SwiftVets.com

[xleatherneck]

[Beldar]

Yeah, it's relevant whether they were under fire. Don't kid yourselves.

Don't over-react, though, into thinking that everyone telling one version is speaking the gospel truth and everyone telling the other is deliberately lying.

I am hugely frustrated, as a trial lawyer, by the way the press handles these witnesses. It's like watching a case about a train wreck being tried in court by kindergarten kids with attention deficit disorder acting as the lawyers.

In contrast to the witnesses presented by the SwiftVets -- whose statements have been unequivocal, clear, and without internal conflicts -- the newer statements trumpeted by the Kerry camp are all mushy as hell. (That's to the Senator's tactical advantage, of course.)

There are lots of things that go to the credibility and weight of a witness' testimony besides his veracity (truthfulness). Opportunity to observe is one. Ability to appreciate what you've observed is another.

Consider Russell's version, for instance. We don't know much about who he is, but taking what the press has reported at face value, he was a PsyOps officer -- not a Swiftee -- and probably worked out of a desk in Saigon most of the time. He sees tracers from twin .50-calibers passing through brush and leaves along the banks. Does he have the experience to reliably tell the difference between that and muzzle flashes from AK-47s?

Rassmann's time in the water, however long it was, is another example.

Lambert -- who I don't think is a Kerry shill -- says, "Well, I sure was under the impression that we were [under fire]." But he's busy helping with the rescue almost immediately. He's expecting enemy fire -- everyone did in a possible ambush situation. So whose testimony -- completely apart from veracity (intent to be truthful) -- is entitled to more weight: His, or Odell's, whose whole job it was to look for VC to shoot back at and who had the best viewpoint of the scene?

My point is that there are all kinds of ways that skilled questioners could develop all the additional contextual facts one would need to make a reasoned judgment about who to believe, to the extent there is a direct conflict in the testimony.

And even if there's still a swearing match when you've gotten all the contextual information a good advocate would develop in a courtroom setting, there's still the question of showing who's almost certainly exaggerating, or telling an improbable story, even if they're not deliberately lying. The whole "5000 meters of fire" limb that Kerry's climbed out on can be sawn off even if one believes, after hearing everyone else, that there may have been some small arms fire from the shore near the weir at some point.

Kerry pulling Rassmann out of the water five minutes after all the shooting has stopped is about like pulling Licorice the Unlucky Hamster out of the water for his daughters many years later. It's not Bronze Star valor.

Believe me, folks, O'Neill intuitively understands all this stuff. I'm sure he's twice as frustrated as I am, watching with a courtroom lawyer's eye from the sidelines. But he's known for months, as he's plotted out the strategy for this whole campaign, that there'd be "adverse witnesses" who, much as he'd like to, he may never get to pin down. He may yet have ideas we haven't seen or thought of for how to compensate for the media's inability to ask a decent question.

The SwiftVets' supporters owe it to them to be patient and calm, not to overreact, not to point the "liar!' finger prematurely. Let's see how it plays out.

[Stevie]

good grief! My brain's gonna explode trying to figure this out! so many different versions! I figure there was no enemy fire.... Kerry, Rassman etc heard the fire from the other boats... afterall he took off (chicken) and left the other boats to fend for themselves and the mined boat... if there was enemy fire, why didn't chicken little stay and fire back... and help protect the injured boat???? so it comes down to Kerry lied when he said the other boats fled and he stayed (liar, liar pants on fire)... that makes him a REAL HERO... AND LEADER - RIGHT? so, even leaving out the lying about the medals/ PH... he lied about fleeing and Cambodia... that's 2 lies there... Brit Hume showed wording from Kerry saying he remembered the day MLK died - April 1968 because he was in Vietnam etc, etc.... then Brit commented that Kerry didn't get to Vietnam until Nov 1968. (unless that was on a prev tour to Vietnam) - so thet's 3 lies... I heard / saw 2 lies the week after his convention... so he's still at it (actually, I've heard way more than those 2.... like everytime he says Bush is behind the swiftvets.... ) John Gibson (fox - 'my word') had guest on (actually heather did the interview) with a Col ???? Ray - regarding how medals are awarded.... and he commented (obviously not a Kerry suppporter) that no real leader would leave his boat and men after 3 such minor injuries anyway and set such a bad example.... and commented about all the really injured men he knew there that just couldn't wait to get better enough to get back to their units ... knowing how shorthanded they were and that they were needed by the men left behind.... republicans on talk shows really do need to tun up the volume on Kerry being a Liar, Liar, Liar ! and I think I heard that he has even agreed that he was wrong on the Sampan deal.... he LIED when he wrote up that report! oos, that's 4 lies! plus the 2 I heard makes 6 lies and they keep adding up!

[Herb]

[Wing Wiper]

I think Polaris' version is likely very accurate as to what happened. A couple or 3 VC in a pit waited, using the weir as a choke point/steering aid to lead the 3 boat onto their mine, detonated it, and fired some rounds as they bugged out (maybe hitting a couple of boats in the process). Kerry saw the mine go off, went to full throttle, caught Rassmann by surprise, and he fell overboard. Kerry ran off down the river, the other boats poured out suppressive fire until they noticed there was no return fire, then started a salvage operation on the 3 boat. Once the fire died down, Kerry turned and made a run back up to the other boats, spotted Rassmann in the water (almost drown, I'm still convinced), and picked him up. Later, Kerry offered to write up the spot report to cover his questionable actions, and embellished it to get another medal and a ticket home, before his precious ass really got hurt. Does that all add up pretty well?

[Herb]

[Stevie]

Herb,
I don't really understand what you are saying.... but that maybe Kerry's boat wanted to get out of the way so the boat(s) behind them could get thru if needed? so he went 3 miles up/down the river? Would they all leave and not check the mined boat for survivors etc?

[Herb]

[jrsdad]

[Beldar]

Herb asked,

[Wing Wiper]

If you're going to initiate a mechanical ambush against 5 Swift boats that can return fire with 10 .50 cals, 5 M-60's and 5 mortars, plus small arms, you're going to set up in a place where you can see the boats and get some good cover as soon as you trigger the ambush. If not, you're dead quick.

[ASPB]

A few points:

There were no main force VC or NVA in the region. It had long been VC controlled and was a base for what they called re-education camps for locals.

There were no VC heavy weapons in the area, only small arms, RPGs, improvised explosive devices (mines), and an occasional 60mm or 82mm Mortar.

I've been in about 50 firefights with VC on the rivers. Of those, Only 3 lasted for more that a minute in terms of incoming fire and often less. 2 of the 3 were against main force VC (battalion strength) and one against NVA (battalion strength). To have 5000 meters of fire from both banks would require at least to 2 main force battalions. There wasn't even one in Cau Mai.

Most ambushes involved 2 to 6 local insurgents with 1 or 2 RPG launchers and the rest with AKs. If a water mine was used it was almost always a Czech or Chinese C-4 improvised devise that was command detonated from spider hole 20 to 30 yards from the shore. Minings often were not accompanied by SA fire. It was often a matter of "push the plunger" and scurry home while we shot up the foliage.

I've been studying the 13 Mar 69 incident through the filter of personal experience for 6 months and have concluded the this was a 1 or 2 spiderhole event. 2 local insurgents with AK's and a current generating plunger wired to an underwater IED. Boom, Pop, Pop, Pop in 5-10 seconds and hurry home for dinner.

VC 1 pushes the plunger. VC 2 may or may not have popped a few caps with a AK. No one on any of the boats would have heard incoming fire after the mine detonation. Once you open up with 50's on one these boats that's "all" you hear, sometimes for as long as an hour.

I report, you decide.

Tom
_________________
On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB

[gkdechow]

Twidget

After hearing all the Recolections and claims over the last 3 weeks I have gravitated toward a version very similat to yours. A "Mad Minute with 10 .50 cals and at least 5 M-60s "cuttin loose" it would be very hard to find or even determine if their was actually any hostile fire. It also might make some think hitting a big floating log seemed like a mine. This was also the time Kerry "fall down bump his arm" which if there was actually any enemy fire might make Kerry's last Purple Heart sort of technecally legal.

[carpro]

[lrb111]