[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I would, however, like to know why you find Rood’s testimony believable, and the testimony of other Swift boat skippers not believable.
QUOTE]
Let’s be a little precise here. Rood’s testimony applies only to the action for which Kerry got the Silver Star. In that instance his testimonly is believable and that of other swift boat skippers is not is because he was there and they were not.
I am.
Having grown up in St. Louis, I can say this without reserve: You have my pity.
Um, when was it that “we” didn’t have any witnesses on “our” side? Rassmann was pulled from the river and the crew backs up Kerry. Or are you trying to sow confusion as you run away from your (ahem) position?
Well, see, I already explained this: the Swifties (good men all, upstanding, true &c.) are simply confused. Kerry and his posse (including that goosey Green Beret Rassmann) are the ones whoe remember correctly. Not surprising that the Swifties are rattled inre their memories. I understand that battle will do that to you.
Y’know, I’m not at all surprised that you want to zero in on what you consider problems. After all, the problems that you reference are questions into Kerry’s conduct that have been posed by sober and thoughtful people who have never had to eat their words on television and whose accounts now line up precisely with their accounts in 1968. None of them ever threw in with a racist schmuck to co-write a book, or have spread more and more crap in the hope that something, anything, will stick to Kerry. Nope. Not a one.
No you wouldn’t. You want to hear explanations that match your view of what you wish had happened. Anything else is patent nonsense and your view will not be properly buttressed until everyone else believes the anal leakage that issues forth from the Swifties. Because they, like you, are only interested in the truth.
You will if you decide to be honest. Of course, if you continue in this vein, well, something less than truth will out. Which doesn’t really surprise me at all.
As opposed to what was written at the time. Because it doesn’t fit into the Sam Stone version of what he considers to be true.
Maybe I’m just not quite getting it, but what matter of any importance is supposedly under dispute with respect to the Bronze Star incident? Here is the text of the citation for the award. Which elements are under dispute?
So far as I can discern, there seem to be six elements here regarding Kerry and his actions.
(1) Mine exploded, knocking Rassmann into the water and wounding Kerry’s arm. I’ve seen a suggestion from one crew member that maybe a rocket was involved, but outside of Sam Stone’s unsubstantiated suggestion that Rassaman fell overboard when Kerry executed some sort of tight turn, it does not appear to me that anyone is seriously disputing that some sort of explosion struck Kerry’s boat.
(2) All units began receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. Doesn’t say how much fire or how long it lasted, of course, and it’s clear that Kerry’s boat was somewhat removed from the other boats, but everybody on Kerry’s boat and at least a couple folks from the other boats report enemy fire. As does Larry Thurlow’s own Bronze Star citation, of course. Is anybody here really contesting that enemy fire was involved at some point?
(3) Kerry headed back upriver to pick up Rassmann when he realized he had fallen overboard. This is not under dispute at all, even though there appears to be some pointless nitpicking going on regarding just how far upriver Kerry had gone before returning.
(4) Rassmann was receiving sniper fire from both banks. This, of course, is reported by Rassmann himself, who, as a Green Beret, ought to have a certain amount of credibility on the mattter (particularly since all parties seem to agree that Kerry’s boat continued upriver for some distance, making it extremely unlikely that Rassmann would have mistaken the boat’s own firing for incoming fire aimed at him). It is also backed up by every man on Kerry’s boat. Again, is anybody here really contesting that Rassmann was under fire while in the water? If so, what is your evidence, and why do you believe it to be more credible than the testimony of the witnesses who were closest to the incident and the contemporary documentary evidence?
(5) Kerry pulled Rassamnn aboard, wounded arm and all. No dispute about this, right?
(6) Kerry then returned to the other boats and towed the crippled boat back to base. Again, no dispute. Also, nobody at all claims that they were still under fire while this activity was occurring, which had to have taken considerably more time than the Rassmann incident.
So as far as I can tell, all this comes down to whether they were under fire, right? And the overwhelming weight of testimony and all contemporary documentary evidence indicates that they were under fire, at least for a little while, right?
[hijack]As a civilian who worked closely with naval officers for 31 years what tickles my fancy about the citation is the meticulous care with which it is emphasized that Kerry was a Lietennant (junior grade). The Navy might screw up everything else but it is made certain that that particular item is immaculate. I’m surprised that the officers’ bar sinister USNR wasn’t added. After all, Kerry wasn’t an acadamy man and probably didn’t know more than a couple of verses of Ivan Skavinsky Skivar.[/hijack]
Kerry was also a Lieutenant (junior grade). The rank I gave him in the post above is my own private invention (patent pending).
The link below is a message to the Swift Boat Vets from another Vietnam veteran.
Sam and co. probably won’t give it any weight, as the writer wasn’t there at any of the disputed events [AFAIK] I thought it was relevant, though, as it shows his heart-felt opposition to the way that the swifties, by their attacks on Kerry, are dishonouring all those who served in Vietnam.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082304V.shtml
His letter ends with
An important distinction that seems lost on you is the difference between supporting a war but evading being a part of it yourself vs. being against a war and evading being a part of it. The latter is at least a morally consistent and defensible position.
Kerry actually did the most honorable thing which is to personally participate in the war with bravery and distinction but then to protest against it once he saw firsthand what was actually happening there. That he is now being given shit for all this just shows how brainless American politics has become on this subject.
Is he serious?
You asked for “evidence”, right? You seem to have a problem differentiating “proof” and “evidence”. No, I take that back, you do know the difference. You’re just pretending they are the same so you can play a shell-game. Ask for evidence, hold the evidence up to the standard of proof and envision yourself scoring a debate point. See what I mean about fantacizing?
Gee, Nancy, I realize that it’s comfy in fantasyland, but ya really need to get back to reality.
What does Occam’s Razor tell ya?
Another “Doper” tactic… calling for a “cite” on something that is common knowledge to the public at-large. There are only two reasons for such a request. (1.) Either the one who makes the request is truly ignorant of a fact that is generally known to the populace, or (2.) The one making the request is trying to score debate points by putting up hoops for opposition to jump through, in hopes of annoying his opponent into “disappearing”, thus enabling the one making the petty request to claim victory.
Here’s some “bullshit” for ya.
The reason that you are hangin’ out and waitin’, is because evidently you do not know the difference between evidence and proof.
No, Tinkerbelle, you misinterpreted what I wrote. When I appologized and clairified the statement, you reveal your true character for all to see, by refusing to take my word for what I meant. Nice, real nice.
Kerry supporters (you) are shortsighted in that they cannot see the hypocrisy in letting Clinton slide on avoiding Viet Nam and then chastising Bush on avoiding Viet Nam. As for the grief, Kerry is the one who is making his Viet Nam service the centerpiece of his campaign, thus inviting the scrutiny.
It never came up??? You don’t recall Clinton’s draft-dodging as an issue? ? You don’t recall Clinton getting help from the ROTC commander to avoid the draft, and then not joining the ROTC as promised?? You don’t recall Clinton writing a letter describing how he “loathed the military”??
You know, when you asked for that “cite”, I had you pegged for the type that was just trying to be an annoyance. On second thought, maybe you are just ignorant of facts that are generally known to the populace. Either way, it don’t look good on your part.
Hardly the case, being that I am a veteran myself. 1972-76 Overseas - Thailand
What seems to be lost on you and your ilk is the hypocrisy in chastising Bush over avoiding Viet Nam by enlisting in the Guard, while giving Clinton a pass while actually dodging the draft.
Can you truly not see the hypocrisy?
I bet you really do.
This just in. GWB has finally denounced the Swiftie ads.
Of course, it’s a little bit late and a little bit muted but it’s something. I wonder if it has anything to do with the Swiftie stories coming apart at the seams or the other witnesses now coming out of the woodwork to defend John Kerry.
A rat deserting a sinking ship or a ship deserting some sinking rats?
Diogenes, I don’t think that he has denounced the ads. In fact, I don’t think his statement is really any different than the robotic non-response that McClellan has been giving about 527’s all along. It’s an evasion, giving him room to have people write headlines that he said they should stop, when he’s just saying that it should all stop. Besides, isn’t this a flip-flop for Bush, who was so very concerned about protecting political free speech just a little while ago?
Clinton never claimed to be a member of the armed forces, unlike Bush.
If Bush has really denounced the ‘swifties’ does that mean that Razorsharp, Sam, and their other supporters in this thread will now also denounce them - and in doing so, admit that they might just have been wrong?
Aw, hell, let it go. This “denunciation” isn’t much more grudging than Kerry’s, but it still amounts to a strategic victory for Kerry that’s possibly stronger than showing the aircraft-carrier “Mission Accomplished” footage would be. We’re still going to see that, though, that’s inevitable.
“denunciation”, my ass! He’s denouncing all those ads, while taking great pains to paint himself as being a victim as well of all those dreadful attack ads. He’s angling himself to allow his apologists to claim, as they already have claimed, that he has condemned the ads content, when all he’s actually talking about is the procedure.
Are we to believe that he doesn’t have a calender, and doesn’t know that all those “527” ads are shortly gone anyway? He is committing a major portion of his income to charity, just as soon as his bankruptcy is filed. He makes a big display of integrity and civility, at no cost whatsoever.
My bet: this was the absolute minimum that McCain would accept without bolting.
You gotta admire the *chutzpah * of the Kerry campaign-- bringing a law suit against the Bush campaign for coordinating activities with the Swifties on the one hand, and then calling on Bush to ask the Swifties to pull the ad. Looks like entrapment! 