Saturday, August 21, 2004

Old Tricks



A front group for the Bush campaign called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is continuing to spread their lies about John Kerry's military record. Their statements have been contradicted by official Navy records, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune and every man who served under John Kerry -- yet George Bush refuses to condemn their tactics. Through his silence, George Bush is approving their action. And Bush campaign officials in Florida are even promoting events for this front group.

Enough is enough. No matter what these Bush campaign shills now say, John Kerry's commanders remarked in 1969 that, "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed." In fact, all of John Kerry's performance reports (available on our website) display an absolutely heroic record of service.

View the Ad here: http://www.johnkerry.com/video/player.php?video=082104_old_tricks

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, you poor folks are really hurting from this truth-assault from the swift boat guys! You want so badly to believe the lies, and yet- the truth is right there- and you can't do ANYTHING to make it go away! I love it!!!! I'm sorry- when did the NY Times refute the SBVFT claims? Oh yes, that's right- they refuted NOTHING. They simply stated (and let me be clear about this) that the SBVFT guys were funded in part by (are you ready for this?) BUSH-SUPPORTERS and REPUBLICANS!! Oh my, I can't believe it!!! And all this time, I thought they were able to purchase those ads THEMSELVES- you know, seeing how most Vietnam Vets are EXTREMELY wealthy (right John?). You mean to tell me that pro-Kerry people didn't fund ANY of those ads from the SBVFT??? I simply never would have guessed! Yes, that's about the best the NY Times could do in it's unbelievably lame attempt to "refute" those claims. Read the article- and tell me where it says anything about the SBVFT claims being false.

How about this guy in Chicago, William Rood- is he really "refuting" anything of substance? ABSOLUTELY NOT! He simply claims that John made the right call- that his counter-ambush tactics were heroic and successful. OK, good point. Well worth a debate. Some would say it was foolish, some would say it was valorous. No argument here. He DID NOT address the REAL issue at stake here- John Kerry shot a wounded VC teenager in the back as he was fleeing. Rood claims it wasn't a teenager, but actually appeared to be a full-grown man. To that, I say "SO WHAT???" In my world, people can be court-marshaled for shooting wounded folks in the back when they're fleeing! It's just not the mark of a brave warrior. So what about his Bronze Star? Well, here's how it normally works:

1) Soldier does something heroic.
2) Witness (fellow soldier, supervisor, subordinate,
anyone present) says "Hey, that was heroic! That man
deserves a medal!!"
3) Witness tells soldier's commander all about why
that soldier deserves a medal.
4) Commander might verify the story if he has time, but
usually doesn't. Trust is everything in the military,
so award recommendations are rarely, if ever,
questioned.
5) Commander drafts a citation recounting the
incident. The citation is usually just a polished-up
version of the after action report, which, as I
mentioned previously, was submitted by some awe-struck
witness. (example "While taking heavy enemy fire, LT
Kerry charged the hill and killed 238 VC, saving all
his men in the process.")
6) Citation gets passed up the chain of command
without being read (trust is everything and officers
are busy!), and eventually gets to some
high-ranking bigwig, who promptly signs it without
even looking at it. Trust me when I tell you that if
every top General or government official had to
scrutinize every award recommendation, there wouldn't
be time for anything else.

So that's the process. So now let's go back to Kerry's
Bronze Star- the ones who were there with him started
asking a very reasonable question- "Who recommended us
for this? There wasn't any 'enemy fire'! It was a mine
blast- pure and simple!" Well, when no one was able to
find anyone willing to step forward and say "It was
me- I'm the one who lied about enemy fire being
present" (can you see where this is going?) all eyes
turned to the guy who WASN'T asking the question! Busted!! That's right, folks! Your candidate simply passed a bogus report up the chain of command
and no questions were asked. Sorry guys, but there's no other explanation. Even the guys who got Bronze Stars for the same incident are saying, "Yeah, I thought that was weird when I saw that citation and it said I was taking enemy fire, because I sure as hell know that there wasn't any." The guy that he pulled out of the water claims he heard gunfire, and I'm sure he did. It was the guys on the patrol boats laying down suppressing fire following the mine blast (common procedure). All who were present verify that, yes, there WAS friendly suppression fire. And damn near everyone who was present also swears there was no enemy fire, and they all agree that Kerry HAD to be the one who lied and said there was. So what do you do when everyone begins to suspect you're a self-serving liar? Easy! Round up three quick purple hearts, and head on home! Oh, that reminds me, I should probably cover a commonly used procedure that medal-chasers use for getting a purple heart:

Kerry: "Hey Doc, can you sign this please? It just
says that a bad guy shot me yesterday- you see I'm collecting purple hearts so I can go home!"

Doc: "But, John, you're only missing a fingernail.
What about all those guys who lost their limbs, their
eyes, even their lives? Do you really want to
desecrate them by getting the same medal as them when
all you have is a boo-boo?"

Kerry: "If it gets me home pronto, the answer is 'YES
SIR!!!!'"

If you don't believe me, ask anyone who's been to
combat. It sickens me to see medal-chasers in action,
but they exist- and they've existed for quite a while.
Okay, enough about medals- John Kerry served more than most and should therefore be honored, right? WRONG! How about our "heroic soldiers" who abused the
prisoners in Iraq and took photos for all the world to
see? THEY served more than most people. Should THEY be
honored? To make a blanket statement along the lines
of "anyone who served should be honored" is just plain
stupid. I know of several people who would have done
much better for their country by staying home. John
Kerry is one of them. "Why" you ask? Well, it has
nothing to do with the fact that he lied to get
medals. You see, as a leader (officer) in wartime, you
MUST ensure that soldiers believe one thing above all
else- that their leaders are looking out for them. The
soldiers must believe that the ones in charge will
devote EVERY LAST BREATH, DROP OF BLOOD, BEAD OF SWEAT
to ensure the soldiers' safety during the course of
the mission. John Kerry did no such thing. He got 3
band-aid wounds, and promptly headed out. Remember- 3
purple hearts gave one the CHOICE to leave- it was not
obligatory. What kind of message did that send to his
soldiers and all the other enlisted soldiers in his
unit? I'll tell you what message it sent- "officers
look out for themselves." Officers will get rattled
and say "OK good luck guys! I'm outta here!!"
Apparently a handful of his soldiers have forgiven him
for abandoning them. Understandable, given the fact
that he delivered them a national cheering audience
that was more than 30 years overdue (at the DNC). But
I'll tell you who will NEVER forgive him for what he
did- the officers who served with him. He made their
job more difficult, he hurt morale, he put their lives
in danger, and he quickly rubbed salt in their wounds
by coming home and bashing the ones who were brave
enough to stay behind and do their duty. Reprehensible
in every sense of the word. Say what you want about
whether or not he deserved his medals- I could care
less. What is NOT debatable is the fact that he got 3
"minor wounds" and promptly abandoned the ones he was
sworn to protect. As a leader in the US Military,
that's the worst insult. He would have served his
country much better by never having gone to Vietnam.
He is truly "unfit for command."

George Bush is no war hero. Nobody (including W himself) is trying to pretend that he is.

John Kerry is the opposite of a hero, and no one
claims him to be a hero more than he himself. Ladies
and Gentleman, that is just plain disgusting....

Your vote- your conscience.

11:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Heh.

Post your name and a valid email address and we can debate. Your fouled up but I dont engage trolls.

Robert G. Oler cvn65vf94@hotmail.com

4:08 AM  
Blogger Ron Chusid said...

The above has all been contradicted by the actual witnesses who were there and verified Kerry's account, as well as by everyone who has studied this independently.

On the other hand, multiple articles have shown that those attacking Kerry were often people who weren't even there, that their testimony has often contradicted their own statements which backed up Kerry's description of events, and that they are being paid by GOP sources close to Bush to make their lies.

Now, which side will we believe?

10:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can squack all you want. The fact remains, why didn't these ship mates known as The Swift Boat Liars, come out with this 35 years ago? They have a agenda to get Bush relected and the Hell with the truth. I am voting for Kerry, do you honestly believe these men could be telling the truth, when the remaining 8 or 9 all are backing Kerry.

10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=14743

John Kerry's Mysterious Combat "V"
By Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 20, 2004


As the authors of Fake Warriors: Identifying, Exposing and Punishing
Those Who Falsify Their Military Service, we receive scores of emails on
our website either asking questions about the Fake Warrior phenomenon
(which has reached epidemic proportions), or reporting sightings which
sometimes lead to exposure and even fines or jail terms.

One Vietnam vet with nearly forty years of military service who retired
as a major, spurred on by the revelations in our book, and, in his
words. "having seen hundreds of DD 214s" (a veteran's Record of Transfer or
Separation), recently decided to take a close look at John Kerry's DD
214, which is posted on his website. What the major called to our
attention, which we have since verified, raises some extremely troubling
questions about John Kerry's Silver Star. Keep in mind that the Silver
Star is the third-highest medal our Nation can bestow (after only the
Medal of Honor and the three service "Crosses").

Kerry's DD 214 lists a Silver Star with a combat "V" (for valor). As
the major correctly observes, the "V" is never awarded with the Silver
Star. But the actual wording on Kerry's DD 214 (see www.johnkerry.com)
is: "SILVER STAR WITH COMBAT 'V'."



There is an abundance of anecdotal evidence that a combat "V" (called a
"Combat Distinguishing Device") is simply not awarded with a Silver
Star. For example, a former Vietnam War POW told us that he has "three
SSs, and there was no V for any of them." Countless other Silver Star
recipients all say the same thing. Why? Because, among other reasons, it
would be redundant to award a Silver Star for "gallantry" (the
statutory term) and then embellish it with a "V" for valor.



Most conclusive, however, is that the law is very clear about the award
of Combat Distinguishing Devices. According to the Navy Awards Manual:

Bronze "V" (Combat Distinguishing Device).

Prior to . . . 1974, the "V" was authorized for wear on the Legion of
Merit, Bronze Star Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Navy
Commendation Medal and Navy Achievement Medal. Between . . .1974 and . . .
1991, the "V" was authorized for wear on the Distinguished Flying Cross,
Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal and Navy
Commendation Medal. [In] . . . 1991, the "V" was authorized for wear on
the Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star Medal, Air
Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and Navy and Marine
Corps Achievement Medal. In all cases, the Combat Distinguishing Device
may only be worn if specifically authorized in the citation. See also
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Valor_device.

Because the "V" is authorized for only the ten awards cited above, but
not for the Silver Star, Kerry's Silver Star citation (the
"explanation" of why the award was made) does not even mention the "V" for valor
(see www.johnkerry.com).

The presence of the combat "V" with Kerry's Silver Star on his DD 214
raises two extremely disquieting questions. How did the unauthorized
"V" get there, and why has Kerry allowed it to remain?

The first question should not be taken lightly because we are talking
about possible federal crimes. We are talking about the possibility of
a forged official document. We are talking, as well, about Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1001, which states: "[W]hoever, in any manner
within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial
branch of the United States, knowingly and willfully . . . makes or uses
any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially
false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both."

Was the combat "V" added by a sloppy clerk or a yeoman's typo thirty
years ago? Was someone pressured or persuaded to add it? If Kerry had
nothing to do with the gratuitously added combat "V," why didn't he have
his DD 214 corrected when he was separated from the Navy?

Which gives rise to the second disturbing question: If Kerry was not a
party to the unauthorized "V," why, for all these years, has he allowed
his DD 214 to remain uncorrected and to repose on his website?

In light of the recent Swift Boat revelations and the cloud they have
cast over Kerry's awards, one plausible answer is that this is yet
another example of Kerry's multiple, and increasingly transparent, lies
about his alleged heroics in Vietnam.

Let's hope it won't take a controversial TV spot to spark a mainstream
media investigation of how candidate Kerry received an unearned "V" for
valor.

Henry Mark Holzer [www.henrymarkholzer.com; hank@henrymarkholzer.com],
Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn Law School, specializes in federal
appeals. Erika Holzer [www.erikaholzer.com] is a lawyer and novelist.
They are co-authors of "Aid and Comfort": Jane Fonda in North Vietnam.

11:16 AM  
Blogger Pamela Leavey said...

Dear Anonymous,

Here's some even more disturbing questions...

Where was Bush during the Vietnam War? Where are his complete records?

What has Bush done to improve this country?

Why did members of the Bush administration distort the truth to get us into their ill gotten war in Iraq?

Why can't the Bush campaign run on the issues instead of using the diversion of the lies of the Smear Boaters?

12:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home