 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Trickworm
Ensign
Joined: 15 Oct 2004
Posts: 59
Location: West Georgia
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject: Night Line Proves Kerry a Hero? |
 |
|
This is a commentary that I wrote the other night after watching this sorry attempt at journalism by ABC and Ted Koppel. I posted it in my home forum, on the Sean hannity forums and a number of other sites including a copy to ABC News. I couldn't get it to post here because of log in problems. So, its a little late, but still relevant.
Night Line Proves Kerry a Hero
« Thread started on: 10/15/2004 at 01:17:42 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tonight on ABC News Night Line, I witnessed the latest attempt by the media in America to prop up and salvage the alleged war record of John Kerry. Apparently ABC News has spent the last several weeks investigating John Kerry’s Silver Star. Why? Because John Kerry’s character has been brought into question by recently aired privately funded commercials challenging his character and sponsored by a group of former swift boat veterans.
Did ABC News go to the men who were there during the battle and interview them? No, they went to Viet Nam and interviewed the modern day communist and former Viet Cong members who reportedly still live in the area and who “remember the battle of February 28 1969 very well.”
Ted Koppel attempted to lay out the evidence after ABC interviewed people that he represented as “only peasants” with no “axes to grind” and no concerns about the American presidential election. The ABC team interviewed a “husband and wife” a “widow” and a “former Viet Namese Provincial Commander who each told a different account of the battle.
These witnesses claimed that the Viet Cong elements that day comprised 12 Provincial Viet Namese soldiers and 8 District soldiers and that there was a fierce battle with the American swift boats. (Not exactly a superior force to oppose three fully armed swift boats with full crews and additional infantry troops on board who were put ashore to route the insurgents) Yet John Kerry didn’t report any fierce contact that day other than the teenager he was awarded a Silver Star for leading a landing party to kill.
Apparently the same soldier that had fired at Kerry’s boat immediately prior to Kerry’s heroic act of chasing him down and shooting him in the back yet the modern day residents of the village reported to ABC that the man killed that day was actually a “big man who was 25-26 years old. One of the Provincial soldiers, not a teenager and that he fell in the open on a dyke, possibly shot in the chest when he stood up during the battle, not while running from an American and hiding behind a hooch. No one there seemed to remember LT. JG Kerry’s heroics or having seen him that day period.
The man and his wife did not see the man get shot and they don’t recall anyone having chased him before he was shot, but they found him with his rocket launcher dead after the battle. These witnesses also noted during the interview that they were hiding in bunkers during the battle that occurred that day (with the exception of the VC commander now 54 years old). ABC also failed to identify the other soldiers or sailors that Kerry reportedly led as a "landing party" to pursue the enemy that day. Why? Maybe because he didn't lead a landing party “in the face of superior forces” that day. He beached his boat and abandoned his command to chase after a wounded individual soldier who was no longer a threat to his boat or his command and was nothing more than an easy kill for the record. Why would he do that? Was that a proper action or response? No one seems to care. But Ted Koppel and ABC over looked those minor discrepancies in Kerry’s Silver Star citation along with several other glaring discrepancies in the official account of the battle in the after action report.
The same way they glided over the fact that these same peasants told them that the Americans did not recover any sizeable cache of weapons or other equipment that day. (Contrary to the after action report and the Silver Star citation citing recovery and destruction of an enemy re-supply strong hold) All that happened according to these present day witnesses was that South Viet Namese soldiers burned down several hooch’s on the orders of the Americans that day and the Americans missed a large cache of weapons buried in the village that remains buried to this day under the widow’s garden. No one made an attempt to do any digging to substantiate or dispel her claim. It didn’t fit the proposed story line or the reported facts that they were attempting to establish so it apparently wasn’t relevant to the ABC investigative team.
The former District commander they interviewed is today 54 years old. That would seem to reflect that he was no more than 19 when he reports having been a “commander” of District troops, but no one bothered to question his military or war credentials or the validity of his claim that he had led a counter assault to attack the rear of the Americans that day, when no such counter attack was ever reported by any American present during the battle, including John Kerry. Or was the fact that at 19, this reported commander was commanding men in their mid twenties or older.
Ted Koppel was satisfied to report that after ABC News interviewed these “peasants” that it was clear that their recollection of the battle paralleled the accounts reported in the after action report of the battle and the Silver Star citation citing Kerry’s bravery sufficiently to support the after action report and the citation. But Koppel did not address the fact that there are three separate citations that have been presented for the same battle action and the same Silver Star alleging Kerry’s actions on February 28, 1969. Koppel also failed to identify the author of the after action report citing the combat action that day (as reported and relied upon as fact by ABC News) or who reported those facts to superiors for the official record.
Had Koppel read the accounts of those Americans who were actually there that day and had related in their eye witness accounts in Unfit for Command what they say happened, he would have already known the answer to many of the questions that ABC says appear to remain unanswered after their report tonight.
When John O’Neill (coauthor of Unfit for Command) was finally allowed to address the Night Line report, Koppel appeared more interested in appearing condescending towards O’Neill’s attempts to address the Night Line report than in giving fair or equal treatment to what O’Neill actually had to say concerning the undisputed facts of the battle. Koppel did not care to address that John Kerry’s own accounts and Viet Nam biography “Tour of Duty” and the book by the Boston Globe were the original reference sources for the battle account utilized by O’Neill. Koppel also did not want to acknowledge that O’Neill’s book Unfit for Command utilized the same accounts of the battle as reported in all previous accounts with the exception of pointing out the obvious flaws and misstatements of facts when compared to numerous swift boat veterans and Kerry’s version of the events that day.
None of that mattered to Ted Koppel. The verdict was obviously in. While they had not found the smoking gun or the Holy Grail of truth that they sought and had hoped to use to vindicate Kerry, they had found what they represented as “independent and credible information” sufficiently supporting the after action report of the battle and Kerry’s Silver Star citation. The fact that the motivations and memories of the Viet Namese interviewed were not only questionable but conflicting didn’t seem to be of any concern to those involved in the ABC News investigation of the battle and Kerry’s Silver Star.
In the end, Koppel fell back on an often used and rarely questioned predetermined premise of journalism. That premise being, when they couldn’t prove the story that they were seeking to prove, they simply reported the facts that seemed to support some of their original hypothesis and left the truth to be obscured by stating “many unanswered questions remain.”
Later on, during the ABC News “Overnight” broadcast, limited excerpts from Night Line were rebroadcast. After which the commentator remarked, “its good to see some in depth reporting on this after having seen 30 and 60 second snippets for months.”
The link to their written version of tonight’s ABC NEWS Nightline report.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2004/story?id=166434&page=1
« Last Edit: 10/15/2004 at 02:44:25 by Trickworm » |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dang! Good letter, trickworm!
Welcome aboard. 
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good letter. For another hard-hitting opinion on the subject, go to BeldarBlog:
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/
| Quote: | Koppel vs. O'Neill: Nightline goes to Vietnam
I'm late in blogging about ABC News' "Nightline" segment this week on Kerry's Silver Star. Despite helpful heads-ups from several emailers, I missed all but the tail end of the broadcast — Koppel's verbal firefight with John O'Neill — because I was watching the Astros lose. However, I've read more than a dozen blog posts from both left- and right-leaning blogs — including Captain's Quarters, Tom Maguire, INDC Journal, Wizbang!, Patterico, PrestoPundit, Demosophia, Watcher of Weasels, Andrew Sullivan, Kevin Drum, Josh Marshall, and Linkmeister — and the ABC News websight's version and John O'Neill's statement on the SwiftVets' website. (If someone has a link to the full video somewhere, I'd appreciate a link.)
I don't fault, but rather commend, ABC News for attempting to do some original investigative journalism "on the scene." But at least two initial points about that need to be emphasized.
Most importantly, while ABC News invested a great deal of time and money going to Vietnam, they've failed to exhaust, plumb, or even scratch the surface of trying to do any investigative reporting here in the United States. It's not only that they've failed to interview pro-SwiftVets eyewitnesses, but also that they've also failed to interview pro-Kerry eyewitnesses — and no one, from either side of the debate, can seriously defend their failure to do that. Indeed, they failed to review, summarize, or even reference what others have reported — including, notably, the eyewitness account given by their fellow mainstream media source, Chicago Tribune editor William B. Rood — and that's simply inexcusably sloppy.
Next, ABC News made only passing and oblique references to the fact that their reporting from Vietnam was done at the pleasure of, through cooperation with, and subject to deliberately injected bias from, the Vietnamese government — indeed, with a "watcher" on the scene from that government who had the power to reward or retaliate against the individuals whom they interviewed. John O'Neill's protests to Ted Koppel that ABC News' interviews took place in a "closed society" were way too mild. The totalitarian government of Vietnam has a direct stake in the outcome of the upcoming U.S. presidential election: Not only was John Kerry, their candidate of choice, the leading U.S. critic of America's participation in the war among all U.S. combat veterans, but he also has been, as a senator, the leading proponent of normalization and increased trade ties with Vietnam in the post-war era. The North Vietnamese (with guidance from, and in cooperation with, the KGB) were incredibly clever at exploiting American anti-war sentiment — they got America out of Vietnam by using useful fools like John Kerry in the first place. It's unfortunately not metaphoric to describe ABC News' interviewees — the supposedly disinterested peasants described so enthusiastically by Koppel — as "testifying at gunpoint." That doesn't necessarily mean they were lying, but any remotely fairminded journalistic effort should have carefully considered that situation — and should have reported clearly on the bias it very likely injected into their efforts.
That noted, my main reaction to the ABC News reporting is one of continuing, mouth-foaming frustration. ABC News made only the most clumsy efforts at doing what every lawyer is required to do for every single witness who testifies in court, and what every reporter should likewise do before reporting a purported witness' story: laying a foundation to show personal knowledge. ABC News' apparent standard: If the government minder let them talk to someone who appeared to be ethnically Vietnamese and was within range of their cameras and microphones, then each such person's claim to have personal knowledge was accepted as gospel. Yes, of course it's difficult — it requires persistence — to separately qualify each such witness. But the facts that the events occurred long ago, that they took place during combat, that there are language barriers, that there is a government watcher present — all these factors counsel more careful qualification of the purported eyewitnesses, not less.
By every previous account — except the abbreviated ones in Kerry's Silver Star citation — there were two separate locations involved. In the ABC News website version, there's but a single, fleeting reference to that critical fact. At the initial, main ambush location, the Swift Boats offloaded dozens and dozens of Ruff Puff infantry to chase down and kill the enemy who were present, and the Swift Boats themselves expended an enormous amount of lethal ordnance. That's where the enemy KIAs — other than Kerry's single prey — were reported. It's extremely doubtful that even at that location, the American and South Vietnamese forces faced a numerically superior enemy or overwhelming incoming fire. But unless every American eyewitness is lying through his teeth, at the second location — the only location where Kerry did anything arguably more valorous than what every man jack aboard every one of the (undecorated) officers and crew of the Swift Boats did — there were fewer enemy soldiers and considerably less enemy fire. How many fewer enemy and how much less fire? The ABC News reporting shed essentially no light on that subject because either through sloppy reporting or willful conflation, it didn't make the critical distinctions necessary to draw meaningful conclusions.
Andrew Sullivan calls this an "excellent reporting job." Mr. Sullivan, other than the fact that it was done in a far-off country, can you point to a single aspect of this reporting that was "excellent," or even minimally competent?
Time-lines. Maps and diagrams. Lists of individual witnesses, thoroughly annotated to show their opportunities to observe, their qualifications to appreciate what was happening, and their possible biases. Physical evidence (or reports thereof, like boat damage reports, ordnance expenditures). If you're going to make any credible effort to "pierce the fog of war," that's how you have to go about it. Compare, for example, the care and detail that's gone into reconstructions of what happened at Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 — not just in the years since, but in the days after. Compare, for that matter, the kind of investigation that Hollywood writers dream up for any average episode of "Dragnet" or "CSI: Miami" or "Law and Order." By any serious or responsible standard — journalistic standards, much less courtroom standards — this bit of reporting was a shallow, ridiculous joke of an effort.
It makes me nauseous to think that an American presidential election might be influenced by such ham-handed hackery. Any principled and half-competent cub reporter, any first-year law student, any backcountry magistrate, would be ashamed to turn in such an effort. |
He had a lot of emphasized points in the article (bold, italicized, underlined) that I did not attempt to reproduced in cutting and pasting it over. In additon he had quite a few links connected to this article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trickworm
Ensign
Joined: 15 Oct 2004
Posts: 59
Location: West Georgia
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you. I went directly to the site and read the commentary first hand. An excellent piece. A lot more well spoken and referenced than my meager attempt to convey my own thoughts. As a former career law enforcement officer, I am acutely aware of the standards that were described concerning investigative authenticity and standard. That is an absolutely correct assessment of the situation as it was approached by ABC. They know what they did and they must know that there are millions of Americans that recognize their shoddy attempts to prop up John Kerry's candidacy by affording his Viet Nam record a sense of satisfactory scrutiny.
Well, the failed and they failed miserably.
I will spend some time now going through the postings on the site you referenced. Thank you again for providing it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cipher
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 902
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are a couple of assumptions in your analysis that are erroneous or unsupported. Since I am fisking the same article, I'll just point out a couple of them.
1) There is no evidence that the VC was shot in the back, to the best of my knowledge. The statement in the MTSR is that he was "shot fleeing." This may be a nit-pick, but without evidence or testimony, it's best not to assume anything. As the VC was wounded, he could have been crawling on his knees for all anyone knows.
Kerry recovered the RPG-2 launcher with a B-40 rocket racked up in it. There are photos of Kerry with the launcher. There are statements by Kerry that he still has the launcher, after it was demilled by a SEAL. (the MTSR states it was turned in with other weapons and ammo found to USA CAI NUOC, so this might simply be another Kerry Cambodia moment.
2) Kerry was the one who wrote the MTSR for the operation, and submitted it as CTE. The report includes accounts of multiple enemy contacts, small arms and automatic weapons fire, and one rocket "near hit" on his PCF.
3) The VC had an RPG-2 with a B-40. That constitutes a SERIOUS threat to the boat, as a well-placed rocket can sink a PCF.
4) The MTSR does NOT indicate any significant capture of weapons. Just personal weapons (several carbines, some ammo, and the one RPG and rocket). No other weapons were captured.
5) Age isn't a command consideration, as you should know from your service. A 21 year old eltee trumps a 30 year old sergeant every time. And in a guerilla scenario, experience is more important than age for leadership, anyway.
6) The author of the report was Kerry. His command designator is on the MTSR, and he is cited as CTE of the op and OINC of his PCF.
While I admire your zeal and enthusiasm, you need to read the MTSR and ask questions of those that were there. DougReese was there. He's not overly enthusiastic about retreading this ground, however, he will answer civil questions and is a wealth of information without embellishment. Some say "pithy", I say "considered".
If you want to read the MTSR for that operation, go to http://www.swiftboatarchives.com/default.tpl and then click the Documents tab at the upper left, then look for
FEB69 Market Time Spot Reports Operation Sea Lord
You want the last four pages on that page.
Good luck and happy hunting.
_________________
USMC 69-72, 7th Comm, 3rd MarDiv, FMFPAC
US Army 75-79, 97th Sig, SHAPE, NATO
Arkansas National Guard 79
Defense contractor for US Navy, SSPO, SP-20, SP-24, OP-12 84-92 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trickworm
Ensign
Joined: 15 Oct 2004
Posts: 59
Location: West Georgia
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cipher wrote: | There are a couple of assumptions in your analysis that are erroneous or unsupported. Since I am fisking the same article, I'll just point out a couple of them.
1) There is no evidence that the VC was shot in the back, to the best of my knowledge. The statement in the MTSR is that he was "shot fleeing." This may be a nit-pick, but without evidence or testimony, it's best not to assume anything. As the VC was wounded, he could have been crawling on his knees for all anyone knows.
Kerry recovered the RPG-2 launcher with a B-40 rocket racked up in it. There are photos of Kerry with the launcher. There are statements by Kerry that he still has the launcher, after it was demilled by a SEAL. (the MTSR states it was turned in with other weapons and ammo found to USA CAI NUOC, so this might simply be another Kerry Cambodia moment.
2) Kerry was the one who wrote the MTSR for the operation, and submitted it as CTE. The report includes accounts of multiple enemy contacts, small arms and automatic weapons fire, and one rocket "near hit" on his PCF.
3) The VC had an RPG-2 with a B-40. That constitutes a SERIOUS threat to the boat, as a well-placed rocket can sink a PCF.
4) The MTSR does NOT indicate any significant capture of weapons. Just personal weapons (several carbines, some ammo, and the one RPG and rocket). No other weapons were captured.
5) Age isn't a command consideration, as you should know from your service. A 21 year old eltee trumps a 30 year old sergeant every time. And in a guerilla scenario, experience is more important than age for leadership, anyway.
6) The author of the report was Kerry. His command designator is on the MTSR, and he is cited as CTE of the op and OINC of his PCF.
While I admire your zeal and enthusiasm, you need to read the MTSR and ask questions of those that were there. DougReese was there. He's not overly enthusiastic about retreading this ground, however, he will answer civil questions and is a wealth of information without embellishment. Some say "pithy", I say "considered".
If you want to read the MTSR for that operation, go to http://www.swiftboatarchives.com/default.tpl and then click the Documents tab at the upper left, then look for
FEB69 Market Time Spot Reports Operation Sea Lord
You want the last four pages on that page.
Good luck and happy hunting. |
Ciper, while my summation of the program and the facts as I know them may not qualify as an absolute qualifier of irrefutable evidence, I think that my synopsis of the ABC News report accurately reflects the totality of the reported battle as represented by ABC and in comparison to the known facts.
I have read Unfit for Command, but I am not qualified to categorically speak to the accounts of the battle as related or the specifics related in the book. But my memory tells me that there was a predesignated plan by the PCF's that day to interdict VC in that region and in so doing, to maybe rack up some medals for those involved. I may be wrong, but that is my sense of what I read in the book and Kerry was behind or at least involved in that.
As it concerns your critique of my commentary, I respect your obvious insight, but I am curious as to your specific assumptions of my statements. Nit picking or not, most people that are shot while fleeing, do not receive chest wounds. Secondly, the piece represented by ABC and their VC witnesses reflected that the individual in question was shot in the chest. So either they are completely wrong in their recollection, or they are recalling an entirely different KIA. As to Kerry's account and the accounts of the men on his boat, the jist is that the VC was wounded by a 50 and Kerry lept from the boat after beaching it and pursued the VC behind a hooch where he shot him. Either way, Kerry's account and the account of the witnesses interviewed by ABC do no coincide.
As to Kerry having a photo where he posed with a recovered B-40 or RPG, that doesn't surprise me. But unless the individual in question was very adept at reloading an RPG under heavy machine gun fire while fleeing, I don't see how a loaded weapon could have been recovered under the circumstances reported.
To my knowledge, the (American) record reflects no significant recovery of weapons or ordinance that day, although the VC in Koppel's report allege a large cache of weapons present and a subsequently concealed large cache in the same ville which was stolen from American forces subsequent to the battle.
As it concerns age of command, yes, I am quite aware that young shave tail Lt's can be put in command of much older and senior personnel. However, I am not familiar with the practice of putting teenagers in command of Provincial forces as was represented in Koppel's report. Maybe its no more than a play on words, but in my reality, especially when considering forces that were basically the equivalent of provisional guerrilla militia, 19 year olds are not a common choice for commanders under those circumstances IMO.
If my summation was confusing on the issue of who wrote up the mission parameters or the after action report, allow me to clarify that by stating my point in that manner, that my intent was to be as coy in my reference to the identity of the author as the ABC investigation appeared to be in its rendering of the facts surrounding the reports. I am aware that Kerry is alleged to have written both. However, I have not seen the specific documents.
I appreciate the information that you have referenced an I will duly review your recommended reference sources. Thank you for taking the time to bring those resources to my attention.
_________________
"Uncommon valor was a common virtue" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cipher
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 902
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
There was a plan. At least according to the only other surviving Swift boat commander in action during that op. The plan had to do with beaching the boats if ambushed, and the medal issue is speculation. I'm pretty sure Kerry was in on it up to his neck, as he was CTE.
As to the fatal wound in the chest, my Vietnamese is real skinny, and I'm not at all sure that the anatomical term used by the villager is referring to the chest area (from the waist to shoulders) is specifically qualiied as front or back. Without the original text of the interviews, which ABC didn't provide, it's hard to tell.
The VC was hit by the bow gunner using an M-60, so it was a 7.62 that wounded him, not a .50. Still and all, it had to be a bit painful.
Yes, I noticed that ABC was very confused. They seem to think "hooch" means "woods" and not a structure. At least, that's the way the story reads.
It takes about 10 to 12 seconds to load an RPG-2 with a B-40, less time if you have a first loader to handle the rocket. There is no mention of how long it was between the time the first B-40 was taken "close aboard" and the time to beaching, however, 15 seconds would not be an unreasonable amount of time to react, turn into the attack, beach the craft and initiate suppression fire.
I asked DougReese specifically about why the VC didn't take the shot from point blank range (10 feet away) on a beached PCF. He was as unsure as I am why, and he thinks (and I'm inclined to agree) that the VC was startled at the unexpected beaching and he was scared.
As to the command structure, the villager could have had political clout, too, that may have trumped provisional forces. Again, this is an unanswered question, and I somehow doubt ABC will go back to get any clarification. To them, the story is done.
Kerry is not alledged to have written the MTSR. It is a matter of record. The report was submitted by "CTE ONE NINE FOUR PT FIVE PT FOUR PT FOUR" which identifies Kerry as the originator, since he was Commander Task Element (CTE) for that particular op. It is clear in the documents I referenced you to. Look at the header on the first page of the MTSR for that day (281130Z FEB69 SL 270 "AJ")
I'm not picking on you, you're doing fine. Keep going!
_________________
USMC 69-72, 7th Comm, 3rd MarDiv, FMFPAC
US Army 75-79, 97th Sig, SHAPE, NATO
Arkansas National Guard 79
Defense contractor for US Navy, SSPO, SP-20, SP-24, OP-12 84-92 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaxinman
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 29 Aug 2004
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:55 pm Post subject: "Attack, Attack!"? |
|
|
I read this report with the thought that perhaps there was a believable eye-witness report for this incident, but the following quote from then-19 year old Ms. Vo Thi Vi which struck me as odd.
"I ran," she recalled, "Running fast. ... And the Americans came from down there, yelling 'Attack, Attack!' And we ran."
I served in VN in the 4th Infantry, trained for VN after receiving my orders, and although I never participated in such an attack, this doesn't seem to me to be part of SOP. In fact, as I recall that it is contrary to SOP.
Can some actual VN combat veteran comment on this? Maybe it is apples and oranges seeing as how it was Navy and SVN troops involved, but from my experience this is not the way such things were done.
Thank you for your support,
_________________
.jax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trickworm
Ensign
Joined: 15 Oct 2004
Posts: 59
Location: West Georgia
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cipher, I know that you are not picking on me. I appreciate your perspectives and individual insight. However, as a retired law enforcement officer with 30 years experience in criminal investigations, I immediately see a number of holes in the ABC News report that aired other than those previously stated and I have also noted a number of discrepancies in Kerry's citation.
No investigative effort was made to authenticate the background of the witnesses highlighted. "Vo Tam", the alleged district VC commander stated that after the initial contact, he led a group of Ba Thamh's comrades and attacked the Americans from the rear. How do you attack an amphibious force from the rear? The river was the rear and they were engaged by three PCF's and embark SVA troops presumably firing at them?
Kerry's citation states that he led a landing party ashore and pursued the combatant that he reportedly killed, in the face of a numerically superior force? Yet according to the ABC witness, there were only 20 active combatants in the ville when the battle began. Vo Tam also stated that the provincial reinforcements (12) had been sent there earlier to reinforce the 8 district VC, to specifically interdict American Swift boats operating on the river. Kerry led a landing party? Who? Where? he pursued his rocket man alone unless I am missing something. After the battle was joined and the VC with the rocket had been killed, I am sure that Kerry led the remainder of the PCF's and SVA troops in policing the area and searching the ville. But not in the face of automatic weapons fire and a numerically superior force.
According to the after action report and the citation, Kerry's three boat command encountered heavy automatic weapons fire and small arms fire. To my knowledge, in combat terminology, automatic weapons fire usually refers to at least a medium machine gun and small arms would be considered AK-47 or SKS individual shoulder weapons. Yet Kerry's report indicated that they only recovered a small number of small arms and ammunition and one B-40 rocket launcher? Not exactly a superior force numerically or in force of weaponry when compared to three PCF's armed with twin 50 tubs M-60's and the Embark SVA troops presumably armed with M-16's and M-79's.
We also know that PCF's commonly carried motors and M-79's to supplement their fire power. So where was this numerically superior force they reportedly encountered and where were their weapons beyond common shoulder weapons reportedly deployed against them? Other than the B-40 that was fired at Kerry's boat, there was no significant weaponry either reported or recovered.
I don't doubt that Kerry pursued the shooter after the B-40 was fired. The smoke trail and back blast would have immediately identified his position to Kerry's crew and they more than likely immediately returned a withering amount of machine gun fire on his position. At 50 feet distance (roughly the length of a PCF) beaching the PCF probably only took seconds. During which time the crew was hammering the VC's firing position and obviously observing his attempts to escape. In my opinion, Kerry observed this and chose to pursue an obviously wounded combatant with an obviously expended weapon.
I would find it hard to believe that the VC could have reloaded the weapon while seriously wounded and limping away and under attack. As for the kill shot location? I can only go with what I have read. According to the information available, he was shot while fleeing. Its pretty hard to shoot someone any place other than the back if they are running from you. Does Kerry have a photo of him posing with a recovered B-40 with rocket? Probably, but that does not prove the condition or status of the weapon at the time it was recovered or even whether it was the same weapon reportedly used against his boat.
As for ABC's report? Well, if you go to their site and re-read the four page piece, you can easily concluded that either while in the presence of the communist Viet Namese government handler, they were less than candid, or it is also conceivable after reviewing their version of the facts that they represent, that it could easily be argued that we are talking about two entirely different battles. None of their reported facts conclusively or remotely support the facts represented in the after action report or the citation, with the exception of their recollection of the actual date of the battle which is questionable under the circumstances.
So no, I am not offended that you are trying to pick on me. I accept your points and appreciate the information that you have directed me to. However, we need to closely scrutinize not only the official record of that battle and Kerry's citation record, but we also need to scrutinize the statements of other veterans who were there and the newly discovered former VC witnesses that ABC has attempted to represent as conclusive evidence that Kerry deserved the silver star.
Thanks for listening.
_________________
"Uncommon valor was a common virtue" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cipher
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 902
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In my opinion, Kerry observed this and chose to pursue an obviously wounded combatant with an obviously expended weapon. |
In order to support that theory, the VC would have had to been carrying the empty RPG-2 launcher and a B-40 rocket while running, wounded. The MTSR states Kerry recovered the weapon with a round chambered (rolling my eyes at the terminology). If the weapon was NOT loaded, then that meant one of two things. Either the VC loaded it on the run (unlikely) or Kerry had to load it. Given his *exceptionally* bad luck with handling grenade launchers (he wounded himself *twice* with an M-79, which is about as complicated as a single shot shotgun), he would have had to load the RPG-2 himself. I'm not highly confident in his ability to do that, since the amount of training he had with weapons was extremely limited. His own tub gunner wouldn't LET Kerry *near* his BMGs. And watching the way he handles weapons even now scares me just to look at (look at the photos of him getting that shotgun last month).
In any case, Kerry abandoned his command, which is bad no matter HOW you look at it. He was CTE as well as the OINC of the PCF 94, he should have been in COMMAND, not out chasing bad guys.
And if he hadn't beached the boat and taken out TWO of his weapons out of play (the tub guns and the rear M-60), then he could have simply ordered the VC cut down with the twin 50s, or either of the M-60s. But by beaching the boat 10 feet from the rocket position, he not only took out his best shot, he EXPOSED his boat to a castastrophic hit below the waterline with a rocket from point blank range. The ONLY thing that saved him (and his boat) was that the VC bolted.
To me, that's not heroic. It's dereliction of duty at the very least.
He's lucky he didn't lose the whole crew.
_________________
USMC 69-72, 7th Comm, 3rd MarDiv, FMFPAC
US Army 75-79, 97th Sig, SHAPE, NATO
Arkansas National Guard 79
Defense contractor for US Navy, SSPO, SP-20, SP-24, OP-12 84-92 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navy wife
Research Director
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 353
Location: Arlington, VA & Ft. Worth, TX
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
AMEN to your comment, Cipher:
| Quote: | He's lucky he didn't lose the whole crew.
|
This has been a most interesting discussion, gentlemen! What has always intrigued me was the identity of the person who brought the story to ABC in the first place.
Remember Koppel telling how hard it was for them to get into Vietnam to do the story? Well, seems that if they had difficulty getting in, there should have been some record of another American getting in there just six months earlier, but they do not make any mention of trying to find that person's identity. Not even asking the villagers for a description of the man or who brought him.
Lousy journalism IMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trickworm
Ensign
Joined: 15 Oct 2004
Posts: 59
Location: West Georgia
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My senses tell me that if there was an American there months earlier, it was someone fronting for either the Kerry campaign or the DNC and representing themselves as a Swift Vet to create a record for future use.
If anyone did go in in advance, the purpose had a duality of effect. First it identified potential witnesses for a media piece, seond it provided an angle for the media to point at and question the affiliation and purpose of the phantom visitor some time last summer. A nice little touch for the story so to speak.
Personally, I believe that it was a free lance stringer probably retained by a shadow network affiliation to ABC the DNC or the Kerry campaign or some other news agency. Once the visit was completed, it was a simple matter of either reporting back to the handler, or shopping the story.
If the truth is ever discovered, it may turn out to have been a CBS initiative that was rerouted to ABC after the forgery scandal. Either way, I don't believe anything in the ABC News investigation.
_________________
"Uncommon valor was a common virtue" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navy wife
Research Director
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 353
Location: Arlington, VA & Ft. Worth, TX
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That show made me so angry that when I received an email appeal for funds so they could show the latest two ads, I donated again!!! Those ads are some of the most poweful ones they have done.
I urge everyone to donate!!!
Navy wife! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerald L. Parsoneault
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Posts: 144
Location: Sacramento
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cipher wrote
| Quote: | But by beaching the boat 10 feet from the rocket position, he not only took out his best shot, he EXPOSED his boat to a castastrophic hit below the waterline with a rocket from point blank range. The ONLY thing that saved him (and his boat) was that the VC bolted.
To me, that's not heroic. It's dereliction of duty at the very least.
|
Thanks for this commentary. When I joined and checked in with the group, I sent a post that said I had served in-country for a year and that the Naval Officers I met there served with honor.
I went on to say I had not meet Kerry, but I know from his exploits he did not live up to the standards expected of him. For example, it was inconceivable to me that an OIC would beach his boat and leave it to chase a wounded enemy soldier. Then came the ultimate dereliction, taking his crew ashore in what could be hostile area to take home-movies of himself striding heroically through a village with an M-16 at the ready. To me this said as much about his character flaws as the phoney medal write-ups and dodging the balance of his in-country tour. Kerry is an opportunist without honor -- not a hero.
So thanks again for your post.
Nalt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
|
| 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
