SwiftVets.com

[Brody]

Matthews is doing everything in his power to defend Kerry and discredit Thurlow.

[republicanveteran]

Chris is having apoplexy

[stealthy]

I hate that SOB. GAWD I'd love to beat the s@%^#$^& out of that gasbag!!!!!!!!

_________________
American Conservative

[hanna]

I missed all but the last two minutes, but it seemed Matthews is looking for a hole and not finding one. How did Thurlow do?

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

Just caught the last minute - LOL!

What a lame, lame, LAME conclusion Matthews drew, at the end!

That water-bucket's gonna get an awful lot heavier for him before this is over!
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[ccr]

I thought CM was going to start to cry. He was looking really desperate. I'd love to play poker against that weasel.
_________________
Whose side is John Kerry really on? Take this quiz and decide for yourself.

http://www.learnthat.com/quiz/

[Beatrice1000]

[stealthy]

He couldn't get a word in edgewise. Matthews was saying Bush can't attack Kerry because he didn't serve but it was OK for that lewinsky to attack Thurlow.

Class shows and Matthews has none.
_________________
American Conservative

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

He asked Larry Thurlow if the President should be able to raise this issue in the campaign and Thurlow's response was that no one without personal knowledge should raise the issue.

Matthews made some snide remark about "YOUR personal knowledge," and how it wasn't working with the "plant." (whatever the heck that meant?)

Matthews in effect, declared that Thurlow was the loser of the argument and closed it. And he did, indeed, look like he was about to lose it.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[stealthy]

The transcript of that would look incomprehensable.
_________________
American Conservative

[Patriotic Mom]

With his quiet and convincing repetition of his conviction --that he as a personal observer of the bronze star incident has the right to question Kerry's bronze star and erroneous account of the incident--Thurlow did a superb job of not rising to Chris Matthews' (read windbag) bait. Chris wanted Larry to say that Bush should use the allegation against Kerry directly so that Matthews could then talk about the funding for the swifties' ads coming from a Bush supporter, the thesis being that Bush IS actually behind the swifties. Thurlow just kept insisting on his personal observations and not falling into the trap.
Well done!
The truth will set you free.

God Bless you all.

[Jette]

Matthews is in Washington, D.C.

Phone: 202-885-4000

Press #2
Ask for "Hardball"

You'll get through.
Support the Swiftees.

[Jette]

This came from a very dedicated person on another website. It should be complete. I'll post the full transcript link tomorrow.

Let me ask but the quote that you have in this ad. It says, these are your words speaking in the advertisement. When the clips were down, you could not count on john kerry. Why do you say that?

>> The main reason i say that is because it became apparent oriole that john kerry had a master plan that went far beyond the service in the swift boats and because of the fact that he was trying to engineer a record, so to speak for himself, he was not a trustworthy member of a very tighty knit unit that counted on each other every second. And once he became -- it became apparent that he had this plan that kind of secluded what was required of us at certain time, it became apparent that we could not count on him.

>> When did you first become water of this plan?

>> I became aware of it as a combination of events started to transpire where it became apparent to me that he wasn't being truthful about how he reported certain incidents. And how he, in his own description back then, he was quite a cowboy which at that particular time, if you didn't follow orders, did you as you pleased and you kind of just looked out for yourself and didn't really care about your shipmates.

>> Tell me about the time you discovered that he wasn't honest about his account of events. When did you first discover that habit of his?

>> On a firsthand basis, i understood that the purple heart that he received at cameron bay was fabricated and wasn't based on any factualness at all.

>> How did you learn that, sir?

>> I learned that from the people who had been with him at that time when he reported that he received an injury from hostile fire, when in fact there was none.

>> Who was the person who told you this? That he didn't deserve it?

>> The people --

>> Can you give may name, sir?

>> The name i would give you, after the fact, is --

>> No. At the time. You said at the time this happened, you discovered he had a habit of fabricating the truth.

>> I couldn't give you a specific name. It was a crew member that came from the cameron bay division.

>> Can you help us figure out who it might be? You're saying -- he has a record of not being honest about his battle of bravery. I want to know how we can know if this is true or not.

>> The only name that comes to mind now is a guy that is actually a member of our group. But what I'm telling you --

>> What's his name? We want to talk to him. It's easier -- since he's your source, we want to know.

>> Steve gardener.

>> And he told you at the time that john kerry received his first purple heart that he didn't deserve it?

>> Well, what happened is he said that he received an injury due to a mistake he made when he fired the m-79 and was hit by his own shrapnel. That doesn't constitute a purple heart. You have to be injured by hostile fire.

>> And he told you that at the time? Steve gardener -- if i get him on the show, he'll say he told you, mr. Thur low --

>> He'll say he got an award he didn't deserve?

>> He's going to say that he reported to carrey john kerry was given the purple heart. He'll say john kerry applied for a purple heart that he did not merit.

>> At the time he told you. Let's go to the issue of the bronze star which is far more important. You received a bronze star in action for going back -- going to that ship that had your fellow swift boat, that had hit a mine. Why did you get bronze star?

>> I felt like i got the bronze star because i helped save the guys that were injured on there and helped stave boat from sinking.

>> Were you under enemy fire at this time?

>> No, i was not.

>> Why did your citation say so?

>> Because john kerry had written an after action report to cover the entire incident. And in this after action report, he reported that we were not only under enemy fire, we were under intense enemy fire.

>> Did his direction report, did that become the report that was the language in your citation? Do you know that for a fact? Do you know that -- in other words, do you know for a fact that it was his account of the action that you both survived that led to the language in your citation? Do you know that for a fact, sir?

>> Well, because my commander officer wrote up the citation. The only thing he had available to him was that report. Yes. The part about the hostile fire would have come from that report.

>> Do you know for a fact that it was john kerry's words or account that led to your language in your citation? Do you know it for a fact? Would you swear to it? This is what we're getting into here. We need clear accounts of what happened with john kerry and whether he really did deserve to get a bronze star or not.

>> An you say for a fact that he wrote himself up, that he got credit because he gave himself credit and that's you why got credit? The brave act to save the men and women? You both benefited, you're saying to me now, because of his after action report. You both benefited in the citations.

>> His after action report reported none of the action i took about saving the men or the boat.

>> The testimony that you were both under fire, intense enemy fire, you said that was not the case. You know for a fact it was his report that led to the language in your citation?

>> The reason i believe it was from his report is because he is the only one that filed one and the fact that he, and the reason I know he filed it was because his boat was the central figure in the report. The three boat was the one that was mine and badly damaged. But yet the report tells about john kerry coming back to give harassment under intense fire and only casually mentions anything else that even happened that day.

>> What I don't understand is why you deserve ad purple heart for taking the heart that you did. Not the purple heart. The bronze star. That you deserved the bronze star. You were awarded it fair enough. And you say you were not under enemy fire. You're saying, you're now saying that john kerry doesn't deserve it because he wasn't enemy fire. Aren't you both in the same boat? Didn't you both do the same thing? Both get same award? Why are you exraing that he doesn't deserve it if you deserved?

>> I felt like i got the award because I saved some people's lives and saved the boat.

>> He saved rasman's life. According to the account. Why doesn't he deserve the award?

>> I'm not quibbling about the award. I'm saying he lied.

>> Yes, you are, sir. You are out here in an advertisement saying "when the chips were down, you could not count on john kerry."

>> Yes.

>> That's a pretty strong -- because of what?

>> I'm saying he had this master plan that was --

>> Give three example. Let's to go your theory of the plan. Have you seen it written down? Have you heard him tell his account to someone? How do you know in in any real way he had this plan?

>> Because of the fact that he engineered three purple heart incidences that allowed him to go home after he spent about 1/3 of his tour there.

>> But that's your account of what happened. He was there for four months.

>> That's exactly right.

>> He did win the three purple hearts and the bronze and the silver. You say he had some plan to get an award as a battle hero ahead of time. But you can't tell me how you know he had this plan.

>> I know he had this plan because of what happened not only then but after the fact.

>> Did you have a plan to win the bronze star? You won the bronze star. Why is winning a bronze star evidence of having had a plan to win one? I don't get it.

>> Well, we're not even talking about him having a plan to win the bronze star.

>> Can you honestly tell me that you could swear in open court that you know that john kerry, when he's a lieutenant J.G. In the same theater you're in had some plan for winning medals? Do you know that for a fact?

>> Ok. In other words, prevent, present evidence that he had this plan?

>> Yeah.

>> Of course i couldn'T. I'm basing it on my observations.

>> These are after the fact observations. You say he had a plan ahead of time to make himself a war hero to get elected to office.

>> I'm saying he had a plan that included not only beer a war hero but getting an early out.

>> But you admit you have no evidence.

>> I have my own personal observations. And you're right. It is not tangible evidence.

>> So you don't --

>> I'm not in a court of law.

>> I'll tell you. What you have involved yourself in a presidential election.

>> I have.

>> Is john kerry's war record a legitimate issue in this presidential campaign?

>> I think it is. Because he's made at this time central plank of his nomination.

>> Fair enough. Then should he have a legitimate right, should he choose to do so, to talk about it?

>> Should the president?

>> Should the president of the united states, who is running against john kerry, does he have the right as we speak, as you see it, to raise this issue and debate it if it comes up? Is he allowed to talk about it?

>> Are you talking about president bush?

>> That's right.

>> Does he have the right to bring it pup.

>> Yeah.

>> President bush wasn't there. So why would he --

>> I'm talking about is he allowed to raise what you've said about your fellow officer, is he loud to go into the debate and say i hear fwrur your fellow officers that you were there where you claim to be. Is that a fair tack for the president to take? Is it a legitimate issue. You're raising it as a campaign issue. I'm asking you, why can't both candidates talk about it? That's all I'm asking.

>> I'm raising the -- the reason I've raised this issue is because I want the american people to hear the truth that i know.

>> Right.

>> And let them make a decision.

>> Isn't it fair to say you're doing this because john kerry is a candidate for president?

>> Yes. This is the first time I would have ever had a chance to talk about it.

>> That's fair enough. But is it fair enough for the president to counter charge and say he doesn't think john kerry is the hero he claims to be?

>> I don't think so. He wasn't there. He doesn't have the evidence i do.

>> Is he allowed to believe you?

>> He is allowed to believe whoever he wants.

>> In other words, you want everybody in the country to believe what you're saying, right now, but not to let the president of the united states count on it as a campaign issue.

>> That's entirely up to him.

>> It is up to him.

>> Ok. Why do you think it's ok for a person who didn't serve in vietnam to criticize someone who did?

>> I did serve in vietnam.

>> I'm asking about the president. You said it's up to him. If it's up to the president whether to attack john kerry for being in vietnam, what did he over there, is it ok with you? That a guy who didn't serve criticize as guy who did?

>> Well, I don't know owe show the.

>> As a veteran. I'm just asking a simple question. Is this a campaign issue for both candidates to contend with or isn't it? Or is it just you against john kerry as a side shot?

>> The thing i think is that the president wouldn't have any -- what he would --

>> Let me ask you this. If president bush is asking a question. He come out and says, i hear from this fellow officer. He was the commander of the swift boat, ahead of the team. He said he didn't deserve the claim he got at the convention. Would that be ok with you?

>> It would be ok with me if he wanted to do it why would he wanted to do it?

>> To defeat his opponent. The same reason you want to defeat this guy. You don't think he should be president.

>> That's exactly right.

>> That's fair enough. There's nothing wrong with it. You have a million time in this country, a free opportunity to say so. I'm asking you. Should george bush be allowed to raise this issue in the campaign? Otherwise, it is just you. In other words, it is ok for you, for a guy who didn't serve in vietnam to attack a guy who did? That's all i want to know.

>> I don't think a guy that didn't serve in vietnam should attack some guy's record that did serve in vietnam if he has no personal knowledge of it.

>> But if he has the knowledge because of you, should he be able to do it?

>> He has no personal knowledge.

>> We're going back to your personal knowledge. The problem is you haven't produced any personal knowledge about this plan you talked about. That's the problem tonight. This plan has not been authenticated. That's the concern i have. Thanks for coming on. Coming up, the "washington post" reporter who broke the story about larry thurlow's bronze

[hanna]

My letter to Chris Matthews:

Chris you are making a fool of yourself. You are like a rabbid dog. For crying out grow up and stop acting like such a jerk. At least now the truth is being looked into. You better do your homework before you open your mouth further.

You mention Mr. Rasmussen….I am just a woman out here in podunkin USA…but on my own I was able to find numerous, varying accounts, in quotes from Mr. Rasmussen concerning his experience on Mar. 13.

Rassmann's river patrol of Swift boats had been blown out of the water in a barrage of fire from Viet Cong AK-47s and rocket launchers. He had come up for air, taking sniper fire from both banks, sure "my ticket was punched.'' *note, no mention of a mine*
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/08/MNGKO4RLT71.DTL
On March 13, 1969, Rassmann, a Green Beret, was traveling down the Bay Hap river in a boat behind Kerry’s when both were ambushed by exploding land mines and enemy fire coming from the shore. Kerry was hit in the arm, while a mine blew Rassmann’s boat out of the water. (*This is different. No other account claims the 94 was blown out of the water. Good thing, because it wasn’t. In fact, the 94 boat towed the damaged boat back) With enemy fire coming from both sides of the river and swift boats evacuating from the area, Kerry’s crew chose to turn their boat toward the ambush to save Rassmann.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0117d.html

Rassmann, a first lieutenant in the Army special forces, was eating a chocolate chip cookie on Kerry’s patrol boat as it pulled back from a fire fight when a nearby boat hit a mine. During the ensuing combat, Kerry’s boat was rocked by another explosion, which injured Kerry and tossed Rassmann into the water.
http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html/2004/07/22/76146.php
While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005460
The group had already lost one soldier that day. (*who) As they sped down the river, one boat was blown out of the water, and then another. An explosion wounded Kerry in the arm and threw Rassmann into the river. Rassmann dove to the bottom to avoid being run over by the other boats. When he surfaced, he saw the convoy had gone ahead.

Viet Cong snipers fired at him, and Rassmann submerged over and over to avoid being hit. The bullets came from both banks, and Rassmann had nowhere to go. He began thinking his time had come, but the fifth time he came up, he saw the convoy had turned around. Kerry had ordered the boats back to pick up the man overboard.

http://www.htmlhelponline.com/kerry/news1.html

Now I’m sorry Chris, this just doesn’t fly.

Furthermore, the recommendation says NOTHING about Rasmussen making the recommendation.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/bronze_star_recommendation.pdf

ANDDDDDDDD….if you want to blast the small amount of money donated to the Swifties by Perry…$200,000….how about you blast the MILLIONS donated by Soros???

And it was real nice of you to have Thurlow on for a couple minutes and then turn around and have several people ranting and raving like a bunch of school kids.

You are such a hypocrite.!!!!! And you are all a bunch of lunatics.

[NavyBrat]

Well Said, Patriotic Mom!

I gave up watching Chris Mathews
years ago. What a Tyrant
_________________
Laura~