Doug,

Your allegation that they were lying either then or now
is a weak argument.

First. Who are they? Some are superior officers in his
chain of command. They may have been writing about
his potential, not his abilty. And we allready discussed
the inflated performance reporting system. You must
realize that the way to get promoted to high rank is by
impressing your superiors, not strictly by your performance
report. There are code words used in performance
reports to convey the persons real ability.

I'd be willing to bet that most performance reports were
firewalled, for any officer, during that period. So his
performance reports were meaningless. And, as I said
before, he probably wrote them himself.

One clue on an officer real performance would be who
signed the endorsements, particularly the final endorsement
on his performance reports.

I haven't check that yet. I'm not sure what performance
reports looked like in those days. Perhaps someone who
was an officer during Vietnam can clue us in. It will be
interesting to see who signed them. If Kerry really did walk
on water, there would be 0-6 endorsements or perhaps even
O-7's (rear Admirals) as final endorser's.

If they were endorsed by an O-4 or O-5, Lt Cmdr, or
Commander that would signify he was not a golden boy, and
the performance report was average.

Also, I'd guess, but I don't know for certain, that anyone
serving in a war zone would get glowing performance reports
for a moral builder for the person endorsed. It seems the
least you can do for a person in harms way is to give them
a good rating.

Second, most of the people who wrote negative things about
Kerry were enlisted men, or not in his chain of command,
like the doctor that treated him. You can't say they lied
then, because there is nothing to back that up. The doctor
in particular is a credible source since he is not registered
with either political party. I'd take his testimony as significant.

What all these people say now, is more likely true than false.
Some could be lying, some could be angry at what Kerry did
after he got out. Perhaps they are coming forward now
because they did not know until recently that he only served
four months over there. That would anger many veterans. It
****ed me off when I heard it.

You have to admit that serving four months and bugging out
is not the act of a hero. It is the act of a self-serving coward.

I know many Vietnam vets. I wrote about my friend Bill who
still carries a bullet in his spine picked up in his second tour of
duty. I wrote about Col Jim Flemming, a medal of honor
winner who discounts his heroism and instead talks about the
four tour of service man he rescued. These men are real heros.

John F. Kerry might have set a record for least time served in
Vietnam. It seems clear this among other things angered many
Vietnam Vets.


"DSK" wrote

Bart Senior wrote:
Just for your information, the text in a performance
report is mostly bogus.

That's mostly true. Officers fitreps especially tend to be overblown. My
Navy evals would lead one to believe that I could leap tall buildings
and walk on water.

However, it doesn't change the fact that these guys are changing their
story. If Kerry was unfit for command, then he could have gotten 3.5
evals and no commendable remarks. Instead he got very high marks and
some definite statements about his performance. Now they are changing
the story.

Either the Swift Vets were lying about Kerry then, or lying now. Either
way they are liars.

Oh wait, that would make them liberals, right??

DSK