Hentor, you have me very confused here. Way back on page one of this thread, you were insinuating that the testimony of the men on other boats (generally against Kerry) should be discounted in favor of the testimony of his shipmates, who generally supported him.
Now you’re using the testimony of people not on Kerry’s boat to support his version of events.
This seems fundamentally dishonest. If you discount the Swift Boat veterans simply because they “weren’t there”, you have to discount Rood and these other guys as well. Otherwise, drop that particular line of argument.
Bullet holes in Thurlows boat (He got them the day before, he says? His own citation says otherwise).
We have independent confirmation of armed VC on the shore, including at least one kill.
We have every single witness in Kerry’s boat, and some outside the boat, calling the Shifty Vets liars.
You have yet to offer an explanation as to why all those witnesses are supporting Kerry. You insult them by questioning their “memory” because it doesn’t fit reality as you would like it to be.
We know the Shifties have an agenda. We know they’ve been busted lying innumerable times already without making a scratch in Kerry.(So he was in Cambodia in January instead of December. Who really gives a shit that isn’t just looking for an excuse to bash John Kerry?)
Those supporting Kerry do not have an agenda. They are not being funded by anyone else. They are not even organized. These guys are being slimed as much as Kerry is because the Shifties are calling them liars too.
The more scrutiny his medals are subjected to, the more obvious it is that he deserved them.
I’m quite sure that I have argued against the testimony of witnesses who were not there. I’m quite sure I never suggested that someone who was at the scene, but not on his boat, should be discounted for that reason.
I suspect that you are still online, so do me the favor of quoting where I said witnesses who were on the scene should be discounted because they were not on his boat. Please do so immediately.
No? Nothing Moto? Not surprised at the tuck and run. Perhaps, however, you were referring to my question to you about whether the opinions of those who actually served under John Kerry should be given more weight than those who did not. Why you chose to conflate this with an issue of eyewitness testimony is beyond me, and is, in your words, fundamentally dishonest.
But about par for the course for Bush defenders these days. Sad and pathetic.
Diogenes: Yeah, I have been paying attention. I acknowledged all your points. I can’t explain them. But I also haven’t been given sufficient explanation for the contrary evidence, some of which seems very compelling. It seems first of all ridiculous that if there was heavy gunfire the boats would have staged an elaborate effort to save the 3 boat, which by all accounts took at least an hour. They would have plucked the guys off the boat and gotten the hell out of Dodge. The fact is, no one there that day seems to have behaved as if they were taking heavy fire from the river banks.
The physical evidence indicates there was no heavy firefight. At most we have three bullet holes in one boat. This beggars belief. A Swift Boat is the size of a house trailer. It was about as far away from the banks as your neighbor’s house across the street. If I gave you an AK-47, do you think you could hit it? If a bunch of people armed with AK’s took aim at your neighbor’s house, do you think they might be able to put more than three holes in it? It makes no sense.
Then there’s the matter of Kerry claiming there were two other mine explosions. He claims to have been injured when a mine detonated nearby, knocking him around in the wheelhouse and throwing Rassmann overboard. But no one else says there was a second mine explosion, and Kerry has contradicted himself before and said that Rassman fell off the boat when Kerry executed a turn.
Also, we know that Kerry was lying about the ‘no man left behind’ thing. He claimed that the other boats ran and he went back for Rassmann. Rassmann’s story backed that up. It didn’t happen that way. He ran, the other boats stayed. That calls into question Rassmann’s testimony as well as Kerry’s.
I don’t know where the truth will settle out. The facts are contradictory, and both the Swiftees story and Kerry’s have holes that seem pretty hard to plug. Perhaps that’s just the nature of trying to dredge memories over 35 years.
You’ve been looking for a way to do so without undermining your core thesis that Kerry was a coward and a liar. Perhaps if you disabused yourself of that cherished preconception the facts would fit together better for you? Just a suggestion.
Then who was lying in the after-battle report and the Bronze Star recommendation for Thurlow that says there was? O’Neill or someone else in the Swiftees?
Up from zero the last time you posted. Yawn.
If I was aiming for the boat (trying to sink it? what are you suggesting?) and not the exposed crew members themselves, maybe. It would help if I wasn’t trying to find cover from return fire, myself.
A turn just for the fun of it, maybe to see who’d be thrown off balance? Or as part of evasive action?
Read the WaPo story yourself, dammit. Kerry went right, around the weir, the other boats bunched up and went left, one at a time, around the other side of the weir. That’s not “staying” except in the sense of forming a traffic jam, unless you’d like to suggest that staying in the enemy’s range of fire after the mission is completed is a sign of bravery instead of foolhardiness or ineptitude while leaving it is cowardice.
I fear I am no match for friend Sam in terms of expertise as regards combat operations in Viet Nam, circa 1968. But a few of these points have already been noted and commented upon.
You bring up this Thurlow fellow as though we’d not heard of him, but of course we have, we have heard that his eyewitness testimony is at odds with another eyewitness: himself. You toss the full weight of his testimony upon us and it floats away like smoke.
Not at all. You are confusing intrinsic value with cumulative value: the number of witnesses who have not impeached their own testimony grows on Sen Kerry’s side. Their individual testimony is no more nor less than any other witness, provided they have not already undermined their own credibility. As the numbers of such witnesses increase, the numerical weight of thier testimony increases: one credible witness, 1 stone on the scale, six credible witnesses, six stones on the scale. Quite simple, really.
And its not “physical evidence that contradicts…gunfire…” but that lack of evidence to affirm it. Which is not the same thing, however you may wish it otherwise.
No. At most you have introduced doubt. We acknowledge doubt, what we do not acknowledge is your insistence that doubt proves something. And, of course, it can’t.
Again, I must defer to your fine grasp of US military regulations regarding medals and the awarding. I’m not Canadian, you understand. Correct me where I’m wrong, but wouldn’t Kerry be awarded a PH if the rice were booby-trapped? And doesn’t destroying the enemies resources constitute an attack on the enemy? If you were wounded blowing up an ammo dump, wouldn’t you be considered worthy of such an award? It would be helpful if you can clear up these fine points regarding such military procedures, given your acknowledged expertise.
Again, I defer to your vast and encompassing knowledge. But humbly I wonder: isn’t a soldier under orders obligated by regulation to report any injury? So that his superior officers might be aware of his limitations? I don’t recall reading how a soldier offers himself for an award, what forms he fills out to accomplish this. In fact, I was under the impression we were advised that he cannot, somebody else must do so. Are we misinformed?
You have an odd linguistic quirk, Sam. Where there is contradictory testimony, you choose “debunked” when you mean “doubtful”. Debunked implies a certainty that you have already stated you do not possess. Nice spin control, tho.
Aside from insisting that it is so, you have provided no evidence. Save the flexible Mr. Thurlow, who sees the truth from many directions at once, according to the needs of the moment. The talented Mr Thurlow, who can peer into mens minds and see plans aforming.
The VC were lousy shots? Blasting away with weapons designed for close combat and not for naval bombardments? They were wary about lifting thier heads up to get a good aim, when the Americans are chopping up the countryside with heavy machine gun fire? Perhaps their revolutionary zeal did not extend to cranial amputation by .50 calibre bullet? (I’m given to understand that Charlie was drafted, too. And so it goes, that’s some catch, that catch 22…)
If I fire a bullet from an AK-47 some…what? 50 yards? 100? does it retain sufficient velocity to pierce the side of one of these boats? I certainly hope not, I should very much want to know if the boat was built under contract to Halliburton’s Balsa Wood Armory subsidiary. I have every confidence that your expertise is quite sufficient, but will probably ask for a cite anyway just 'cause…well, that’s just how I am.
But here’s the thing: as our illustrious correspondent from Flat has pointed out, we are not required to prove anything. The event was officially recorded, witnesses have spoken, reported, and awards were made. That is so. If you are going to declare as a fact that the facts as reported are not true, you are obliged to prove it. All you got is maybe, however much you insist otherwise.
And I rather imagine that, in other circumstances, you would demand a higher order of proof if the character being assassinated were not Mr. Kerry’s.
And on a trival note: the Senators butt, and the hole therein.
Howzabout this scenario? Kerry incurs a compartativley trivial wound blowing up enemy rice supplies. Dumb move, coulda got killed, didn’t. Nonetheless, he is injured and will have to report the injury. While he’s pondering this development, all this other shit happens. He pulls Rasmann out of the water and says something like:
“Hey, troop, I just saved your ass. I got a hole in mine, got it having shit for brains. Gonna have to report it. Would kinda like to say I got it when the mine went off, don’t look like such a asshole, ya know? Back me up on that? Besides, its my ticket out of here, back to the world…”
“You kidding me, man? If that’s what it takes to get you on your way home, I’ll say you walked on the river to pull me out!”
This might not meet certain excruciatingly correct standards for military behavior. But I, for one, would have no problem forgiving it. None whatsoever.
Would you like to see the grave of the last guy who called me “nice”? I’m not from Minnesota, I’ve just been hiding out here since I got run out of Texas.
Besides, being mean to Canadians? Be like bitch-slapping Don Knotts, not much to brag on.
Nobody’s obligated to live by arbitrary deadlines set by other members, Hentor. I’m on a business trip to St. Louis for ten days, and decided to relieve a little stress by watching a movie.
Sorry if that looked like “dodging a question”.
I’m also sorry if I misinterpreted your question on the front page as an insinuation that that is indeed your position regarding the Swift vet testimony. I would, however, like to know why you find Rood’s testimony believable, and the testimony of other Swift boat skippers not believable.
You seem inclined to believe only those skippers that support Kerry, which seems incredibly partisan to me. I’m trying to look somewhat impartially at this whole mess.
Aw, come on. You’re a conservative Republican, I believe. Sam is also from the conservative end of the spectrum. Elucidator and Hentor are liberals, as are most of the rest of the posters in this thread. Noone’s looking impartially at this particular mess.
Yep, but I’m also a Navy veteran. In other threads, I’ve been very respectful of Kerry’s heroism. And I really don’t like pissing contests among veterans.
I’m going to vote for Bush in November, sure enough. But this issue won’t be any part of my decision.
