'Sampan incident' belies heroic image

Washingtom Times ^ | 08/19/04 | John O'Neil & Jerome R. Corsi

[MJY1288]

A number of the combat commanders, fellow officers and other men who served with Sen. John Kerry in Vietnam challenge his accounts of combat heroism in a new book, "Unfit for Command" (Regnery Publishing), by John E. O'Neill, who took over command of Swift Boat PCF 94 from Lt. Kerry, and Jerome R. Corsi, who has written extensively about the Vietnam War protest movement. Each of these excerpts from "Unfit for Command" includes comparisons of Mr. Kerry's earlier published accounts to recollections of others who served with him.

[kenth]

Kerry is using his VietNam experience as evidence of his leadership abilities. My question to him is, how effective a leader is someone who can get himself injured three times in four short months... on a boat.

[MJY1288]

132 days in Vietnam on a Swift Boat... 3 weeks on Shore Patrol before having the Swift Boat mission changed to patrol the Mekong Delta and 4 weeks of training before deployment on the Mekong Delta, and in "Tour of Duty" John Kerry says "9 Days on the Mekong Delta and not fired upon"

With those numbers we can conclude that 59 days of the 132 days of John Kerry serving in Vietnam saw no action. That means that John Kerry collected a Silver Star, Bronze Star & 3 Purple Hearts in 73 days!

Audie Murphy has nothing on John Kerry

[MJY1288]

Ping

[NavySEAL F-16]

Can you ask the LSM that question?

[Steven W.]

There is another quote on Kerry web site about 18 missions in the February - March timeframe - so I think you simply add those two numbers together to get a not-so-whopping total.

[Mo1]

And the major questions would have been: Where was Kerry? Why was there no warning? Why was a gunner's mate making the critical life-and-death decision instead of the officer in charge? Why the different accounts by Kerry?

Ummmm .... and this man wants us to trust him with our lives??

I don't think so

[DaveMSmith]

Key paragraph that describes Kerry's current campaign strategy regarding the swiftvets:

In the Time article, written by Kerry biographer Brinkley, Kerry was quoted as reacting strongly to Gardner's criticism, saying that Gardner had "made up" stories. Brinkley dismissed Gardner, a supporter of President Bush, as being motivated by "one word: politics." Kerry said he couldn't remember the court-martial threat.

Gardner also presents the most damning character flaw of John Kerry: cowardice.

No matter what Kerry offered, Gardner held his convictions - he could not be bought. The only member of Kerry's crew that wasn't afraid of him.

Gardner said in an interview that whenever he sees a child, he remembers that day when he killed the child in the sampan.

John Kerry did not care about that child or what happened to him.. he just made up a story to make himself a hero.

[Mo1]

The operational report is one of the important missing documents that Kerry neglects to make public on his campaign Web site.

The W Times did a good job on this article and asking good questions

[Mo1]

Oh Geez I need to pay better attention .. no wonder good questions were asked .. O'Neill asked them

A hint that I'm tired and need to head off to bed

[BykrBayb]

I now have an image of a dead child seared - seared - in my brain.

"Kerry seemed to believe that there were no rules in a free-fire zone, and you were supposed to kill everyone," Swift Boat veteran William E. Franke of Coastal Division 11 told us. "I didn't see it that way. I will tell you in all candor that the only baby killer I knew in Vietnam was John F. Kerry."

[NonValueAdded]

George Bates, another officer in Coastal Division 11, participated in numerous operations with Kerry from January 1969 to March 1969.

In Bates' view, Kerry was a coward who overreacted with deadly force when he felt threatened. Bates, a retired Navy captain, believed that Kerry treated the South Vietnamese in an almost criminal manner.

Speaks for itself!

[SteveH]

This is a harsh but devastating portrayal of Kerry, and contains many names, dates, and conflicting written accounts.

Apparently it was covered briefly on CNN. Did anyone catch the context?

Apparently this is the kind of stuff which is starting to be read on the "mainstream" media newsroom floors... If this leaks through to the "mainstream" press pages (presuming that the Washington Times, just for argument's sake, is not considered "mainstream"), I wonder what the consequences will be... How long can the "mainstream" editors keep the lid on this kind of story, given the Internet??