Posted on 08/25/2004 12:26:48 AM PDT by conservative in nyc
John Kerry's Final Mission in Vietnam
John Kerry's last mission in Vietnam was a deadly Swift boat patrol up the Bay Hap River where everything was ventured but nothing gained -- except another medal and more horrific memories.
By Douglas Brinkley
March 13, 1969, would prove among the worst and best days John Kerry spent in Vietnam. Three years earlier, with the main thrust of the antiwar movement yet to come, Kerry had graduated from Yale University, delivering his class oration. Although he had just signed up with the U.S. Navy, in that address he questioned U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia. After completing several assignments and being trained to command a patrol craft fast (PCF), or "Swift" boat, Lieutenant junior grade Kerry was ordered to patrol the Viet Conginfested rivers of Vietnam's Mekong Delta as part of Operation Sealords.
By that March day he had been on Swift boat duty for only four months, but had already been wounded in action twice and was increasingly frustrated with the course of the river war. It seemed senseless to motor up a river, presenting an easy target on the open water, and then exchange fire with usually unseen enemies safely ensconced in the heavy growth on shore -- only to motor downriver and repeat those same actions the following day. Uncooperative allies and interservice rivalries only added to his frustrations. Yet Kerry, like so many others involved in the conflict, did the best he could to follow orders.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehistorynet.com ...
The one thing the article makes clear is a lot of the damage to PCF-94, including the blown out windows and radio problems, occurred before the mine explosion on the Bay Hap River.
Click on the link for more. We may be able to point out other inconsistencies.
Never ever did his Kerouac book. He might actually have had to have done some work to do an actual biography.
Finally figured it out John Kerry's Bronze Star engagement
Questions and Observations ^ | 24 August 2004 | McQ
Posted on 08/24/2004 7:41:51 PM PDT by NavySEAL F-16
Finally figured it out Posted by McQ
I've been bothered by a passage that was contained in a NYT article that all three of us had a go at this last Friday. You remember the one, it was the topic of the day. The NYT entitled it: "Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad".
But in that article there was this paragraph:
A damage report to Mr. Thurlow's boat shows that it received three bullet holes, suggesting enemy fire, and later intelligence reports indicate that one Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded, reaffirming the presence of an enemy. Mr. Thurlow said the boat was hit the day before. He also received a Bronze Star for the day, a fact left out of "Unfit for Command."
Before that time, I had never heard it suggested that there was a report in which a claim of 1 VC being KIA and 5 being WIA. It wasn't until today, when Jon sent me a link, that I found the source of the NYT claims.
They're contained in The Coastal Division Eleven Command History "Chronology of Highlights". I'm not sure how I managed to miss it up to now, but I have.
Anyway to the point at hand which will demonstrate two things:
A) The NYT deliberately left out some of the report. B) The NYT writers who used the report had no idea about the meaning of what they were reading.
First the report (you'll find it on page 8 of the pdf):
March 13, 1969: PCF's 3, 51, 43, 93 and 94 with MSF RF/PF troops conducted SEA LORDS operations in Bay Hop river and Dong Cong canal. A mine detonated under PCF 3 and units were taken under small arms fire several times during the operation. Friendly casualties were 8 USN WIA and 1 MSF KIA. Units destroyed 30 sampans and 5 structures and captured 16 booby trap grenades. Later intelligence reports indicated 1 VC KIA and 5 VC WIA.
Once I read this, I understood why the NYT had screwed up this part of the story so badly.
Let me translate it for you. Those 5 boats hauled some Mike Strike Force (MSF) Regional Forces/Popular Forces (RF/PF) on a Sea Lords operation. The Ruff Puffs apparently assaulted a village, killed 1 VC and wounded 5 VC, but that final total wasn't clear at the time. During their assault they (and possibly the PCFs) were under enemy small arms fire (stands to reason, wouldn't you say and might also explain the 3 holes in Thurlow's boat). They, the Mike Force and PCFs, destroyed 30 sampans, 5 structures and captured 16 grenades while losing 1 MSF KIA (a booby trap). The Mike Strike Force stayed there at the village site (and thus became the source for the "later intelligence").
On the way back, sans the Ruff Puffs (who are still at the village), PCF 3 hit a mine.
END OF STORY.
There was no reported small arms fire around the mine. There was no reported VC KIA or WIA at that time. Those all took place in the previous Mike Force operation, not the mine detonation.
Which explains why the PCFs were able to spend 90 minutes on site, saving the 3 boat and its crew before towing it in and not suffering one single solitary casualty from small arms or any other type of fire.
Of course if the writers at the NYT had bothered to show their source for the claim of the "later intelligence reports indicate that one Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded, reaffirming the presence of an enemy" to someone who knew what a Mike Strike Force was, or what they apparently did on that operation, they wouldn't look as foolish, as they'd know the VC KIA and WIA were killed and wounded on a previous part of the operation and not at the mine detonation.
Great research guys.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1198723/posts
This was the cover article for American History magazine that cemented my decision not to read the magazine any more. To be honest, I had pretty much decided to stop when I got what was my last issue and Brinkley's first as Editor-in-Chief. Never liked Brinkley, nor his mentor Ambrose.
I love reading fiction.
Your reply number 3 needs its own thread!
Reading through the above dissection of the event obviously mischaracterized by the NYT, I was thinking how the MSM just can't get away with things the way they used to. I bet many of them would like to DO AWAY with the internet because of the degree to which it interferes with their ability to create the news in whatever fashion they like. Since conservatives tend to be more ambitious & analytical, (not to mention more computer literate) these frustrated spinmeisters are stuck with the fact that their BS will no longer wash, & online bloggers, freepers, & others don't have to sit around reading their bogus stories silently anymore.
Great job guys!
It was posted by NavySEAL F-16 here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1198723/posts
Great work!!
I shoulda clicked the link FIRST! LOL!
Note this sentence:
"The mission had called for the Nung troops to make a sweep for Viet Cong through several thousand yards of jungle before being picked up in another canal on the other side. "When the Nung were on board Swifts, the VC stayed away," Fred Short of PCF-94 recalled. "They were terrified of them."
This of course brings us full circle on the David Alston didn't serve on Kerry's boat argument. If Fred Short was there on 13 Mar. as gunners mate, Alston was not!!!!
This article was GREAT! Compare it with the timeline suggested by the Washington Post diagram. Note that Kerry has conveniently left out the "advance" up the river which took at least 10 minutes. An "advance" which got injected into the account after the Swiftvets for Truth began to tell their side of the story. Until then, Rassman made it sound like all the other boats had "left".
The WaPo diagram and the current Kerry story make it plain that Kerry left him by "advancing" up the river while the rest of the swifts surrounded PCF-3 to give it protection.
According to the WaPo diagram Kerry was far the first on the scene which is the impression given in this account.
Not to quibble, but Kerry was "advancing" DOWN the river. they were on their way home when all this went down.
If the water was roiled as described, it was more likely because it was shallow, not narrow.
When a displacement hull is moving quickly, and there isn't much clearance between the bottom of the boat and the bottom of the waterway, all the water has to be pushed violently to the side. When this phenomenon is combined with operating near one side of a river, it's worse, as water forced toward the bank comes right back at the boat.
Steering becomes very difficult as turbulence buffets the rudders.
I have no doubt that these boats passing between the fish weirs and the riverbanks could create just such a condition. I have experienced it myself operating in the shallow creeks of Maryland's Eastern Shore.
Please quibble away! We conservatives need to be careful to be very precise. If I had said this in a published report, then CNN, ABC, et. al., would have reported that my comment was "proven false" based on that simple typo!
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.