Anyone see what Drudge is claiming this morning
I’m seeing lots of pubbies this morning proclaiming that this is proof that Kerry is lying.
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!!!
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 in the Washington Post this morning regarding “Christmas in Cambodia”:
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!..)
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.
I got your back, 'lucy.
The NY Times on the lying sack of Schachte:
More from Runyon on how the Swifties misrepresented his testimony regarding Kerry’s first Purple Heart:
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…
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 explains to those still thrashing around looking for something *Kerry * lied about so they can dismiss the stream of proven lies from his accusers:
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.
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!!
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. 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?
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.
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’:
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.
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.
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:
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:
Except that the other boats were on the other side of the River, and Rassman was supposed to be on PCF-35.
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.
Kerry used that story on the floor of Congress in 1986, in testimony against Reagan’s plan to arm the Contras.
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.
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.
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.
(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?
Hentor said:
Still can’t find that quote, but note that the Post’s reconstruction of events shows Kerry doing exactly that.
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.
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.
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.