SwiftVets.com

[1968Recondo]

The Washington Post and John Kerry’s Bronze Star and Third Purple Heart

Several weeks ago a DNC apparatchik on a nightly news program claimed that the Washington Post and the NY Times had refuted the SwiftVets accusations. NY Times and Washington Post Op Eds and articles have also referred to this fabled debunking of the Swiftvet claims by the establishment media. But, nothing in the articles and editorials in either newspaper refutes any of the Swiftvet claims. The NY Times has largely ignored the specific charges made by the SwiftVets, focusing on the verbal back and forth. Its reporters direct great energy in nitpicking away at a single element of one or two SwiftVet claims, without addressing the validity of the several charges. The NY Times and the Washington Post quote each other as if the mere fact that the appearance of sloppy reporting in one validates conclusions in the other. However, a careful reading of the Post’s articles by reporter Michael Dobbs reveals much agreement with the SwiftVets.

Most of the media’s investigation of the Kerry medals suffers from sloppy analysis, selective use of and inconsistent reliance on certain US Navy records, and an apparent gross ignorance of things military. The Post’s research is no exception. In fact, the Post’s conclusions mischaracterize some of its own analysis.

According to Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs' lengthy review of the 13 March 1969 action that resulted in Kerry receiving a Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart (Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete: Critics Fail to Disprove Kerry’s Version of Vietnam War Episode, 22 August 2004), “[SwiftVets] accuse [Kerry] of cowardice, hogging the limelight, and lying… Kerry was never fired upon and fled the scene at the moment of maximum danger... and they failed to come up with sufficient evidence to prove him a liar.”

This overgeneralization of the Swiftvet accusations creates a handy strawman that is much easier to dismiss for the lack of definitive evidence of Kerry’s “lying” than would a point-by-point review of the specific Swiftvet accusations. On the 13 March 1969 action, the SwiftVets specifically accuse John Kerry of:

1. Conflating a injury from a non-hostile accident with a hostile-fire “contusion” to fraudulently gain a third Purple Heart;
2. Fleeing the scene of the action at the moment of greatest danger when a mine exploded under and crippled PCF-3;
3. Exaggerating the situation to gain an undeserved Bronze Star by claiming he was under hostile fire when he returned to the vicinity of the mine explosion to rescue Jim Rassmann.
4. Authoring the 13 March 1969 Market Time Spot Report that contains faulty information and is used by the Kerry campaign and the media as proof of Kerry’s version of events.

The following review of the evidence (Navy records available on www.johnkerry.com, the information available on www.SwiftVets.com, Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War by Douglas Brinkley, and various other articles), along with the Dobbs’ article, clearly demonstrates a strong case for SwiftVets’ accusations 1 and 2, casts further doubt on Kerry’s claim for hostile fire, and establishes a solid case for Kerry authoring the Market Time Spot Report. MICHAEL DOBBS AGREES--PERHAPS UNINTENTIONALLY-- WITH THE SWIFTVETS ON THE FIRST TWO ACCUSATIONS!

1. Conflating Injuries:

On the issue of conflating injuries, Dobbs agrees that the records confirm that this happened, but he gets distracted by the Bronze Star and fails to recognize that a fraudulent Purple Heart is the result.

According to Dobbs (August 22), “On the core issue of whether Kerry was wounded under fire, thereby qualifying for a third Purple Heart, the Navy records clearly favor Kerry.” THIS IS A VERY FAULTY READING OF THE RECORDS AND a misleading conclusion!

The historical records available on the Kerry website (www.johnkerry.com) and the adoring Brinkley biography of Kerry, Tour of Duty (p. 313), clearly indicate that the only “wound” John Kerry received during that action on 13 March 1969 was a minor contusion to his right forearm. The Navy records and the Brinkley book also clearly show that an earlier non-hostile “wound” resulting from a mix of “shrapnel” and rice from a careless, self-inflicted grenade accident that caught Kerry in the left buttocks has been attributed to the hostile action.

According to Dobbs (August 22), “As they were heading back to the boat, Kerry and Rassmann decided to blow up a five-ton rice bin to deny food to the Vietcong. In an interview last week, Rassmann recalled that they climbed on top of the huge pile and dug a hole in the rice. On the count of three, they tossed their grenades into the hole and ran. Evidently, Kerry did not run fast enough. ‘He got some frags and pieces of rice in his rear end,’ Rassmann said with a laugh. ‘It was more embarrassing than painful.’ At the time, the incident did not seem significant, and Kerry did not mention it to anyone when he got back on the boat.”

According to the Boston Globe’s John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography, “At one point, Kerry and Rassmann threw grenades into a huge rice cache that had been captured from the Viet Cong and was thus slated for destruction. After tossing the grenades, the two dove for cover. Rassmann escaped the
ensuing explosion of rice, but Kerry was not as lucky - thousands of grains stuck to him. The result was hilarious, and the two men formed a bond."

According to the summaries from John Kerry’s 1969 Vietnam Action Reports (from www.johnkerry.com), “Meanwhile the boats began receiving heavy fire from both sides of the river. Kerry, who had received shrapnel wounds and hurt his right arm…” The Kerry campaign still attributes the shrapnel wounds to the action on the river!

Dobbs agrees (August 22): “An unsigned ‘personnel casualty report,’ however erroneously implies that Kerry suffered ‘shrapnel wounds to the left buttocks’ later in the day, following the mine explosion incident, when he also received ‘contusions to his right forearm.’ Anti-Kerry veterans have accused Kerry of conflating the two injuries to strengthen the case for the Bronze Star and Purple Heart. Kerry’s Bronze Star citation, however, refers only to his arm injury.”

Dobbs gets confused here; the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart are separate issues. Kerry’s Purple Heart was awarded for two injuries as the documents attest. One of those injuries was the result of a non-hostile accident and therefore does not meet the standard for a Purple Heart. The other was a minor bruise. Kerry associated both with the action on the river to make a case for the Purple Heart. This is fraudulent.

The Kerry campaign has promoted this falsehood to an accommodating press. A Washington Post article (Sharp Focus on Lt. Kerry’s Four Months of Fire by Lois Romano, April 23, 2004) states, “Kerry was wounded again, this time taking shrapnel in the buttocks and right forearm when a mine exploded near his boat.” Again the injuries are conflated.

According to Dobbs (August 22): “nor is there any dispute that Kerry was hurt in the arm, although the anti-Kerry camp claims he exaggerated the nature of the injury.” THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT KERRY’S MINOR BRUISE HAS BEEN EXAGGERATED IN NAVY RECORDS (his Bronze Star citation) AND IN THE BRINKLEY BOOK and is regularly referred to in the establishment press as a “wound,” disguising the fact that it was a bruise. The dictionary defines “contusion” as “an injury that doesn’t break the skin!”

The Bronze Star citation states, “his arm bleeding and in pain.”

The Brinkley biography (pp. 316-317) acknowledges that Kerry left his boat at some point “to have his gashed arm looked at.” And received medical attention aboard the cutter. “In addition to getting his arm patched up, he had suffered a slight concussion, also had bits of shrapnel and rice extracted from his backside.”

Kerry has now introduced in his biography, in addition to a slight concussion, a “gashed arm” which also crops up in his Bronze Star citation. EXCEPT KERRY HAD A MINOR BRUISE. THE BLEEDING ARM IS A FICTION! No bleeding arm is ever mentioned in the casualty reports. And the medical reports don’t mention any concussion however slight! It was Kerry who reported the circumstances of his injuries to the medical personnel aboard the cutter; they simply treated him and recorded the report. They were not at the action and couldn’t have known the circumstances. All the other wounded were from PCF-3 and were in no condition to fabricate stories for Kerry’s records. And only Kerry had the motive.

Only Kerry contends that he had a bleeding arm. He’s the only one who could have lied about a “bleeding arm” for the Bronze Star citation and he certainly lied about it in the Brinkley biography. The Kerry campaign continues to refer to the contusion as a wound, as do his friends in the media. Dobbs never refers to it as a bruise, which is the common term.

According to Dobbs (August 22), “Lt. Pees and three members of his crew from PCF-3 would be medevaced to a Coast Guard cutter offshore with serious head and back injuries.”

All four men were suffering from possible back injuries and concussions and their prognosis was “unknown” at the time of their medical treatment on the cutter, according to Navy records available on the Kerry website. The Market Time Spot Report for 13 March from the Kerry website, also notes that Swiftboat crewmembers GMG3 Wolfe and Ensign Arp suffered minor contusions and abrasions.

Purple Heart regulations allow for the award of that medal for “concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions.” The list of awards for the year 1969 (available on the Kerry website) show no Purple Heart awards for Lt. Pees, Ensign Tryner, or crewmembers Vorpahl, Wolfe, or Arp, despite several of them suffering more serious injuries that the minor bruise suffered by Lt. Kerry. Only PCF-3’s GMG3 Hollister is listed as a Purple Heart recipient, probably for shrapnel wounds suffered in the exposed bow tub of the boat that boat when the mine exploded.

How is it that Kerry is the only recipient of a Purple Heart in this action for an injury that is clearly described as a “contusion,” when others received similar or more serious “wounds” but didn’t receive Purple Hearts? It is because the award was based on a joining of two “wounds”--one of which was self-inflicted in a non-hostile event and not deserving of a Purple Heart. The other injury was a minor bruise that would not stand up to scrutiny alone. No respectable officer and gentleman would press for a Purple Heart for a minor bruise!

And the reason the others didn’t get Purple Hearts is because they didn’t consider their injuries serious enough to meet the standard.

Kerry was a medal chaser who acknowledged in a LA Times interview (The Race to the White House, August 17, 2004) that he pressed for the award of his first Purple Heart. This award is also under a cloud, and likely self-inflicted by his misaimed M-79 grenade launcher. By all accounts it was a tiny scratch and he refuses to release the first Purple Heart recommendation. Kerry's campaign has recently admitted that the wound may not have resulted from hostile fire. None of the participants in that incident claim that there was any hostile fire, and some certify there was none. There is also no evidence that the targets on the beach were Vietcong guerrillas. They may have been unarmed smugglers. There apparently is no after action report that would normally be filed in the event of hostile action.

Kerry was an officer and a leader, but his disreputable actions in pursuit of a third Purple Heart, set him apart from his fellow officers and enlisted men on that day. HIS THIRD PURPLE HEART IS A FRAUD THAT GOT HIM OUT OF VIETNAM AFTER FOUR SHORT MONTHS AND CONTRIBUTED TO HIS SELF-ANNOINTED STANDING AS A “HIGHLY DECORATED HERO.” Real heroes don’t press for Purple Hearts for minor bruises or fraudulently claim a non-hostile injury as a hostile wound, much less brag about the medal.

2. Fleeing the Scene:

On the issue of Kerry fleeing from the scene of the mine explosion, Dobbs agrees but doesn’t appear to see a problem with Kerry running away, however temporarily.

Dobbs writes (August 22), “Kerry’s boat raced off down the river away from the ambush zone… It is unclear how far down the river Kerry’s boat was when he turned around. It could have been anywhere from a few hundred yards to a mile.” In an August 19 article (“Records Counter a Critic of Kerry”), Dobbs states, “…as Kerry’s boat had sped downriver after the mine exploded under another boat. He later returned to provide assistance to the stricken boat.”

An April 23 Washington Post article by Reporter Lois Romano states, “Under fire from the riverbank, Kerry gave orders to get out of the area.”

Kerry is less honest about his actions, not mentioning his departure from the scene in the Brinkley book (page 314). He claims, ”turning the boat into the fire on the left with the intention of trying to get the troops ashore on the outskirts of the ambush. We veered back toward [PCF-3] and tried to provide cover from the engaged side.” He also acknowledges that Rassmann was “several hundred yards in back of [Kerry].” No troops were landed! This is probably a later day invention to cover his hasty retreat.

The Bronze Star Award Recommendation states, “PCF-51 immediately went to the aid of PCF-3 while PCF-94 provided cover fire.” This is a lie as PCF-94 and Kerry were racing toward the mouth of the river.

Jim Rassmann has stated, “all the swift boats had left” (Wall Street Journal; August 10, 2004). But the other boats were assisting PCF-3 and had not left; only Kerry had.

Kerry clearly fled the scene of what he alleges was an ongoing firefight, while the other boats remained to rescue the crippled PFC-3 and its crew--some of them in the water. Even if there was hostile fire, his Bronze Star award for “heroic achievement” is seriously tarnished. If there was no hostile fire, the Bronze Star award is without any “heroic achievement.”

All three remaining Swiftboats closed to assist the crippled PCF-3. Lt. Chenoweth’s PCF-23, pulled several PCF-3 crewmembers from the water and, according to SwiftVets, was moments away from picking up Rassmann when Kerry rearrived on the scene. None on board Chenoweth’s boat received Bronze Stars! The SwiftVets contend that Kerry returned after he determined that there was no hostile fire.

The SwiftVets have stated that SOP called for all boats to converge to protect a crippled boat, provide covering fire, and assist rescue operations. At the moment of greatest danger, Kerry took his boat, his crew, and his firepower to a safe distance downstream. This is inexcusable, especially for someone who touts a personal theme of “No Man left Behind.” Kerry left everyone behind!

Kerry’s Bronze Star Award Recommendation also makes no mention of his fleeing the scene, but simply refers to Kerry having “turned his boat around to assist [Rassmann].” The witness for this recommendation is former Kerry crewmember D.L. Sandusky, one of his chief defenders. The Bronze Star citation varies this by stating, “[Kerry] returned upriver to assist.” Had his commanding officer known the whole truth at the time, it is unlikely he would have approved the award.

Understandably, the SwiftVets, were shocked to discover 35 years later that Kerry was awarded a Bronze Star given his initial fleeing from the scene. Others who had not fled and had also rescued sailors from the water received no awards for “heroic achievement.” This award could only have resulted from Kerry’s initiation; had it been generated by a commanding officer, more officers and sailors would have been recognized

Dobbs agrees with the SwiftVets that Kerry left the action, but returned at some point to pick up Rassmann and assist in the towing of PCF-3. DOBBS CLEARLY FAILS TO UNDERSTAND THE SERIOUSNESS OF KERRY’S DECISION TO FLEE THE SCENE AND ABANDON THE CRIPPLED BOAT AND HIS FELLOW SWIFT BOATS, HOWEVER TEMPORARILY, AT THE MOMENT OF GREATEST DANGER. IF THERE WAS ONGOING HOSTILE FIRE AND KERRY FLED THE SCENE AND HIS BOAT’S ABSENCE CONTRIBUTED TO CASUALTIES AMONG THOSE WHO STAYED, HE COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP ON CHARGES OF DESERTION IN THE FACE OF THE ENEMY. Most military men would consider this a serious dereliction of duty for an officer, and some might consider it a cowardly act. Most veterans with combat experience understand this; those in the establishment media do not.


3. Exaggerating The Situation By Claiming He Was Under Hostile Fire:

On the issue of hostile fire, Dobbs pulls together support for the Kerry version, but fails to note available evidence that certainly challenges the claim of automatic weapons and small arms fire. And the evidence he cites as confirming is undermined by statements from Kerry supporters and contradictions in the records.

What is critical to remember here is that Kerry got his Bronze Star primarily for rescuing Jim Rassmann while under “sniper fire,” according to the citation. This rescue occurred later in the action, after Kerry had fled the scene, but as he was returning, and just prior to Kerry’s PCF-94 joining the other boats and throwing a line to the crippled, but by then under control PCF-3. If there was no sniper fire (or other a/w or s/a fire) during the rescue, there is no “heroic achievement.” The sequence of events is a key factor.

Dobbs states (August 22), “the Kerry and anti-Kerry camps differ sharply on whether the flotilla came under enemy fire after the explosion that crippled the 3 boat. Everybody aboard Kerry’s boat, including Rassmann, says there was fire from both riverbanks…”

However, according to the Brinkley book, Kerry states, ‘we veered back toward [PCF-3] and tried to provide cover from the engaged side.” This undermines the claim of fire from both banks!

Dobbs also states, “ …and the ‘official after action report’ speaks of all boats receiving ‘heavy a/w [automatic weapons] and s/a [small arms] from both banks.’ The Bronze Star citations for Kerry and Thurlow also speak of prolonged enemy fire.” But variations and contradictions in the documents and conflicting statements by the participants cast substantial doubt on intensity of any hostile fire even among the proponents of the Kerry version.

According to the Los Angeles Time interview with Jim Rassmann (March 13), “they were on the run, being chased down the Bay Hap River by enemy soldiers firing guns and rockets. An explosion wounded Kerry in the arm and threw Rassmann into the river. When he surfaced he saw the convoy had gone ahead. Vietcong snipers fired at him, and Rassmann submerge over and over to avoid being hit. The bullets came from both banks. Kerry’s boat, under heavy fire sidled up to the struggling soldier…” This article also introduces “rockets” into the equation that are unsupported by the records and the SwiftVets. Curiously, Rassmann is under sniper fire but Kerry is under heavy fire at the same location!

Kerry states, in the Brinkley book, “at the same moment. We came under a hail of small arms fire from both banks.” However, when spotting Rassmann, the hail of small arms fire dissolves into sniper fire! “Lieutenant Rassmann, several hundred yards [behind] was receiving sniper fire from both banks.” Kerry also claims to have seen “bullets splashing in the water beside [Rassmann]” from several hundred yards away (Brinkley; pp. 314-315). Aside from Kerry’s extraordinary eyesight, sniper fire is several volumes lower in firepower than automatic weapons and small arms fire, especially if it was heavy.

According to Dobbs (August 22), “Although Kerry’s injury report speaks of a [second] mine that ‘detonated close aboard PCF-94,’ helmsman Del Sandusky believes it was more likely a rocket or rocket propelled grenade, as a mine would have inflicted more damage.” Thus a Kerry crewman is again questioning the purity of one record. In fact, there was curiously no shrapnel or injuries (other than Kerry’s bruise) from this “mine.” And the SwiftVets state that there was only one explosion; that one under PCF-3.

Recent reporting, including an August 19 Post article by Michael Dobbs (“Records Counter a Critic of Kerry”) suggest that there must have been hostile fire because it is also mentioned in the Bronze Star citation for Lt. Thurlow. That language is also similar to that in the Market Time Spot Report stating, according to the Post article, “enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire directed at all units.” Thurlow has indicated surprise at this revelation of hostile fire and maintains that there was no hostile fire, suggesting that Kerry (or perhaps Kerry’s citation) may have been the source of the language.

More recently, former Chief petty Officer Robert Lambert, the witness to Lt. Thurlow’s Bronze Star, has stated, according to the Seattle Times (August 27), “I thought we were under fire, I believed we were under fire.” The establishment press has declared this hesitant statement proof of hostile fire and supportive of the Kerry position. But Lambert is in the awkward position of either agreeing with the wording in the recommendation or acknowledging that he exaggerated the situation. He goes on to say, “When they blew the 3-boat, everyone opened upon the banks with everything they had. That was the normal procedure. There was always a firefight after a mine detonation.” There clearly was an expectation that there would be hostile fire. Lambert also states, “Thurlow was far too distracted with rescue efforts to even realize he was under fire.” No one was probably more distracted during this event than Rassmann, who made several dives below the surface to avoid what he believes was sniper fire, yet no one questions his version of being the object of hostile fire. And certainly immediately after the mine explosion, there was heavy friendly fire directed at the banks by the boats, some of it probably snapping several feet above Jim Rassmann’s head. But, the SwiftVets also state that after about a minute or so of suppressing fire, they ceased firing because there was no return hostile fire. Again, the timing is important.

The Bronze Star award recommendation (eyewitness is listed as D. L. Sandusky) available on the Kerry website mentions only that Rassmann “was receiving sniper fire from the river banks.” There is no mention of heavy a/w and s/a. The subsequent Bronze Star citation adds, “In addition, all units began receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks,” and later “[Rassmann] was receiving sniper fire from both banks.”

A KEY POINT HERE IS THAT THIS LANGUAGE FROM THE BRONZE STAR CITATION APPEARS TO BE PARAPHRASED FROM THE 13 MARCH 1969 MARKET TIME SPOT REPORT THAT STATES, “AT THE SAME TIME BOATS RCVD HEAVY A/W AND S/A FROM BOTH BANKS. FIRE CONTINUED FOR ABOUT 5000 METERS…” And, unless the 5,000 meters is a typo, the distance—nearly 2.5 miles—is almost certainly a gross exaggeration of the size of the ambush and another likely exaggeration in an official record.

The SwiftVets assert that Kerry jumped aboard Lt. Chenowith’s PCF-23 for a ride with the more serious casualties from PCF-3 to the Coast Guard cutter to get his “wounds” treated while rescue operations were underway on PCF-3 (Washington Times; August 20). However, according to Brinkley (page 315), “Kerry went in again to put another line on [PCF-3] and this one held. ‘We managed to get clear of the kill zone,’ he exulted.” It would have been impossible for him to switch boats under hostile fire. The boats would have needed to be near stationary for Kerry to swap boats. But, according to the SwiftVets, he was long gone when PCF-3 was being towed.

The sequence here is important for Kerry to maintain his claim that there was hostile fire through the rescue of Rassmann and PCF-3. Brinkley appears to put Kerry’s departure from his boat after towing had commenced. After Kerry’s rescue of Rassmann, he immediately approached the crippled PCF-3. If he was not under fire when he joined the other boats, then it is unlikely that he was under fire when pulling Rassmann from the water moments earlier. If he was under fire while rescuing Rassmann, then so were the other boats when rescuing PCF-3 crewmen from the water, getting PCF-3 under control, and towing that boat. But only Kerry got a Bronze Star for rescuing someone from the water!

Again, according to the Los Angeles Time interview with Jim Rassmann (March 13), “Kerry’s boat, under heavy fire sidled up to the struggling soldier…” If Kerry was under heavy fire at the time of the Rassman rescue then so was Chenowith’s PCF-23 and probably every other Swift boat in the vicinity. Except the SwiftVets assert that they were not under fire at that time.

Dobbs also states, “A report on ‘battle damage’ to Thurlow’s boat mentions ‘three .30 cal bullet holes about the superstructure.’ According to Thurlow, the holes were the result of action the previous day, when he ran into another Vietcong ambush.”

The Brinkley book (pp. 301-304), referring to an ambush the previous day, states “PCF-94 was particularly far from tip-top shape, ‘All the windows on [PCF-94] and on [Larry Thurlow’s] boat had been blown out in the ambush and water slopped into the main cabins. All the radars were in bad shape.” The text details an ambush that day involving explosions and AK-47 fire.

What is odd here is that Dobbs fails to mention the damage report for Kerry’s PCF-94, also available on the Kerry website. That 14 March 1969 damage report makes no mention of any bullet holes! PCF-94 which Kerry and crew variously insist was under heavy automatic weapons and small arms fire came through this action without a single bullet hole! This is selective use of records.

MOST PECULIAR OF ALL THIS ARGUING OVER THE ISSUE OF HOSTILE FIRE IS THE SIMPLE FACT THAT DESPITE KERRY CAMPAIGN CLAIMS THAT ALL BOATS WERE UNDER HEAVY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS AND SMALL ARMS FIRE, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THE 30 SWIFT BOAT CREW MEMBERS OR ANY OF THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE TROOPS ABOARD SUFFERED A BULLET WOUND. THIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT FOR SOME TIME, SEVERAL BOATS WERE ESSENTIALLY DRIFTING AT THE SPEED OF THE CURRENT DURING PCF-3 RESCUE OPERATIONS AND PRESENTED A HIGH-DENSITY, NEARLY-STATIONARY TARGET. THE ONLY INJURIES RECORDED RESULTED FROM THE MINE EXPLOSION. THIS INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT ALONE UNDERMINES THE CLAIM OF HEAVY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS AND SMALL ARMS FIRE.

The claim of heavy automatic weapons and small arms fire appears to be an embellishment to the Bronze Star citation that was not on the Bronze Star Award Recommendation that only recorded sniper fire. But, according to Newsweek (August 22), “Sandusky tells Newsweek that during the incident, his boat was jarred by an explosion, probably from a rocket, knocking soldier Jim Rassmann, off the boat. SANDUSKY SAYS HE CAN’T REMEMBER IF ANYONE WAS STILL SHOOTING WHEN KERRY PULLED RASSMANN FROM THE RIVER, but that the boat was banged up and taking on water.” SANDUSKY--THE WITNESS CITED ON KERRY’S BRONZE STAR RECOMMENDATION--HAS CAST DOUBT ON THE VERY PREMISE OF KERRY’S BRONZE STAR. If there was no sniper fire when Kerry pulled Rassmann from the river, there’s absolutely no “heroic achievement.” And Sandusky’s description of the condition of the boat is attributed in Brinkley’s book (p. 304) to damage suffered in an ambush a day earlier (12 March 1969)

Kerry is undeserving of the Bronze Star because he concealed the fact from his commander that he initially fled the scene and abandoned the crippled PCF-3 and his fellow Swift boats at the moment of greatest danger. This fact alone, had his commander known, would have eliminated him from consideration. In addition, the preponderance of the evidence does not support the claim of heavy automatic weapons and small arms fire, and his chief witness for sniper fire can’t remember if there actually was any. It is likely that because there was no firefight and no casualties, Kerry’s fellow SwiftVets did not report his fleeing the scene. Their outrage at finding out 35 years later that he scammed a Bronze Star award for his actions is clearly understandable.

Much of the hostile fire language in the records derives from the 13 March Market Time Spot Report. No one is claiming authorship of that report--including those who claim heavy enemy fire--although it had to be written by one of the participants. When asked on a recent talk show who wrote the report, Kerry campaign mouthpiece Michael Meehan glibly responded, “the US Navy.”

If written by Kerry, he is open to the charge of having embellished the his role in the action to fraudulently receive a Bronze Star, because without hostile fire during the Rassmann rescue, there is no “heroic achievement.” The Kerry campaign and its friends in the media have embraced the 13 March Market Time Spot Report and the documents that are derived from it (Bronze Star citations, etc) as proving the Kerry version of events, but they prove nothing if the original report was written by Kerry!

These records are imperfect, not just because they were subject to exaggeration, but because they are also not in agreement with each other on some points (the variance in the Bronze Star recommendation and the citation for Kerry, for example), because they contain documented falsehoods (Kerry’s bleeding arm in the Bronze Star citation), and because they omit pertinent information (Kerry’s fleeing the scene and PCF-23’s rescuing of the PCF-3 crewmen in the water). They are only reliable to the degree that they can be verified by objective witnesses and by other documents that are less subject to fanciful embroidery (wound descriptions in casualty reports written by medical personnel, for example).

Anyone who believes citations are accurate should look up Lyndon Johnson’s Silver Star. It sets a standard for fraudulent awards. The media’s unhesitating willingness to embrace these flawed documents as unassailable reveals a gross ignorance of things military and an appalling failure to review them against one another and the few established facts.

4. Authoring the 13 March Market Time Spot Report:

On the issue of “who authored the 13 March Market Time Spot Report,” Dobbs laments that the answer is not forthcoming on a silver platter, when a little effort analyzing that record would suffice.

The establishment media—doing an imitation of the three brass monkeys--can’t seem to find any hint that John Kerry authored or was the source of any reports on his activities that day. The media superficially toys with initials, peripheral markings, and signatures and declares the source indiscernible, giving John Kerry a pass on the issue of authorship. The press is inexplicably reluctant to methodically review the elements of the document to identify the most likely author.

Dobbs states (August 22), “Kerry campaign researchers dispute the assertion [that Kerry was the author] and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the argument.” The establishment media has set an uncharacteristically high standard for resolving this issue and now appears content to be mystified. But there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that Kerry was the author!

We already know that the author was probably one of the five Officers in Charge (OIC) that day; those being each of the boat captains. The two likely authors are Thurlow because he was the “senior skipper” and Kerry, whose version of events most conforms to the records. Thurlow has stated he did not write the report and believes Kerry wrote it. Thurlow “didn’t like to write reports” (Dobbs, August 22), and states that, “Kerry routinely ‘duked the system’ to present his version of events.”

A review of the 13 March Market Time Spot Report reveals a Kerry-centric document:

According to Paragraph 4., “(C) PCFS 94, 51, 23, 43,” Kerry’s PCF-94 boat is listed first, this despite Thurlow’s status that day as the “senior skipper.”

In the first paragraph of the text, Thurlow’s PCF-51 is mistyped as “52.” Thurlow would be unlikely to have misidentified his boat number, but the cabling clerk typist could have mistyped it.

Total boat-number mentions in the text are as follows: PCF-3, 5 times; Kerry’s PCF-94, 4 times; Thurlow’s PCF-51, twice; PCF-43, twice; and PCF-23, once. PCF-3 is mentioned most because it was the focus of the explosion and rescue. The OIC and crew of PCF-3 were being treated for injuries and likely in no shape to file a report that same day. Kerry’s boat gets twice as many mentions as any other boat, other than PCF-3.

Boat-number references during the action are as follows: PCF-3, 4 times; Kerry’s PCF-94, 3 times; Thurlow’s PCF-51, once; and PCF-43, once. Again, the spotlight is on Kerry’s PCF-94.

According to the 13 March Market Time Spot Report, Kerry’s PCF-94, “picked up [Rassmann] who went overboard, towed PCF-3 as bucket brigade controlled flooding,” and with PCF-51, “assisted PCF-3.” From this text one would assume that Kerry’s PCF-94 was the primary player in the rescue of PCF-3, except that we know from the SwiftVets and from the Brinkley book (page 315) that Thurlow was the primary rescuer and Kerry had initially fled the scene. Kerry’s boat arrived later to throw a line and help tow the crippled PCF-3. The report also lists PCF-51 after PCF 94 in assisting PCF-3, giving Kerry’s boat prime billing and Thurlow’s boat second billing. Once again, Kerry’s PCF-94 hogs the limelight!

The 13 March Market Time Spot Report Report emphasizes Kerry’s rescue of Rassmann, but makes no mention of Chenoweth’s PCF-23’s rescue of several PCF-3 sailors from the water. It also makes no mention of Thurlow’s efforts to board the weaving PCF-3, stop the boat’s remaining operating engine, and help the dazed crew.

In rejecting Thurlow’s suggestion that the hostile fire language in his Bronze Star citation may have come from Kerry, Dobbs states (August 19), “For much of the episode, Kerry was not in a position to know firsthand what was happening on Thurlow’s boat, as Kerry’s boat had sped downriver after the mine exploded under another boat. He later returned to provide assistance to the stricken boat.” Dobbs' logic has greater applicability to the 13 March Market Time Spot Report. That report fails to highlight the actions of the other boats in rescuing PCF-3 until the towing began because the author obviously was not present to observe those actions. The only boat absent during that phase was Kerry’s PCF-94.

The 13 March Market Time Spot Report claims two other mine explosions, in addition to the one under PCF-3. SwiftVets claim a single mine explosion. Only Kerry claims more than one; the “explosion” that dumped Rassmann into the water. Kerry’s claim appears in the Brinkley book, the Bronze Star recommendation and citation, and the summary on the Kerry website. This connection alone indicates Kerry was a source of information for the 13 March Market Time Spot Report.

All the indicators on the 13 March Market Time Spot Report point to Kerry as the author. None of the other potential authors among the OICs has anywhere near the convergence of data points. IF KERRY WROTE THE 13 March Market Time Spot Report THEN IT AND ITS DERIVED REPORTS CAN NO LONGER BE TREATED AS IRREFUTABLE BY THE ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA AND HIS VERSION OF THE EVENTS COLLAPSES.

It’s Time for the Washington Post to Set the Record Straight!

The Washington Post needs to reexamine its review, clarify its position on the specific Swiftvet claims, and acknowledge the validity of their charges. Anything else would be deceitful.

The SwiftVets have been called liars by the Kerry campaign, former Clinton shills Lanny Davis and James Carville, and former Kerry crewmembers and Rassmann, but none have yet demonstrated any of the Swiftvet claims to be false. This should also have been clearly stated in Dobbs’ article, since he did not disprove any Swiftvet claims.

It is also time to acknowledge that the Swiftvet assertions are accurate on the charges of fleeing the scene and conflating the “wounds” for the award of a third Purple Heart. The Post should also admit that the questions raised by the SwiftVets regarding the issue of hostile fire cannot be disproved by the documents (which contain inaccuracies and are derived from 13 March 1969 Market Time Spot Report of which Kerry is the likely author). The Post should also acknowledge that there is reliable and unchallenged evidence that undermines any claim of heavy hostile fire (no bullet holes in Kerry’s boat and no friendly casualties from anything but the lone mine). AND THE POST NEEDS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE PROBABLE AUTHOR OF THE 13 MARCH MARKET TIME SPOT REPORT IS JOHN KERRY AND THEREFORE THAT REPORT AND ITS DERIVATIVES (PARTICULARLY THE BRONZE STAR RECOMMENDATION) ARE TAINTED AND CANNOT VALIDATE THE KERRY VERSION OF EVENTS!

John Kerry is not the only Vietnam veteran to have gamed the system to get undeserved awards, but he is running for President and projected his status as a Vietnam Veteran and a self-anointed, “highly-decorated hero,” as the centerpiece of his early campaign. The scrutiny he has gotten is largely from Vietnam Veterans who served with him in the Swift Boat divisions. Without them his friends in the media would never have been forced to look at the record. Even then, the establishment press’ instinct was to investigate the accusers, question their motives, accuse them of being a Republican front group, superficially review their charges, and gloss over Kerry’s version of events.

And the failure of the Washington Post to rigorously address the Kerry medals has bred a series of faulty mimicry by other Post editors, reporters, and contributors. Those mentioned below, if they seek the truth, deserve better research and analysis:

“Many of the critics are now caught in contradictions between what they say in the ads and previous statements and military records.” --David Ignatius, Washington Post, August 24. (davidignatius@washpost.com)

“But we said that ads by the group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had crossed the line in smearing the service that earned Mr. Kerry three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star. Nothing we’ve seen in the two weeks since has changed that view.” --Washington Post Editorial, August 28.

“But the Post, I believe, has been at the forefront recently, especially through the reporting of staff reporter Michael Dobbs, whose stories, one reader says, ‘have been a model of evenhanded journalism.’ My sense in reading these stories is that, while they found holes in both sides, the most serious holes were poked in the case made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.” --Michael Getler, Ombudsman, Washington Post, August 29. (ombudsman@washpost.com)

“But the central charges have largely been discredited by the Navy’s records and by serious reporting in the mainstream media.” --Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post Op Ed, September 5.

“The Swift boat ad was similarly flawed by several assertions, such as the suggestion, disputed by eyewitnesses, that Kerry’s rescue of a crewmate in Vietnam had been routine, instead of under hostile fire, as his medal citation stated.” --Paul Farhi, Washington Post, September 7.

“Even when several newspapers found holes and inconsistencies in the veterans’ accounts, the debate continued to rage…” --Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, September 13.

“and two leading pro-Republican groups—Progress for America and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth… The best know ad, by the Swift Boat Veterans, attacked Kerry’s record in Vietnam, charging, ‘Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart’ and ‘lied to get his Silver Star.’ These claims were never substantiated, and they were disputed by the Kerry campaign and in newspaper articles.” --Thomas B. Edsall, Washington Post, October 17.

The Post has a responsibility to provide a competent and thorough review of the Kerry documents.

It’s time to set the record straight. AND ITS TIME FOR THE POST TO DEMAND THAT JOHN KERRY RELEASE THE REST OF HIS NAVY RECORDS TO INCLUDE HIS MEDICAL AND PERSONNEL RECORDS AND HIS JOURNALS.

Emphasis has been added to portions of text from the Navy records, the Brinkley book, and other statements from other media by using upper case, adding bold, and occasionally underlining in order to highlight lapses in the Post’s reporting.

This rebuttal was sent to The Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler several weeks ago. He pushed it off on Dobbs and they dismissed it with the following response:

"Dobbs says he has looked at your piece, and hopes to revisit the March 13, 1969 incident at some time before the election, other events permitting. He said "I appreciate the effort he has put into writing his critique. While he makes some interesting points, I cannot endorse many of his conclusions, which seem to me to be based on a highly partisan interpretation of events."