| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The bandit
Commander
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 349
|
 Posted: Sat May 15, 2004 10:40 pm Post subject: Did Sen. Kerry Earn A Silver Star? Evidence Says No. |
 |
|
Something very fishy about Kerry's Silver Star:
Kerry's Silver Star Analysis
---------------------------------------------
Last edited by The bandit on Sun May 16, 2004 10:22 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
carpro
Admin
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 1176
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow!
It's worse than I thought.
Is all this verifiable?
I realize some is in the public domain, some is from after action reports , some is conclusions that just make sense. I also realize we are missing important docs. Is ther any way to get access to some of those through FOI requests?
_________________
"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 |
|
|
The bandit
Commander
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 349
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| carpro wrote: | Wow!
It's worse than I thought.
Is all this verifiable?
I realize some is in the public domain, some is from after action reports , some is conclusions that just make sense. I also realize we are missing important docs. Is ther any way to get access to some of those through FOI requests? |
Sure it is verifiable, I included sources as much as possible. Kerry did not release original after-action reports for 28 Feb. All we have to go by is what his web site claims the reports would show if they had been released.
Might get some thru FOIA if you word the request just right and don't use the word "kerry" in your request.
Anyone catch that all three of Kerry's PH's are signed August 12, 1969 and he has three differently signed Silver Star citations? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jalexson
PO3
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 272
Location: Hutchinson, Kansas
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 5:59 am Post subject: silver star |
|
|
Great analysis. I definitely cannot see anyway Kerry could have qualified for a silver star for going one on one with a VC particularly considering that in close combat the VC was essentially unarmed. An explosive round couldn't have been used when Kerry was standing near the VC with an M-16 because the VC would likely have been killed too. It wouldn't surprise me if the VC was already dead and Kerry fired a shot into the ground to make it appear he had killed the VC.
I just wonder if a court martial would have been too hard to explain considering that the mission uncovered a VC supply depot. Recommending Kerry for a medal meant that no one had to explain why Kerry wasn't court martialed. I believe an act of "heroism" would likely normally be a "justification" for not punishing a man for breaking the rules.
I was in the army in the central highlands so the only things I know about boats are what I've read. Beaching a boat unless to let off troops would seem a very bad tactical decision because boats had a tactical advantage on the water and were at a disadvantage on the land. consider the gunner's statement that he initially had a bad angle to fire at the VC -- a problem that wouldn't have occurred with the boat in the water.
If the VC really had a loaded functional rocket, he would seem to have handled the situation very badly. If he had been in a spider hole, his best response would seem to have been to pop up quickly, fire and drop back down to avoid any schrapnel. If he was otherwise concealed, he should have fired from concealment.
My only experience with B-40's was hearing them land nearby so I don't know how easy it would have been to actually seem if there was a rocket in the launcher held by someone who was moving, presumably rather quickly. The brain will fill in details in certain situations when only a partial view is available. Police officers occasionally shoot people they really believe are armed only to find out afterwards that the gun they though they saw didn't exist. If the VC was out of ammo, he might have jumped up to run to get more.
Another point I don't understand is why Kerry felt a need to run after the man if his location was in range of the twin .50's. According to the specifications of the boats they were equipped with 81 mm mortars which could have also been used. By chasing the VC instead of using his superior weapons, Kerry needlessly endangered his crew who were under fire.
Also beaching the boat would seem to me to potentiallly allow Charlie to shoot holes in the portion of the hull that would normally have been below the water line.
_________________
"That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoe making and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poor house."
-- Mark Twain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tigerflyboy
Former Member
Joined: 16 May 2004
Posts: 50
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 6:36 am Post subject: ya ever been in.. |
|
|
| [EDIT] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The bandit
Commander
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 349
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 6:57 am Post subject: Re: ya ever been in.. |
|
|
| tigerflyboy wrote: |
But with BUSH you have somebody that has directly lied about events that effect our nation, going to war under false pretences, and nobodyseem to want to question that, Oh and BTW what about his little indecreasion as a college boy with the nose candy? Boy that sure got hushed real quick. I tell ya I'd much rather has a sex addict that a drug addict as president |
What did Bush lie about? Didn't Kerry say in the first presidential debate:
"George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."
Didn't Hillary once after the invasion that she checked with her own people from the Clinton years and they all agreed with what Bush was telling us, and that is Saddam was a growing threat and wasn't giving up his WMD ambitions.
Now the Jordians are picking up terroists who are now saying they were trained in Iraq, and not in north Iraq where Saddam didn't have control either!
Hillary is on record saying Iraq provided sanctuary for al-queada. Do a little more research next time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The bandit
Commander
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 349
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 9:53 am Post subject: Re: counter |
|
|
tigerflyboy, Why is it whenever you lefties never have an defense for traitor Kerry you boys pass the buck back to Bush? I bet you one of them sorry demwits who believe they conducted "drug test" during flight physicals in '72 - which is why Bush failed to show his crack head, ain't I right?
Why in the world would Bush want to take a flight physical when he was not flying and on leave in AL where they had nothing for him to fly? Didn't Bush take his last physical in May 1973, which identified him as a "crew member on flight status?" Doesn't say nothing about him being grounded does it?
Take off them dark shades you are wearing, boy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hist/student
Lieutenant
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 243
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
unabashed comprehensive retraction
Last edited by hist/student on Fri Jul 23, 2004 11:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Romani ite domum
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The bandit
| Quote: | | I bet you one of them sorry demwits who believe they conducted "drug test" during flight physicals in '72 |
I was taking flight physicals in '72 and they were doing drug tests ("here's the cup - produce a sample") We had to take two flight physicals a year in my unit instead of just one. In addition, that year they started randomly selecting folks each month in the squadron to be tested between flight physicals.
"Believing" has absolutely nothing to do with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tigerflyboy
Former Member
Joined: 16 May 2004
Posts: 50
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 7:19 pm Post subject: phycial required |
|
|
[EDIT]
Post Removed-admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Romani ite domum wrote: | The bandit
| Quote: | | I bet you one of them sorry demwits who believe they conducted "drug test" during flight physicals in '72 |
I was taking flight physicals in '72 and they were doing drug tests ("here's the cup - produce a sample") We had to take two flight physicals a year in my unit instead of just one. In addition, that year they started randomly selecting folks each month in the squadron to be tested between flight physicals.
"Believing" has absolutely nothing to do with it. |
Routine urinalysis has been part of the flight physical (like most other full physicals) "forever." Urine samples were tested for sugar, albumin, blood, infection and other markers for general health.
Screening urine samples for "contraband" was not in wide practice back then. The first tests were too expensive to use on all samples - screening for marijuana was used mainly in cases where marijuana use was already suspected or when a service member was arrested for some other crime, etc.
When "random screenings" for drugs first began, the tests were not very reliable and easily beaten with a clean re-test.
It wasn't until the late 70's that screening for drugs became cheaper (the price went from around $5 per test to 19¢ per test) and more reliable and they were put into wide use with the military's new "Zero Tolerance Policy."
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hist/student
Lieutenant
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 243
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
unabashed comprehensive retraction
Last edited by hist/student on Fri Jul 23, 2004 11:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Romani ite domum
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Navy_Navy_Navy wrote: |
Routine urinalysis has been part of the flight physical (like most other full physicals) "forever." Urine samples were tested for sugar, albumin, blood, infection and other markers for general health. |
You can speak from your experience in the Navy. I am speaking from my experience in the Air Force. They were doing drug testing starting in the summer of 1972, including as I mentioned earlier, the monthly random selection urinalysis.
Costs apparently were not a concern for my unit. (The yearly budget for fuel for three Hueys we had was $12,700,000[2004 dollars])
The Air Force had something called the "Human Reliability Program", and people in my unit were under it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The bandit
Commander
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 349
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Romani ite domum wrote: |
You can speak from your experience in the Navy. I am speaking from my experience in the Air Force. They were doing drug testing starting in the summer of 1972, including as I mentioned earlier, the monthly random selection urinalysis.
Costs apparently were not a concern for my unit. (The yearly budget for fuel for three Hueys we had was $12,700,000[2004 dollars])
The Air Force had something called the "Human Reliability Program", and people in my unit were under it. |
This man will know, COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired) U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard:
I quote him, "Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by
the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a
special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug
use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a
healthy pilot, not confront a drug user."
Now take your liberal propaganda and disinformation up the road, clown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Romani ite domum
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2004 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The bandit wrote: |
This man will know, COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired) U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard:
I quote him, "Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by
the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a
special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug
use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a
healthy pilot, not confront a drug user."
Now take your liberal propaganda and disinformation up the road, clown. |
I don't really care what he says. I know what I experienced in that time period, I know when it started for my unit. It was both in the flight physical and by random selection at other times between flight physicals.
San Diego Navy Historical Association
http://www.quarterdeck.org/WindsOfChange/030-45%20MCPON%20Jack%20Whittet.htm
Look down to page 41 "Drugs and Alcohol". It says "In July 1972, DOD began its random urinalysis drug testing program."
Campenni is wrong. I have absolutely no idea why he's quoting the eighties, but he's wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
