John Kerry wants to re-fight the Swift Boats wars. My goodness, that is the only thing that could get the Times to cover this - during his campaign they stayed about as far from this story as Kerry was from Cambodia at Christmas time.
Let me seize on just one detail - this relates to Kerry's controversial first Purple Heart:
But he can also barely resist prosecuting a case against the group that his friends now refer to as "the bad guys." "Bill Schachte was not on that skimmer," Mr. Kerry says firmly. "He was not on that skimmer. It is a lie to suggest that he was out there on that skimmer."
He shows a photograph of the skimmer being towed behind his Swift boat, insisting that it could barely fit three people, himself and two others.
"The three guys who in fact were in the boat all say he wasn't there and will tell you he wasn't there. We know he wasn't there, and we have all kinds of ways of proving it."
Fine - here is a link to the Schachte story, here are my questions about that incident, and here are my two suggestions for resolving it:
(1) Show us Kerry's diary, aka the "War Notes". Surely his first combat and first medal merited a contemporaneous account, yes? But that has never been made public, and Brinkley does not refer to Kerry's notes for that portion of his Kerry biography.
(2) Show us the paperwork backing the first Purple Heart - it should include a witness statement of the circumstances surrounding his wound; Kerry never released that during the campaign.
This should be beautiful. [More Schachte backstory from May 4 - "Schachte ready to re-engage in Kerry Purple Heart dispute"]
And just to be clear - I have no interest in beating on Kerry like a rented mule (again). I am much more curious to see whether we can demonstrate that the MSM was horribly deficient in their coverage of this story. My recollection, which may be colored by hyperbole, is that the entire NY Times coverage amounted to one story saying "The Swift Boat Veterans are lying because Kerry says they are". That does not count the snide and ignorant asides in seemingly unrelated stories or misleading columns by Nick Kristof or the rest of the stable.
The Washington Post took a good look at one incident (Kerry's Bronze Star), ran a pro-Kerry headline, and concluded that they could not sort it out. The WaPo did not research the possibility (really, a high probability) that Kerry himself wrote the report on which the Navy records are based.
But that ambiguity notwithstanding, and notwithstanding Kerry's refusal to authorize the release of his military records, we can still get statements like this in the Times:
Naval records and accounts from other sailors contradicted almost every claim they made, and some members of the group who had earlier praised Mr. Kerry's heroism contradicted themselves.
And note how the Times puts itself firmly in Kerry's camp with their framing of the "Christmas in Cambodia" story:
...[Kerry's defenders] have returned, for instance, to the question of Cambodia and whether Mr. Kerry was ever ordered to transport Navy Seals across the border, an experience that he said made him view government officials, who had declared that the country was not part of the war, as deceptive.
The Swift boat group insisted that no boats had gone to Cambodia. But Mr. Kerry's researcher, using Vietnam-era military maps and spot reports from the naval archives showing coordinates for his boat, traced his path from Ha Tien toward Cambodia on a mission that records say was to insert Navy Seals.
The Times version sort of gives short shrift to his speech on the floor of the US Senate where Kerry was quite emphatic about the date:
Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia.
I have that memory which is seared-seared-in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible in order to avoid that kind of conflict.
Bring it on.
MORE: Check the pop-up graphic for Kerry's new evidence, apparently meant to be in his defense. I am especially amused by "Kerry versus Kerry":
The Silver Star: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said the enemy whom Mr. Kerry shot and killed in the incident for which he won a Silver Star was actually a wounded and fleeing teenager "in a loincloth".
Mr. Kerry says his [recently discovered] photograph shows the body of a man fully dressed and lying face-up, suggesting, he says, that the man was shot while approaching.
Does the Times really not understand how absurd this is? There were no Swift Boat Veterans for Truth at the scene of the Silver Star incident - all they did was compare different versions of the incident as described in Kerry's medal citation and by Kerry himself, years later, to the Boston Globe. Here is the newly debunked John Kerry speaking to the Globe for a 2003 series:
On Feb. 28, 1969, Kerry's boat received word that a swift boat was being ambushed. As Kerry raced to the scene, his boat became another target, as a Viet Cong B-40 rocket blast shattered a window. Kerry could have ordered his crew to hit the enemy and run. But the skipper had a more aggressive reaction in mind. Beach the boat, Kerry ordered, and the craft's bow was quickly rammed upon the shoreline. Out of the bush appeared a teenager in a loin cloth, clutching a grenade launcher.
An enemy was just feet away, holding a weapon with enough firepower to blow up the boat. Kerry's forward gunner, Belodeau, shot and clipped the Viet Cong in the leg. Then Belodeau's gun jammed, according to other crewmates (Belodeau died in 1997). Medeiros tried to fire at the Viet Cong, but he couldn't get a shot off.
In an interview, Kerry added a chilling detail.
"This guy could have dispatched us in a second, but for ... I'll never be able to explain, we were literally face to face, he with his B-40 rocket and us in our boat, and he didn't pull the trigger. I would not be here today talking to you if he had," Kerry recalled. "And Tommy clipped him, and he started going [down.] I thought it was over."
Instead, the guerrilla got up and started running. "We've got to get him, make sure he doesn't get behind the hut, and then we're in trouble," Kerry recalled.
So Kerry shot and killed the guerrilla. "I don't have a second's question about that, nor does anybody who was with me," he said. "He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." Asked whether that meant Kerry shot the guerrilla in the back, Kerry said, "No, absolutely not. He was hurt, other guys were shooting from back, side, back. There is no, there is not a scintilla of question in any person's mind who was there [that] this guy was dangerous, he was a combatant, he had an armed weapon."
Teenager in a loin-cloth? So says the Globe.
Fleeing? So says Kerry, unless "running away" has a new meaning (say it with me - he was for the guy fleeing until he was against it...).
Wounded? What else could be meant by "Kerry's forward gunner, Belodeau, shot and clipped the Viet Cong in the leg."
Well. If the Times want to continue to run photos purporting to show that Kerry is full of it, I'm cool.
And the "Christmas in Camopdia" rebuttal is classic - For the disputed incident the memory of which is seared into Kerry, where he claims to have spent Christmas in Cambodia, Kerry can now demonstrate that he was within 35 miles of the border! Getting closer!
MORE: Some of Kerry's military records are available at FindLaw - the Times has a link saying ""Kerry's Military Service Records". This is the material that was on Kerry's website during the campaign. As we know (but Times readers do not), this is not complete.
WHAT THE HAIL IS GOING ON?
My email to the Times on yet another laugher in their story:
Gentleman;
Regarding "Kerry Pressing Swift Boat Case Long After Loss
By KATE ZERNIKE, Ms. Zernike reported this:The group has sent a letter to Mr. Schachte calling for a meeting with him, Mr. Kerry and two former veterans who maintain — as they did publicly during the campaign — that they were the only other people on the skimmer with Mr. Kerry and that he was wounded in a hail of enemy fire.
"Wounded in a hail fo fire" - I would be curious to see the Times document just when they said that, since it represents a substantial change in their story.
The Boston Globe published a Kerry biography in 2004 and interviewed both Zaldonis and Runyon about this indicent. Here we go (excerpted by the Wash Times):
Zaldonis and Runyon both said they were too busy to notice how Kerry was hit.
"I assume they fired back," Zaldonis said. "If you can picture me holding an M-60 machine gun and firing it -- what do I see? Nothing. If they were firing at us, it was hard for me to tell."
Runyon said he assumed the suspected Viet Cong fired back because Kerry was hit by a piece of shrapnel.
"I can't say for sure that we got return fire or how [Kerry] got nicked," Runyon told the Globe. "I know he did get nicked, a scrape on the arm."So how did "What do I see - nothing" and "I can't say for sure we got return fire" add up to "a hail of fire"?
Did their story change (and is that newsworthy?), or did your reporter get this wrong?
I assume you will pursue this with zeal, since, as Kerry noted, "They lied and lied and lied about everything". Well, he meant the Swift Boat vets, but maybe there are other sources of bad information as well.
Have a great weekend.
Boston Globe book:
John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography By The Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best
The Times always welcomes reader feedback: [email protected]
Now, I don't imagine the Times will follow up on a point they raised in the story when they wrote this:
"The three guys who in fact were in the boat all say he wasn't there and will tell you he wasn't there," he said. "We know he wasn't there, and we have all kinds of ways of proving it."
However, if they do have an investigative reporter to spare, they might ponder this - there is precious little evidence, beyond their say-so, that Zaldonis and Runyon were on that skimmer with Kerry.
These skimmer crews were put together on an ad-hoc basis, and Runyon never served with Kerry before or after that night. Zaldonis, however, ended up on Kerry's boat (PCF-44) a week later.
But puzzle over this - Kerry did not remember the names of the two men in the skimmer with him when he discussed it with the Boston Globe in 2003. And Douglas Brinkley, who wrote Keery's "Tour of Duty" did not identify the two men either, even though he interviewed Zaladonis for the book.
I find that odd - here is Zaladonis being interviewed about his personal history with Kerry and he never mentions that he was with Kerry when Kerry had his first combat and got his first Purple Heart? How did that not come up?
And why is there no apparent mention of Kerry's first medal in his own war diary? Brinkley never cites that as a source for his coverage of this incident. However, Captain Ed finds Kerry's diary to be illuminating on another point - here is what Kerry wrote on Dec 11, 1968, just a week after being under a "hail of fire":
'A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky.'"
Waddya mean "we", Tall Guy - you and Zaladonis had been shot at a week earlier, yes?
Oh, well - Zaladonis and Runyon emerged in April 2004 to defend Kerry's first Purple Heart, so I guess they remembered by then.
Details here.
BAIT AND SWITCH: The Times pop-up graphic has a cryptic comment, the gist of which is, the Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry drafted and embellished his own after-action reports to collect medals, but Kerry's folks have pulled the report and it was done by a "Gibson".
Weird - every report for every Kerry medal was done by this young Boswell? Presumably not. However, per this Globe story, Charles Gibson, "who served on Kerry's boat that day because he was on a one-week indoctrination course", was a witness to the Silver Star incident.
And so what? Thomas Lipscomb did a lot of research demonstrating that Kerry very probably wrote the after-action report for the controversial Bronze Star engagement. Here is the WaPo reporting on that, and note how they lean on the official report to back Kerry:
On the core issue of whether Kerry was wounded under enemy fire, thereby qualifying for a third Purple Heart, the Navy records clearly favor Kerry. Several documents, including the after-action report and the Bronze Star citation for a Swift boat skipper who has accused Kerry of lying, refer to "all units" coming under "automatic and small-weapons fire."
Does the Times even realize that the Kerry crowd is rebutting the wrong argument? Do they even know what the arguments are? I doubt it.
[For a serious rebuttal to Lipscomb, try here - this looks like a well-researched site debunking the Swiftees. An excerpt (to aid future Googlers):
O'Neill has cited an October 1, 2004 article by Thomas Lipscomb based on the research of Troy Jenkins. [Chicago Sun-Times] This article is a fantasy. It sets out to prove that Kerry wrote the after-action "spot" report on March 13. In reality, however, it demonstrates two things. First, Droz was the officer responsible for the report on February 28. Second, Thurlow was the officer responsible for the report on March 13.
The first part of the argument presented in the article is based on a misreading of the "designators" used in the header of the report:
- "... The last "1" indicates someone other than the commander of the mission. If the report had been submitted by the mission commander, in this case Thurlow, according to the operations order, it would have begun with a "C" for commander of the Task Element, and the sender would have been "CTE 194.5.4.4."
Two points need to be made here. First, the missing "C" in the "Market Time Spot Report" line is an error. Just look at the "FM [From]" line at the top of the report, where it clearly indicates "FM CTE ONE NINE FOUR PT FIVE PT FOUR PT FOUR". Second, the "/1" at the end of the line indicates "first report." Both of these points are easily demonstrated by looking at any number of these reports from January/February/March 1969. In no case, ever, does the "Market Time Spot Report" line end with "CTE 194.5.4.4"—there is always a "/1" or "/2" at the end. Only very rarely is there a second report, indicated by a "/2"—for examples, see the reports that were filed for Sea Lords missions 326 and 270. [PCF-94_spot_reports.pdf, pp. 11-13, 18-20] [NOTES]
Read it all. Then whisper it to Kate Zernike, for whom this will be Book of Revelation material.
As to the author's conclusion that Droz wrote the Feb 28 Silver Star report - well, now, what about Charles Gibson? Puzzling.
I'll bet Doug Brinkley is dying right now.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | May 27, 2006 at 03:39 PM
I guess he needs the attention since Fat Al Gore seems to be getting all the attention with his made up story "An Inconvenient Truth"
Well Johnny Boy, get your home movies of Vietnam in order. Then how about signing Form 180 and then let's talk!
Posted by: Bob | May 27, 2006 at 03:45 PM
It's interesting that Kerry is trying to prove he was in Cambodia February 1969. Who cares? He said he was there Christmas 1968, which I believe is what he told president Nixon. That wasn't true, he made the whole story up. The New York Times piece doesn't even mention that simple fact. What a white-wash.
Posted by: Seixon | May 27, 2006 at 03:52 PM
Kerry who?
Posted by: sam | May 27, 2006 at 03:52 PM
Kerry's 180 was put into the hands of friendly journalists. And, never divulged. Was he or was he NOT unceremoniously discharged by the Navy in 1972? When Nixon was President. And, only after Carter fudge the record was his "honorable" discharge restored.
My guess is that Kerry wants another shot at the nomination. So, too, does Algore. So both these men are using the media to "deploy."
Has anybody seen gore's movie? I don't even know its name. And, the stand out, in terms of earning money, still goes to the DaVinci Code (as if God, himself, would drop seed into the french pool. And NOT expect it to expire!)
This is such a slow news cycle weekend, one just wonders WHY?
And, if kerry feels that he even has a shot at getting into the 2008 fracas? IS KERRY UP FOR RE-ELECTION THIS NOVEMBER?
And, what's his gain in taking on the Swift Vets, now? More citezens gave the Swift Vets cash than gave any money to Kerry's campaign. Though, the way he got tossed in 2004 must really stick in his craw.
He can ask to re-fight this one. Everybody else involved is well-rested. And, with the Internet under full sail; whose to say this topic wouldn't be one that brings "that family" back in full tilt? The MSM isn't having enough fun on Martha's Vineyard yet? Given what's at stake, here, how many media types will go float their boats in these waters? Okay. I'll watch. Glad I remembered to buy popcorn.
Posted by: Carol Herman | May 27, 2006 at 03:55 PM
I got into blogging because of John Kerry's "reporting for duty" and as support for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I was contributing to their site and wanted to expand on a comment I'd written there, and the rest is history as I started The Squiggler Please join us this weekend in "Honoring our Fallen Heroes." Real heroes, not the phony Kerry kind. My Navy husband was not a Swift Boater, but he was attached to the Mobile Riverine Force, Mekong Delta at the same time Lt. John Kerry was serving there. They were the rescue and salvage team that went out and brought the damaged Swift Boats back for repairs. I first heard about "a cowardly LT" in early 1969. And then again in 1971-1972 after his "Winter Soldier" embarrassment. The reaction I had the night he stood up there and saluted and "reported for duty," my reaction was intense and visceral and brought back all those old memories. John Kerry, next to Jane Fonda, was and is one of the most despised people of the Vietnam Era.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 04:00 PM
Murtha's Vineyard?
Oh, Martha's Vineyard.
You almost had me there for a minute Carol. :-)
Posted by: M. Simon | May 27, 2006 at 04:12 PM
I would love for some of his old Vietnam squadron-mates to do a publicized experiment. Publically announce that as of 1 June 2006 they were going to sign a form 180, and send it off requesting the full transcripts of their personal military records. Upon receiving those records they could then hold a public news conference wherein we (the public) would now know
1) approximately how long it should legitimately take for those records to arrive once they've been requested, and
2) what particular forms should be included in those records.
This would finally put us in a position to know what exactly should be in Kerry's records. Then at least we could informatively know what forms Kerry has been withholding all these many years.
The MSM is going to continue to provide Kerry cover til the cows come home. They are ignorant and biased and could not care less about what those records should include. Instead they are gape-mouthed fly catcher's, avidly drinking in stories of Cambodian CIA ops and this goofball's magic hat. We have to go around the gate-keeping MSM to educate ourselves, and this seems a reasonable way to start.
Posted by: Daddy | May 27, 2006 at 04:27 PM
Since John Kerry is not ecactly a modest man,it would seem that his 180 contains evidence of a somewhat less that stellar service record.
If it were good he would be selling T Shirts with it on.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 27, 2006 at 04:36 PM
Daddy -- the Swifties have been calling for the release of records since 2004, please see Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and sign up. I'm sure they will be gearing up again full swing, although they've never really gone away.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 04:38 PM
Waxing nostalgic! Twas this topic that got me to be a regular reader of JOM. It is obvious that J.F. Kerry, who served in Vietanam by the way, still has aspirations to be POTUS. In order to do this he has clear the "swiftboats" outa the water.
I esp. love this part in the article...
"Mr. Kerry says in an interview in his Senate office. "How many lies do you get to tell before someone calls you a liar? How many times can you be exposed in America today?"
yes JF how many lies?
talk about irony....
Posted by: bman2u | May 27, 2006 at 04:48 PM
>IS KERRY UP FOR RE-ELECTION THIS NOVEMBER?
It makes absolutely no difference. In MA only democrats get elected to office - well except for Governor, but that's another story.
Oh and it's Nantucket not Murtha's Vineyard -altho that is a lot more fun.
Posted by: Jane | May 27, 2006 at 04:57 PM
Sara, I am with you 100 per cent. I suspect the SWIFTIES will aggressively work to get all the facts out, and once again I will support them in that. Regardless what the facts are, I want them all on the table, and it is a given that the MSM is uninterested in unbiased fact-finding. Curious isn't it, that this has hit the headlines at exactly the same time that a Marine squad (with supposed video to boot) has been accused of massacring innocent civilians in a time of war. What a coincidence.
Posted by: Daddy | May 27, 2006 at 05:10 PM
Of course there is this ..
A challenge to those who claim that the SwiftVets' allegations have been "debunked" or are "unsubstantiated".
If John Kerry wants to take on the SwiftVets, I'm sure he will get an audience.
Posted by: Neo | May 27, 2006 at 05:14 PM
If you want to get updated info and contact info, then go to this site until the Swifties gear back up.
Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 05:16 PM
In lieu of his 180, the following is still available for Sara's own personal pleasure;
http://www.frontsteps.com/movies/john_kerrys
_bad_rap/
Enjoy all!
Posted by: azredneck | May 27, 2006 at 05:31 PM
From NYT Kerry waterbucket -
L would like to see LIAR seared into Kerry's backside with a branding iron. Keller's too.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | May 27, 2006 at 05:32 PM
"I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians,"
I see he had that effect on people even then.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 27, 2006 at 05:35 PM
Daddy -- my son's second grade teacher told him (a 7 year old) to stop wasting his time saying his nightly prayers for his Daddy because "God doesn't listen to prayers for baby killers." When I went ballistic and demanded an explanation, she defended herself with the school principal and board with the defense that it must be true because she heard John Kerry swear to a Congressional Hearing that it was true. I will never forgive John Kerry, ever!
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 05:39 PM
Could it be that Kerry is a stalking horse for "She Who Must be Obeyed",to take fire so SWMBO has an easy ride?
Posted by: PeterUK | May 27, 2006 at 05:41 PM
PS: My son is now forty, so my total disgust with this lowlife coward is one of very long standing.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 05:44 PM
PeterUk:
I'm putting the saran wrap on my computer keyboard. Your last comment was a hoot.! I agree with the poster who said Kerry can't stand that Al Gore is getting all this attention with his "An Inconvenient Truth" movie. Personally , I can't imagine a more boring movie...I could hardly stand him during the debates.
Also Hillary has to start feeling the heat with Gore and Kerry nipping at her heels.
Posted by: maryrose | May 27, 2006 at 05:48 PM
http://www.frontsteps.com/movies/john_kerrys_bad_rap/
This absolutely hilarious. Thanks for sharing!
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 05:49 PM
Maryrose,
Don't you mean "Inconwenient Twuth"?
Posted by: PeterUK | May 27, 2006 at 05:51 PM
I served twelve months (Sept '67-Sept '68) in the Mekong Delta River Patrol Force, the "PBR's." (Think of Apocalypse Now--the boat traveling upriver to find Kurtz was a PBR.) I commanded a division of ten of those boats. I am intimately familiar with the weapons and the tactics involved in the incident that led to Kerry's first purple heart.
From the beginning of this dispute there has been absolutely no doubt in my mind what happened. Kerry and at least one other man were in a Boston Whaler ( I never heard it referred to as a "skimmer.") It's an 18-foot flat-bottomed craft that can easily hold three men--I have been in one with two other men on many occasions. They spotted what they thought were Viet Cong on the beach, and they opened fire. There was no return fire; whoever they were shooting at fled immediately. Kerry himself had never been under fire at this point. One's first instance of live-fire action is fraught with confusion, particularly in darkness. (In a diary entry referring to a subsequent patrol, Kerry himself said that "none of us had ever been under fire." Apparently he forgot about his oroginal baptism of fire, thus becoming the first man I have ever heard of who did so.) At some point while the guys in his boat were firing, Kerry picked up an M-79 and fired it. The M-79 fires a 40MM grenade that arms three meters from the muzzle, and is extraordinarily sensitive (one of my men was wounded by one when a round he fired nicked a palm frond about ten meters away). Upon detonation, an M-79 grenade detonates a high explosive charge around which is wrapped a perforated steel coil. The perforations break, resulting in a burst of perhaps a hundred small pieces of steel, with a lethal range of five meters. Kerry's round struck rocks nearby. The piece of steel which he apparently carefully nurtured in his arm was described later by a the doctor who removed it as exactly matching an M-79 round's fragment.
No one else involved in the incident reported any return fire from the beach. No after-action report referred to enemy fire. Had the wound been caused by enemy fire, there are only two possible causes of that wound: an explosive round detonating near the boat, or bullet fragments resulting from a rifle round striking the boat or a metal object in it. No one, including Kerry, alleges that an incoming explosive round detonated. No one, including Kerry, contends that the boat or anything in it was struck by a bullet. The inescapable conclusion is that Kerry was wounded by his own round, and that it occurred while he was not engaged in combat with the enemy.
The circumstances following this event are truly sordid. Kerry's commanding officer rejected out of hand his request for the award of a purple heart. He subsequently renewed that request to a different commanding officer, after the original officer had returned home. He was able to present to the new C.O. the corpsman's duly filed report of an injury to his arm.
The entire system of combat awards is dependent on its being administered by honorable men, and it is child's play to cheat that system. Kerry cheated it. His behavior was disgraceful and dishonorable.
Posted by: Other Tom | May 27, 2006 at 05:54 PM
Kerry 1971: on film saying that in Coastal Division 11 they committed atrocities.
Kerry mid 1990s: Last River Run Reunion saying to Coastal Division 11 Vets that he didn't mean them he meant all the rest of the guys in Vietnam (forget that he's on film saying it, the Coastal Division 11 Vets had brothers, cousins and friends among "all the rest of the guys in Vietnam").
Kerry 2004: denying he said that in Coastal Division 11 they had committed atrocities and trying to defend saying it on the same Good Morning America show.
Kerry 2006: Still trying to be all things to everyone.
Posted by: Bill | May 27, 2006 at 06:01 PM
"His behavior was disgraceful and dishonorable."
Well, he's remained faithful to that standard ever since.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | May 27, 2006 at 06:01 PM
Other Tom -- that is pretty much the story I remember hearing from my then husband who served from late 1967 until February 1969 attached to the Mobile Riverine Force on one of his 4 Vietnam tours. He never wanted to go into too much detail, but one that stands out in my mind from back then was him saying that repairing some of those boats was a gruesome task as they cleaned out embedded skin, blood and bone. Thank you for your honorable service.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 06:03 PM
Sorry, but the steam is still coming out of my ears.
Concerning Cambodia, let us first recall that Kerry claimed that he had been there on Christmas Eve, 1968, and that this proved that "President Nixon" had lied about the presence of US troops in Cambodia. (Nixon was not yet president.)
Second, I was personally involved in the insertion of Navy SEALs at ambush sites in the Mekong Delta on perrhaps a dozen occasion. I have no doubt that Kerry performed similar operations. However, photographs of SEALs aboard his craft tell us nothing about Cambodia or anything else--they simply show that he was doing what we all did.
Third, in elaborating on this claim during the campaign Kerry asserted that he had taken a mysterious "CIA man" into Cambodia, and that it was this spook who gave him his "magic hat." When did the CIA guy become a SEAL?
Finally, Kerry claimed during the election that the purpose of this mission was to "run guns to the Khmer Rouge." The Khmer Rouge were not engaged as a comabatant force in 1968, and when they did engage they were on the other side. What happened to the Khmer Rouge? What happened to the gun-running?
This guy is more full of shit than a Christmas turkey.
Posted by: Other Tom | May 27, 2006 at 06:09 PM
OtherTom
Your explanation is the first one I have heard that makes sense.
TM thank you for this thread, I never got to comment during the 2004 election campaign, so this will be fun! :)
Posted by: maryrose | May 27, 2006 at 06:09 PM
Other Tom - Excellent post. Thanks.
Posted by: Luke | May 27, 2006 at 06:19 PM
One more tidbit: Recall that in his own diary entry concerning his final patrol, Kerry described cruising at high speed along the canal (I forget the name) that runs from the coast inland toward Chau Doc, parallelling the Cambodian border. At some points the canal is within fifty yards of the border. Kerry described peering through the trees at the land beyond--Cambodia!--and wondering about the mystery of it all. Does this sound like the account of a man who had already been there on a clandestine mission? What crap.
Posted by: Other Tom | May 27, 2006 at 06:20 PM
Maybe we can also clear up the mystery of the 12 year navy career that ended in 1978.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | May 27, 2006 at 06:33 PM
Other Tom,
Good posts. I've a question: What do you call an officer that as soon as he gets his three purple hearts-- all for minor wounds-- wastes no time getting out of the combat zone, leaving his shipmates in harm's way? (I think I know the answer)
Posted by: craig mclaughlin | May 27, 2006 at 06:36 PM
So IIRC at least two of the wounds were self inflicted,how did Kerry get the third,being too tall on a small boat?
Posted by: PeterUK | May 27, 2006 at 06:43 PM
According a story on May 4th online from the Charleston SC 'Post and Courier' it isn't Kerry who wants this, but Marvin Kalb. He's writing a book about the 2004 campaign and has been talking to Schacte.
Apparently it didn't go well and now Schacte is royally pissed about Kalb's position. He says he won't be on the sidelines this time, but will come out fighting. He says the answers are in Kerry's records, and calls for him to release them and clear it up.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | May 27, 2006 at 06:55 PM
It's Memorial Day weekend - I'm a vet. I'm going to think about all the vets who died for our country, and then go sear a steak.
Posted by: BumperStickerist | May 27, 2006 at 07:03 PM
Kerry's just like those draft dodging, Vietnam avoiding, bastards. That would be me, and several others, some of which I have had the opportunity to vote for, but did not.
Posted by: lk | May 27, 2006 at 07:18 PM
TO: Tom
RE: Hmmmm
Looks to me like he's gearing up for another run at the presidency.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Posted by: Chuck Pelto | May 27, 2006 at 07:18 PM
About those Kerry "home movies" that were regularly shown during the campaign: I fail to recall any of his personal home-movie scenes supporting his later HIGH VISIBILITY claim before congress, that there was significant behavior reminescent of Genghis Kahn.
Go figure.
Posted by: LarryH | May 27, 2006 at 07:49 PM
Kerry must be jealous of Jessie Macbeth.
Posted by: Robert Crawford | May 27, 2006 at 07:53 PM
Kerry must be jealous of Jessie Macbeth.
He's probably one of his secret media advisors. The new breed of "soiled soldiers," not that I'd even want to give MacBeth even that much legitimacy.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 08:01 PM
Is Pravda on 43rd St. so tone deaf that they don't realize what the propable impact of an air brush story on Hanoi John over Memorial weekend might be? Peter raised the possibility that 'Do You Know Who I Am' is acting as a stalking horse for Hillary.
It may be more likely that the NYT is hammering a nail in Kerry's coffin. I don't really know who their favorite in the retread hit parade might be but the timing of this piece is no help for Magic Hat.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | May 27, 2006 at 08:15 PM
Rick,
Kerry would be insane to go over this ground again,there must be so much on hard disc just waiting to be unloaded,as you say on Memorial Day,just as old wounds are reopened.
However the NYT has been so insensitive with its outpourings that they might just think this will help.
An the other handAl is stirring in the undergrowth
Posted by: PeterUK | May 27, 2006 at 08:33 PM
The moonbats are waging an anti-Hillary pro-Al campaign these days. It's hard to imagine they want to lose that much.
Posted by: Jane | May 27, 2006 at 08:34 PM
Whoever tagged Hillary with the prospect of being a "Good Wartime President" was a genius. Utter Moonbat Bane!
Posted by: PeterUK | May 27, 2006 at 08:45 PM
The left definitely wants Gore because they still believe he won. So if a movement starts to draft him I think he is in but I don't think Gore wants to fight for it. Ditto for Hillary. They both want to be the Anointed one much like Hillary was to become NY Senator. She hardly had to lift a finger.
Posted by: maryrose | May 27, 2006 at 08:50 PM
This reminds me of that thing that happens to all of us on occasion- when you walk away from an argument and 15 minutes later come up with the perfect rebuttal to have made. Or a day after a conversation with friends, the perfect witty retort pops into your head. Oh! If I just would have said that.
I think we are seeing how rapidly Kerry's mind works.
Two years after the fact, he has decided how he should have responded to the Swifties. If he had been elected, I'm sure his plan for getting out of Iraq quickly would be ready any month now, right after he determined the perfect time for the Iraqis to hold their elections.
Posted by: MayBee | May 27, 2006 at 08:50 PM
I'd sleep somewhat better if Kerry would be arrested and brought to trial for treason for his 1971 adventure in Paris.
Unfortunately, I'll probably have to settle for outliving the SOB so I can take a side trip to piss on his grave.
Posted by: Becker | May 27, 2006 at 08:51 PM
I think the timing of this is amusing. Kerry is well aware that he could have stopped all of this in one week by releasing those records IF he was telling the truth. He didn't, and has waited for almost 2 years for this little stunt. Too late Johnny.
He also needs to understand that even if he had really been Vietnam's Audy Murphy, what most people were most disgusted by was his behavior after he got home.
He can hang it up anyway. The best he can hope for is the VP slot. Big Al is the choice of Holllywood and the loony left--who are not fond of Ms. Bill Clinton because of her wishy washy stand on the war, and her swing towards the middle. And since Gore has gone so far into moonbeam territory, I seriously doubt he could ever beat any of number of strong Republican candidates.
He'll also have to get past Hillary in the primary--it will be a blood sport.
Posted by: verner | May 27, 2006 at 08:58 PM
Excellent point Maybee. This interesting thing in all of this is that Kerry was so surprised people went after his record and his medals. He really thought people would accept those at face value. Talk about cutting and running! My brother was there 3 times longer than Kerry. I remember we held Christmas that year on December 29th as we waited for him to come home.I also recall being angry at Carter for giving the Canadian draft dodgers amnesty but my brother saying he thought that was alright.
Posted by: maryrose | May 27, 2006 at 09:03 PM
I'll believe it when Rolling Stone confirms the rumor that The Who is back in the studio recording a remake of their hit song, renamed "Magic Hat."
Now I've got that song on playing in my head, seared there I think.
Posted by: capitano | May 27, 2006 at 09:06 PM
I don't think Gore wants to fight for it.
Gore has to be politically savy enough to know that if he throws his hat in the ring, the first video to hit the airwaves will be the one where he startings screaming and turning purple as he rants and raves. He looked like he needed to be committed at that time.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 09:08 PM
startings should read "starts"
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 09:10 PM
To answer an earlier question in the thread Kerry will be up for re-election, if he runs for President, he has to give up his Senate seat.
It will of course be filled by an equally useless twit, so there won't be a discernable difference in the Senate.
However, the entertainment value of having the media outlets who were in the bag for him in 2004 suddenly "discover" the Swift Boat Vets and other detractors to pave the way for the Cankled One will be priceless.
I can't wait for the John O'Neil Op-ed in the New York Times, or the hard hitting investigative piece by Dana Millbank in the Post on his refusal to release his form 180.
Not even his Magic Hat will protect him.
Posted by: Redcoat | May 27, 2006 at 09:12 PM
No, not "Magic Hat," come on, Magic Bus. No, wait a bit,
"Secret Hat". If you go into the jungle, don't forget your briefcase. And your Secret Hat.
Are these people just trying to get idiot liberals to give them a couple of hundred thousand dollars, so they don't have to live off their wives' pickle money? Is that the deal? How about getting the Viet Cong widow to sue Kerry for killing her prospective husband? Sounds like a possibility.
Posted by: Robert Speirs | May 27, 2006 at 09:14 PM
He also needs to understand that even if he had really been Vietnam's Audy Murphy, what most people were most disgusted by was his behavior after he got home.
EXACTLY!!!!
The timing is really stupid, if you ask me. This is one issue that will arouse a whole lot of people to hit the polls, even if he isn't running for anything. It energizes people and turns them back on to the reasons electing democrats is a bad idea for national security.
The combat Vets by rights zero in on the combat claims and bogus purple hearts, but the loved ones back home, like our family, despise Kerry just as much for his Winter Soldier testamony. There are an awful lot of wives and kids who remember what it was like to have people look at you like you were a monster because all military were baby killers and they treated our children like spawn from hell. My blood pressure goes up 20 points just thinking about it.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 09:16 PM
He's just stupid to get in the trenches on the details anyway. Seriously, that picture of him celebrating St. Patricks day with a bandage on his arm is just a sad way to prove his heroism.
He should have appealed to people's emotions and sense of honor- he was a veteran who believed he served honorably, he knows people's memories can become disparate over the years, that it is a tribute to the US Military that people who are different can serve together as a cohesive group, and at the time- when it really mattered- they all did the best they could for their country.
God bless all the veterans.
Posted by: MayBee | May 27, 2006 at 09:17 PM
Maybe someone else is behind this, but Kerry has to be an accomplice. My theory is that Gore is getting so much publicity right now because of his movie, etc., that Kerry wants to keep his name in the hat as the anti-Hillary.
As to Hillary, she may not want to fight, but she is a fighter, indeed, she is the fighter in her family, while her husband is the lover.
But if you are a conspiracy theorist, as is not uncommon after 8 years of Clintons in the White House, you have to believe that she has the dirt on both Gore and Kerry. And, the logical dirt on Kerry are those much discussed missing military records. The perfect scenerio for her would be to have him become the primary anti-Hillary for awhile, and let him take out the opposition. And then, at the right time, when Kerry has eliminated much of the opposition, let his military records discretely surface.
Posted by: Bruce Hayden | May 27, 2006 at 09:18 PM
er... is Val the hatless sooper seekrit agent JF'nK escorted into Cambodia while smuggling weapons to the Khmer Rouge?
(Just trying to get back on topic for our real interest here...)
Becker, better wear rubber boots so you can get through all the mud so you can piss on that grave - and prepare for a long wait.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | May 27, 2006 at 09:21 PM
Somehow I just can't see Hillary crossing that finish line.VP candidate-maybe but she would hate playing second fiddle-though she's done it her whole life. First with her father and then with Bill.Her negatives are too high.
As far as republicans go I like a Romney/Guiliani ticket or the reverse. I used to think McCain had a lock-not so much anymore.
Posted by: maryrose | May 27, 2006 at 09:23 PM
an officer that as soon as he gets his three purple hearts-- all for minor wounds-- wastes no time getting out of the combat zone, leaving his shipmates in harm's way?
What I really wonder is how many other people took advantage of that loophole during the Vietnam War? My guess is none, but I'd be curious to find out.
Posted by: max | May 27, 2006 at 09:23 PM
My theory has always been that the dynamite in Kerry's military records concerns his early discharge. He had a reserve committment that he doesn't appear to have served out. It could be as innocuous as that he just quit showing up, and that would have totally defused the Bush TANG story. Or, it could be that he and the Navy had a falling out over his anti-war actions, including meeting with the enemy in Paris, testifying about "atrocities" before Congress, etc. Not quite what you would expect from a Naval (reserve) officer.
Indeed, I don't really remember any evidence ever being presented that he did indeed complete his reserve committment. This was always somewhat disconcerting, given the focus that the MSM had on Bush's loss of flying status, despite that all indications are the the President did get in the requisite hours to get his Honorable Discharge - on time.
Posted by: Bruce Hayden | May 27, 2006 at 09:27 PM
Max, what I want to know is why he got to come home after 4 months and my husband, who was there at the exact same time, had to stay 15 months? And then go back again for another 9 months 2 1/2 years later at about or just after Kerry was safe and sound testifying before Congress.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 09:28 PM
Bruce Hayden:
kind of like how Hillary allowed those Rose Law Firm records to magically appear at a convenient time. She probably saw Kerry's FBI file along with the over 300 repub ones she had Craig Livingstone fetch for her.
Posted by: maryrose | May 27, 2006 at 09:29 PM
Magic Hat Kerry, Global Bore Gore and Stand by Your Man Clinton.
As Moshe Dayan said when asked for advice on how to achieve fame as a general; "fight arabs". Maybe Rove isn't a genius.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | May 27, 2006 at 09:31 PM
Personally,I like the story of the "Homing Medals",just like pigeons,keep om comimg back to roost.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 27, 2006 at 09:31 PM
BruceH;
I agree with the military discharge notion. Remember how we all laughed when it was revealed that Bush had a better academic record at Yale than Kerry.Something isn't quite right there and the media has given his 180 disclosure a pass even after Russert got him to say he would release it.
Posted by: maryrose | May 27, 2006 at 09:33 PM
" What do you call an officer that as soon as he gets his three purple hearts-- all for minor wounds-- wastes no time getting out of the combat zone, leaving his shipmates in harm's way?"
"The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts."
Look, folks, if you want to show some regard for some real heroes, go here, Operation Gratitude. They packed and shipped over 7,000 care packages to the troops just today.
Posted by: richard mcenroe | May 27, 2006 at 09:34 PM
Rick:
Want to be globally bored-vote Gore
Like Tammy Wynette's theme song Hillary will be happt to oblige and she'll even bake some cookies for you for your vote.
Then like the Beatles we have Kerry's magical Hat Mystery Tour trying to find Cambodia.
It is the Three stooges.
Time for a new vaudeville act.
Posted by: maryrose | May 27, 2006 at 09:38 PM
Thanks for the link, Richard.
I've spent the better part of the last two days collecting links from all over the web for my Memorial Day Tributes In Memory of our Honored Dead post. I've read through dozens of beautiful tributes and looked at several moving videos as I compiled all the links and then I come over to JOM and focus in on John Kerry. It just makes my blood boil. There are so many real heroes out there and this coward is actually held in some esteem by some people.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 09:42 PM
sara:
You're doing good work and the vets and our soldiers appreciate it. Kudos!
Posted by: maryrose | May 27, 2006 at 09:53 PM
The winner of the Uriah Heap Competition
Posted by: PeterUK | May 27, 2006 at 09:56 PM
PeterUK:
LOL
He looks like one of the dead from the Grateful Dead!
Posted by: maryrose | May 27, 2006 at 10:02 PM
The job is made easy, Maryrose, because there are so many talented people out there who are writing from the heart. It is real and it grabs you, or at least it does me.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 10:04 PM
I believe the discharge controversy is the potential albatross for the junior sentator from Mass.
I can't quite remember now, but didn't it have something to do with the Carter administration re-issuing his discharge?Perhaps it was that he was discharged less than honorably.
I love that this is back in the news, he'll have nowhere to hide now with SF 180.
May God bless our veterans.
Posted by: Hiram Abif | May 27, 2006 at 10:04 PM
Maryrose,
An iffy looking a cove as ever I clapped eyes on.
If he had become ptresident how many foreign intelligence services would have had his 180,and let him know about it?
Posted by: PeterUK | May 27, 2006 at 10:06 PM
sara (squigler),
It is obvious that Kerry has no idea some men(and women) will fight for their honor.
Because Kerry has no concept of honor.
Posted by: M. Simon | May 27, 2006 at 10:08 PM
I believe the discharge controversy is the potential albatross for the junior sentator from Mass.
IIRC the date was wrong...much too late. Can money fix that? It sounded as if Carter had possibly gave him a pardon?
Posted by: owl | May 27, 2006 at 10:16 PM
"Loyalty above all else, except honor."
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 10:17 PM
"Loyalty above all else, except honor."
No,that's something else missing,there was an abalysis produced at the election that Kerry was an extreme narcissistic personality.No doubt on of our passing shrinks will comment on that one.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 27, 2006 at 10:24 PM
My memory is that the (now) Senior Senator from MA had something to do with getting Kerry his Honorable Discharge. And this stuck out at the time, because the Carter amnesty probably should have covered him, but apparently did not. And that was why I thought that there might just be something there above and beyond the usual - such as that he was separated because of his anti-war actions, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer, etc., and not merely because he quit showing up for his reserve duty.
My understanding though is that discharge is different for officers as compared to the enlisted ranks. Instead of all the gradiations of less than honorable, there is Honorable, mere separation, and jail. Most, of course, get an Honorable Discharge, as did our President. Former officers, feel free to correct this.
But if that is the case, a mere separation or discharge, without anything more, would not seem to be sufficient to keep him from releasing his military records, which is why I suspect there to be more.
Posted by: Bruce Hayden | May 27, 2006 at 10:34 PM
Hillary's motto for Bill:
Make love not whore.
BTW I'm one of the few who thinks Monica is a really cute Jewish girl. I like da meat on da bones.
Posted by: M. Simon | May 27, 2006 at 10:49 PM
The other thing that struck me about the whole Kerry thing was his testifying before Congress about all the supposed atrocities in Vietnam. He made it sound like it was an every day occurance. Of course, we find out later that a lot of the "witnesses" that he supposedly based this off of never served in Vietnam, or, at least never saw combat there.
Nevertheless, it seems like the only time in his life that he was really passionate about something. Twenty years in the Senate without any legislative accomplishments is an accomplishment in itself.
So, here is my theory. Kerry was raised Roman Catholic, with all that that entails, esp. as to guilt. He tries to avoid the military, but in order to avoid being drafted, manages to get into the Naval Reserves. His first tour in the area is pretty uneventful, if not boring. And then he hears about a brown water navy that isn't seeing any action, remembers his hero, JFK, and volunteers. Whoops, shortly thereafter, their mission changes to a combat role.
Like most, he is somewhat frightened of combat, esp. before he experiences it. But then, he does experience it, and a side of him is unleashed. A not very pretty side of him, that is ultra-competitive and extremely brutal. I think that we saw some of the two sides in that one instance where one of the boats took a hit, he appeared to be running away, and came back.
And, deep down, he enjoyed his brutal side. He enjoyed firing machine guns, shooting grenades, and, even, killing. And he hated that he enjoyed it. And, indeed, in his blood frenzy, he may have killed that one VC in cold blood.
And that, I will suggest, is why he wanted so badly to get out. This self-loathing of his violent side.
So, he gets out, and it still haunts him. What is the natural thing to do, esp. for a good Catholic? Confession and Penance. Whenever I reheard his Congressional testimony, it always sounded to me almost like a confession. He was the one who committed the atrocities. Throwing all the other Vietnam vets in with him was a way to spread his guilt - after all, everyone was doing it. But this also explains why his anti-war actions were the only time in his life where he really took a stand, really did anything passionate. And, I think it was to expatiate his sins.
Just some armchair psychoanalysis by someone with little training there.
Posted by: Bruce Hayden | May 27, 2006 at 10:55 PM
Becker,
I agree with Bill in Az that you will have to wait in a long line, and there will be lots of us waiting behind you.
I also know that my late friend Walt, the Marine, will be waiting at the pearly gates to make sure that kerry (small k intended) cannot lie his way in because of the pure HELL he caused here on Earth.
Posted by: Dave | May 27, 2006 at 11:06 PM
How nice of Kerry to time his re-fight with respect to Memorial Day weekend.
Posted by: Lurker | May 27, 2006 at 11:22 PM
I want to extend thanks to John Kerry for adding a bit humour to the chatter. Only a fool would dig this out.
Posted by: Neo | May 27, 2006 at 11:24 PM
Bruce, I think Kerry ran away because he is a coward. He was probably peeing in his pants. I think he joined the service because he wanted a career in politics and at that time you almost had to be a Vet. When he ran away, and then had a moment of sanity as he probably saw the aghast reactions of the rest of the guys on that boat, he saw his whole political career going down in flames. He didn't go back out of bravery or from any desire to protect his men, he went back because he needed to look like a hero when he got back home. He is a calculating, cold SOB.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 11:28 PM
Bruce--
I think the smart betting is that Kerry received an Other than Honorable Discharge for his trip to Paris to meet with the Viet Cong while he was still a Naval reservist. IIRC that was in 1975.
This, I believe, would have stripped him of all his medals and citations, thus the need to have them reissued by John Lehman and others.
The guy really is a pathological narcissist, not to mention a complete jerk. Is it too late to try his ass for treason?
Posted by: Fresh Air | May 27, 2006 at 11:30 PM
why is it that you republican types always find a way to trash the war records of people you dont agree with...
And the war records of those you agree with are unassailable...
You are all hypocrites
Posted by: rick | May 27, 2006 at 11:38 PM
seared seared seared in his memory: that nixon was denying we had forces in cambodia in december 1968 - WHICH JUST HAPPENS TO BE BEFORE NXON WAS EVER INAUGURATED.
sheesh. he destroys his own argument. as lying scumbag slandering traitors often do.
that ain't opinion: that's FACT.
is he working for rove?
Posted by: reliapundit | May 27, 2006 at 11:44 PM
Rick, can you name one time we "trashed" anyone's legitimate war record?
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 11:45 PM
Oh, silly me, that assumes you know what a "legitimate" war record is.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 11:46 PM
interestingly....
All here seem to be comfortable criticizing kerry...
Where was Bush, Cheney..
You seem to ahve no problem thinking that kerry somehow miraculously knew that he would not ever really be hurt.. even when he was in za war zone and bullets were flying..
And Bush.Cheney... were where? exactly..??
How would all of you be reacting if bush or cheney were democrats and kerry was a rebublican?
Ill tell you... you would be tearing bush and cheney apart for not serving in a combat zone.
I repeat... You are all hypocrites..
Posted by: rick | May 27, 2006 at 11:48 PM
rick, kerry trashed his own war record - we're just pointing it out to him. He seems to not have noticed.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | May 27, 2006 at 11:49 PM
Rick, you are making a fool of yourself.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 11:49 PM
George Bush served honorably from 1968 to 1973 and trained as a fighter pilot. John Kerry served 4 months and managed to demonstrate what a coward he is.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 27, 2006 at 11:55 PM
ok sara
my point was... it seems that only democrats seem entitled to have their war records attacked.. republicans are all unassailable
would you care to comment intelligently on that?
Or further... why is it that it seems the first defense of the right-wing is character assassination of those espousing opposing views?
Posted by: rick | May 27, 2006 at 11:58 PM
A member of the party of personal destruction calling anyone out is really too funny.
The only war record I attack is John Kerry's and that's for extremely personal reasons that have to do with his actions that affected me and my loved ones directly in 1968-1969 and again in 1971-1972. He was a scumbag back then and he is still one today. Sorry if you have trouble with that, but that's the truth of the matter.
I am totally disgusted with John Murtha and his "cut and run" BS, but I've never attacked his Marine Corps service. He deserves to be honored for that. But that does not entitle him to act dishonorably now, and he has. I am ashamed to say that he represents my hometown district, although I no longer live there.
Posted by: Sara (The Squiggler) | May 28, 2006 at 12:03 AM
by the way, sara the squiggler... that crack about me making a fool of myself..was rather an unkind statement..
funny stuff from someone who calls herself the squiggler...
Posted by: rick | May 28, 2006 at 12:04 AM