Posted on 08/19/2004 4:15:39 PM PDT by GRRRRR
Here is my captured closed captioning causing Kerry credibility concerns. Chrissy Matthews LOVES KERRY!!! He kept trying to get Mr. Thurlow to spin it fifty different ways...
TV Channel 65 Thu Aug 19 18:03:29 2004 certainly. 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
I'm sure you can tell who is who by who is asking who questions...
G
Thurlow was excellent.
Chris is carrying the water (and balls?) for Kerry
I am shaking I am so angry at his bullying tactics. Thurlow got in 2 sentences that weren't interrupted. I am going off to get the #s to call, and will post them.
BUMP FOR SUPPORT SWIFTVETS HERE... http://www.swiftvets.com/
My reaction. Crissy looked like a slick lawyer with a guilty client, Larry Thurlow like an unslick man under attack from a guy who couldn't shine his shoes.
Yeah, I'm looking now for the phone numbers now...I wanna beat the pelt right offa Matthews...what a slimy skunk!
While I'm here, I put a plug in for the Swifties!
Click the logo to donate to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
NBC
NBC
30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112
Phone: 212-664-4444
Fax: 212-664-4426
List of Email addresses for all NBC news programs
NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw: nightly@nbc.com
NBC News' Today: today@nbc.com
Dateline NBC: dateline@nbc.com
MSNBC
One MSNBC Plaza
Secaucus, NJ 07094
Phone: (201) 583-5000
Fax: (201) 583-5453
world@msnbc.com
List of Email addresses for all MSNBC news programs
Hardball with Chris Matthews: hardball@msnbc.com
MSNBC Reports with Joe Scarborough: msnbcreports@msnbc.com
viewerservices@msnbc.com
I am disgusted. Chris Matthews is revolting in his bias.
Amen to that. Crissy is a dimocrap shill and Thurlow an honest patriot who doesn't want a self-promoting fraud as CIC.
Chrissie Matthews is nothing more than a Democrap shill who hates President Bush after he had the guts to stand up to Saddam Hussein.
Whether the president wants to use the swiftboat vets as a campaign issue has nothing to do at all with them. It is not their concern. Their job is to tell the truth as they see it regardless of what Bush or lisping overweight Democrat propagandists think of it.
SEGMENT TWO with Washington Post Reporter Micheal DOBBS, who did the Anti-Thurlow (Kindergarten level) article:
TV Channel 65 Thu Aug 19 18:18:23 2004
>> Michael dobs is the washington post reporter. Let's talk about that citation. You report on a front page story today. The citation for larry thurlow, the gentleman we just talked to. His bronze star was earned because, as well as other things, he was under enemy fire at the time. He denies that again on the show. He says not only did he not go under enemy fire, he did the brave action he took to save those crewmen on the other swift boat, but that that language came from john kerry. Any evidence of that?
>> There's no proof of that at all. It is based on his claim and the claim of some others who are veterans that it was john kerry that wrote the after action report. In fact, mr. Thurlow was the senior officer in that particular engagement. So it's just as possible to suppose that he wrote the action, after action report. As mr. Kerry. There's no evidence from the document itself as to who wrote the report. Also --
>> Is it a fair assumption on the part of mr. Thurlow that it was mr. Kerry's words? He was the only one who submitted a report that they would have had to get that information that they were under automatic weapons fire, etc., From the person who filed a report if no one else did?
>> I think probably the after action report could have been the work of several different people. Each reporting on what their own boat did. I don't think that all the language in mr. Thurlow's citation could have come from that after action report either. And there were many things that mr. Thurlow were doing that are mention in the his citation that john kerry was not in a position to observe.
>> I was in iowa when mr. Rasman made his very dramatic appearance in one of the cities in iowa during the fight for the caulkcause of action uses out there. It was very dramatic when he was talking about being in the enemy water and he was afraid for his life to stay least. He saw the boat commanded by john kerry come and save him. He said he was under fire at the time. I'm almost positive. That has been his account right through today. That he was under enemy fire. Is he to be believed?
>> Mr. Rasman, he he is convinced that bullets were hitting the water around him. And his account is corroborated by the crew member on john kerry's boat. It's disputed by --
>> Thurlow.
>> And two of the other skip here's were on the river at the time.
>> So we have very close eyewitnesses, numerous eyewitnesses, including the man whose life was saved, and we have john kerry's word up against the commander of another boat on the scene. And then we have to look at what was in the citation and assume that some battle commander made a decision as to who was telling the truth.
>> Well, all the boats were within a few hundred yards of each other. But i think that not a single -- both the citations and the after action reports were probably the work of more than just one commander. Because they all mention several different boats.
>> What do you make of this belief that john kerry had a plan? I mean, it was almost doctrinal on mr. Thurlow's account a few minutes ago. I can imagine a person having a notion they would like to be a notion in a war. I guess a lot of guys would like to be a hero. It might have helped if he was politically intended down the line. The idea that he had a specific plan to doctor evidence to try to create the notion he was a hero, where is that notion coming from besides mr. Thurlow?
>> It is his personal opinion. Some of the other swift boets boat officers who are opposed to mr. Kerry say --
>> Politically.
>> Say something very similar. There's no evidence for it apart from their statements.
>> That's right. Mr. Thurlow had no tangible evidence and he admitted that of what he was saying. Up next, senator max cleland
Matthews is wasted flesh. To think he takes up oxygen and other natural resources that could be used by someone who actually produces something worthwhile for society...What a crime.
Thurlow did a damn fine job. Obviously had some practice by now.
Amazing how Chrissy over and over wanted Thurlow to bite on Bush saying something...but Thurlow (quite correctly) would not touch it!
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.
