Records Counter a Critic of Kerry

Washington Post ^ | 8/19/04 | Michael Dobbs

[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."

[neverdem]

I noticed. Thank you.

[singfreedom]

We're supposed to get our copy any day now. However, I have been going to Barnes and Noble just checking to see if they have it available on the shelves. If they don't, I complain bitterly (making sure there are other people around). Usually, someone else requests one as well (after being reminded the book exists). When the clerk asks if I would like to order the book, I say "No, thanks, I would really like to take a look at it first". Then the clerk tells me, and the crowd, when the book will be back in stock. It works every time, people!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Clever, way to go!

[UncleJeff]

I think Elliot's problem is that he wrote at least one glowing evaluation of Kerry at the time, and endorsed at least one more, so if he now says Kerry was less-than-upstanding he was either lying then, on Official records, or he's lying now.

[neverdem]

Wouldn't Thurlow's Bronze Star have been awarded for some specific acts of gallantry?

A Bronze Star awarded for valor, i.e. with a "V" device, and higher awards for bravery have always included a brief summary of the what was done to merit the award from my experience of reading them.

[Diddley]

Based on the brilliance that O'neil and the swifties have demonstrated so far, I find it difficult to believe that they – dotting all “I”s and “T”s – would have missed this.

If this shows up on the front pages of the WaPo and other papers, and on Alphabet TV, the story will be given tremendous exposure (that is now lacking).

Even if negative, the exposure could well turn out positive (lemonade from lemons?).

It would be nice if it is rope-a-dope.

[nonkultur]

Michael Dobbs?

"The writer of "Madeleine Albright: A Twentieth-Century Odyssey" ?

http://books.fantasticfiction.co.uk/x0/x4792.htm?authorid=16317

[Diddley]

...he was either lying then, on Official records, or he's lying now.

A third option is that he was duped.

[BJungNan]

Damn. This is definitely the biggest hit the Swifties have taken so far.

You see a lot more in this article than I do. Read it closely. This is legal parsing. Sounds as if it was written by Lanny Davis or Susan "was he on the exact same boat" Estrich.

Last month, Thurlow swore in an affidavit that Kerry was "not under fire" when he fished Lt. James Rassmann out of the water. He described Kerry's Bronze Star citation, which says that all units involved came under "small arms and automatic weapons fire," as "totally fabricated."

"I never heard a shot," Thurlow said in his affidavit, which was released by Swift Boats Veterans for Truth. The group claims the backing of more than 250 Vietnam veterans, including a majority of Kerry's fellow boat commanders.

A document recommending Thurlow for the Bronze Star noted that all his actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire which LTJG THURLOW completely ignored in providing immediate assistance" to the disabled boat and its crew. The citation states that all other units in the flotilla also came under fire.

"It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case," Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."

Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't under fire," he said. He speculated that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation.

First, it is really interesting that the Washington Post reporter refers to "a document" but does not identify it. Some reference to identify the document, at least the name of it, would be routine in a newspaper article. Better journalism would be to offer some explanation of how the document is used, its function, the process of its creation.

This detail, even brief detail, is missing from the article. So, before I jump the conclusion you have drawn that this is bad for the swift boat vets, I want more information.

I'm not dismissing that there is a contradiction between Thurlow's account and the document. But to weigh the contradiction I have to know the source. It is not given to us. And, Thurlow, according to the post, speculated that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation.

If it was learned that Kerry had direct input into the document, that would certainly call it into question. Even if Kerry had indirect input, that also will call it into question.

Again, given the controversy on this issue, I find it funny the reporter would leave such a hole in the story.

How did the document get written, what was the information stream? Are these documents always correct? Or are they subject to subjective input, padding, and manipulation?

The people challenging the credibility of the Swift Boat Vets have a document they can figuratively wave around and refer to until we actually learn what that document is. So, on that I will agree with you that it is a piece of something for those challenging the swift boat vets.

But here is the heart of the matter: Thurlow said, "It is sickening and disgusting." Is it sickening and disgusting because the truth of what really happened that day got twisted in the political ambitions and record manipulations of a Swift boat commander, those manipulations have now cast other vets medals in doubt? Is it sickening and disgusting because people challenging the Swift Boat Vets account are twisting truth on its head the same as lawyers sometimes do to make a case? Or is it sickening and disgusting to Thurlow because he has now been caught in a contradiction that shows him to be wrong?

[YaYa123]

LOL at "My, you're easy."

It's a good thing the Swiftboaters aren't so easily scared off by enemy fire as some of us. I bet the farm John O'Neill will effectively respond to this before the ink is dry.

[nopardons]

bttt

[BJungNan]

Kerry is protected from FOIA by FFIA.

I have not gotten too far along in the thread so perhaps someone else has asked you, but what the heck if FFIA? Thanks!

[Diddley]

...it is really interesting that the Washington Post reporter refers to "a document"

This is an excellent point. What document?

Of course, the WaPo (and others) will bandy this about - even if they know it is not true, or that it is mis-leading, thus causing a perception of falsehoods.

A small "correction" on page B-29 would cover them.

[Steven W.]

I think Elliot's problem is that he wrote at least one glowing evaluation of Kerry at the time, and endorsed at least one more, so if he now says Kerry was less-than-upstanding he was either lying then, on Official records, or he's lying now

he's explained those incidents - he was higher up who received Kerry's reports. he didn't know Kerry was such a LIAR until everybody finally got together & figured out what Kerry had done; this article further proves the SwiftVets original contention that Kerry indeed fabricated these reports himself.

[Steven W.]

As expected, handoff to AP for prompt distribution!

[YaYa123]

I think you're right. Kerry wrote up the after action reports and most likely the citations as well. Like I said earlier, O'Neill will provide the media with an effective response asap. If this article is all the left has on the Swifties, I'd say it's mighty slim pickings.

_____________________________________________________

"According to Kerry and members of his crew, the firing continued as an injured Kerry leaned over the bow of his ship to rescue a Special Forces officer who was blown overboard in a second explosion"

First reference I've seen to a second explosion.

_____________________________________________________________________

"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 down the river after the mine exploded under another boat. He later returned to provide assistance to the stricken boat."

No mention in this article that Kerry's boat was the only one to leave the area, no mention that the others stayed put, to render assistance to the damaged boat. (No mention either that most likely Rassman was blown into the water by Kerry's quick acceleration, NOT that phantom second explosion.)

(And note how the reporter uses "the mine" (singular), indicating there was no second explosion.

That admission alone, corroborates the Swifties, and damns Kerry for leaving another boat in distress:

_____________________________________________________________

The article states Elliot "was unreachable" for comment. The article does not state Kerry's "brothers" aren't allowed to speak to the media without the permission of the Kerry campaign.

___________________________________________________________________

[SteveH]

Has anyone considered that Thurlow got his award because of the same report that Kerry filed to get his own? Actually, according to my husband who was in Vietnam, it was not uncommon for Officers to write up reports for each other and puff things up to get awards.

In WWII bomber crews, if I am informed correctly, it was common for several plane crews to claim a single "kill" (downed enemy plane) in after-action debriefings. Often the totals would not add up in the sense that there would have only been a total of X kills noticed by a squadron altogether, but individual claims totaled X + Y kills, where Y was the excess or overlap in which two or more crews claimed single kills. This would be an example of competitive claims rather than cooperative claims; the entire process might work differently for the Navy during Vietnam than for the AAF during WWII. However, there seems to be a definite potential for at least some confusion either way in many such wartime situations. In WWII, the confusion was recognized and apparently some kind of review system was in place to help sort out conflicting claims (although no doubt with less than total success).

[Jenya]

We should demand Kerry release his wrinkles, too.

Tooooo funny. You owe me a new keyboard.

[Jim Robinson]

Steve Gardner was the gunner on Kerry's boat. Here is his first hand account of several of these incidents and an explanation of Kerry's falsified reports and documentation that are now referred to by the Kerry water carriers as the "Naval documents" or "military records":

Real Player high speed connection:

http://www.wbt.com/dynamic/jh/audio/play_media/play.cfm?mediatype=realaudio&path=http://www.wbt.com/dynamic/jh/audio&speed=100&ext=rm&MediaID=230

Click here for other listening options:

http://www.wbt.com/hancock/index.cfm

(center right, halfway down the page)

This is a must listen!

[YaYa123]

Have you ever seen or read OERs? (Officer efficiency reports). It's really funny how a report that sounds so damn good is intended to be a career ender. The narrative in an OER is usually just gobbledeegook BS flattery. It's the ranking and boxes checked, that mean something to promotion and command boards.