John Kerry and Vietnam

Great Debates
641

[Something of an aside…]

I think the vast majority of the Swifties have been conned. They were approached with the come-on “Lets expose John Kerry’s lies about Viet Nam!” There is a considerable number of people who believe with Mr. Gardner, above, that Kerry lied about the conduct of the war, and fervently hate him as a result.

(There are also a considerable number of men who revere Sen Kerry for telling the truth. Interesting question: how many members Viet Nam Veterans Against the War, or Veterans for Kerry, compared to those opposed?)

So these guys signed on, testifying by their membership that they opposed Sen Kerry’s interpretation of events in Viet Nam. They became members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. They testify only to their opinion about Sen. Kerry’s statements as an anti-war activist. They might very well be inclined to be receptive to the suggestion that Sen Kerry was a scoundrel and a liar as regards his own heroism or lack thereof. But that isn’t what drew them in, it was a political disagreement.

If thats the case, it isn’t a wonder that there are 250 odd members of this group, the wonder is that there arent 2,000! Note well: the original add conflates both accusations of dishonesty as if they were one and the same! We have men saying “Kerry lied about Viet Nam” interspersed with “Kerry lied about his heroism” as if the two were the same! And, of course, they are not.

So I got to wonder: how many of the original signatories to the Swift Boat campaign had any idea that the thrust of the argument was going to be slandering Kerry’s service, rather than his political opinions? How many would have signed on had they known?

I think they were had. Conned, gulled, bamboozled. Can’t prove it, but that’s what I think.

Carry on.

642

By God, you’re right! This conclusively proves that Kerry couldn’t have rescued Rassmann at all!

And Kerry’s campaign site concurs. So fucking what? What deep, dark, terrible Democratic secret does this discrepancy have fuck-all anything to do with? Are you seriously suggesting that confusion as to which boat Rassmann was on is, like, meaningful and probative of anything at all?
Jesus, this is exactly like arguing with a true believer in the JFK assassination conspiracy . . .

643

An AK-47 fired a 7.62mm bullet, which is the same as a .308 hunting rifle. However, it does use slightly less powder.

An AK round weighs 7.95 grams, has a full metal jacket, and has a muzzle velocity of about 2100 ft/sec.

But hey, I just found a site which shows the actual armor-piercing capability of the AK-47 round:

Okay, from this site it shows that the slightly lower-powered AK round (compared to a hunting .308 high power round) still easily penetrates 1/4" steel, and continues to either dent or embed itself in a second 1/4" steel plate behind it.

Note that this is STEEL plate. Aluminum is much, much easier to penetrate. Which of course is why aluminum isn’t used as armor plating.

Any more questions?

644

This is all a nice smokescreen but it’s all still belied by the fact that every witness on Kerry’s boat, Jim Rassmann, the offical accounts and the citations of both Kerry and Thurlow say they were under heavy fire. Don’t forget the independent intelligence reports of armed VC on the shore or that Thurlow’s boat had bullet holes. How many people would have to be lying for your version of events to ring true? You have one guy who says there wasn’t any fire and his own citation says otherwise. A citation he apparently never thought to dispute for 35 years. I think it’s safe to say the overwhelming documentary and eyewitness evidence shows that the flotilla was under fire. If you don’t have anything other than your own half-baked opinions about ballistics and the ability for the Viet Cong to hit moving targets (or the broad side of a barn, for that matter) while under suppressing fire then you really don’t have much of anything.

O’Neil wasn’t there. His own account is worthless. You don’t really expect us to accept the Swiftie book as a cite, do you?

I think I will accept the word of Rassmann and the Navy over either O’Neil’s or yours, thank you,

“How it shakes out?” It’s already shaken out. Schachte was debunked and has gone into hiding. It’s his word against three. How many witnesses would have to contradict Schachte before it’s no longer a credible “dispute” in your mind? How exactly do you expect anything else to shake out? How do you propose to resolve it?

I cited the Schachte story. Do you have an explanation as to why he’s gone into hiding? Are you still confident of an “October surprise” from this asshole?

645

Forgot the site: AK-47.net

(on preview)

Minty said:

Uh no. It shows that Rassman may not be a particularly good witness.

So what? Rassman can’t remember what boat he was on, that’s what. Given that, and given the fact that he was in the water diving for his life, I think his testimony is somewhat outweighed by three other boat skippers who were right there and who contradict his account.

Hey, you’re a lawyer, right? If you had a witness who couldn’t remember what boat he was on, but seemed to remember other details that are contradicted by other eyewitnesses, I suspect you’d tear him a new one in cross examination, wouldn’t you?

Oh, please.

646

You know, when I read things like this it literally makes me shake with rage. It doesn’t just stun and surprise me, but angers me, that people could possibly call into question the ability of someone to effectively govern our nation over what amounts to a small tall-tale (if it was even false to begin with), yet completely ignore or defend the pathological, detrimental, vile lies perpetrated by George W. Bush and his cronies.

Lies which have actually influenced voters in an election that wound up causing sweeping changes to government policy [see his Patient’s Bill of Rights lie]; lies that have directly influenced government policy as it was being voted on in Congress [The Congressional Research Service says the Bush administration apparently violated federal law by ordering the chief Medicare actuary to withhold information from Congress!]; lies that have actually influenced government policy by sending us to bloody WAR, where lives were lost (thousands and thousands of them!), boys were anally raped, men were stripped and ordered to perform sex acts on one another, men were beaten, isolated, starved and tortured.

LIES fall from George W. Bush’s lips as easily and as plentifully as leaves from a maple tree in the midwest in autumn.

SIGNIFICANT lies.

He’s lied to the citizens of the United States of America, he’s lied to the citizens of every other country in the world, he’s lied to other Heads of State, he’s lied to Congress. His lies have been for the sake of dirty politics, personal vendettas and financial gain. His lies have had, and will have for decades, a significant impact on peace throughout the ENTIRE WORLD.

John Kerry may have lied about where he spent Christmas in the late 1960s. Conflicting stories that are 35 years old, may shed some doubt as to whether he embellished details of events (although the written record supports his version) that happend 3½ decades ago.

WHEN am I going to see you speak out against George W. Bush as being UNFIT to be President of the United States of America, due to his astounding lack of moral character and propensity to LIE at every single, solitary, possible opportunity in the most recent 3½ years in office?

And yet you flippantly admonish us; “And let’s talk about leadership, shall we?” That’d be hilarious if it weren’t so downright infuriating.

647

Diogenes said:

Hang on. The ‘official accounts’ and citations are allegedly drawn from Kerry’s own after-action report. So that whole line of argument boils down to, “Kerry isn’t lying because Kerry said so.” Kerry also said he suffered shrapnel wounds in the buttocks during the attack, but his own journal shows that the buttock wound was suffered earlier in the day by accident, while not under fire. Rassman has confirmed that, as he was the guy with Kerry when they blew up the rice. So we already have a documented lie in Kerry’s account.

That leaves us Rassmann, who is a less than stellar witness due to the circumstances he was in, and the guys on Kerry’s boat, vs ten other eyewitnesses including three of the four boat skippers who were actually on the scene in the middle of the ‘kill zone’.

Thurlow’s boat had THREE holes. Which may have been from earlier damage (these boats were shot at all the time. If the damage was trivial, it might not even be reported, but would be noted and fixed the next time the boat needed maintenance.)

None of the other boats had bullet holes, including Kerry’s boat. These guys sat in the middle of an intense crossfire for an HOUR AND A HALF, and the only damage is three bullet holes? No one injured? Again - go look at the Post’s recreation graphic of the river incident. These boats weren’t in the middle of the river, even. They had to go around the edge, and that’s where the mine went off. Those five boats were sitting no more than 20-30 yards from the bank. That’s about the length of my backyard. You know what? If you gave me an AK-47 and plopped five semi-trailers in my backyard, I’m pretty sure I could put more than three bullet holes in them. Especially if I’m joined by a bunch of friends with AKs and you give me an hour and a half to plink at them. I guarantee I’ll make those semis look like swiss cheese.

John Kerry. The others could have simply taken his word for it, and been confused by the suppression fire the other boats were laying down.

But maybe there was fire. One open possibility is that they initially took fire, and their suppression fire got lucky and killed all the people shooting at them. Or maybe the suppression fire convinced the VC to get the hell out of dodge. But that doesn’t match Kerry’s account, which states that they were under fire the whole time they were rigging the 3 boat until they got out of the ‘kill zone’.

By the way, someone asked the other day for a copy of these ‘supposed affidavits’. Here’s Larry Thurlow’s affidavit regarding the bay hap river incident.

And here’s the After Action Report, which the Swiftvets claim was written by Kerry.

Note that the after action report claims that they received not just small-arms fire, but heavy automatic weapons fire, and that it continued for 5000 meters!

And here’s the Washington Post’s recreation map of the incident. Note that it shows that Kerry left the scene while the other boats went to the aid of PCF-3. It also shows that there were no boats behind Rassman to run him down, and that the other boats did not leave the scene as Rassman said.

648

Reminds me of a running joke I got with the Hair Apparent (scion of the 'luci empire)…

Its about cowboy movies, how so many have almost exactly the same scene: some guy is crouched behind a big-ass rock, firing at somebody (Black Bart, Blackfeet, somebody…) Suddenly, for no reason, he stands up to get a better shot and bam! he gets plugged. Joke is, when you’re behind the rock, don’t stand up! (A father is obliged to pass this kind of wisdom along…)

Now I try to imagine I’m fish-head eatin’ Charlie. The Americans are on thier boats, at some distance (what distance? I dunno…). I Cannot Be Seen (a la Monty Python…) The weapon I am carrying is not a sniper rifle, its accuracy at longer range is questionable. And the Americans are doing a Cuisinart with heavy maching guns, chopping up the countryside. It would be definitely heroic to expose my position and draw such fire on to myself. My revolutionary zeal will be much admired at my posthumous award ceremony.

Whoop-de-fuck-a-doo! Well, maybe not.

Most men are sane, not heroic. Darwinism works against heroism.

One of the film clips I most commonly see about 'Nam shows American soldiers firing from behind a wall. Not standing up on the wall (“Don’t stand up!”) but thrusting their weapon above the wall and firing a few rounds just so the other guys don’t get any funny ideas. Now, of course, if any of the enemy actually gets shot by this, its just really, really bad luck, a day spoiled.

Similar behavior might apply here. Charlie, being a sensible draftee who just wishes he were anywhere else, does not relish the notion of getting his fool head blown off to advance the Industrial Proletariat. So he keeps his sweet ass Behind the Rock and fires off his weapon in the general direction of the enemy until he can get the Hell out of Dodge.

Would this not explain both problems? Yes, they are “under fire”, bullets splashing in the water, all over the place. But the boats don’t get hit, nor do the men, because no serious attempt is being made.

649

Just curious:

What is the reason behind this debate?

I assume people are not interested in proving that Kerry lied just for the sake of proving that he lied. They want to have some outcome happen if they prove he lied.

What is that outcome? To make someone who would have voted for Kerry vote for Bush?

From what has been discussed in other threads, it seems close to nobody would switch from Kerry to Bush because of this issue.

And I sure as hell am positive that if it is proved that Kerry was 100% telling the truth, nobody from the Bush camp would switch to Kerry.

So, why is this being discussed?

Why not discuss issues that *would * change people’s minds about whom to vote for in November?

650

Nice post, Shayna. Way to keep your eye on the ball, instead of the bull(shit).

Sam has, by now, proven quite conclusively that he believes the SBVFTT crowd as witnesses, and disbelieves Kerry’s crewmembers and other supporting eyewitnesses and the contemporary documentary evidence. There is not a goddamned thing that any of us can do about that because Sam wants to believe the SBVFTT crowd. It is not a matter of weighing the reliability of the accounts, the motivations of the witnesses, and the contemporary documentary evidence for a true believer such as Sam. As with a conspiracy theorist, it is a matter of identifying things that are unclear in the record and seizing on any discrepancies between accounts–no matter how trivial or meaningless they may seem–to fulfill his preconception that things must be the way he believes them to be.

Thus, a claimed absence of battle damage demonstrates that no battle occurred, just as evidence of battle damage demonstrates that no battle occurred because there should have been more battle damage if battle had occurred. Thus, the incident reports that state that battle occurred must have been based on Kerry’s post-mission report, because no battle occurred. Thus, the commendations for his latter-day accusers’ medals must have been based on Kerry’s report, because no battle occurred. Thus, Kerry must have been planning everything all along. Thus, thus, thus, ad infinitum.

And thus, this argument is fucking pointless. Sam is going to believe what he’s going to believe, because that’s what true believers do.

Remember all those nut cases from the Clinton years, who truly and honestly believed that Vince Foster was murdered and Bill ran a cocaine ring out of the governor’s mansion in Little Rock? Guess what? They haven’t gone away. They’re just looking for new topics of insanity. This Swift Boat nonsense is just the tip of the tinfoil hat, I’m sure. They’re back, ladies and gentlemen, and nuttier than ever.

651

Shayna, that was one hell of a post. Beautifully said.

Depends on who’s doing the alleging, doesn’t it? Ah, here it is, further down:

So your argument boils down to “The SBV’s are telling the truth because the SBV’s say so”.

“The circumstances Rassman was in” being that he was there. You do need to stop misusing the word “eyewitness”, ya know. You have to see what was going on to be one.

You really don’t realize just how insulting that word “confused” is, or how little basis you have for saying it, do you? Granted, it’s an easy way to explain away anything that conflicts with your desired version of reality. But even so, any discrepancy told by anyone else is because they’re “confused”, but only Kerry is “lying”.

And yet none of the others went to go get him.

But that’s the level of reasoning one can expect from someone who can seriously argue that either President Bush has been a major booster of NASA. Hentor did prove pretty conclusively that you were bullshitting again. That thread, and this one, do show what intellectual honesty means to you.

652

Further evidence that reality has no bearing on Sam Stone’s pre-drawn conclusions:

Never mind that nobody really claims the firefight lasted for an hour and a half. Just latch onto some loose language in the Brinkley book about how “the tumult finally subsided” after the damaged boat was towed away, conclude that this is the equivalent of Kerry claiming to have been in a firefight for 90 minutes while rescuing Rassmann and assisting the disabled boat, then express incredulity (in capital letters, of course) that the rest of the world doesn’t draw the conclusions that are so obvious to the true believer.

653

Is she, like, the Queen of the Jungle Shayna? Or have I got her mixed up with Shamu?

654

“…who can seriously argue that either President Bush has been a major booster of NASA. …”

Puh-leeeze don’t go there! I’m begging now…

655

minty, SG, others, it’s a mistake to think that we’re only engaging **Sam ** here. There are a lot of (well, some, anyway) people who read these threads without posting, wanting to learn what the facts and reasoning behind certain positions are, and forming their own conclusions, all sight unseen. Among those are doubtless several who’ve been inclined to think the SBV’s are right, that Kerry is “unfit to command”, and so forth, but haven’t (or hadn’t) made up their minds yet. Exposing them to the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of that view, in whatever detail is required, does help the cause of the Fight against Ignorance. It’s a fight that can never be completely won, but localized victories are still possible. We perhaps shoud *thank * **Sam ** for *demonstrating * the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the cause for which he has appointed himself a spokesman - without him or someone like him to play his role, other people might still be illusioned.

656

Gee, what a surprise. When I leave a message that doesn’t include cites, suddenly the cite police show up. So I post a message heavily riddled with cites, and the response I get is a complete ad-hominem attack from Minty, in which not one of my points is addressed. Figures.

Isn’t it just amazing how quickly you guys have to go for the personal attacks. It never fails. Just like clockwork. Drag up old threads, snark back and forth between yourselves about ‘Sammy’, and make it all personal.

I don’t know why I’m bothering in this thread. At least Diogenes has stayed civil and debated the actual facts. For that he has my thanks. But of course, this was far too much to hope for from the likes of Hentor, Minty Green or ElvisL1ves. Are you guys ever going to grow up and stop personally attacking your fellow posters because you don’t like their arguments?

657

Because watching Bush-apologists like Sam Stone and Snakespirit dance around the facts – that the Swift Bullshitters for Bush don’t have a lick of credibility remaining to them – is fun, in a perverse political sorta way.

And hey, it’s cheaper than a night at the movies. :wink:

658

This ain’t no court of law, and no criminal allegations have been made. But I’ll play along anyway. Fingerprints found at a crime scene could be presented as evidence, even though the fingerprints may ultimately be found not belong to the perpetrator of the crime.

And since you want to bring the standards of a courtroom to this forum, let’s remember that Kerry has already found to have lied about his “Christmas in Cambodia” tale. So, if a witness in a court of law has been found to have lied in one part of his testimony, then the complete testimony can be regarded as untruthful.

So says you, but the EVIDENCE shown via the media, is that Kerry gave his camera to someone and had them film him while strolling around a combat location while decked out in helmet, flak jacket and rifle in hand.

No, like you, I don’t know. All I can do is examine the evidence presented and give a summation. (More courtroom lingo.) And you’re wrong, this is precisely the situation for the application of Occam’s Razor.

John Kerry was in possession of his personal films and was aware of their existance. So, which is more likely? Did Kerry’s campaign staff inquire of the possible existance of such film? Or, did John Kerry provide the campaign with the information of the existance of the film?

No, I am suggesting that Kerry said something along the lines of, “Hey guys, I’ve got some footage taken of me while serving in Viet Nam that may be helpful to the campaign.”

Ya know, real men of valor don’t trumpet their heroics.

Yeah, reputable, like a New York Times article penned by Jason Blair, or CNN with a fabricated documentary of America’s military using poison gas on desserters. You’re right, Drudge or National Review aren’t that “reputable”.

You’re puttin’ up a smoke screen. I’m talkin’ about the hypocrisy of those who condemn Bush for evading Viet Nam by enlisting in the Guard, while giving Clinton a pass on actual draft-dodging. Dole was mentioned because liberals dismissed his service to country as inconsequential to the office of President, but now, service to country is the centerpiece of the Kerry campaign.

When Kerry announced, “Reporting for duty”, it wasn’t Kerry that bugged me so much, it was a crowd that has a history of disparaging the military, suddenly fawning and doting over a “war hero”.

Liberals make my skin crawl.

Oh, and Elvis was a conservative.

659

Uh, yeah. And an ignorant racist cracker junkie. Got a point?

(Not even a peckerwood, a cracker!..)

660

don’t worry, my fingers are firmly tucked under my ass. Okay, I’m typing with my nose.

By the way, don’t forget that Kerry’s initials are on the bottom of the report which does indicate that he wrote it. Of course, his initials are KJW, you know, for John F. Kerry. It’s confusing, I know, but it’s kind of like those personalized sweaters, where the initials are out of order. And entirely different too.

Also, the witness for Thurlow’s bronze star, was John Kerry, even though HE put the name of the other guy who won the bronze star that day in the report for Thurlow. Devious, eh. Then they surreptitiously stuck the bronze star in Thurlow’s pocket, and he didn’t find it until years later at the bottom of the washing machine. (Come on, the ridicule of these charges just about writes itself. Only a complete tool would believe it. ::turning comically to look into the camera::slight_smile:

I figured it out though. Kerry’s boat and another following him went right, while Thurlow’s boat and the others went left. Kerry’s crew and the guys in the boat behind his say that there was fire from the shore. Thurlow says that there wasn’t.

Ergo, Thurlow was shooting at Kerry and Rassmann.