Posted on 08/27/2004 5:56:36 AM PDT by Bob
The timeline in "Unfit for Command" for John Kerry's deployment on the USS Gridley doesn't match the ship's operations as listed in Kerry's Fitness Reports.
"Unfit for Command"'s timeline indicates that Gridley departed Vietnam January 2, 1968 and, travelling via Australia, returned to Long Beach on June 8.
Missing from this account is an additional period of Gulf of Tonkin SAR duty in the time period April 1 - May 5, 1968. This information appears in Kerry's Fitness Report for the period of March 23 - July 20, 1968.
Regarding kerry's MLK assassination story, I believe that it's possible for Gridley to have reached its SAR station by the time he was killed on April 4th.
Another item: Gridley's return to Long Beach was via Wellington, New Zealand, not Australia.
Not really. His time doing SAR duty on the Gridley qualified him for both the Vietnam Service Medal and Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal. He didn't need to go to Da Nang to get them.
The documents seem to be nondiscrimatory as to travel time between assignments as it relates to Subic Bay etc..
At best this amounts to 40 days?
Am I missing something here?
Thanks for the info, by the way.
I don't know how I got involved in this, but Kerry's fitness reports make it quite clear concerning ship movements. They are as follows:
OPS/UPKP SOCAL (13 JAN-8 FEB); ENR AND WESTPAC COMBAT OPS (9 FEB-22 MAR);CVA TASK GROUP OPS (23 MAR-27 MAR); ENR AND UPK SUBIC (27 MAR-31 MAR); ENR AND SAR OPS GULF OF TONKIN (1 APR-5 MAY); ENR AND AT WELLINGTON, N.Z. (CORAL SEA CELEBRATION)(10-27 MAY); ENR CONUS 27 MAY- 7 JUNE); LV UPK LONG BEACH (7 JUN-20 JULY)
The Gridley departed for Vietnam on February 9, not January. It departed the combat area in early May.
It seemed to take forever to get to Subic from San Diego (with stops in Hawaii, Guam, and Midway). It's been quite a few years ago, though, and I don't have the exact dates at hand. I was also on a smaller ship which might have made the times slightly different anyway.
You didn't have to be ashore to qualify for a campaign ribbon. The Tet offensive began on January 31, 1968. I was in Danang at the time.
But where did the 7-8 weeks come from?
As I stated, I only see 40 days in the Tonkin Gulf.
We need to bear in mind that this whole blow up was and is squarely on Kerry's shoulders. He could have left Vietnam out of the campaign, he could have been truthfull, and he could have released all his miliary records including the 90 to 100 documents (est) that have yet to be released.
This is not to say that the Swifties can be hard and loose with the facts. And I don't believe they have.
Steve Gardner is the man who has slipped Kerry's head in the noose.
Hang 'em high!
I'm lost. I don't see where the book is wrong. Kerry said he was in combat when King was killed. The Gridley wasn't in combat.
The timeline in "Unfit for Command" shows him being on SAR duty in Nov/Dec 1967. He wasn't. His ship didn't depart for Vietnam until February 9, 1968.
The erroneous timeline also shows Gridley departing the Vietnam operating area on January 2, 1968 but he wasn't even there yet.
The book doesn't mention the MLK story. The only tie-in between the book and kerry's MLK story is that I (like some other people) was using the timeline in the book to dispute the story. As it turns out, he actually could have been off the coast of Vietnam when MLK was assassinated.
BTW, kerry said that he was 'in Vietnam' rather than 'in combat'. It was a rather clintonesque statement.
I'm not 'getting all hyper' about anything at all.
I'm pointing out errors in the book that could be used to try to discredit it.
Bob, claiming TWO (four?) Vietnam "campaign ribbon" stars in March 2001 for 35 days duty off-shore "might" be legal, but it sure isn't ethical - considering that REAL vet's actually fought for 13 months on-line!
Campaign stars on the Vietnam Service Medal are based on specific dates in-theater. He legitimately qualified for two of them. I have no problem with him having those two; he earned them. It's neither legal nor ethical, though, to claim four of them when he deserves two.
By the way, you've been very supportive on threads commenting on Kerry's VN record in the past; and accurate in your observations through this mess. Based on that record, I wanted you to be aware of this latest attempt to discredit the Swifties.
Thank you. The discrediting is exactly what I'm concerned about. Since even the slightest errors in the book will get blown out of all proportion, I thought it best to let people know ahead of time that they're there.
We've said that: At best, somebody could claim the boat should have said "departed FOR Vietnam" rather than "departed Vietnam" on Jan 02.
Better, the book should have credited Kerry only with the five weeks he actually WAS in the Tonkin Gulf: 01 April - 5 May.
The other exercises (before 01 April) were far from Vietnamese water.
I agree that even if the Swifties made a few factual mistakes on the Gridley, the point that they are making is still valid. Kerry didn't do two tours in Vietnam and was only off the coast for a matter of a few weeks.
Anybody who has been in the Navy knows that a tour means an assignment to a command. Kerry served a tour on the Gridley, which happened to be in the combat area for a limited amount of time. It doesn't mean that he served a tour in Vietnam anymore than if the ship paid a port call in Naples and have someone say that he served a tour in Italy. Kerry and his handlers used this language to mislead deliberately.
NOT!
NOT!
Of course, we could just ignore the errors and wait for the kerry campaign to send out a spokesman:
Ladies and gentlemen of the press:
Just look at the blatant errors in this book. For example, it shows the Gridley being in Vietnam in November and December of 1967. We have the logs from the ship and sworn statements from dozens of crew members. The ship didn't depart its home port of Long Beach for Vietnam until months later. How can any book with such a glaring misrepresentation of the truth be trusted in any of its claims? This book is a poorly-researched, vindictive sham and it cannot be trusted in any of its claims. The publisher should be ashamed to have published it.
Next day's NYT headline: SWIFT BOAT VETS LIED
Would you really prefer it to happen this way?
Bob, obviously you don't have much experience wit the US Navy and deployments of ships.
The ship doesn't just sit at its home port FOREVER and only make one cruise.
It made a WESTPAC cruise in 1967, then returned to Long Beach, where it underwent maintenance and crew training, etc, then made a ANOTHER WESTPAC cruise!
Before you PANIC, get your facts straight.
You're presuming a lot in that statement.
I was in the Navy for almost 9 years. I've served aboard on two ships: USS Harry E. Yarnell (DLG-17) [coincidentally the same class ship as kerry's Gridley] and USS Hoel (DDG-13). I made one WestPac cruise in late 1972 on Hoel.
You have obviously misjudged my background.
The ship doesn't just sit at its home port FOREVER and only make one cruise.
Tell me about it. I know, believe me, I know.
It made a WESTPAC cruise in 1967, then returned to Long Beach, where it underwent maintenance and crew training, etc, then made a ANOTHER WESTPAC cruise!
There's absolutely nothing in the 'ship's operations' portions of kerry's Fitness Reports that indicates any such thing. I can quote the specifics if you'd like.
Gridley clearly did not make a WestPac cruise in the last half of 1967 when kerry was aboard her. I have no knowledge of where the ship was operating prior to June 8, 1967 when kerry reported aboard.
Besides, if he had been on another cruise, he'd have been claiming 3 tours rather than 2 all along.
Before you PANIC, get your facts straight.
I don't know where you got the idea that I was in any sort of panic, I'm not. I can assure that my facts are quite straight. When I speculate on something that I'm not sure of, I say so. Now that I've seen kerry's fitreps, I've got a pretty darned good idea as to what his first 'tour' consisted of.
OK.
Yeah, that profile page of yours tells me so much about your military history.
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.