Three Navy men won Bronze Stars for their actions that day: Kerry,
Thurlow, and radarman first class Robert Eugene Lambert, a petty
officer in the boat captained by Thurlow. The citation for Lambert's
Bronze Star--previously undisclosed but obtained today under the
Freedom of Information Act from the National Personnel Records Center
in St. Louis--repeats the description of the incident included in the
citation for Thurlow's Bronze Star: "all units came under small arms
and automatic weapons fire from the river banks." Lambert's citation
also notes that Lambert--who assumed command of PCF-51 after Thurlow
went to assist another Swift boat damaged by a mine--"directed
accurate suppressing fire at the enemy." The citation praises
Lambert's "coolness, professionalism and courage under fire."

In an affidavit Thurlow signed last month, he said "no return fire
occurred....I never heard a shot." He said to the Post, "I am here to
state that we weren't under fire." But the individual citations for
Thurlow, Kerry and Lambert each refer to enemy fire. And the Lambert
citation also suggests there was a need for his boat to engage in
"suppressing fire."


http://www.thenation.com/capitalgame...bid=3&pid=1692

That's *three* oficial documents contradicting Larry Thurlow's
prevarications. Three strikes - he's OUT!


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

Dave wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:11:29 -0400, Walt said:

That's *three* oficial documents contradicting Larry Thurlow's
prevarications. Three strikes - he's OUT!

The question, of course, is who wrote those "official" documents.
Circumstances suggest it was Kerry himself.

And the evidence for this is...what?

[Head Swift Boat Liar] O'Neill has said that the initials "KJW" on
the bottom of the report "identified" it as having been written by
Kerry. It is unclear why this should be so, as Kerry's initials
are JFK. A review of other Swift boat after-action reports at the
Naval Historical Center here reveals several that include the
initials "KJW" but describe incidents at which Kerry was not present.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html

If so many suckers weren't taken in by this fraud, it would be almost
comical. "KJW stands for John Kerry." Make me laugh. C'mon Dave.
While that might be enough to fool the average illiterate Freetard,
you're smarter than that.

As I say, a nice lawyerly effort at smoke and mirrors, but ultimately not
very persuasive when you analyze it.

Stooping to name calling now? That reminds me of a story.

A man goes into a bar and shouts "ALL LAWYERS ARE ASSHOLES!"
A guy at the end of the bar gives him a mean look and says "Now, you
take that back."
The first man says "Why? Are you a lawyer?"
and the other man says "No, I'm an asshole."

--
//-Walt
//
// http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040514/matson.gif

The evidence is that Dave's head is so far up his ass that he can't tell
night from day or facts from fiction.

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

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:11:29 -0400, Walt
said:

That's *three* oficial documents contradicting Larry Thurlow's
prevarications. Three strikes - he's OUT!

The question, of course, is who wrote those "official" documents.
Circumstances suggest it was Kerry himself.

And the evidence for this is...what?

[Head Swift Boat Liar] O'Neill has said that the initials "KJW" on
the bottom of the report "identified" it as having been written by
Kerry. It is unclear why this should be so, as Kerry's initials
are JFK. A review of other Swift boat after-action reports at the
Naval Historical Center here reveals several that include the
initials "KJW" but describe incidents at which Kerry was not present.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html

If so many suckers weren't taken in by this fraud, it would be almost
comical. "KJW stands for John Kerry." Make me laugh. C'mon Dave.
While that might be enough to fool the average illiterate Freetard,
you're smarter than that.

As I say, a nice lawyerly effort at smoke and mirrors, but ultimately
not
very persuasive when you analyze it.

Stooping to name calling now? That reminds me of a story.

A man goes into a bar and shouts "ALL LAWYERS ARE ASSHOLES!"
A guy at the end of the bar gives him a mean look and says "Now, you
take that back."
The first man says "Why? Are you a lawyer?"
and the other man says "No, I'm an asshole."

--
//-Walt
//
// http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040514/matson.gif

In article ,
Dave wrote:
Well, lessee. There were five boats present. One of the COs is dead, but his
initials are not KJW or anything similar. That leaves four COs. Three of
the COs say they didn't write a report of the action and that Kerry usually
took it upon himself to write the reports. Kerry is the fourth, and hasn't
come forward to say either that he did or he didn't write the report. And he
has refused to authorize release of all his service records, instead picking
and choosing what he wants people to see. Is there a basis for an inference
here?

Yeah, Bush and Rove are lying.




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
Yeah, Bush and Rove are lying.

LOL. If three ordinary people on the street remarked that "the sky is blue"
you'd try to draw the inference that Bush was lying about something.

I would, but it would have nothing to do with whether or not the sky
is blue. Bush and Rove are lying sacks of ****.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 24 Aug 2004 10:21:41 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Well, lessee. There were five boats ..... Is there a basis for an
inference
here?

Yeah, Bush and Rove are lying.

LOL. If three ordinary people on the street remarked that "the sky is
blue"
you'd try to draw the inference that Bush was lying about something.


Only if his lips were moving (c:

Dave,

Are you saying that the other COs let and accepted Kerry's false
reports? Didn't they even read the reports? I can't understand how they
didn't do anything about the reports at the time, is they knew they were
phony?

OT

Thom Stewart wrote:
Dave,

Are you saying that the other COs let and accepted Kerry's false
reports? Didn't they even read the reports? I can't understand how they
didn't do anything about the reports at the time, is they knew they were
phony?

What I can't understand is why his CO wrote & signed his evaluations,
saying what they said; and that others further up the chain of command
approved them.

Oh wait, I know how to explain that too... Kerry obviously wrote his own
evals, just like he wrote all the post action reports!

Kerry was probably writing *EVERYTHING* bad about the Viet Nam war,
including the news read by Walter Cronkite every evening! What a busy
man he must have been!

DSK

Are you saying that the other COs let and accepted Kerry's false
reports? Didn't they even read the reports? I can't understand how they
didn't do anything about the reports at the time, is they knew they were
phony?


Dave wrote:
Most probably they didn't read them.

In that case, how can they claim to know what really happened more than
30 years later?

.... I recall from my Navy days
that paperwork was regarded mostly as a pain in the rear, something you did
because somebody required it, not something you dived into unnecessarily.

So, you're saying you gundecked official logs? And you're calling Kerry
bad names & questioning his veracity?

Nice.

BTW did you see on the news about Bush campaign officials resigning
before they could get in trouble for collaborating on the Swift Boat
Veterans smear? If you did, would you admit it?

DSK

In article ,
Dave wrote:
I don't think I said any such thing. You're starting to sound like those
amateur lawyers in the Kerry campaign, Doug.

And, you have lots of experience being an amateur thinker.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."