Larry Thurlow caught in a baldface lie
 

Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most
vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate
of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own
version of events.

In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who
commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly
disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came
under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March
13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.

Larry Thurlow in an anti-John Kerry ad. Thurlow said he would consider
his own Bronze Star "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the
basis for it. (AP)

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released
yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act,
contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons
fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla...

Last month, Thurlow swore in an affidavit that Kerry was "not under
fire" when he fished Lt. James Rassmann out of the water. He described
Kerry's Bronze Star citation, which says that all units involved came
under "small arms and automatic weapons fire," as "totally fabricated."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug18.html


That's right. Swift Boat Liars Caught Lying Again!

--
// Walt
//
// There is no Volkl Conspiracy

On 23 Aug 2004 10:34:43 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:03:32 -0400, Walt said:

Larry Thurlow in an anti-John Kerry ad. Thurlow said he would consider
his own Bronze Star "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the
basis for it. (AP)

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released
yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act,
contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons
fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla...

The question, of course, is whether those records reflect anything other
than Kerry's own reports. You do recall, don't you, that according to the
other flotilla COs Kerry habitually volunteered to write up the after-action
reports, and exaggerated his own heroism?

At this point, it appears that we have Kerry's written reports telling about
his own heroism against three eye witnesses who said there was no hostile
fire, and that Kerry's boat was the only one of the five that turned and ran
when the mine went off.


You must not pay much attention, Dave. Even this Sunday's Dallas
Morning News, down here in the heart of Bush Country, has been running
articles shredding the credibility of the Smear Boat Vets for Bush.
Did you not read the*first hand* account of William Rood over the
weekend? He WAS there.

"But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have
charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics
have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit
of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on
all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were
there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they
come from people who were not there."

Of course he was only responding to the one engagement where Kerry was
awarded his Silver Star. And your source to discredit him? Oh,
yeah...John O'Neill...Republican operative who wasn't even in Viet Nam
at the time, repeating third hand hearsay from someone who was told by
someone else.

How about another *first hand* account about the "now" disputed
Rassman rescue...

Another witness to Kerry's heroism, for which he won his Bronze Star,
steps forward to confirm that it went down just as the U.S. Navy, all
John Kerry's crewmates, and Jim Rassmann – the Green Beret whose life
Kerry saved that day – said it did. From WaPo:

In Colorado, Jim Russell, who participated in Swift boat operations
when Kerry did, wrote a letter to the editor of the Telluride Daily
Planet to angrily dispute the claim that Kerry was not under enemy
fire when he rescued Jim Rassman from the water, a feat that brought
Kerry a Bronze Star and Purple Heart.

"I was on No. 43 boat, skippered by Don Droz, who was later that year
killed by enemy fire," Russell wrote in the letter. "Forever pictured
in my mind since that day over 30 years ago [is] John Kerry bending
over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from
out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the
beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't
think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that
we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."


Although I admire your ability to tap dance by never actually
addressing an issue by dismissing the source or by claiming someone
else is "changing the subject", the facts are becoming more and more
clear and none of this supports the smear campaign.

felton wrote:
You must not pay much attention, Dave. ......
Did you not read the*first hand* account of William Rood over the
weekend? He WAS there.

"But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have
charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown...."

But it just doesn't matter. The press is all a bunch of liberal scumbag
liars, except for the ones that praise Bush for his heroism & wisdom.

You don't understand what's going on here. It is a very simple one-sided
blitz. The "truth" is anything that repeats 'Kerry bad evil bad wicked
coward bad traitor' whether a reasonable person would believe it or not.

I expect to see the headline any day now... "Jerry Falwell Says Kerry
Eats Human Babies!" and then all the right-wing doofusses (or is it
doofii?) will start to argue whether he eats them baked, roasted, or
raw. With ketchup, of course. And any info to the contrary will be
soundly denounced.

Unfortunately, it's been shown that if you yell something, anything,
loud enouogh & long enough, a lot people tend to believe it, no matter
how ridiculous it is.

DSK

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:17:22 -0400, DSK wrote:

felton wrote:
You must not pay much attention, Dave. ......
Did you not read the*first hand* account of William Rood over the
weekend? He WAS there.

"But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have
charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown...."

But it just doesn't matter. The press is all a bunch of liberal scumbag
liars, except for the ones that praise Bush for his heroism & wisdom.

You don't understand what's going on here. It is a very simple one-sided
blitz. The "truth" is anything that repeats 'Kerry bad evil bad wicked
coward bad traitor' whether a reasonable person would believe it or not.

I expect to see the headline any day now... "Jerry Falwell Says Kerry
Eats Human Babies!" and then all the right-wing doofusses (or is it
doofii?) will start to argue whether he eats them baked, roasted, or
raw. With ketchup, of course. And any info to the contrary will be
soundly denounced.

Unfortunately, it's been shown that if you yell something, anything,
loud enouogh & long enough, a lot people tend to believe it, no matter
how ridiculous it is.

DSK

It does make you question just how effective the jury system is,
doesn't it. I suppose some folks are just going to believe what they
wish to believe regardless of the overwhelming facts to the contrary.
Reminds me of the old joke, or so I thought at the time, of the
husband who is caught red handed with "the other woman". His defense?
He tells his wife, "who are you going to believe...me or your lying
eyes?" :) Personally, I don't like to be lied to, by anyone. As we
say down here in Texas, don't **** on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Felton, don't change the subject to facts. Mr. Poodle gets upset.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"felton" wrote in message
...
On 23 Aug 2004 10:34:43 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:03:32 -0400, Walt
said:

Larry Thurlow in an anti-John Kerry ad. Thurlow said he would consider
his own Bronze Star "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the
basis for it. (AP)

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released
yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act,
contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons
fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla...

The question, of course, is whether those records reflect anything other
than Kerry's own reports. You do recall, don't you, that according to the
other flotilla COs Kerry habitually volunteered to write up the
after-action
reports, and exaggerated his own heroism?

At this point, it appears that we have Kerry's written reports telling
about
his own heroism against three eye witnesses who said there was no hostile
fire, and that Kerry's boat was the only one of the five that turned and
ran
when the mine went off.


You must not pay much attention, Dave. Even this Sunday's Dallas
Morning News, down here in the heart of Bush Country, has been running
articles shredding the credibility of the Smear Boat Vets for Bush.
Did you not read the*first hand* account of William Rood over the
weekend? He WAS there.

"But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have
charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics
have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit
of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on
all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were
there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they
come from people who were not there."

Of course he was only responding to the one engagement where Kerry was
awarded his Silver Star. And your source to discredit him? Oh,
yeah...John O'Neill...Republican operative who wasn't even in Viet Nam
at the time, repeating third hand hearsay from someone who was told by
someone else.

How about another *first hand* account about the "now" disputed
Rassman rescue...

Another witness to Kerry's heroism, for which he won his Bronze Star,
steps forward to confirm that it went down just as the U.S. Navy, all
John Kerry's crewmates, and Jim Rassmann - the Green Beret whose life
Kerry saved that day - said it did. From WaPo:

In Colorado, Jim Russell, who participated in Swift boat operations
when Kerry did, wrote a letter to the editor of the Telluride Daily
Planet to angrily dispute the claim that Kerry was not under enemy
fire when he rescued Jim Rassman from the water, a feat that brought
Kerry a Bronze Star and Purple Heart.

"I was on No. 43 boat, skippered by Don Droz, who was later that year
killed by enemy fire," Russell wrote in the letter. "Forever pictured
in my mind since that day over 30 years ago [is] John Kerry bending
over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from
out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the
beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't
think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that
we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."


Although I admire your ability to tap dance by never actually
addressing an issue by dismissing the source or by claiming someone
else is "changing the subject", the facts are becoming more and more
clear and none of this supports the smear campaign.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 09:47:04 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Felton, don't change the subject to facts. Mr. Poodle gets upset.

So far his responses fall into either of two categories (a) the source
is unbelievable, or (b) if the facts don't support his beliefs it is
changing the subject.

It is like pushing a rope to get a straight answer out of Dave:)

On 23 Aug 2004 20:12:16 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:57:21 GMT, felton said:

Forever pictured
in my mind since that day over 30 years ago

Hey, he must have the same ghost writer as Kerry. No doubt it was "seared,
seared" on his mind like Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia.

Oh, and BTW, did he dispute the statement of the (living) COs of the other
three boats saying Kerry's was the only boat of the four that cut and ran
when the first boat hit a mine?

Yeah, actually he did dispute the third party hearsay. You should get
out more.The guy I quoted was there, along with Rassman and the crew
of the boat.

On 24 Aug 2004 10:39:32 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 02:45:38 GMT, felton said:

Oh, and BTW, did he dispute the statement of the (living) COs of the other
three boats saying Kerry's was the only boat of the four that cut and ran
when the first boat hit a mine?

Yeah, actually he did dispute the third party hearsay.

Ding Ding! Wrong again. He was, of course, addressing an entirely different
event.

I gotta give credit to the lawyer who crafted that statement. It's a
masterpiece of deception. Note that he doesn't dispute the substance of the
Swiftees' claim. Instead he says that the lone VC wasn't wearing a
loincloth, and appeared to be older than a teenager. Nor does he dispute
that the VC was wounded (he doesn't remember) or that the VC was the only
one in the area when Kerry chased him. In fact if you read it carefully, he
concedes that the others had already fled. Another nice lawyerly job of
smoke and mirrors from Team Kerry.

Dave, if you are going to persist in your absurd denials, at least try
to keep your misstatements consistent. First, the Rassman incident
was not the same engagement as the "lone, nearly naked VC" incident".

The Rassman incident, in which "other Swiftees" claimed there was no
gunfire at the time was rebutted by Jim Russell. This was the
incident in which Kerry won the Bronze Star.

"I was on No. 43 boat, skippered by Don Droz, who was later that year
killed by enemy fire," Russell wrote in the letter. "Forever pictured
in my mind since that day over 30 years ago [is] John Kerry bending
over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from
out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the
beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't
think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that
we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."

Of course, we also have the recently unearthed Bronze Star Citation
given to Larry Thurlow, which also mentioned the hostile fire. Larry
now sputters that was all wrong, that Rassman was all wrong, that
Kerry's crew was all wrong and that the Official Navy records at the
time were all wrong. In any event, we now have this new guy, Jim
Russell, a crew member on one of the other boats confirming the
overwhelming evidence that supports Kerry's record.

Now, as to your delusion regarding the "lone, loin cloth clad
teenager", which was the centerpiece for the Smear Vets attempt to
discredit Kerry's Silver Star...a different action, do try to keep up,
we have William Rood, the only surviving officer, other than Kerry,
who participated in that mission. His story has been all over the
papers and the net, but probably not reported much in your preferred
news sources.

It was his story, published in the Chicago Tribune on August 22, 2004,
which completely and thoroughly supports the Official Navy records.



"There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more
than 35 years ago--three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of
those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28,
1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a
Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.

For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the focus
of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of swift boat
veterans and others contending that Kerry didn't deserve the Silver
Star for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and three Purple
Hearts he was awarded for other actions.

Many of us wanted to put it all behind us--the rivers, the ambushes,
the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for
interviews about Kerry's service--even those from reporters at the
Chicago Tribune, where I work.

But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have
charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics
have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit
of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on
all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were
there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they
come from people who were not there.

Even though Kerry's own crew members have backed him, the attacks have
continued, and in recent days Kerry has called me and others who were
with him in those days, asking that we go public with our accounts."


Feel free to read the entire article, although I doubt you will.
Frankly it amazes me that anyone can put any credence at all into this
Swift Boats smear campaign. I can only assume that people have not
made the attempt to look at the evidence and/or they are simply
incapable to exercising any degree of critical thinking.

Once again, Mr. Poodle changes the subject. We're not interested in
your supposed lawyerly viewpoint which is actually a shill for Bush's
right-wing views.

In article ,
Dave wrote:
I did. The difference is that I read it carefully, with a view to the games
the Kerry lawyers were trying to play when they wrote the story.
--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

On 24 Aug 2004 15:50:18 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:28:45 GMT, felton said:


The Rassman incident, in which "other Swiftees" claimed there was no
gunfire at the time was rebutted by Jim Russell. This was the
incident in which Kerry won the Bronze Star.

Yes. That's the one I asked you about. I asked whether Russell denied the
other three COs' statement that Kerry's boat was the only one that fled the
scene as soon as the single mine went off. Of course, he didn't deny it.
Another masterful job of lawyerly smoke and mirrors from Team Kerry.
Focusing entirely on Russell's recollection that there was hostile fire, the
statement glaringly omits any reference to whether or not Kerry's boat was
the only boat that fled the scene.

This is what the old English lawyers called a "negative pregnant." Example:
If you say "I deny beating my wife with a stick" you are denying that you
used a stick, but admitting you beat your wife.

Feel free to read the entire article, although I doubt you will.

I did. The difference is that I read it carefully, with a view to the games
the Kerry lawyers were trying to play when they wrote the story.

I notice that you have changed your focus to the "Kerry fled"
argument, having now abandoned the completely discredited "no enemy
fire" argument. How compelling. Of course, he did manage to be
present to rescue Rassman.

Three Bronze Stars are awarded that day, one to Kerry. We are
supposed to believe that he was the only one receiving an undeserved
award, over the accounts of Rassman, his own crew and several people
from other boats, all supported by the Official Records of the Navy.
Amazing how these charges of "Kerry fled" took 35 years to surface.

The burden of proof obviously falls on those making their current
charges, which had never before been leveled before Kerry was
nominated for President. They don't convince me. Your threshold of
evidence is obviously much lower.