My debunking against the claim that Kerry has been caught lying by sbvt

[noahmijo]

Okay let's take each one.

First of all the Cambodian issue to me now this is MY opinion based on what I've read boils down to this.

Kerry may have been WRONG about being in Cambodia but he did NOT lie.

So in his letters he wrote he was in Cambodia then near it, sure on the surface looks like a deliberate flip flop or what have you.

But here is the fact he's in a boat, pitch black, this is 1968, you have no fancy global satellite equipment or anything, you have a map and a compass.

So it is possible that under these conditions that maybe just maybe you could state incorrectly what your position is?

Now another view point found here:


The Cambodian special forces' incursions—which were conducted without the knowledge, much less approval, of Congress—were escalating around that time. Just over a month later, on Feb. 9, 1969, Gen. Creighton Abrams, commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, requested a B-52 bombing attack on a Communist camp inside Cambodia. (Richard Nixon, the new president, approved the plan on March 17; the first strikes of Operation Breakfast—the secret bombing of Cambodia—started the next day.) Shawcross writes that special forces were always sent across the border to survey the area for targets just before an air operation.

Did Kerry cross the border or just go up to it? We may never know for sure. Not much paperwork exists for covert operations (officially, U.S. forces weren't in Cambodia). Nor is it likely that a canny Swift-boat skipper (and Kerry was nothing if not canny) would jot down thoughts about such covert operations in a diary on a boat that might be captured by the enemy.

The circumstances at least suggest that Kerry was indeed involved in a "black" mission, even if he had never explicitly made that claim. And why would he make such claims if he hadn't been? It was neither a glamorous nor a particularly admirable mission—certainly nothing to boast of.

But one thing is for sure: Lt. Kerry did not spend that Christmas Eve just lying around, dreaming of sugarplums and roasted chestnuts. He had plenty of time to cover the 40 miles from the Cambodian border to the safety of Sa Dec (he did command a swift boat, after all). More to the point, the evidence indicates he did cover those 40 miles: He was near (or in?) Cambodia in the morning, in Sa Dec that night.

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2105529#ContinueArticle

However seared he was, Kerry's spokesmen now say his memory was faulty.

Is that what you consider "conceding" to the truth? that's nothing more than admitting that considering the circumstances maybe he goofed on his exact location which nonetheless does not take away from what he experienced and went through whether or not he was in or close to Cambodia.

likewise from one of the men on Kerry's boat says this:


Jim Wasser disagrees. He was a radarman who was second in command under Kerry on PCF-44 and is now affiliated with his campaign as part of Veterans for Kerry. Wasser, who now lives in Illinois, says that it would be unusual for an enlisted gunner's mate to specifically know the boat's position at any given time.

"I had to go on Hannity & Colmes with him, and even though he's wrong, and I truly believe that, he's my brother, and veterans should never say anything about each other," Wasser says of Gardner. " say they're about the truth; that's a falsehood.

"On Christmas in 1968, we were close . I don't know exactly where we were. I didn't have the chart. It was easy to get turned around with all the rivers around there. But I'll say this: We were the farthest inland that night. I know that for sure."

That two veterans who served on the same boat with Kerry remember the events in question differently is the essence of the dispute and the confusion. Both sides have strong opinions on Kerry's service, and both have political ties that make their motives suspect. The back-and-forth battle parallels the Vietnam War itself – it's a large mess with political ramifications that could help shape America's future.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040818-121345-3874r.htm

So that's it pretty much for that one.

Now for number 2.

Now was it Thurlow who claims that Kerry's boat was running away? the same Thurlow who said there was no one firing at Kerry or within the area?


Larry Thurlow, commander of another Swift Boat at the same time as Kerry who claims the Presidential nominee lied about being “under fire” when he earned a Bronze Star for rescuing a Green Beret. Turns out Thurlow also received a Bronze Star for the same action and his citation talks about being “under heavy small arms fire.” Turlow claims he never read the citation and it was wrong. The Green Beret Kerry rescued tells a different story, saying he was under fire and sure he was gonna die

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_5072.shtml

So Thurlow claims that Kerry was running away, yet has been proven a liar on the other allegation that there was no one firing at Kerry.

Also the men on Kerry's crew, and Jim Rassaman both claim that they were not fleeing.

So we have a proven liar vs Kerry's crew and Jim Rassaman in this case.

3. First of all you do not request a purple heart or any other kind of medal. It doesn't work that way.


Lt. Mike Kafka, a spokesman with the Navy Office of Information (CHINFO) in Washington D.C., told us three pertinent facts:


1 -- No soldier determines if he is eligible for a Purple Heart; only his commander can determine that specific U.S. Navy criteria have been met for the award.

http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/kerrypurpleheart1.htm


Rassmann's Aug. 10 Wall Street Journal article states that Kerry's arm was "wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat," which would make that wound clearly enemy-inflicted.


In any case, even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a purple heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All agree that rice was being destroyed that day on the assumption that it otherwise might feed Viet Cong fighters.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

So even if in fact the wound was caused due to friendly fire, it is still valid.


Now I will concede that I wouldn't consider this particular wound to be serious as compared to limbs being lost, ect, however under the current system this wound does in fact constitute a purple heart.

If you disagree with this I suggest you hunt down all returning veterans from the Iraq and Afghan war who are bringing home purple hearts but have wounds that are akin to scratches and you tell those wussy asses to give back their medals, especially if the wounds were caused due to neglect during combat.

But on the other hand two of Kerry's crewmates claim that the wound was not self inflicted

FACT
The two crewmates of Kerry who were actually on the boat with Kerry at the time the incident occurred categorically dismiss the fact that Kerry fired an M-79. Kerry was using an M-16. Moreover, they confirm categorically that Kerry did NOT get injured from shrapnel from a grenade launcher (M-79). 

REFERENCES
Scott Lehigh, Boston Globe (via Atrios):


"I am reasonably sure we didn't have an M-79," Zaladonis said. "I didn't see one. I don't remember it."


Runyon says the only weapons the trio had were an M-60 machine gun, two M-16 combat rifles, and, possibly, a .45 caliber pistol. Is he 100 percent sure there wasn't an M-79 grenade launcher in the boat?


"I wouldn't say 100 percent, but I know 100 percent certain that we didn't shoot them," replies Runyon. He does remember Kerry having trouble with his M-16. "His gun jammed or he ran out of ammunition -- I don't know which -- but he bent down to pick up the other M-16," he says.


Zaladonis, who was manning the machine gun, recalls Kerry telling him to redirect his fire to another area. "If we got return fire, I am not sure," he said. But he adds that there's one thing he does know: "I know that John got hurt." And not by shrapnel from a grenade launcher.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/08/20/kerry_comrades_have_credibility_on_their_side/


Now a couple of off points.

First off it is an outright lie on your part to claim that Kerry has conceded on ANYTHING that would point to him being proven a liar.

Sure the Kerry campaign says "it's possible" that Kerry's wound was self inflicted but that's true. It is POSSIBLE however not PROVEN and even if it was proven to be self inflicted that would not change the status of his purple heart.


FACT
The two crewmates of Kerry who were actually on the boat with Kerry at the time the incident occurred categorically dismiss the fact that Kerry fired an M-79. Kerry was using an M-16. Moreover, they confirm categorically that Kerry did NOT get injured from shrapnel from a grenade launcher (M-79). 

REFERENCES
Scott Lehigh, Boston Globe (via Atrios):


"I am reasonably sure we didn't have an M-79," Zaladonis said. "I didn't see one. I don't remember it."


Runyon says the only weapons the trio had were an M-60 machine gun, two M-16 combat rifles, and, possibly, a .45 caliber pistol. Is he 100 percent sure there wasn't an M-79 grenade launcher in the boat?


"I wouldn't say 100 percent, but I know 100 percent certain that we didn't shoot them," replies Runyon. He does remember Kerry having trouble with his M-16. "His gun jammed or he ran out of ammunition -- I don't know which -- but he bent down to pick up the other M-16," he says.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/08/20/kerry_comrades_have_credibility_on_their_side/

Zaladonis, who was manning the machine gun, recalls Kerry telling him to redirect his fire to another area. "If we got return fire, I am not sure," he said. But he adds that there's one thing he does know: "I know that John got hurt." And not by shrapnel from a grenade launcher.


There is no after action report, there is no casualty report. Kerrys CO, rejected Kerrys request for a PH, then they found out that he had received one for that incident. Kerry went over his CO's head and most likely fabricated reports which is why he will not sign form 180 releasing all of his records.


Another baseless charge based on nothing

But while we're on the subject of accusing Kerry of not signing a 180 are you going to call The Connecticut Cowboy out on the fact that he has not signed one either?


At the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said he couldn't say specifically whether Mr. Bush signed Standard Form 180, but the president did request and release his own military records in February.
    "I don't believe he signed any form, but he did authorize making his military records available publicly," Mr. McClellan said. "We have released all the records, and reporters were allowed to look at his medical records as well."


http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040818-121345-3874r.htm

Don't worry in the future we will be discussing how The Connecticut Cowboy went AWOL and is in NO position to be accusing Kerry of anything which is why he has hired these attack dogs to do the dirty work for him just like he did with McCain.

So now that we've had our pissing contest over this non-issue and since The Connecticut Cowboy's plan to do to Kerry what he did to McCain is starting to fizzle as the true facts come out let's move onto the REAL issues.

Why don't we discuss and compare platform ideas between the two candidates since The Connecticut Cowboy can't seem to focus on this crucial aspect instead opting to use these groups to smear and distort and tug our attention away from the REAL issues at hand.

Or is it possible that The Connecticut Cowboy knows he has NOTHING to run on and is desperate to make us all ignore his own military record or lack thereof, and failures which are continuing to mount daily?