(click the pic for a fullsize version)
Posted on 08/19/2004 11:34:33 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
..................... But, as The Washington Post reported yesterday, Mr. Thurlow's own Bronze Star Navy citation describes "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units." The Post story does not address several crucial facts. First, it seems likely that one after-action report was used for both Navy citations and inevitably would describe the same version of events. No one can now say who wrote this after-action report. In a statement yesterday, Mr. Thurlow said, "I am convinced that the language used in my citation ... was language taken directly from John Kerry's report."
Two other crewmen, Dan Odell and Dick Pease, both cited by the authors, agree with Mr. Thurlow's version of events.
Mr. Brinkley also describes an incident that day when a grenade explosion wounded Mr. Kerry, though he treats it as superficial. This means Mr. Kerry received two shrapnel wounds, the other one occuring on the boat and earning the young lieutenant his third Purple Heart. The authors raise an interesting point: "Unless one believes in the amazing coincidence that Kerry got two wounds in the same place on the same day and from the same type of incident, then Kerry's wound of March 13, 1969 was not the result of hostile fire at all."
We are pleased that The Post has finally joined the debate swirling around Mr. Kerry's Vietnam experience. The Post and other "major" news organizations would be more helpful to their readers, and to the debate, however, if they join the investigation and address the entire story — and not simply one part of it which they wish to debunk.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The Swift Boat Vets Against Kerry are not backing down from anyone at anytime it seems. The press can misquote them as in the early Boston Globe attempt. They can cite documents Kerry wrote to pump himself up. Yet these guys are not blinking.
And the press does not know how to deal with them. A huge part of this is they are not political types in DC who need the press later on.
Anti-Kerry vets have right to speak
Funny how so many Democrats get bent out of shape when an independent group of veterans puts together an ad ("Veterans attack Kerry's war record in ad," Aug. 6 Eagle). These vets are telling a story the way they believe it happened, which is not the story John Kerry has been telling -- not that Kerry's story hasn't changed since the first time he told it, either. Critics say that President Bush should be above "slanderous attack ads," to quote Larry Stephenson (Aug. 17 Reader Views).
But aren't the Democrats usually all about free speech? I would think that if nothing else, you have to commend these vets for speaking their mind. But this is not the case when Democrats do not agree with what you have to say. Case in point: Kerry was never urged to be "above the fray," as Mr. Stephenson would say, when slanderous books or movies came out about the president. No, Kerry never condemned those personal attacks on Bush, because they would have freedom of speech on their side.
I was not in Vietnam, nor do I know who is telling the truth about what happened there. But I would think that vets on both sides of the issue have the same right to tell their tales -- they have earned that much, if not much more.
KIP TRAYNOR
Wichita
I believe people are misinformed about political ads put out by so-called 527 organizations. These are the groups on both sides of the political spectrum that run the "attack ads" on the presidential candidates. They are not officially connected to either candidate. The campaigns are not allowed to sanction or coordinate with these groups in any way. That would be illegal under the new campaign-finance reform laws.
President George W. Bush is no more responsible for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth than Sen. John Kerry is for Michael Moore, George Soros or Moveon.org. The only difference I see is in the coverage of these groups and their ads by the biased mainstream media. The editorial template seems to be that if it hurts Bush, run it. If it helps him, ignore it or discredit it. Vice versa for Kerry.
STEVEN LEVAN
Wellington
http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/news/editorial/9445065.htm
Wow! Talk about a shot across the bow.
After 4 weeks since the Swift Boat Ad was aired and the book "Unfit for Command" soared to the #1 spot on most of the "Best Sellers" lists, John Kerry decided to respond.......... And Now the truth will come out and John Kerry will be exposed for the fraud he is....
Mr. Brinkley also describes an incident that day when a grenade explosion wounded Mr. Kerry, though he treats it as superficial. This means Mr. Kerry received two shrapnel wounds, the other one occuring on the boat and earning the young lieutenant his third Purple Heart. The authors raise an interesting point: "Unless one believes in the amazing coincidence that Kerry got two wounds in the same place on the same day and from the same type of incident, then Kerry's wound of March 13, 1969 was not the result of hostile fire at all."
You are hot tonight! Bump.
Great!
Don't you just love it?
He has no one to thank but himself.
I'm just warming up.
Poetic Justice :-)
Does your screen name have anything to do with Ohio?
No.
Another good letter to the Editor.
Get the facts on Kerry's service
Joseph Johnson
Fort lauderdale
Posted August 20 2004
Regarding the growing controversy surrounding Sen. Kerry's Vietnam service, I believe that this issue should be fully explored since the Democrats demanded the same of President Bush.
On a recent Hannity and Colmes, both the pro-Kerry and anti-Kerry Vietnam veterans interviewed said that they saw no war crimes being committed by any of the swift boat veterans, which is contrary to what Sen. Kerry charged before the Congress in 1971.
If Sen. Kerry falsely accused U.S. soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam to gain favor with Jane Fonda and the anti-war movement so he could get their support for his political ambitions, the news media have an obligation to bring this information to light.
With terrorists threatening to repeat 9-11 here in the U.S., this election is too important to be entrusted to a politician who would falsely accuse American troops of war crimes for political gain.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/letters/sfl-brmail878aug20,0,4994887.story?coll=sfla-news-letters
It certainly is.
Kinda sums it all up. Thanks, now I can go to bed.
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.