(07-27-2015 04:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 03:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:I have seen that his boat crew backed him, I believe 9 to 1.

If this is the case, and the Naval investigation itself found no cause to remove his awards, then really we're done here unless you can show cause to specifically doubt either (like paying those on his crew or showing pressure placed on the Navy to approve those medals). It'd be one thing if he ran as a War Hero, or constantly referred to his service in his election campaign, and that did not happen.

I think even you can admit you're bending over backwards to try and legitimize what amounts to an obviously politically motivated hack job.

You obviously don't understand how the swift boats operated if you truly believe that. In his defense, I think Kerry probably did back his sailors and that would tend to make them support him regardless of facts. The other boats in the squadron would have a more objective view. I agree that people who were not in the same squadron and did not have the same mother ship and did not operate together would generally not have a good factual knowledge.

Based upon everything I have seen and read, considered in the light of my understanding of how the swift boats operated (I trained to be there, but ended up getting sent elsewhere, but obviously had friends from training who did serve there), I tend to believe the swift boat allegations, at least to the extent that they suggest that Kerry overstated his own career.

Sure, he might have overstated his career, but we're not discussing whether or not he overstated his career. We're discussing whether or not the treatment he was given due to the swift boat allegations during his presidential race was at all deserved, defensible, or anything but politically motivated. Whether or not it was excusable for members of the RNC to put band-aids with purple hearts on them to mock someone who actually served, and that the national party did not openly disown them.

It was awhile ago, but did Kerry run on a platform of him being a War Hero? As I remember the 2004 election, Kerry seemed to be on the defensive about his military service the entire election cycle, and didn't go around using his service as a point of legitimacy. I could be wrong, but that's how I remember it as a person who actually voted for Bush.

IIRC, Kerry began his speech accepting the nomination by saluting and stating that he was reporting for duty (which I found a bit odd because he served in the navy and in the navy you don't salute unless you have a hat on, plus nobody saluted anybody in the swift boats because you didn't want to tell Charlie who the high value targets were). That looks to me a whole lot like trying to run as a war hero.

It was also trying to contrast with Bush. The allegations circulated by Dan Rather concerning Bush's service were proved conclusively to be lies. Were you similarly offended by them?

The treatment given him by the swift boat veterans and the republicans were in fact direct allegations that he overstated his career. If those allegations were in fact true, then yes they were justified. Like you, my recall of events that long ago is not perfect. What I don't recall is any significant argument at the time that the swift boat allegations were untrue. There was a lot of discussion about whether it was appropriate to bring them up, but the issue that I recall being raised was more about propriety and fair fighting than about truth of the allegations.

Some SBVT members were on the scene when he got the Bronze Star and 3rd Purple Heart. One claims to have been the treating doctor for the wound that got him his first Purple Heart but records don't back that claim up. Larry Clayton Lee was the only SBVT member on the scene when he got the Silver Star and interestingly enough he said Kerry deserved the award. No SBVT member was there when he got his 2nd Purple Heart.

The Bronze Star seems to be the incident that the SBVT have the most credibility since there were several there that day. They claim there was no enemy fire when Kerry went back to where a soldier was in the river and pulled him out. SBVT member Larry Thurlow was tactical commander of the five swift boats there that day and two of the other Swift boat commanders are SBVT members and they all claim there was no hostile fire. However one left early during the encounter to transport wounded and the other received a concussion. The 5th Swift boat commander was later killed in action, but his widow says that her husband's account jived with Kerry's. Ironically, Thurlow got a Bronze star for the same encounter and his citation notes several times the hostile fire he was under that day!

Jim Rassmann was the Special Forces captain Kerry pulled out of the water, and he wrote, "Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river. … 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." Del Sandusky, the helmsman on Kerry's boat, PCF-94, stated, "I saw the gun flashes in the jungle, and I saw the bullets skipping across the water." Wayne Langhofer, who manned the machine gun on Don Droz's PCF-43, stated, "There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river." Michael Medeiros, aboard PCF-94, recalled "a massive ambush. There were rockets and light machine gun fire plus small arms." Jim Russell, the Psychological Operations Officer of the unit, who was on PCF-43, wrote "All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach… Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river." Note that two people quoted here weren't on Kerry's boat.

Judge for yourself which accounts have credibility.

"They claim there was no enemy fire when Kerry went back to where a soldier was in the river and pulled him out. "

Nothing in your post after that line says otherwise.

Which accounts have credibility? These are two different accounts. One before Kerry going back to get the guy out of the water, addressing enemy fire that day. The other addressing whether enemy fire was still going on when Kerry went back. Two different things.

(07-27-2015 07:58 PM)Paul M Wrote:  "They claim there was no enemy fire when Kerry went back to where a soldier was in the river and pulled him out. "

Nothing in your post after that line says otherwise.

Which accounts have credibility? These are two different accounts. One before Kerry going back to get the guy out of the water, addressing enemy fire that day. The other addressing whether enemy fire was still going on when Kerry went back. Two different things.

No you are incorrect. The entire second paragraph is about what was happening when they went back. Lt. Jim Rassmann was in the water taking fire from both banks as Kerry's boat 94, Thurlow's boat and 43 and the fourth one returned, and Kerry pulled him out of the water. Boats were providing cover and getting the wounded out of there.

If Thurlow was under fire so was Kerry. They both returned to get Rassmann, while other ships went to the aid of the ship that had hit a mine. All this was a part of one incident in one small area. Thurlow went overboard himself and was rescued by his chief petty officer. At least three Bronze stars were issued (Thurlow, Kerry, Lambert) for the encounter with the enemy that day.

"Thurlow himself was awarded a Bronze Star for his actions during the same incident. Thurlow's citation includes several phrases indicating hostile fire such as "despite enemy bullets flying about him" and "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire", and speaks of fire directed at "all units" of the five-boat fleet. Thurlow's medal recommendation, signed by Elliott, used the phrasing "under constant enemy small arms fire." Robert Lambert, Thurlow's chief petty officer who was the official eyewitness cited for Thurlow's Bronze Star recommendation, and who received his own Bronze Star for "courage under fire" for pulling Thurlow out of the water. Lambert still insists that the boats were receiving fire from the enemy."

You're having trouble understanding what you're reading.

(07-27-2015 09:02 PM)Paul M Wrote:  You're having trouble understanding what you're reading.

This is where I say, no I'm not you are. I guess what you are trying to say is that the VC fired on the Lt. that was in the water, stopped when the swift boats returned and what? resumed firing only after Kerry pulled him out? That isn't even logical.

Maybe this will help to clear it up. Note what I highlighted. They don't say at the time Kerry went to get Rassmann out of the water that there was no hostile fire, but that none of the boats were receiving hostile fire. So thirty some years later, after he received a Bronze Star for bravery under hostile fire in the same incident he is claiming that a swift boat hit a mine on the river and that was all that happened, that there was no enemy fire at all. It just doesn't support your contention Paul.

"Thurlow was in overall tactical command of five boats, including Kerry's. The incident began when one of the boats struck a mine. In 2004 Thurlow, along with two other SBVT members, alleged that Kerry's citation for bravery under fire is false because neither Kerry's boat nor any of the others was under hostile fire. In an affidavit about the incident, Thurlow testified, "I never heard a shot.""

(07-27-2015 09:18 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 09:02 PM)Paul M Wrote:  You're having trouble understanding what you're reading.

This is where I say, no I'm not you are. I guess what you are trying to say is that the VC fired on the Lt. that was in the water, stopped when the swift boats returned and what? resumed firing only after Kerry pulled him out? That isn't even logical.

I'm just responding to what you're posting. Nothing you've posted says Kerry was under fire while getting the guy out of the water. Nothing. The guy surfaced and saw all the boats had left. You haven't posted anything that says they returned while still receiving fire. Everything says they received fire that day. Nothing says they were while retrieving their men.

Maybe you could post something else that says that. What you've posted so far doesn't.

(07-27-2015 09:39 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 09:18 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 09:02 PM)Paul M Wrote:  You're having trouble understanding what you're reading.

This is where I say, no I'm not you are. I guess what you are trying to say is that the VC fired on the Lt. that was in the water, stopped when the swift boats returned and what? resumed firing only after Kerry pulled him out? That isn't even logical.

I'm just responding to what you're posting. Nothing you've posted says Kerry was under fire while getting the guy out of the water. Nothing. The guy surfaced and saw all the boats had left. You haven't posted anything that says they returned while still receiving fire. Everything says they received fire that day. Nothing says they were while retrieving their men.

Maybe you could post something else that says that. What you've posted so far doesn't.

Okay, if this doesn't clear it up for you I don't know what will.

Quote:The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the Bronze Star Medal to


JOHN FORBES KERRY
LIEUTENANT JUNIOR GRADE
UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE
for service as set forth in the following:

CITATION



"For heroic achievement while serving with Coastal Division ELEVEN engage in armed conflict with Viet Cong communist aggressors in An Xuyen Province, Republic of Vietnam on 13 March, 1969. Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY was serving as Officer-in-Charge of Inshore Patrol Craft 94, one of five boats conducting a SEA LORDS operation in the Bay Hap River. While exiting the River, a mine detonated under another Inshore Patrol Craft and almost simultaneously, another mine detonated close aboard his Inshore Patrol Craft knocking a man into the water and wounding Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY in the right arm. In addition, all units began receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY discovered he had a man overboard, he returned upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both banks. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain and with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY then directed his boat to return and assist the other damaged Inshore Patrol Craft. His crew attached a line and towed the damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."

Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY is authorized to wear the combat "V".


For the President
E.R. ZUMWALT, Jr.
Vice Admiral, U. S. Navy
Commander U. S. Naval Forces, Vietnam

(07-27-2015 06:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  IIRC, Kerry began his speech accepting the nomination by saluting and stating that he was reporting for duty (which I found a bit odd because he served in the navy and in the navy you don't salute unless you have a hat on, plus nobody saluted anybody in the swift boats because you didn't want to tell Charlie who the high value targets were). That looks to me a whole lot like trying to run as a war hero.

Seems like a pretty tepid play on words to me, and a pretty obvious example of you trying to not to backtrack.

Quote:It was also trying to contrast with Bush. The allegations circulated by Dan Rather concerning Bush's service were proved conclusively to be lies. Were you similarly offended by them?

I would have been, yes, had the DNC continued to act as if those claims were real, those making the claims weren't swiftly admonished, and the DNC allowed members of it's party to make stickers to mock Bush about those known lies. Are you starting to understand why that analogy simply doesn't work?

Quote:The treatment given him by the swift boat veterans and the republicans were in fact direct allegations that he overstated his career. If those allegations were in fact true, then yes they were justified. Like you, my recall of events that long ago is not perfect. What I don't recall is any significant argument at the time that the swift boat allegations were untrue. There was a lot of discussion about whether it was appropriate to bring them up, but the issue that I recall being raised was more about propriety and fair fighting than about truth of the allegations.

No, they weren't, as pointed out by Dawgitall. It's really disappointing that you have to take a contrarian and anti-democratic view at every chance, because it results in you taking silly and ultimately indefensible stances like today.

(07-27-2015 10:52 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Seems like a pretty tepid play on words to me, and a pretty obvious example of you trying to not to backtrack.

Starting your acceptance speech is tepid? Really? You have a dog in this fight and you're obviously going to go to whatever ends necessary to defend that dog.

Quote:I would have been, yes, had the DNC continued to act as if those claims were real, those making the claims weren't swiftly admonished, and the DNC allowed members of it's party to make stickers to mock Bush about those known lies. Are you starting to understand why that analogy simply doesn't work?

The DNC admonished Dan Rather? So you're not offended by a lie perpetrated by someone who is supposed to be a reporter upon whom people are supposed to be able to rely for objective news? And I heard someone attack Bush about those known lies last week, so I guess the DNC didn't stop it.

Quote:No, they weren't, as pointed out by Dawgitall. It's really disappointing that you have to take a contrarian and anti-democratic view at every chance, because it results in you taking silly and ultimately indefensible stances like today.

If the stances were truly indefensible, they wouldn't have gotten the legs that they did. One thing for sure, your using words like silly and indefensible doesn't make them true.

I'm pretty sure you weren't there in the Mekong Delta, nor was I, nor was Dawgitall. We are all relying on the accounts of others. And there is disagreement among those accounts. That means that we have no basis for a conclusive determination that one side is lying and the other isn't.

And I don't take a contrarian or anti-democrat view at every chance. But I have not seen any case where you failed to take a pro-democrat view. Have you ever done so?

Quote: Starting your acceptance speech is tepid? Really? You have a dog in this fight and you're obviously going to go to whatever ends necessary to defend that dog.

A single action, like stating he is 'reporting to for duty' is tepid, yes. And the only dog I have in this fight is getting you to apply the same level of outspoken criticism to both parties when they act hypocritical. This is a pretty clear example of Republicans selectively applying their outspoken and borderline religiosity when it comes to those serving in the armed forces.

Quote: The DNC admonished Dan Rather?

Of course not, he didn't make that statement at the national convention, but his employer and the national media did. But it seems sort of difficult to hold their lack of admonishing their members over this issue as some sort of equivalency between the two because no one at the DNC openly mocked Bush with known lies.

Quote:If the stances were truly indefensible, they wouldn't have gotten the legs that they did. One thing for sure, your using words like silly and indefensible doesn't make them true.

This is absolutely untrue. Do I need to state any number of wholly indefensible and silly views that gained traction about Obama during his presidency and during the primaries, starting with his birth certificate? The Republican party needs to do better to stop blatant misrepresentation of the truth, especially in regards to lowest-common denominator claims, and I don't understand why someone as intelligent as yourself has such a hard time stating this. The Democrats have their own faults, and god knows they have plenty of them too, but this isn't nearly the issue in their party as it is in the Republican party.

Quote: And I don't take a contrarian or anti-democrat view at every chance. But I have not seen any case where you failed to take a pro-democrat view. Have you ever done so?

Absolutely I have, dozens of times. In gun control debates, in regards to nuclear energy that we have both discussed and I have criticized the democratic party ad naseum in, GMO's, their mismanagement of numerous large cities, etc etc. You're being intentionally dishonest making this claim and you know it.

I think it's been firmly established that the swift boat attacks were politically motivated.

(07-27-2015 11:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Absolutely I have, dozens of times. In gun control debates, in regards to nuclear energy that we have both discussed and I have criticized the democratic party ad naseum in, GMO's, their mismanagement of numerous large cities, etc etc. You're being intentionally dishonest making this claim and you know it.

I don't recall those, but I will accept your statement that you have and apologize for the misunderstanding.

(07-27-2015 11:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 11:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Absolutely I have, dozens of times. In gun control debates, in regards to nuclear energy that we have both discussed and I have criticized the democratic party ad naseum in, GMO's, their mismanagement of numerous large cities, etc etc. You're being intentionally dishonest making this claim and you know it.

I don't recall those, but I will accept your statement that you have and apologize for the misunderstanding.

Just throw some mud the other way. That's all I ask. Both sides deserve it.

(07-27-2015 11:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  A single action, like stating he is 'reporting to for duty' is tepid, yes.

We'll just have to agree to disagree there. Leading off your speech accepting the nomination with such a display is hardly tepid. Mentioning it one time in a whistle stop in Kokomo would be tepid. Leading your convention speech with it is not.

Quote:no one at the DNC openly mocked Bush with known lies.

The DNC was in July, the lies were first told in September. Would have been pretty impossible for anyone to have mocked Bush with those known lies at the DNC six weeks earlier. And plenty of people continued to mock him with those known lies, continuing even after the election, and I'm not aware of any effort by the democrats to discourage that. Are you?

Quote:This is absolutely untrue. Do I need to state any number of wholly indefensible and silly views that gained traction about Obama during his presidency and during the primaries, starting with his birth certificate? The Republican party needs to do better to stop blatant misrepresentation of the truth, especially in regards to lowest-common denominator claims, and I don't understand why someone as intelligent as yourself has such a hard time stating this. The Democrats have their own faults, and god knows they have plenty of them too, but this isn't nearly the issue in their party as it is in the Republican party.

At least you admit the democrats have problems too. If I had a hard time criticizing republicans, why have I consistently criticized them for stupid stuff, including the birther crap (where my consistent position from my very first post about it was that it was a non-issue because even if Obama had been born on the moon, he was still a natural born citizen because of his mother's American citizenship)? Same for the Muslim claim; he's not a Muslim, he's a liberation theology Christian. Liberation theology is the communist party at prayer; it literally is. I'd prefer a Muslim. There were many legitimate criticisms of Obama that republicans should have raised sooner and more convincingly than they did, and I have also pointed those out. In many cases, like the Muslim one, they went for stupid stuff when the legitimate criticisms would have been much more appropriate (clearly) and probably also more useful. The basic problem is that they let their visceral hatred of all things Clinton get the better of them, and they were pretty much see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil about Obama as long as he was challenging Hillary (I know republicans who crossed over to vote for Obama in the primary), until it was too late. I criticize republicans when I think they are wrong, but I don't think they are wrong here, and nothing presented in this thread has changed that.

I think you are trying to hold me guilty by association instead of actually reading what I have posted.

Quote: I think you are trying to hold me guilty by association instead of actually reading what I have posted.

I'm really not, I think you might not even be aware of how little you openly criticize the republicans and ostensibly conservative institutions even if you disagree with their views, while seemingly going out of your way to criticize democrats and ostensibly liberal institutions at any chance. The climate change discussion was a perfect example of this, you criticized researchers for continuing to focus on evidence to show climate change is happening instead of focusing on fixing it, which is a fair criticism, but you did so without saying word one about a possible reason for their focus on that. Namely, the fact that they perhaps are doing so in the hopes of countering deliberate and intentional misinformation on that topic led and championed by the Republican party.

You take the time to criticize one side but stop short of criticizing the other, at least in every recent discussion I've been a part of. I actually do believe you don't care for many policies pushed by Republican or ostensibly conservative institutions, I just want you to be vocal about it. Especially here, of all places, where there are so many people on both sides misinformed and so entrenched in believing whatever their openly skewed and bias sources tell them. You're more conservative than I am, but you're not unreasonable, and I think most of the time you feel the same about me (substitute liberal, obviously).

(07-28-2015 07:27 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  but you did so without saying word one about a possible reason for their focus on that. Namely, the fact that they perhaps are doing so in the hopes of countering deliberate and intentional misinformation on that topic led and championed by the Republican party.

I don't make that point because I don't think it is valid. I don't believe that to be their reason.

Quote:You take the time to criticize one side but stop short of criticizing the other, at least in every recent discussion I've been a part of. I actually do believe you don't care for many policies pushed by Republican or ostensibly conservative institutions, I just want you to be vocal about it.

Umm, dude, I am vocal about it. That's how you know that I don't care for them. If you're looking for someone to go launching personal attacks against everyone I disagree with, I'm not that guy. I have called people on both sides a-holes, but that's because I think they're a-holes (or in some cases know they are a-holes, like Tom DeLay) and not because I disagree on this or that issue.

Quote:You're more conservative than I am, but you're not unreasonable, and I think most of the time you feel the same about me (substitute liberal, obviously).

I think you are probably much younger than I am. I think your heart is probably in the right place, but at this point I think your understanding is more theoretical than real. I'll be interested in seeing where you come down on a lot of issues in 20-30 years, once you've had enough time out in the world to see what works and what doesn't. At least you seem open minded enough that you will learn from the experience, unlike some of the more hard-core lefties (and righties) on here.

In theory, theory works well in practice; in practice, it doesn't.