#): > > However seared he was, Kerry’s spokesmen now say his memory was faulty. When the Swift boat veterans who oppose Kerry presented statements from his commanders and members of his unit denying that his boat entered Cambodia, none of Kerry’s shipmates came forward, as they had on other issues, to corroborate his account. Two weeks ago Kerry’s spokesmen began to backtrack. First, one campaign aide explained that Kerry had patrolled the Mekong Delta somewhere “between” Cambodia and Vietnam. But there is no between; there is a border. Then another spokesman told reporters that Kerry had been “near Cambodia.” But the point of Kerry’s 1986 speech was that he personally had taken part in a secret and illegal war in a neutral country. That was only true if he was “in Cambodia,” as he had often said he was. If he was merely “near,” then his deliberate misstatement falsified the entire speech. > > Next, the campaign leaked a new version through the medium of historian Douglas Brinkley, author of “Tour of Duty,” a laudatory book on Kerry’s military service. Last week Brinkley told the London Telegraph that while Kerry had been 50 miles from the border on Christmas, he “went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions.” Oddly, though, while Brinkley devotes nearly 100 pages of his book to Kerry’s activities that January and February, pinpointing the locations of various battles and often placing Kerry near Cambodia, he nowhere mentions Kerry’s crossing into Cambodia, an inconceivable omission if it were true. > > Now a new official statement from the campaign undercuts Brinkley. It offers a minimal (thus harder to impeach) claim: that Kerry “on one occasion crossed into Cambodia,” on an unspecified date. But at least two of the shipmates who are supporting Kerry’s campaign (and one who is not) deny their boat ever crossed the border, and their testimony on this score is corroborated by Kerry’s own journal, kept while on duty. One passage reproduced in Brinkley’s book says: “The banks of the [Rach Giang Thanh River] whistled by as we churned out mile after mile at full speed. On my left were occasional open fields that allowed us a clear view into Cambodia. At some points, the border was only fifty yards away and it then would meander out to several hundred or even as much as a thousand yards away, always making one wonder what lay on the other side.” **His curiosity was never satisfied, because this entry was from Kerry’s final mission.** Got that? Kerry’s last entry in his own journal has him expressing curiousity about what lay on the other side of the river in Cambodia. Pretty strange for a guy who was supposed to have gone there ‘routinely’, then ‘three or four times’, then ‘at least once’. Face it - the guy was never in Cambodia, and he’s been telling an elaborate lie for his entire adult life - and not just as a bar tale, as a story used to influence government policy. But you guys might want to wait before proclaiming Kerry’s innocence, because I think the Swift Boat veterans have an ace up their sleeve. On Kerry’s first mission, on which he won a purple heart, he claims there were two men on the boat with him. But others claim there were three, and the third person has a story to tell about what happened that night. That person is ADMIRAL William Schaacht, the former _Judge Advocate General of the Navy_, who was a Lieutenant at the time. And the Swiftees say they have other eyewitnesses willing to come forward and testify as well. I think this is going to be their own ‘October Surprise’. I don’t know what happened on that boat, other than Kerry and Crew apparently opened fire on a Sampan and Kerry got nicked by shrapnel, which possibly came from his own grenade. He claims they were being fired upon, but again his own journal entries contradict him. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/624 "2004-08-24T15:34:58Z")
One of 4 or 5 editorial or opinion pieces in today’s Washington Post, discussing the S-BV claims The one written by an outside source, from a right wing think tank. Why might that be? Might it be because all the others, including the editorial are firmly against the S-B-Vs? Might it be because the WP decided to provide a balance of opinion? It might. Why might **Sam** have referred only to that one opinion piece and not the other 3 or 4? Why indeed? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/625 "2004-08-24T15:36:19Z")
**elucidator:** What range? I don’t know, but they weren’t armored. The Swift Boats were civilian boats made out of _Aluminum_ with gun mounts put on them. There was limited armor around the gun tub on top and probably armor plate in front of the forward and aft guns. The hull itself was unarmored. Have you seen an aluminum boat before? A pistol round would go through it. An AK-47 round should punch through it like butter. And note that on a 75 yard wide river there is essentially no location that would not be considered ‘point blank’ range for an AK-47. It would be damned hard to miss four boats the size of semi trailers floating on the water a third of a football field away, and the bullets that hit should have punched right through. And we also have evidence that one boat had three bullet holes in it, proving that bullets do in fact punch through them. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/626 "2004-08-24T15:45:09Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Nothing about being a Green Beret makes you a better witness while you’re floating in choppy water wearing heavy gear and boots, repeatedly diving to the river bottom because you think you’re being shot at. Pretty hard to figure out what’s happening 75 yards away. How would you know? (And Rassmann _was_ being shot at, he didn’t “think” he was being shot at. He saw the bullets hitting the water) You need to keep up with the news, by the way. Schaacht was not on Kerry’s boat that night. The other two guys on the boat (not just Kerry) both deny that he was there. There is record anywhere that he was there. He wasn’t there. Schaacht has been refusing to comment since it was exposed that he was lying. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/627 "2004-08-24T15:45:35Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > > [@elucidator](#): > > > > My mother had cancer. Didn’t make her an oncologist. Just a victim. > > Oh, spare me. I really expect better from you. > > And, I’ll bet your mother could tell the oncologist a thing or two about pain and suffering. > > Barf. I think **elucidator** made a valid point. I would suggest that your year in Viet Nam makes you the world’s leading expert on your year’s experience in Viet Nam. Period. It doesn not make you an expert on swift boat tactics, the validity of military records in general or the reliability of memory of events of 35 years ago, including the reliability of your own memory. Since you seem to rely heavily on your experiences let me give you one of mine and the subsequent enlightening that has come to me. When I was in the bomb group in the ETO we second and first Lieutenants knew exactly what the Squadron and Group Commanders were doing wrong and how the outfit ought to be run. I also suspect that if 9[sup]th[/sup] Air Force commander General Vandenberg had stopped by we also could have given him considerable advice on his operations. I have long since realized that we didn’t really know anything except our take on one small unit in just one phase of a worldwide undertaking. We had no more understanding of the overall necessities of conducting such an operation than an angleworm stuck in the mud on the tire of an 18-wheeler has about designing it. In addition we only were aware of our experiences. We didn’t know anything about more about the life of an artilleryman, or infantryman or medic or engineer than a pig knows about Sunday. Your experiences are yours and you remember them, but that alone certainly doesn’t qualify you as an expert on those of a swift boat commander or crew man. And it certainly doesn’t qualify you to cast a shadow on the veracity of military records of that time or any other time. The plain fact is that the records of the time; the statements made by members of the chain of command at the time; and other documentation from the time support Kerry’s claims about the second of his two tours in Viet Nam and all this revisionism by a bunch of soreheads can’t change that. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/628 "2004-08-24T15:49:10Z")
**sevastapol:** Gee, maybe it was because I didn’t know about the others? I followed a link to that Op-Ed. But how about we discuss it rather than the side issues? If Kerry’s last mission journal records his curiousity about what Cambodia must be like, doesn’t that make you suspicous that he had been there ‘routinely’ in the past? Or even once? This flash now on drudge: [Kerry phones Swiftboat Vets](http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc98.htm) > [@](#): > > Dem presidential hopeful John Kerry personally phoned anti-Kerry swift boat vets, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. > > Kerry reached out to Robert “Friar Tuck” Brant Cdr., USN (RET) Sunday night, just hours after former Sen. Bob Dole publicly challenged Kerry to apologize to veterans. > > Brant was skipper of the #96 and # 36 boat and spent time with Kerry in An Thoi. Kerry and Brant slept in the same quarters, and Brant used to put Kerry back to bed at night when Kerry was sleepwalking. > > Brant received a call from Kerry at his home in Virginia while he was watching the Olympics on TV. > > The call lasted 10 minutes, sources tell DRUDGE. > > KERRY: “Why are all these swift boat guys opposed to me?” > > BRANT: “You should know what you said when you came back, the impact it had on the young sailors and how it was disrespectful of our guys that were killed over there.” > > [Brant had two men killed in battle.] > > KERRY: “When we dedicated swift boat one in '92, I said to all the swift guys that I wasn’t talking about the swifties, I was talking about all the rest of the veterans.” > > Kerry then asked if he could meet Brant [“You were one of the best”] – man to man – face to face. > > Brant declined the invite, explaining that Kerry was obviously not prepared to correct the record on exactly what happened during Vietnam and what happened when Kerry came back. ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/629 "2004-08-24T15:52:40Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **GLW** , you do realize, don’t you, that you’re trying to convince someone who can sincerely claim that both the rescuer and rescuee are lying about the circumstances of a rescue, while guys who weren’t there and have flip-flopped their stories are currently telling the truth? > > It’s a waste of time - after the amusement value has worn off, that is, which it certainly has by this time. Well, for _you_ it might have worn off. Me, I have this uncanny ability to focus, laserlike, on amusement value. A gift, I suppose. Some people can focus on truth, I wind up focussing on that which gives me a giggle. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Nothing about being a Green Beret makes you a better witness while you’re floating in choppy water wearing heavy gear and boots, repeatedly diving to the river bottom because you think you’re being shot at. Pretty hard to figure out what’s happening 75 yards away. But boring in after 35ish years leaves naught but shiny, sparkly truth, eh? And what of the report? The one that contradicts what the Swifties say? The one that also gave O’Neill **his** decoration? Actually, you’re right. There’s nothing whatsoever about being a Green Beret that’ll make you a better witness. But I’m kinda funny in my belief that the US Army trains 'em well enough that they can keep their heads in surprise situations. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly stated that if Rassmann says that things happened differently than the Swifties say, he **must** be mistaken. Now, why do you suppose that is? Wouldn’t have anything to do with your conservative stance, would it? Nah, I’m sure it’s just because you wish to focus on the truth. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/630 "2004-08-24T16:02:55Z")
> [@Sam](#): > > …I don’t know, but they weren’t armored… Well, that’s quite the point, **Sam**. You don’t know. And yet, without any hesitation, you assure us “…A pistol round would go through it. An AK-47 round should punch through it like butter…” Do you count ballistics amongst your ever widening gyre of expertise? Can you cite any of this? “…And note that on a 75 yard wide river there is essentially no location that would not be considered ‘point blank’ range for an AK-47…” If the guy were standing on the shore, plinking away. Which would seem an awful exposed position, no? Seems more likely they were firing from a position at some distance from the shore, in addition to the distance from the shore to boat itself. But this is my favorite for the day, this line is delivered with such wide-eyed innocence, makes Bambi look like Bismarck: “…You know, one way to determine which side is being more truthful in a situation like this is to look at which side is changing its story…” You mean like the aforementioned quotes from Londsdale, Elliott, Hoffman, and others? Quotes that directly contradict _their own testimony!_ Is that the kind of thing you mean, **Sam**? “… and not just as a bar tale, as a story used to influence government policy…” What government policy was influenced by this story, **Sam**? I missed that part. “…And the Swiftees say they have other eyewitnesses willing to come forward and testify as well. I think this is going to be their own ‘October Surprise’…” David Kay, boucing up and down on the balls of his tiny little feet, squeeking “Boy, you’re really in for a surprise! Really gonna get it this time…” And Admiral Schaacht? Been there, done that. The two guys on the boat for sure say he wasn’t there. Something like “Bob and me ain’t that smart, but we can count to three.” What was he doing there? Ballast? (I can cite that last bit, if I weren’t so lazy and easily…oooh! Look! Shiny!..) ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/631 "2004-08-24T16:07:01Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Cite? > > This is, what?..the fourth or fifth time I’ve asked this question? WhadIgodda do? Jump and down and wave my arms? > > **Sam! Sam!** Over here, **Sam**! Yoooooo-hooooo! AT…WHAT…RANGE…WOULD…AN AK-47…PUT A HOLE…IN A SWIFTBOAT!!! Get in line pally! I’m still waiting for the cite to the absolute quote from John Kerry himself that he sped out of the kill zone, or about how the swift boats couldn’t navigate in the rivers of Cambodia, or the Joe Wilson rampage, or hell, just for old times’ sake, even the Bushes being the two biggest supporters of NASA in the last 30 years. Forget your CD charity drive, we better start collecting for the citeless. Give generously. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/632 "2004-08-24T16:12:13Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And Admiral Schaacht? Been there, done that. The two guys on the boat for sure say he wasn’t there. Something like “Bob and me ain’t that smart, but we can count to three.” What was he doing there? Ballast? > > (I can cite that last bit, if I weren’t so lazy and easily…oooh! Look! Shiny!..) I got your back, **'lucy**. [The NY Times on the lying sack of Schachte](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?pagewanted=4&hp): > [@](#): > > The group also offers the account of William L. Schachte Jr., a retired rear admiral who says in the book that he had been on the small skimmer on which Mr. Kerry was injured that night in December 1968. He contends that Mr. Kerry wounded himself while firing a grenade. > > But the two other men who acknowledged that they had been with Mr. Kerry, Bill Zaladonis and Mr. Runyon, say they cannot recall a third crew member. “Me and Bill aren’t the smartest, but we can count to three,” Mr. Runyon said in an interview. And even Dr. Letson said he had not recalled Mr. Schachte until he had a conversation with another veteran earlier this year and received a subsequent phone call from Mr. Schachte himself. > > Mr. Schachte did not return a telephone call, and a spokesman for the group said he would not comment. [More from Runyon](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?pagewanted=3&hp) on how the Swifties misrepresented his testimony regarding Kerry’s first Purple Heart: > [@](#): > > Patrick Runyon, who served on a mission with Mr. Kerry, said he initially thought the caller was from a pro-Kerry group, and happily gave a statement about the night Mr. Kerry won his first Purple Heart. The investigator said he would send it to him by e-mail for his signature. Mr. Runyon said the edited version was stripped of all references to enemy combat, making it look like just another night in the Mekong Delta. > > “It made it sound like I didn’t believe we got any returned fire,” he said. “He made it sound like it was a normal operation. It was the scariest night of my life.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/633 "2004-08-24T16:15:31Z")
No! No! As this thread amply demonstrates, Cognitive Dissonance is the number one threat to our nation! If calm and sensible Canadians are vulnerable, what hope is there for us? These are people who say “excuse me” when you run them over! People who don’t shoot at Mike Moore, don’t even lock thier doors when they see him coming! Doom! Doom, I tell you! Niether candidate has any policy, any plan _whatsoever_ to counter the dreadful menace of Cognitive Dissonance!.. Ahhhh! Cassandra had it easy… ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/634 "2004-08-24T16:16:08Z")
I’m amused by the way \*\*Sam \*\* has gone from claiming the \*absence \* of bullet holes supports his predetermined Kerry-lied position to claiming that their \*presence \* does. [Bill Saletan](http://slate.msn.com/id/2105529/) explains to those still thrashing around looking for something \*Kerry \* lied about so they can dismiss the stream of proven lies from his accusers: > [@](#): > > So let’s review the situation. On Christmas Eve 1968, Kerry’s Swift boat and at least two river-patrol boats were doing something unusual (Kerry wrote that he’d never been so far in-country) at least in the vicinity of the border—“near the Cambodian line,” as he put it in his diary. And Kerry had with him a book that described a Pentagon study on psychological operations against Cambodia. > > It is certain that by this time, the United States had long been making secret incursions across the border. This is from Page 24 of William Shawcross’ 1979 book, Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia: > > > [@](#): > > > > Since May 1967, when the U.S. Military Command in Saigon became concerned at the way the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were evading American “search and destroy” and air attacks in Vietnam by making more use of bases in Laos and Cambodia, the U.S. Special Forces had been running special, highly classified missions into the two countries. Their code name was Daniel Boone. > > > > The Daniel Boone teams entered Cambodia all along its 500-mile frontier with South Vietnam from the lonely, craggy, impenetrable mountain forests in the north, down to the well-populated _and thickly reeded waterways along the Mekong River._ [Italics added.] > > We know that Kerry’s boat and two others were in those reeds on Christmas Eve '68…Did Kerry cross the border or just go up to it? We may never know for sure. Not much paperwork exists for covert operations (officially, U.S. forces weren’t in Cambodia). Nor is it likely that a canny Swift-boat skipper (and Kerry was nothing if not canny) would jot down thoughts about such covert operations in a diary on a boat that might be captured by the enemy. > > The circumstances at least suggest that Kerry was indeed involved in a “black” mission, even if he had never explicitly made that claim. And why would he make such claims if he hadn’t been? It was neither a glamorous nor a particularly admirable mission—certainly nothing to boast of. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/635 "2004-08-24T16:28:28Z")
This just in: John Kerry claimed that he invented the internet during an interview with the author of Love Story sitting on the banks of Love Canal. Subsequently he went out and fathered an illegitimate black child while his wife was at home abusing drugs with Osama bin Laden. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/636 "2004-08-24T16:32:37Z")
Which wife? The one he drove insane with his lies and philandering, and then discarded? Or the one who now claims to be “African-American”, speaks five languages but not one of them is Ebonics? Speaks _French_, though. You can just bet she speaks _French!!_ ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/637 "2004-08-24T17:27:22Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, that’s quite the point, **Sam**. You don’t know. And yet, without any hesitation, you assure us “…A pistol round would go through it. An AK-47 round should punch through it like butter…” Do you count ballistics amongst your ever widening gyre of expertise? Can you cite any of this? Having fired 7.62 rounds before at various targets, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that one would punch a hole in an aluminum hull from 35 yards. A NATO 7.62 round can punch through 3/8" steel plate from 100 yards. A swift boat was made from 1/4" aluminum alloy. Specifications [here](http://swiftboats.net/extras/boat_specifications.htm). Interesting is the note that crewmen would hang flak jackets on the sides to protect them from bullets coming through the hull. Any more questions about bullets? > [@](#): > > “…And note that on a 75 yard wide river there is essentially no location that would not be considered ‘point blank’ range for an AK-47…” > > If the guy were standing on the shore, plinking away. Which would seem an awful exposed position, no? Seems more likely they were firing from a position at some distance from the shore, in addition to the distance from the shore to boat itself. Well, it was supposed to be an ambush. You’d think they’d be shooting from effective positions. But as I’ve shown, since a 7.62 (AK round) can punch through 3/8" steel at 100 yards, I’d imagine an AK should be able to punch through 1/4" aluminum from hundreds of yards away. > [@](#): > > But this is my favorite for the day, this line is delivered with such wide-eyed innocence, makes Bambi look like Bismarck: > > “…You know, one way to determine which side is being more truthful in a situation like this is to look at which side is changing its story…” > > You mean like the aforementioned quotes from Londsdale, Elliott, Hoffman, and others? Quotes that directly contradict _their own testimony!_ Is that the kind of thing you mean, **Sam**? No, I mean the accounts of the action as described by O’Neill in his book. Let’s recap: In the Bay Hap incident, O’Neill says that the 3 boat was blown up. All the other boats went to its rescue, except for Kerry’s, which inexplicably roared off down the river. Kerry’s flatly denied this. Here is his account, starting on page 314 of ‘Tour of Duty’: > [@](#): > > Right where they had been hit on the earlier mission, a mine went off directly beneath PCF-3 just off Kerry’s port side Kerry was actually across the river. There was a fishing net stretched across the river with a gap on both sides. Kerry went around one side, the other boats around the other. > [@](#): > > “At the same moment, we came under a hail of small-arms fire from both banks” Kerry recorded in his journal. “I turned the boat into the fire on the left with the intention of trying to get the troops ashore on the outskirts of the ambush, but Sandusky, who was driving the boat and who had his eyes glued on the cripped three boat, pointed to how badly hit they had been. We veered back toward her then and tried to provide cover from the engaged side. Suddenly another explosion went off right behind us, and the consussion threw me violently against the bulkhead on the door and I smashed my arm”. At that instant, Army Lieutenant Jim Rassman, **who was on PCF-35** , was blown overboard, although nobody knew it. Kerry wrote, "We continued sidling up to the 3, and as we came closer I could see that her twin .50 mount over the pilothouse had been completely blown out of its stand and had landed on the gunner. No one was moving on the stern. This bears only a passing resemblance to the action as recreated by the excellent article in the Washington Post, which clearly shows Kerry motoring daway from the action as the OTHER boats went in to help PCF-3. > [@](#): > > Larry Thurlow had manoevered his PCF-51 over by this time, and he hopped aboard PCF-3 to offer assistance. The boat was a shambles but they were still shooting too hard to assess any damage. Meanshile, Lieutenant Rassman, **several hundred yards in back of them** , was receiving sniper fire from both banks. “Someone on the fantail must have noticed Jim swimming in back of us ducking the fire that was trying to pick him off because suddenly I heard the yell of ‘man overboard’ and looked back to see the bulets splashing in the water beside hm” Kerry rereported. “We turned around with the engines screaming against each other - one full astern, the other full forward - and then charged several hundred yards back into the ambush where Jim was trying to find some cover. Everyone on board must have been firing without pause to keep the sniper heards down” Got that? Rassman was several hundred yards behind them. This is flatly impossible, given that Kerry describes Rassman as being blown off the boat AFTER the 3 boat was mined - at which point Kerry was IN FRONT of the 3 boat. To repeat - Kerry says that he went to the aid of the 3-boat, and only after they got there did they notice Rassman was in the water, several hundred yards behind them. Then Kerry turned around and went back for him. Also note that in this account Rassman isn’t even on Kerry’s boat when he goes overboard. The account continues: > [@](#): > > Thurlow was now struggling to get PCF-3’s wounded gunner out of his hole and onto the deck. Suddenly the damaged Swift ran aground hard on a shoal on the right side of the river, sending Thurlow somersaulting into the water. At the same moment, the Swifts came under fire from the right side again, and Kerry remembered thinking that was it - they were going to get completely cut off and annihilated in a cross fire. Spontaneously, every boat there stood its ground and filled the entire right bank of the river with .50 caliber, M-79, M-16 and any other firepower any of them had, while one of the Swifts moved in an retrieved Thurlow, who had picked himself up out of the mud. PCF-94 then moved in and attached a line to the wounded boat’s stern to try to tow PCF-3 out, but the tether snapped. Kerry went in again to put another ine on, and this one held. “We managed to get her clear of the kill zone”, he exulted. “Finally, the tumult subsided.” Now, this account bears almost no resemblance to what actually happened according to the Post’s reconstruction. According to the post, Kerry went around one side of the river, the PCF-3 was on the other. When the mine went off, the other boats immediately headed for the 3 boat. Kerry took off at least a few hundreds yards down the river. Then he turned around and headed back after he realized that Rassman was off the boat. By the time he got back to Rassman, another Swift boat was already heading over to pick him up. Kerry didn’t get over to the 3 boat for some time, well after rescue operations were underway. And that bit about towing the 3-boat? Kerry says that ‘the tumult finally subsided’ after they pulled the boat clear of the ‘kill zone’. He doesn’t mention that this took AN HOUR AND A HALF. His Rassman story is clearly wrong. Later accounts by both Kerry and Rassman put Rassman on Kerry’s boat - a detail you’d think they wouldn’t have overlooked. Rassman’s own account, from the _Wall Street Journal_: > [@](#): > > 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. Except that the other boats were on the other side of the River, and Rassman was supposed to be on PCF-35. > [@](#): > > 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. Except that they didn’t, and couldn’t, because PCF-3 was dead in the water. In fact, all the boats but Kerry’s were no more than 50 yards from Rassman, all dead in the water. And three other people were also in the water. > [@](#): > > … and not just as a bar tale, as a story used to influence government policy…" > > What government policy was influenced by this story, **Sam**? I missed that part. Kerry used that story on the floor of Congress in 1986, in testimony against Reagan’s plan to arm the Contras. > [@](#): > > “…And the Swiftees say they have other eyewitnesses willing to come forward and testify as well. I think this is going to be their own ‘October Surprise’…” > > David Kay, boucing up and down on the balls of his tiny little feet, squeeking “Boy, you’re really in for a surprise! Really gonna get it this time…” > > And Admiral Schaacht? Been there, done that. The two guys on the boat for sure say he wasn’t there. Something like “Bob and me ain’t that smart, but we can count to three.” What was he doing there? Ballast? I believe he was the Lieutenant in charge. Kerry was still in training. But yeah, here’s another eyewitness dispute. Guess we’ll have to wait and see how it shakes out. > [@](#): > > (I can cite that last bit, if I weren’t so lazy and easily…oooh! Look! Shiny!..) And yet, I had to go and get a cite for an obvious assertion that anyone who has fired a rifle would know - that a high powered rifle can punch through thin aluminum. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/638 "2004-08-24T17:31:28Z")
A moment to consider Steve Gardner. The bleary eyed reader will recall that Mr. Gardner was the one…count 'em, one!..man who actually served with Sen Kerry on the same boat who disputes Sen Kerry’s account of events. [http://www.dispatch.com/election/election-president.php?story=dispatch/2004/08/06/20040806-A6-00.html](http://www.dispatch.com/election/election-president.php?story=dispatch/2004/08/06/20040806-A6-00.html) > [@](#): > > …Although he did not appear in the ad, Gardner, 56, of Clover, S.C., agreed with those statements — \*while conceding he was not on the boat \* with Kerry during the incidents for which Kerry got his medals. Gardner criticized his leadership in battle, questioned his anti-war activities, and cited other instances in which he said Kerry falsified reports to make himself look good. > > “We had that war won until John Kerry and Hanoi Jane Fonda stuck their nose in it,” Gardner said. “He’s a traitor.” … (emphasis mine) 'Nuff sed. Not even going into his analysis of the strategic situation as regards the prospect of victory in Viet Nam. Except, of course, that he was _there_, so that makes him an expert, right, **Snakespirit**? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/639 "2004-08-24T17:44:44Z")
**Hentor** said: > [@](#): > > Get in line pally! I’m still waiting for the cite to the absolute quote from John Kerry himself that he sped out of the kill zone, Still can’t find that quote, but note that the Post’s reconstruction of events shows Kerry doing exactly that. > [@](#): > > or about how the swift boats couldn’t navigate in the rivers of Cambodia, Which is not at all what I said, and you know it. I said that Swift boats are a poor choice for COVERT missions into Cambodia because A) they are very big, B) they are very loud, and C) they have propellers that can foul or be damaged in shallow water. PBR’s would make a much better choice because they are smaller, more agile, much quieter, and use jet drives. > [@](#): > > or the Joe Wilson rampage, or hell, just for old times’ sake, even the Bushes being the two biggest supporters of NASA in the last 30 years. You’ve got a lot of nerve bringing that up, because I spanked you hard in that thread, as I’ve pointed out several times when youv’e brought it up. I’ve posted links to the thread on numerous occasions and invited anyone to go read it to see if your account is even remotely accurate, and no one has come to your defense. I suggest you drop the whole Bush/NASA thing. Because you lost, badly. Oh, and while we’re on that, remember when everyone said that the new Bush “Moon/Mars” thing was just an election gimmick, and Bush wouldn’t stick to it? Well guess what - the house de-funded the new initiative, and Bush has now promised his first-ever veto if funding is not restored. Sounds like he’s sticking to it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2004, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262/640 "2004-08-24T17:49:56Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > …And yet, I had to go and get a cite for an obvious assertion that anyone who has fired a rifle would know - that a high powered rifle can punch through thin aluminum. Well, I don’t know much about military armament, **Sam**. Certainly not enough to challenge your vast expertise. So you can clear this up for me, I’m sure. I believe the phrase “high powered rifle” generally refers to hunting type rifles, where shots from longer range require greater precision. A snipers rifle would be a high powered rifle. The assault rifle is a different animal altogether, according the military expertise I’ve gleaned from the _History Channel_. Its entire purpose is short-range, get-as-much-lead-in-the-air-soonest approach. Assault rifles are generally loaded with pistol ammunition, because there is no advantage to be had with a serious level of muzzle-velocity. If it can kill at 50 yards _or less_, its purpose is met. It is intended to be lethal at short range. Pistol ammunition also produces less recoil, permitting the weapon to remain focused on the target, “target re-acquisition”, I believe it is called. (Forgive me, Ghandi, for knowing this shit, I didn’t really want to…) I dimly recall reading that the AK 47 (“designed by a genius to be used by a simpleton”) was considered superior under the conditions of jungle guerilla war _precisely_ because it was a low-power weapon: bullets cheaper to make, require less powder, require less cartridge, that sort of thing. So your analogy to a pistol is likely more relevant than you realize. I make no claim to expertise here, but what little I do know indicates that the matter is more open to debate than you imply. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-kerry-and-vietnam/258262.md?page=33)