SwiftVets.com

[Bill Levinson]

Today's Wall Street Journal, editorial page, by Jim Rassmann. He says Kerry saved his life under fire, and he says Swiftvets' ad insults him and other veterans.

This is why I recommend focus on what Kerry did after he returned from Vietnam. There is also no argument that Kerry threw "his" medals over the wall and is thus not entitled to claim them now.
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/warcrim.html (Kerry as America's Kurt Waldheim)
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/genghis.html (Genghis John burning a village)

From History News Network, Tim Russert's interview with John Kerry in 1971 (http://hnn.us/articles/3552.html)
SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.

Statement by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations April 23, 1971
http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html
http://pages.xtn.net/~wingman/docs/kerryst.htm
I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam[/url]
_________________
--Bill
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/kerry Growing dossier on John Kerry's lack of character, ethics, and integrity. Free leaflets, Election 2004

[Lily]

Rassman is free to speak, so why does he wish to silence other veterans?I see nothing wrong with discussing Kerry's militray record since he has made it the center of his campaign.If Kerry is a liar and opportunist that goes directly to his fitness to be commander in chief. I'm listening to Hannity's show with O'Neil and Corsi and John O'Neil is doing an excellent job of exposing the lies of John Kerry.Among other things John O'Neil reveals that Dr Letson (who's apparently a Democrat) went to the head of his local chapter of the Democratic party to tell him what he knew about Kerry, in order to let the party know they would have a problem with Kerry as the nominee. Kerry is running on his four months in Vietnam not on being a Vietnam antiwar activist, IMO his military record is fair game.

[Erica]

Rassman agrees with them so hes allowed to speak hahaha Typical leftist attitude .. Shut up unless you like us ! School aged children mentality.

[Me#1You#10]

Bill...could you provide a link to the article?

Thanks

[Bill Levinson]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110005460

You must register to get access to it.
_________________
--Bill
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/kerry Growing dossier on John Kerry's lack of character, ethics, and integrity. Free leaflets, Election 2004

[Me#1You#10]

[BenJaxBchFL]

Since the guys in the boat signed on for support of Kerry one has to ask how will they look if they admit that some liberties have been taken on describing the level of danger. I think we may have a "that's my story and I'm sticking to it" scenario.
_________________
The war against terrorism is not that Americans might die rather that we would alter our way of living. If we get to a point where we choose not to go out because of fear, our economy will sink and in the end so will our nation. Vote Bush.

[Lily]

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

Good catch, Lily!

LT Rassman is completely entitled to describe the events of that night in any way that he chooses.

I believe that Swifts has five signed affidavits that contradict his recollections. (Correct me if I'm wrong, here - I can hold facts in my head about ten minutes, lately. )

As Me/You pointed out - Rassman's account is about to amount to tattered remnants.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[4moreyears]

Is Rassman related to Rasputin?

He's a bit strange IMHO. Why was he on Kerry's boat...and how long had he been there?
_________________
kerry returned to the United States on July 22, 1971, held a press conference publicly calling on President Nixon... for the surrender of the United States to North Vietnam.

[drjohn]

I read Rassman's account and it did not work with the Kerry account. Had the boats all left the area, it would mean that Rassman held his breath until the injured had been retrieved and cared for and the 3-boat attached and towed away. I don't anyone who can hold his breath for that long. The only way to explain what Rassman thinks he remembers is to accept the accounts of Mssrs. Thurlow, Chenoweth and Odell. When the 3 boat was struck, Kerry had to have left the are in order to come back. Rassman must have fallen off the 94 boat as Kerry sped away.

Had the hostile fire continued for the 5000 meters to where Rassman treaded water, what happened to it when the towline was attached to the 3 boat? Did Kerry call a timeout? What happened to it when the boat was towed away? The boat would had to have been towed through the fire zone that Kerry claimed existed.

Why is this so damned difficult for even "conservative" journalists to comprehend? I am finding that few people are interested in the details- and the devil is in the details.

[d19thdoc]

The Rassmann WSJ op-ed piece is answered online by 19 readers, so far, and the score is SBVT 19, Kerry 0. See them at:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/responses.html?article_id=110005460
_________________
For The Honor of the Fifty-Eight Thousand.
"He Can Lose, But He Can Not Hide"

[hankholmes]

Nice reader responses at the WSJ!

[truthseeker]

When studying history from original sources, it is not uncommon to see the same event described in dramatically different ways, even from primary sources.

One job of the historian is to try to reconcile the opposites. Sometimes there are ulterior motives at the time. Sometimes the person you think is a "primary" source (i.e., eyewitness) really is not an eyewitness. Sometimes one description is written at the time of the incident in question, while another is written years later, when memories have faded and motivations exist to be on "the right side of history" as perceived through the intervening years.

I think of Eisenhower quoted as disparaging the use of the atomic bomb on Japan. One has to remember Eisenhower was not running things in the Pacific, so opinion on necessity may not have been first-hand, and the quotes I often see, Eisenhower said in the 1950's (be on the right side of history) as opposed to what he might have said in, say, 1944. So, not to discount the quote, not to say that Eisenhower is lying or incompetent (which would be silly)....but that the comment is colored by a number of factors, and should be considered in that context.

This sort of analysis is not easy with partisan passions going on.

Not that any of that will stop us.

So, with all due respect...........I'd like to hear from those more "expert".

Why the apparent discrepancy between descriptions (or maybe I should say "opinions") between some of the people featured in "Unfit for Command" and those who appear with Kerry on stage, Rassman et. al.?

Wouldn't the Swift Boat crew have witnessed the injuries (or lack thereof) in question?

Freely admit, I am not military. For those who served, consider me your younger brother. Came of age just at the tail end of the way. And thanks to all for service. I mean all this with respect.

I will guess there would be loyalty to the commander, unit cohesion (if he's a bad guy as commander, are we as crew?). The "be on the right side of history" motivation.

Are they being paid off by Teresa? I think that's been mentioned. A classy hotel and some expenses on the campaign trail.....and the proverbial 15 minutes of fame? Is that really going to motivate all those vets? Maybe one or two (there's always a couple in any group.....you should see my family ). Big-time payoff, millions? Seems too far-fetched for me.

Are they all secretly Democratic ideologues, enough to motivate them to misrepresent themselves? If that charge sticks to one side, it could stick to the other.

As mentioned in the WSJ responses, it is not mutually exclusive that Kerry exaggerated his exploits, or even didn't deserve many of his medals.........AND he saved Mr. Rassman's life. And I would imagine there would be a psychological motivation for Mr. Rassman to support Ferry for what he did.

And..........I don't know how much contact Mr. Rassman had with Kerry, aside from that incident. The firefight where he was injured, maybe by his own weapon and all that. I don't know if Mr. Rassman is any more qualified to comment on what happened than I was if he wasn't there. (Again, with all due respect to all involved). Given all those events, I could see his motivation to support the man who saved his life, maybe to overstate what happened or what he really did "know" and what he really did see himself. In other words, discrepancies without anyone really "lying".

Or Mr. Rassman's account of the "intensity" of the combat, versus others accounts. I can guarantee one thing. If you plucked me out of my chair, back in time, and put me in the water, I'd say that was the most intense combat in history. Gotta imagine in his situation, his memory might be more colored than another's.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is, not just the discrepancies in "one side is lying" (which may be possible), but "one side misinterprets" or "one side got the wrong information". More benign, but still significant, explanations for any discrepancies.

Maybe a lot of this will be answered when I get the book, but hey, why not speculate in the meantime?

[truthseeker]

As one writer says in the WSJ response quoted above:

"There is absolutely nothing terribly unusual about the inconsistency of heroism and self-interest residing in the same person. Benedict Arnold defeated the British at Saratoga and defected to them at West Point. Charles Lindbergh gamely flew the Atlantic, then turned a blind eye toward the Nazis. Both suffered deserved loss of prestige for their vanity."

Well said IMHO. Kerry could well have done some admirable things, but also did some not-so-admirable things.....and when taken in total, the full history may have been less than exemplary, to say the least.

The problem is, one eyewitness saw the admirable things, another eyewitness saw the not-so-admirable things.

Is that book out yet...........?