Kerry WAS a HERO in 'Nam - just check with factcheck.org

[The Doctor.]

Here it is...


Clarification: Kerry's Silver Star citations

08.14.2004




In an Aug. 9 update we stated that Kerry's citation for the Silver Star made no mention of killing a Viet Cong. In fact, there are three citations, and one of the three does indeed mention the killing.This merely strengthens our conclusion that George Elliott's second affidavit is misleading. All three citations make clear that Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star for the reasons Elliott implied. We have amended our article on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad to reflect this.

Elliott, who was Kerry's commanding officer at the time, now says he believes Kerry shot a Viet Cong in the back, adding: "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." But the one citation that mentions the killing states that the Viet Cong "fled" and that Kerry "pursued," showing Elliott knew the score when he recommended Kerry for the award 35 years ago. Elliott's affidavit also fails to note that the Viet Cong's rocket launcher was loaded, posing a lethal threat to Kerry and his men.

Furthermore, all three versions of the citation make clear that the basis for the award was not "simply" for the killing alone, but for repeatedly attacking enemy ambushers.



Our article now reads as follows:



Elliott also says in that second affidavit, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." That statement is misleading, however. It mischaracterizes the actual basis on which Kerry received his decoration.

The official citations show Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star "for simply pursuing and dispatching" the Viet Cong. In fact, the killing is not even mentioned in two of the three versions of the official citation (see "supporting documents" at right.) The citations - based on what Elliott wrote up at the time - dwell mostly on Kerry's decision to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.

The longest of the citations, signed by Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, describes Kerry as killing a fleeing Viet Cong with a loaded rocket launcher. It says that as Kerry beached his boat to attack his second set of ambushers, "an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hooch, and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."

Two other citations omit any mention of the killing. One was signed by Admiral John J. Hyland, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, and the other was signed by Secretary of the Navy John Chafee. Both those citations say Kerry attacked his first set of ambushers and that "this daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers." Later, 800 yards away, Kerry's boat encountered a second ambush and a B-40 rocket exploded "close aboard" Kerry's boat. "With utter disregard for his own safety, and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet away from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy." In these citations there is no mention of enemy casualties at all. Kerry was cited for "extraordinary daring and personal courage . . . in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire."


Yes, that's right DUer's; John Kerry RUSHED into ENEMY FIRE to disrupt not one but TWO deadly ambushes!

I highly reccommend Factcheck.org for fact checking - they are non-partisan and objective.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. Even a broken clock is right twice a day

Factcheck is a Republican front designed to obscure the truth by appearing non-partisan.

Look at Factcheck's conclusion in the SmearVets for Bush case:

At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

By the way, they also give Bush a pass on being AWOL, failing to examine the question of whether he showed up, and repeating the Bush campaign spin "he was credited". New Evidence Supports Bush Military Service (Mostly)


Check out the trustees and staff:

Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg
Founder, 1908-2002

Trustees

Leonore Annenberg
President, Chairman and Sole Director

Wallis Annenberg
Vice-President

Lauren Bon
Charles Annenberg Weingarten
Gregory Annenberg Weingarten

http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/about/about_show.htm?doc_id=210597



Now check out the political donations. There is A LOT here to wade through.
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=PA&last=Annenberg

For a truly factual response see: http://www.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/080504_truth.html

Need a non-partisan answer?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

[physioex]

2. I won't waste my time on ths nonsensical issue.....

I say we go after the people who are funding this nonsense....

[The Doctor.]

5. Understandable....

But I have paid enough attention to them to see that they frequently dispute the most popular misconstructions of JK as well as *. This to me seems too innocuous a line for a truly partisan organization to walk. While I admit that no one is immune to a well-crafted illusion, It would seem that, unless they are 'creating' facts (difficult in their position), they can do little real harm and still make a good tool for dispelling rumor.

If walking too fine a line to appear partisan makes them a good tool- I'm all for it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. So you think their posiition that the Smear Liars are just as credible as

Rassmann et al, has merit?

[The Doctor.]

8. Please give info- I have not

noticed any backing-up of the SB liars BS on Factcheck, but I'm always open to new info.

I noticed they printed this retraction and retraction retraction by Elliot. This does not make Elliot look good at all.

*George Elliott (Globe account): It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here. . . . I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.

In his second affidavit, however, Elliott downgraded that "terrible mistake" to an "immaterial clarification." He said in the second affidavit:

Elliott (second affidavit): I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong.*

If you have more info I'll be happy to review it. TY for other links too.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. Did you not read the post you are replying to?

Their conclusion:

At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

[The Doctor.]

12. Then they seem to have found a way to discredit

Their own statement by including official documentation of the events of 35 years ago. Including official statements by those who were there.
I believe that they were simply absolving themselves of delivering an opinion. They certainly did not hesitate to mention that the 'Swift Boat' veterans were funded by "the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas". There can be no question that this would cast initial doubt on the impetus for the vets to be fair. The swift boat vets recieved $100,000 to 'tell' their side of the story from a Repug.
I see this as a balanced article.
I always welcome more info.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. Yes their conclusion is not supported by the very facts they cite.

That is my point. They come to the conclusion that the smearboat liars are just as credible as Rassman et al, yet the facts don't support that conclusion.

Ergo, they are exhibiting their bias.

[The Doctor.]

15. I understand that they 'disqualify' their position and

attempt to give parity to the disparate parties.

BUT... I showed my own mother (a die-hard conservative) this article and even she was more interested in the facts than the (yes- I agree, very absurd) final statement of the article. I believe it should always be the facts which are considered- it is unfortunate that many may point to that last line as a sticking point.

Again - I will keep my eyes peeled for their bias.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. An open letter to factcheck

AN OPEN LETTER TO:

FactCheck.org,

Your August 11 article, “Media Fund Ad Misquotes Bush,” has been proven to be a partisan fabrication.

In fact, the Media Fund ad referenced DOES NOT EVEN ATTRIBUTE ANY QUOTES TO BUSH, proving that your article is a fraud from the title line down.

Do you people really need to have somebody explain to you what a "quote"� is?

On top of that, in this same article, you prove the claims about Bush and outsourcing to be correct. By indicating that Bush has, in context, openly expressed opposition to changing to the tax code which -- as a matter of FACT -- currently provides outsourcing incentives, FactCheck.org has shown that the quote, "he's going to help companies outsource,"� is spot-on accurate.

(PLEASE NOTE: In order for the people at FactCheck.org to understand the above paragraph, they will first have to invest in a dictionary and look up the word "�quote."�)

Conclusion: FactCheck.org has proven itself to be an incompetent, dishonest fraud.

Well done.

The original August 11 FactCheck.org article can be found here:
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=236


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=615414

[The Doctor.]

14. Interesting- I'll check into it, but

I'm not familiar with the symbols in your reply.
Please clarify.

[lastknowngood]

3. Wrong repubcheck.org is a repug owned and operated dis-info

site. They appear to have some integrity until you check close.

[kentuck]

4. No. Kerry was a coward...Bush was the hero...hadn't you heard ??

Why, everybody knows that. <sarcasm off>

[never cry wolf]

7. C'mon now

Didn't Kerry land on a carrier with and extra pair of socks stowed along for the ride too??

[wurzel]

11. Why do we have to "prove' Kerry was a hero, but Bush doesn't

have to "prove" he wasn't AWOL. It is amazing what has happened to truth in this country. Never underestimate the power of lies.