Replies

That's a lot of fancy manure from the new 'Charlie' on the block - the Wash Post.

Let's remember, Thurlow wasn't the only eyewitness that day. It was a squadron of five PCFs. Apparently, there was a net in the river, and rightly or wrongly, they tried to sail around through a narrow gap. And there was a watermine planted right in that narrow gap. The PCF 3 was launched about six feet into the air. Other boats opened fire presuming, as in present-day Iraq, that the mine was remotely detontated as the opening of a high-firepower ambush. But they stopped shooting because they received no return fire.

As everyone knows, Kerry meanwhile - like some Ensign Parker in McHale's Navy - had panicked and ordered his craft out of the area. Rassman may have been sitting on the stern, eating a cookie (although there are something like five or six different stories about where he was, and on what boat). And if so, he was tossed overboard by Kerry's own actions.

Two other PCFs came up alongside the 3 boat to help keep it afloat. The third went to retrieve those tossed in the water. At some point, they noticed Rassman. But just as they approached to get Rassman, who may or may not have been coming up from the bottom for the second time (trying to avoid not gunfire but the propellers of the other PCFs moving around the 3 boat) Kerry's boat raced up and he dove to grab Rassman out of the water - 'saving his life'.

This is basically the account of Steve Gardner, as heard on a couple of different talk shows, Peck and O'Neill, as well.

The question, as many have just pointed out, is not what Thurlow says in his 'defense', but what accusation is being made, specifically, by 'Charlie'. Are they referring to the text of his citation? Are they simply referring to the 'spot report', written by Kerry? As for Thurlow's citation, Swift vets haven't posted it. He says he doesn't have a copy. But what he's saying is that what he knows of it personally did not suggest hostile fire, that day. That's how I read his comments.