SwiftVets.com

[The bandit]

[kmmpatriot]

As of right now, Drudge is carrying this too, so it will get lots of exposure....

~Kylie
_________________
The Wise man draws more Advantage from his Enemies, than the Fool from his Friends. - from Poor Richard's Almanac...and a perfect commentary on the current state of this campaign!

[The bandit]

[The bandit]

[NavyChief]

[rekcutt]

here is another take on the spot report:

http://www.newscentral.tv/uploads/franchise/point/point-20040913.shtml

KERRY AND THE KILLING


In his campaign book Massachusetts Senator John Kerry notes there was fine line between actions that merited a court martial or a medal. He reported that medals were given for questionable activities in order to boost morale.


This narrow distinction figures into the controversy that has raged for a several weeks regarding the Silver Star Kerry was awarded for killing a Vietnamese man.


For more than 30 years, Kerry has portrayed a heroic version of a life and death struggle -- of staring down a suspected guerilla who was about to fire upon Kerry's swift boat. It was kill. Or be killed. At least, that's the version Kerry tells.


Eyewitnesses offer a far different account. They allege Kerry shot a wounded teenager retreating from battle.


Kerry has made public, hundreds of pages of official Navy documents to bolster his many claims. Conspicuous by its absence is the official after action report of what actually happened that day. The after action report written by John Kerry, himself.


In an exclusive, The Point has obtained this document from U.S. Navy archives (you can see it here). The pertinent section reads:


"PCF 94 beached in center of ambush in front of small path when Viet Cong sprung up from bunker 10 feet from unit. Man ran with weapon towards hootch. Forward M-60 machine gunner wounded man in leg. Officer-in-charge, LTjg Kerry, jumped ashore and gave pursuit while other units saturated area with fire and beached placing assault parties ashore. Kerry chased VC inland behind hootch and shot him while he fled -- capturing one B-40 rocket launcher with round in chamber."


So there you have it. The official record written by John Kerry supports what the critics have alleged rather than the John Wayne Kerry version the Massachusetts liberal has been telling.


Death is a reality of war. Events occur that are not for the faint of heart. Yet, John Kerry's account of killing what turned out to really be a wounded man while he fled continues Kerry's pattern of lies, exaggerations and embellishments.


Killing a wounded man while he retreated from battle is not an action that most servicemen would brag about. But then again, most servicemen would not return home and attack the very country they were supposed to fight for.


And that's the Point.


I'm Mark Hyman.
_________________
SwiftVets, keep up the GREAT work, truth will win out over spin.

[NavyChief]

Might I suggest you read this thread.

http://www2.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=9148

The freight train seems to be running away with the author of this report and how Captain Hoffman was the driving force for awarding Kerry a Silver Star.

- Chief
_________________
Working with Senator Kerry four years in the POW/MIA Office left me thinking -- when did the man ever do any work?

[HardCorps]

Let us not forget:

1) By deliberately and foolishly beaching his boat, Kerry needlessly increased the risk to his crew, embarked personnel, and perfectly good craft by 100x. What did he gain compared to the lives he stupidy risked?
What Kerry did is like knowingly driving your HUMVEE full of men into a mine field and leaving them stranded for a while so that you can go kill one wounded guy and claim hero status. He intensified the desperate situation not the lone VC. He rates an ass-chewing not a SS.

2) The VC had clearly displayed hostile intent so shooting the VC in the back is OK as long as he was not trying to surrender. ADM Hoffman and CAPT Elliott's defense of Kerry in 1996 was for this point only - and the press should burn in hell for distorting their words.

3) The 2nd and 3rd citations remove all mention of the lone VC and replace him with Kerry's "extraordinary daring and personal courage in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire"
How much more obvious a sham does the press need?

ps. Shooting hostile personnel with a .50 cal or bigger (which was my issued weapon for a while) is permissible as long as it follows the principle of proportionality within the rules of engagement.
_________________
__________________________
-USMC - Always Faithful
-Platoon Cmdr - Somalia
-ANGLICO FAC - Iraqi Freedom

[Wing Wiper]

[NavyChief]

Okay,

Maybe I need to YELL THIS SINCE YOU ARE NOT LISTENING!

KERRY DID NOT WRITE THIS REPORT!

Shall I direct your attention to COMNAVFORV message to CTF 115 on the Kerry website under Feb AAR's?

Just exactly what do you see under SEA LORDS 270?

Oh! I believe I see the reference to the message about where VADM Zumwalt's nice letter came from.

A. CTE 194.5.4.4 281130Z FEB 69

Gee, this DTG doesn't match with the document everyone is saying Kerry wrote. Wonder why? It seems to have been sent 55 minutes before the newly discovered one. Wonder why? I wonder what it says?

Could it be this message above in REF (A) is the one Kerry wrote and Rood wrote the other as well as the 27 FEB AAR?

Ooh, ooh -- let's not forget the Chicago Tribune's piece that claims to have this AAR from 28 Feb but in reality is a BRAVO ZULU from Hoffman. And it contains some incredibly sarcastic language in it -- almost accusatory language of stupidity on the OTC's part.

Sorry to be acting this way -- but you guys are going to shoot yourselves in the foot claiming Kerry wrote this newly discovered AAR.

Kerry's AAR is still out there somewhere.

- Chief
_________________
Working with Senator Kerry four years in the POW/MIA Office left me thinking -- when did the man ever do any work?

[Wing Wiper]

Alright, Chief, let's see if somebody can find it and put another nail in Wonderboy's coffin, eh? You're doing some great work here, we all owe you our gratitude. Thanks, brother.

[NavyChief]

Sorry to be a pest but if everyone starts reporting this as Kerry's report then Rood will come out and say, "no -- I wrote it". That's gonna deflat the debate.

I've been looking at this message written by Rood and I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that there was a plan before this mission.

Just based on the report and the language -- the style -- the emphasis of actions by the other two OINC's. There was a plan here. Kerry wrote the first AAR 55 minutes before this one. I wouldn't be surprised to see 3 reports on this same incident. One from each of the Kerry brotherhood; Droz, Rood and Kerry. This report smacks of embellishments and "Hey, look at us! We deserve medals for being stupid".

I'm going to find those reports and the Intell reports and debunk this sucker!

I think I know why Rood finally came out now.

Maybe I'm crazy and paranoid but I'm seeing a plan here.

- Chief
_________________
Working with Senator Kerry four years in the POW/MIA Office left me thinking -- when did the man ever do any work?

[igor]

[ord33]

igor,

Good point! Mr. Rood's article was considered as the "authority" by the press. Well, as the Kerry Campaign says "the proof is in the Naval Records". Looks like Mr. Rood and Kerry have been proven WRONG by the official Navy Records they claim support their depiction of the events.

[montanaguard]

So it appears that the documents provide a fairly clear picture of what happened on that day.

The PCFs counterattacked and the crews engaged the VC (at least one VC jumping from a spider hole or perhaps three, not certain as to how many) that were waiting in ambush, with LtJG Kerry and perhaps others giving a short chase.

But it does not sound like there were a lot of VC at the spot that the PCF crews beached for the second time. The main hostile event seems to have occurred previously where the troops hit the beach to pursue the VC.

If the PCF crews were laying down a barrage of suppresive fire into the area near where they landed, that would be a lot of fire power, the 50's on top and the two front gunners plus whatever small arms carried by the remaining crew and would seem to even the odds rather dramatically against any close in foe.

Does not sound like they were facing superior numbers or hardened positions? It sounds like the VC fled quickly (what few there were) and did not put up any or much resistance to what could be debated as a rather unconventional action for a patrol boat group.

From a personal perspective, chasing a single VC carrying a rocket who had been wounded by a large caliber machine gun a short distance and then shooting him near a hotch, while certainly not a cowardly act, does not seem to rise to an act of great valor.

Is a medal deserved for this or is pursuing a wounded enemy action that would seem rather normal and run of the mill for a combat veteran?

Never been to war so I don't know if this was a truly brave act of extraordinary courage and cleverness or just one doing their job, but seems kind of unremarkable given all the ambushes that occurred in Nam.

Seems like the choice of turning to fight and beaching the craft turned out alright in this instance but a beached boat is a still boat and would seem to be subject to counterattack, from either bank. I did not figure the role of the navy to act like infantry unloading from an APC to engage an ambush on foot. Has anyone asked other Swifties if this tactic was wise, normal, approved or was it novel and a spur of the moment opportunistic decision?

I can't help wonder what would of happened if while they were off the beached boats the VC opened up from the other bank? It would seem likely the boats would have been sitting ducks and would have been very hard to return to? The front gunners would have been of little use facing the wrong way to fend of an attack from the rear and the rear deck would have been an exposed kill zone. The top gunners would have been targeted for sure by snipers but then they supposedly could turn and pour 50's in return, if they survived the surprise.

As I say the tactic seems to have worked this time but I can't figure that it was the proper action for a PFC. The loss of mobility and the departure of crew members would seem to leave the primary military asset abandoned and exposed. Certainly an army tank crew would not jump out and pursue a single wounded VC would they?

Your thoughts.