Posted on 08/28/2004 1:10:44 AM PDT by ambrose
Retired rear admiral contends Kerry wound not from enemy fire
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | August 28, 2004
WASHINGTON -- William L. Schachte Jr., a retired rear admiral, yesterday said he was on the same small boat as Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry during a 1968 river mission in Vietnam but did not witness any enemy fire during the event for which Kerry received his first Purple Heart.
In response, Kerry and two other men who said they were on the mission stood by their statements that Schachte was not on the boat with them and thus was not in a position to judge the matter. The campaign said Schachte's statement was political, noting that Schachte has previously endorsed President Bush and given money to his campaigns.
Schachte, in a statement sent to the Globe yesterday, said he believed Kerry's wound was not the result of hostile action, and he said he told his commanding officer at the time, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard, that Kerry did not deserve the Purple Heart ''because there was no hostile fire."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Michael Kranish helped write the latest Book released by Kerry and Edwards. His wife works for the Kerry Campaign
I heard he was bitten by a pit bull.
Wouldn't there be a log of some sort of who was on this boat and who was in charge of this boat???
Earlier this year, during the preparation of the Globe's biography, the Kerry campaign was asked repeatedly whether Kerry believes he was hit by enemy fire or whether there was any hostile fire. The Kerry campaign refused to respond. Instead, it provided a medical report showing that shrapnel had been removed from Kerry's arm and a document showing he was awarded the Purple Heart.
So, does that mean that the 'band of brothers' support sKerry's statements, but they are voting for GWB? That is the only way the band's statements can be apolitical.
Now, if only people would think I was calling out that a building was on fire rather than that chicken had gotten loose.. I'd appear halfway sane.
There was an earlier post where Schachte said that there was no after action report on this because there was no hostile fire.
If Kerry gets elected....this is the news report we can look forward to...
"Today in Kansas City, Storm Troopers took over tv stations in the name of President Kerry. Teachers and local politician were marched into a nearby field and shot.
When asked about the action...the Kerry administration replied..."We never did that...the people who said we did were liers".
And Jim, in a little local news...I will now be taking over as White House reporter for Elaine Dimwit who was shot today after claiming to have film of the Kansas City slaughter"
Kerry is winning by these attacks. There is a principle in politics called immunity. With a candidate being able to withstand a withering attack, he develops a shield against other attacks. It is no accident that Bush and McCain want these attacks to end, they are glorifying Kerry if they continue. The public is a strange animal.
Based upon where Kerry's "wound" was, a Rear Admiral should have the final voice in the argument.
Will Kranish turn on Kerry? He already was intimidated to retract the "met with foreign leaders" comment earlier this year.
I wasn't thinking of an after action report
More like a radio log of sorts or documention of who was the skipper of this boat
I'm guessing one couldn't just take a boat out into the river with no one knowing about it
This one is very easy.
Look, folks, why take the word of a retired Admiral?
Let's just read the entry for December 11, 1968, written in John F. Kerry's own journal nine days afterwards:
"A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky."
Is it normal to refer to an admiral as a "rear admiral" or this a subtle slam?
''I fired a hand-held flare, and upon it bursting and illuminating the surrounding area, I thought I saw movement," Schachte said in his statement. ''I immediately opened fire with my M-60. It jammed after a brief burst. Lieutenant [junior grade] Kerry also opened fire with his M-16 on automatic, firing in the direction of my tracers. His weapon also jammed.
''As I was trying to clear my weapon, I heard the distinctive sound of the M-79 being fired and turned to see Lieutenant (jg) Kerry holding the M-79 from which he had just launched a round. We received no return fire of any kind nor were there any muzzle flashes from the beach."
That, my friends, is devastating. If Schachte or Kerry (depending on which one was OIC) didn't file an AAR, then there was probably no 'contact', just a few rounds shot into the beach. I'm all for 'better safe than sorry' suppressive fire, but it ain't combat.
The simplest explination is probably the case. Schachte was in charge, didn't file an AAR because there was no motive for him to do so. If Kerry was the OIC, certainly there would have been an AAR to give cover for his Purple Heart.
The Kerry camp hasn't released one because no such document exists. This should be a big story. The lack of documentation is documentation in and of itself, since it would prove Kerry left Vietnam early under false pretenses.
The simplest explination is probably the case. Schachte was in charge, didn't file an AAR because there was no motive for him to do so. If Kerry was the OIC, certainly there would have been an AAR to give cover for his Purple Heart.
YOu hit it right on the nose, someone needs to bring this up with the MSM...
bump TO SUPPORT THE NEW SWIFT VETS AD AND GEORGE BUSH... http://swift2.he.net/~swift2/gardner2.mpg
The fact that we can figure this out on our off time, without any journalistic background, or any resources other than an internet connection, demonstrates that the MSM is guilty of staggering incompetence, overt bias, or both.
It's like letting random people off the street wander around the hospital, and discovering that they were better surgeons than the doctors.
This is the real scandal of 2004. The Unmaking of the Fourth Estate.
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.