Posted on 08/18/2004 8:24:34 PM PDT by Callahan
Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.
In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.
But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
pp 90 Unfit for Command:
...A Viet Cong sympathizer in an adjoining bunker touched off the mine. Besides the mine exploding under PCF 3, there was no other hostile fire and there were no other mines, according to Chenoweth, Odell, Pease, and Thurlow. The boats had begun firing after the mine exploded, but they ceased after a short time because of the lack of hostile fire.
Kerry claims they were under massive fire from all sides of the river for 2-1/2 miles along each side. without a casualty or bullet hole in the boats.
Let's hope this will spur more people to buy the SwiftVets book.
This particular article is all over the media -- the same media, who is ignoring the SwiftVets statements.
How many VC were lining the shores to lay down that much hostile fire :-)
The whole story smells of fabrication!
SANDUSKY was the eyewitness for Kerry's bronze star...
R.E. Lambert was recommended for one also...
Lawrence O'Donnell, the leftist MSNBC "Political ANALyst" agreed with you tonight on Scarborough's show.
Joe was asking the panel, including Pat Buchanan, "How should Kerry respond to the Swifties' claims?"
O'Donnell said Kerry should keep on doing what he's been doing - ignore it because the MSM was not going to cover it unless he responds.
I don't think WaPo was watching.
I love the smell of donkey fryin' in the mornin'.
The first clue to the WaPo's smoke screen for Kerry is that " only portions of Thurlow's records were released."
The author of the paperwork for the citation must be made public.
The only person on scene who said there was fire-was Kerry.
Page 90 of " Unfit For Command " cites Chenoweth who commanded the boat in front of Kerry,
Odell,his gunner
Pease, the commander of the 3 boat that exploded
and Thurlow, who commanded another boat.
All said there was no hostile fire.
When the mine exploded under the 3 boat, Kerry was on the other side of the river and he freaked and sped away.
Possibly flinging Rassmann in the water-no one,even Rassmann himself seems to know how he wound up in the water.
"The boats began firing after the mine exploded, but, they ceased after a short time because of the lack of hostile fire."
" Despite the absence of fire, Kerry's boat fled the scene."
The other swift boats stayed and defended the disabled 3 boat and it's crew.
Kerry returned after he was sure the coast was clear.
Kerry filed a false after action report-stating there was " heavy fire " for two and a half miles.
As O'Neill said the other day, Kerry made it sound like
it was Seminary Ridge from the battle of Gettysburg.
Chenoweth and Thurlow were the real heros that day- a fact Kerry forgot to mention in his after action report.
Kerry claiming he was injured,abandoned his crew and hopped aboard a Coast Guard cutter, to be taken to safety.
While his crew struggled to keep the 3 boat afloat and tow it to shore.
Thanks. I guess I need to buy the book. Obviously the Washington Post isn't interested in reporting this because it doesn't fit with their foregone conclusion.
From time to time, I’ll post or ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. Let me know if you want off my list.
With making the front page of WaPo, I think the story is good news for the Swiftees. It ignored the Cambodian fantasies. The story's "legs" are marching now. Airborne!
His entire house of cards have collapsed.
Kerry is the one who wrote the after action report.
Kerry wrote the after action report.
If that is true, then the Dobbs article has a killer paragraph, which says that Kerry was in no position to know what was going on, since he had bugged out.
According to Unfit for Command, Kerry featured this story heavily in the Iowa primary. Kerry's version is that after the mine went off he was terribly wounded, he turned back into the fire zone and, bleeding heavily from his arm and side, he reached into the water and pulled Rassmann to safety with enemy fire all around. He then towed a sinking boat out of action.The Swift Boat Vets not only deny there was enemy fire, they deny he was wounded beyond a bruise, they deny he towed the boat and they deny he turned back into fire (he fled).
Let's see Kerry's medical records for the terrible wound, let's see who else was injured by the enemy fire he described. This is pretty simple investigative work, not that this was the purpose of the article. If this is all the Kerry camp has, they don't have much.
So the Washington Post's big scoop is that Thurlow's citation contends that there were bullets flying overhead. But if Kerry fled the scene as has been testified, supposing that bullets were flying makes Kerry's actions less not more honorable. Nonetheless it seems as though had there been significant enemy fire at least one of the boats would have been hit.
And if they had been taking "a hail" of enemy fire from both banks, how come nobody got shot? No bullet wounds were reported, as far as I've read.
Kerry's citation, IIRC, initally stated that Kerry had been wounded in the arm, and that the arm wound was "bleeding" as he pulled Rassman out of the water.
Kerry later admitted that the arm "wound" was a mere "contusion," a.k.a bruise, and that it was not bleeding.
Well, there you go. I should've known.
Wouldn't Thurlow's Bronze Star have been awarded for some specific acts of gallantry? Do we know for what actions Thurlow was singled out for a Bronze Star?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.