In article ,
says...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:33:17 -0700, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 19 Aug 2004 08:28:59 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

A document recommending Thurlow for the Bronze Star noted that all his
actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire which LTJG
THURLOW completely ignored in providing immediate assistance" to the
disabled boat and its crew. The citation states that all other units
in the flotilla also came under fire.

Have you considered that the author of the citation, probably Kerry, lied? Very
seldom does one write his own citation.

Pay attention here teach. Thurlow's own citation for the bronze star
includes the information that there was small arms fire coming from the
banks of the river.

It agrees with Kerry's and Rassmann's account of the events of that day
and is in direct conflict with Thurlow's very recent affidavit saying
that there was no small arms fire, three decades later.

When will you admit to yourself these guys are nothing but partisans who
would rip the most patriotic of men apart in an effort to get their man
elected.

The point person is non other than Merrie Spaeth, the same gal who
commandeered the character assassination of John McCain in 2000 with the
aide of Karl Rove.

These are scummy people.

jps

Pay attention. Thurlow's own citation was *not* written by Thurlow, and was
received by Thurlow *after* he left the service. Thurlow states his citation was
erroneous.

Did I say that Thurlow wrote the citation? It was written by a third
party.

Why in God's name would Rassmann, a Republican, lie about being under
fire while Kerry was rescuing him?

I suppose his vantage point wasn't nearly as good as Thurlows?

Geez John, seems like the logic would be apparent to you if you were
wearing tightly bound blinders.

jps

In article ,
jps wrote:

Did I say that Thurlow wrote the citation? It was written by a third
party.

How about before you accept that report as honest you first identify who
wrote it, and whether they were personally present.

If not, then identify all the persons who submitted written and oral
interviews, and get copies of same, so you have the same source material
that person had, before you come to judgement.

(BTW, the only person to submit an "after action" report on that incident
was Kerry. None of the other officers did, because none of them reported
ENEMY FIRE, which was the criteria for such a report!)

Why in God's name would Rassmann, a Republican, lie about being under
fire while Kerry was rescuing him?

He could be wrong and honestly believe what he's saying.

That shots were being fired doesn't indicate who was doing the shooting.
It is acknowledged that suppressive fire was directed FROM THE BOATS once
the mine went off to guard against the possibility of fire coming from the
shore, BUT NO SUCH FIRE WAS EVER TAKEN BY THE BOATS.

I suppose his vantage point wasn't nearly as good as Thurlows?

Certainly not. Being in the water and shielded by the boats (so you
don't get shot to hell) is certainly less advantageous in terms of seeing
what's going on than from a gunner's turret on top of one of those boats.

Geez John, seems like the logic would be apparent to you if you were
wearing tightly bound blinders.

jps

Note that the captains of the boats both BEHIND and IN FRONT OF Kerry's
(prior to him cutting and running when the mine went off) have reported NO
enemy fire incoming.

There also seem to be a curious lack of damage and maintenance reports
on the boats involved. If there was fire coming from the shore, where
were the holes in the superstructure of the boats?

Phantasmal bullets.... that disappear when not aimed at Rasmussen.

That's a good one.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://boaterforum.com Talk about Boating online - any topic, any time!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!

In article . net,
says...

Why in God's name would Rassmann, a Republican, lie about being under
fire while Kerry was rescuing him?

He could be wrong and honestly believe what he's saying.

There were three bullet holes in THURLOW's boat from the exchange.

Of course, now Thurlow is saying they were from a previous encounter.

I'd love to find out who wrote the commendations, as you suggest, but
without that knowledge you have to rely on the contemporaneous records
that were accepted as faithful by the Navy.

jps

In article ,
jps wrote:


In article . net,
says...

Why in God's name would Rassmann, a Republican, lie about being under
fire while Kerry was rescuing him?

He could be wrong and honestly believe what he's saying.

There were three bullet holes in THURLOW's boat from the exchange.

Of course, now Thurlow is saying they were from a previous encounter.

Only three? Gee, that's pretty ****ty marksmanship for an "intense
firefight." From emplaced positions? Three holes? Uh huh. Ok.

This level of damage happens to be consistent with a single sniper in a
previous encounter, but isn't consistent with an "intense firefight" with
shooting coming from BOTH sides of the river.

I don't believe the VC were that poor of a shot. If they were, we would
have overrun the VC positions in an hour or two and we wouldn't have had
such a tough time over there.

Clearly, they could (and did) shoot straight when they shot at all.

I'd love to find out who wrote the commendations, as you suggest, but
without that knowledge you have to rely on the contemporaneous records
that were accepted as faithful by the Navy.

jps

There is only one - Kerry's own AA report. The others WHO WERE THERE say
that they did not file reports because there was no incoming fire taken.

Where's the media on this? Why not FOIA the radio logs from the land
operators? You might not be able to get all of them (who knows how
carefully they were preserved) but I bet that if there was some major
firefight that there is a record of the radio calls to the battlefield
HQ stating that they were taking fire, along with whatever backup and/or
support they requested (and what, if any, was provided.)

Or has that been done and there simply aren't any records, because the
radio calls didn't take place - because there was no enemy fire.....

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://boaterforum.com Talk about Boating online - any topic, any time!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!

Subject: OT more on the swiftboat liar Thurlow
From: JohnH

Pay attention. Thurlow's own citation was *not* written by Thurlow, and was
received by Thurlow *after* he left the service. Thurlow states his citation
was
erroneous.

So did he give back his bronze star?

Capt. Bill

In article . net,
says...

In article ,
jps wrote:


In article . net,
says...

Why in God's name would Rassmann, a Republican, lie about being under
fire while Kerry was rescuing him?

He could be wrong and honestly believe what he's saying.

There were three bullet holes in THURLOW's boat from the exchange.

Of course, now Thurlow is saying they were from a previous encounter.

Only three? Gee, that's pretty ****ty marksmanship for an "intense
firefight." From emplaced positions? Three holes? Uh huh. Ok.

This level of damage happens to be consistent with a single sniper in a
previous encounter, but isn't consistent with an "intense firefight" with
shooting coming from BOTH sides of the river.

I don't believe the VC were that poor of a shot. If they were, we would
have overrun the VC positions in an hour or two and we wouldn't have had
such a tough time over there.

Clearly, they could (and did) shoot straight when they shot at all.

I'd love to find out who wrote the commendations, as you suggest, but
without that knowledge you have to rely on the contemporaneous records
that were accepted as faithful by the Navy.

jps

There is only one - Kerry's own AA report. The others WHO WERE THERE say
that they did not file reports because there was no incoming fire taken.

Where's the media on this? Why not FOIA the radio logs from the land
operators? You might not be able to get all of them (who knows how
carefully they were preserved) but I bet that if there was some major
firefight that there is a record of the radio calls to the battlefield
HQ stating that they were taking fire, along with whatever backup and/or
support they requested (and what, if any, was provided.)

Or has that been done and there simply aren't any records, because the
radio calls didn't take place - because there was no enemy fire.....

It's obvious which way you'd prefer to lean Karl, however, based on the
lack of evidence other than what's been written in the record and a
bunch of partisan creeps who've changed their story based on the wind,
I'll take the originals written 30+ years ago.

No one has established that Kerry wrote the report.

jps

In article ,
jps wrote:


In article . net,
says...

In article ,
jps wrote:


In article . net,
says...

Why in God's name would Rassmann, a Republican, lie about being under
fire while Kerry was rescuing him?

He could be wrong and honestly believe what he's saying.

There were three bullet holes in THURLOW's boat from the exchange.

Of course, now Thurlow is saying they were from a previous encounter.

Only three? Gee, that's pretty ****ty marksmanship for an "intense
firefight." From emplaced positions? Three holes? Uh huh. Ok.

This level of damage happens to be consistent with a single sniper in a
previous encounter, but isn't consistent with an "intense firefight" with
shooting coming from BOTH sides of the river.

I don't believe the VC were that poor of a shot. If they were, we would
have overrun the VC positions in an hour or two and we wouldn't have had
such a tough time over there.

Clearly, they could (and did) shoot straight when they shot at all.

I'd love to find out who wrote the commendations, as you suggest, but
without that knowledge you have to rely on the contemporaneous records
that were accepted as faithful by the Navy.

jps

There is only one - Kerry's own AA report. The others WHO WERE THERE say
that they did not file reports because there was no incoming fire taken.

Where's the media on this? Why not FOIA the radio logs from the land
operators? You might not be able to get all of them (who knows how
carefully they were preserved) but I bet that if there was some major
firefight that there is a record of the radio calls to the battlefield
HQ stating that they were taking fire, along with whatever backup and/or
support they requested (and what, if any, was provided.)

Or has that been done and there simply aren't any records, because the
radio calls didn't take place - because there was no enemy fire.....

It's obvious which way you'd prefer to lean Karl, however, based on the
lack of evidence other than what's been written in the record and a
bunch of partisan creeps who've changed their story based on the wind,
I'll take the originals written 30+ years ago.

No one has established that Kerry wrote the report.

jps

Nobody else has written a report; all the other officers said they haven't.

Who's left?

Who do I believe? 1 guy (Rasmussen) or 250 guys (the other swifties)?

Do you really think ALL 250 OF THEM are lying?

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://boaterforum.com Talk about Boating online - any topic, any time!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!

In article . net,
says...


Do you really think ALL 250 OF THEM are lying?

It's already been proven that several of the leaders have changed their
stories 180 degrees since the events took place. Hoffman, for instance,
praise Kerry for the tactics used to great success has completely
changed his story.

So have many others. This is a partisan attack designed to throw the
debate off of issues.

Go to the NY Times and look at the pdf that shows the connections
between Bush, Rove, Merrie Spaeth, O'Neill, etc.

They all have one thing in mind, to throw mud at Kerry.

Same team that did it to McCain and Cleland.

Disgusting and low.

jps