 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LongTimeLurker
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 6
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 4:35 pm Post subject: Sampan Incident Clarification |
 |
|
I have been debating Kerry Apologists and anti-SBVT posters on a message board I frequent. However, someone posted a link to the dailyhowler.com where they discussed the Sampan Incident.
FWIW, I have never read any other pages of the site, but they obviously are anti-SBVT.
Be that as it may, they disected a section of the book dealing with the sampan incident.
They quote page 58 in unfit for command:
| Quote: | | Despite Kerry’s written report, rumors of the incident circulated for years. The vivid memory of the small bloody sampan haunts Silver Star winner Bill Franke, a veteran of many battles. A boat officer of Coastal Division 11..., Jack Chenoweth has recently written that “[t]he only atrocity I ever knew or heard about was Kerry killing the small child in the junk.” |
I was always under the impression that it was Gardner who opened fire on the boat/sampan? What gives?
The guys at this site then write:
| Quote: | | Although O’Neill’s account of this incident is typically murky, even Gardner has never said that Kerry actually did any shooting; indeed, he has repeatedly said just the opposite. But so what? As soon as O’Neill and Corsi finish their murky account of the incident, they open fire with statements from men like Chenoweth—men who make it sound like Kerry “kill[ed] the small child,” thereby committing an “atrocity.” This is political prose as vile as it gets. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steve Z
Rear Admiral
Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 687
Location: West Hartford CT
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 4:55 pm Post subject: Sampan incident |
|
|
According to "Unfit for Command", page 56, it was Gardner, not Kerry, who opened fire on the sampan.
But Gardner does state that the PCF 44 boat had its radar on, with Kerry "supposedly in the pilothouse monitoring the radar." Kerry gave no warning about the approaching sampan until Gardner heard its noise, so Gardner opened fire when it appeared that a man in the sampan was reaching for a weapon.
The criticism of Kerry is not that he actually shot the child, but that he failed to warn Gardner earlier of the sampan's presence on the radar, which may have allowed the PCF 44 crew to deal with the sampan peacefully, without Gardner believing himself to be threatened.
If there are any witnesses to the sampan incident on this message board, please comment!
_________________
The traitor will crater! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ord33
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 670
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obviously, I'm not a witness, but I thought I could add a small additional piece of information.
The point of the Sampan incident is not only that Kerry neglected his duties on radar, but he totally misrepresented the information in the After Action Report, claiming several enemy VC killed (dont have the exact description, but I can find it if necessary). Basically, this is proving Kerry falsified after action reports in order to make him/PCF-44 seen in a better light/more heroic. This as a basis would make one question what someone could believe in his other Spot Reports. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongTimeLurker
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 6:13 pm Post subject: Re: Sampan incident |
|
|
| Steve Z wrote: | According to "Unfit for Command", page 56, it was Gardner, not Kerry, who opened fire on the sampan.
But Gardner does state that the PCF 44 boat had its radar on, with Kerry "supposedly in the pilothouse monitoring the radar." Kerry gave no warning about the approaching sampan until Gardner heard its noise, so Gardner opened fire when it appeared that a man in the sampan was reaching for a weapon.
The criticism of Kerry is not that he actually shot the child, but that he failed to warn Gardner earlier of the sampan's presence on the radar, which may have allowed the PCF 44 crew to deal with the sampan peacefully, without Gardner believing himself to be threatened.
If there are any witnesses to the sampan incident on this message board, please comment! |
That was sort of my thought to, that the authors were assigning some guilt or culpability to the deaths due to Kerrys alleged negligence. I am not sure if I would have gone to that length to criticize Kerry as I feel there is plenty of evidence with which to hang Kerry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongTimeLurker
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ord33 wrote: | Obviously, I'm not a witness, but I thought I could add a small additional piece of information.
The point of the Sampan incident is not only that Kerry neglected his duties on radar, but he totally misrepresented the information in the After Action Report, claiming several enemy VC killed (dont have the exact description, but I can find it if necessary). Basically, this is proving Kerry falsified after action reports in order to make him/PCF-44 seen in a better light/more heroic. This as a basis would make one question what someone could believe in his other Spot Reports. |
The writers at the dailyhowler cite the following page(57-58) from Unfit for Command:
| Quote: | The Commander Coastal Surveillance Force Vietnam (CTF 115) Quarterly Evaluation Report of March 29, 1969, states “...20 January PCFs 21 and 44 operating in An Xuyen Province...engaged the enemy with a resultant GDA of one VC KIA (BC) [body count], four VC KIA (EST) and two VC CIA (VQ 810650/44).” This is Kerry’s victory—killing five imaginary Viet Cong, capturing two imaginary Viet Cong in action (an exaggeration of the mother and baby who were actually rescued from the sampan), and simply omitting the dead child. It typifies Kerry’s “victories” in Vietnam—those of a master with a pen and paper and of gaming a system of naval reporting built on trust. (Ellipses by O’Neill/Corsi)
|
They then write:
| Quote: | (Deleted by Admin) In this passage, they savage Kerry for “gaming the system” because this March 29 report states that he captured “two imaginary Viet Cong in action (an exaggeration of the mother and baby who were actually rescued from the sampan).” But Kerry doesn’t seem to have written this report, which was filed two weeks after he left Vietnam. Indeed, two pages earlier, O’Neill and Corsi have quoted the report which was actually filed on the day of the incident. And this report, which does seem to have come from Kerry, does not include the exaggerations which have O’Neill/Corsi crying and tearing their hair. Did Kerry capture a “mother and baby,” not “two imaginary Viet Cong? That’s exactly what Kerry’s report says! The text of the real-time report says that PCF 44, Kerry’s boat, “took sampan under fire, returned to capture 1 woman and a small child, one enemy KIA.” O’Neill and Corsi savage Kerry for the embellished March 29 report. But his own report describes the mother and child for who they actually were.
Yes, Kerry’s report says “mother and child.” The authors trash Kerry for someone else’s deception. (Deleted by Admin) |
The problem I have with this section is that they are assuming that one report was written by Kerry and that another report wasnt and there is no evidence presented that would suggest their assumptions are correct. In all fairness however, have the swiftboat vets provided evidence as to who wrote which report?
Perhaps, this is info that would be revealed once the 180 is signed?
Admin note:In the future I would suggest that you either edit the hyperbole from anti-SBVT sources, or you paraphrase their argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Poole
Vice Admiral
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 914
Location: America
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:45 pm Post subject: Sampan... |
|
|
| Steve Z wrote: | | ...he failed to warn Gardner earlier of the sampan's presence on the radar... |
I recently read elsewhere in this site that Gardner's station was directly atop the pilot house and he could have thumped his foot or otherwise contacted Kerry. My thought at the time was that didn't make sense because thumping on a night operation might reveal their position. Furthermore, a gunner in a combat zone naturally is a bit jumpy and not apt to make any noise before firing. Anyone know how that works?
_________________
'58 Airedale HMR(L)-261 VMO-2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carpro
Admin
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 1176
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongTimeLurker wrote: | | ord33 wrote: | Obviously, I'm not a witness, but I thought I could add a small additional piece of information.
The point of the Sampan incident is not only that Kerry neglected his duties on radar, but he totally misrepresented the information in the After Action Report, claiming several enemy VC killed (dont have the exact description, but I can find it if necessary). Basically, this is proving Kerry falsified after action reports in order to make him/PCF-44 seen in a better light/more heroic. This as a basis would make one question what someone could believe in his other Spot Reports. |
The writers at the dailyhowler cite the following page(57-5 from Unfit for Command:
| Quote: | The Commander Coastal Surveillance Force Vietnam (CTF 115) Quarterly Evaluation Report of March 29, 1969, states “...20 January PCFs 21 and 44 operating in An Xuyen Province...engaged the enemy with a resultant GDA of one VC KIA (BC) [body count], four VC KIA (EST) and two VC CIA (VQ 810650/44).” This is Kerry’s victory—killing five imaginary Viet Cong, capturing two imaginary Viet Cong in action (an exaggeration of the mother and baby who were actually rescued from the sampan), and simply omitting the dead child. It typifies Kerry’s “victories” in Vietnam—those of a master with a pen and paper and of gaming a system of naval reporting built on trust. (Ellipses by O’Neill/Corsi)
|
They then write:
| Quote: | (Deleted by Admin) In this passage, they savage Kerry for “gaming the system” because this March 29 report states that he captured “two imaginary Viet Cong in action (an exaggeration of the mother and baby who were actually rescued from the sampan).” But Kerry doesn’t seem to have written this report, which was filed two weeks after he left Vietnam. Indeed, two pages earlier, O’Neill and Corsi have quoted the report which was actually filed on the day of the incident. And this report, which does seem to have come from Kerry, does not include the exaggerations which have O’Neill/Corsi crying and tearing their hair. Did Kerry capture a “mother and baby,” not “two imaginary Viet Cong? That’s exactly what Kerry’s report says! The text of the real-time report says that PCF 44, Kerry’s boat, “took sampan under fire, returned to capture 1 woman and a small child, one enemy KIA.” O’Neill and Corsi savage Kerry for the embellished March 29 report. But his own report describes the mother and child for who they actually were.
Yes, Kerry’s report says “mother and child.” The authors trash Kerry for someone else’s deception. (Deleted by Admin) |
The problem I have with this section is that they are assuming that one report was written by Kerry and that another report wasnt and there is no evidence presented that would suggest their assumptions are correct. In all fairness however, have the swiftboat vets provided evidence as to who wrote which report?
Perhaps, this is info that would be revealed once the 180 is signed?
Admin note:In the future I would suggest that you either edit the hyperbole from anti-SBVT sources, or you paraphrase their argument. |
Gotta link for your source?
_________________
"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moving to R&R
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongTimeLurker
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 6
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ahhh... well, that's most of the problem and confusion, right there.
The dailyhowler is not exactly a stellar source of factual data, if ya know what I mean. 
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
