The new Jim Russell version of the Bay Hap River action, the Rassmann rescue, and Kerry's Bronze Star
Bill Dyer - Beldar blog
Stop the presses! I actually agree for once with Josh Marshall!
Dr. Marshall's Talking Points Memo today links a letter to the editor in the Telluride Daily Planet (I didn't make that up; who knew all these years that Superman's "Metropolis" was actually in Colorado?) from a Mr. Jim Russell, who says he was a first-person witness to the Bay Hap River action that resulted in Sen. Kerry's Bronze Star. Of this, Dr. Marshall writes,
"Now, the demand for folks who were on that piece of water that day must be pretty intense at the moment. And it would seem odd that anyone at this point has yet to be contacted and chatted up by the press.
I have no way of knowing whether this guy was where he says he was on that day. And it could be a hoax. But I did call the editor of the paper, Suzanne Cheavens. She says she knows the guy (small town, I guess), knows he's a Vietnam vet, and vouched for his credibility.
Some reporter should see if they can track this down and confirm or dispute that he was there on the day in question."
I agree.
On to the substance of what Mr. Russell wrote:
"This happened on March 13, 1969. I was assigned as Psychological Operation Officer for the Swift Boat group out of An Thoi, Vietnam, from January 1969 to October 1969. As such, I was on No. 43 boat, skippered by Don Droz who was later that year killed by enemy fire. We were second in line while exiting the river and going through the opening in a fish trap when a mine blew up under the No. 3 boat directly in front of us and we started taking small arms fire from the beach. Almost immediately, another mine went off somewhere behind us. All boats, except the one hit, immediately wheeled toward the beach that most of the fire came from (a tactic devised by Lt. Kerry, I later learned) and commenced showering the beaches with so much lead, that it could probably be now mined there. The noise was of course, deafening.
Three things that are forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago are: (1) The No. 3, 50-foot long, Swift boat getting huge, huge air; John Kerry thought it was about two feet. (He was farther away from it than I). I think it was at least four feet and probably closer to six feet; (2) All the boats turning left and letting loose at the same time like a deadly, choreographed dance and; (3) A few minutes later, 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."
Let's assume at least for the moment that Mr. Russell was indeed on Lt. Droz' PCF 43. Kerry's defenders will doubtless want to highlight Mr. Russell's statement that "we started taking small arms fire from the beach" immediately after the mine explosion.
But other parts of Mr. Russell's version immediately strike me as rather odd:
As far as I know, no other eyewitness has claimed that after the first mine exploded under PCF 3, "[a]lmost immediately, another mine went off somewhere behind us." (Emphasis added.) Kerry and his partisans have at various times claimed that there was another explosion near PCF 94, Kerry's boat — perhaps another mine or, per Sandusky's latest guess, a rocket, that may or may not have been responsible for Rassmann going overboard — but after that boat had sped off some considerable distance ahead (downriver, to the southeast), not behind.
Mr. Russell describes Sen. Kerry as rescuing a "ranger"; Mr. Rassmann was not a ranger as I understand it, but rather Special Forces (Green Beret).
Mr. Russell says that "[a]ll boats, except the one hit, immediately wheeled toward the beach that most of the fire came from ... and commenced showering the beaches." He repeats this, asserting that "forever pictured in my mind" (presumably not, however, "seared — seared") since that day has been the image of "[a]ll the boats turning left and letting loose at the same time like a deadly, choreographed dance." But everyone else, including Sen. Kerry and his crew, seems to agree that Sen. Kerry's boat left the immediate area for at least some period immediately after the mine blast under PCF 3, while the remaining three boats laid down suppressive fire. And how could Mr. Russell have missed this? PCF 43 was right behind Kerry's PCF 94, according to other accounts.
Mr. Russell describes as another memory that the boats "wheeled toward the beach." I'm left wondering whether he read, and perhaps read too much into, Mr. Rood's account of the Silver Star ambushes, and been influenced by that. No other witness, as far as I can recall, has claimed that during the Bay Hap River action, any boats turned toward either shore; and based on my admittedly limited understanding of their configurations, that actually would have reduced, rather than increased, the amount of firepower any of them could have brought to bear on shorebound attackers.
Mr. Russell twice refers to "small arms fire from the beach" — not both shores, as various Kerry supporters have claimed at various times. He's specific — it was the "left" shore.
Although he describes PCF 94's and Kerry's rescue of Rassmann as "a few minutes later," he insists that "all that time" they were taking small arms fire. He presumably explains the absense of wounded Americans or bullet holes in their boats with the assertion that "because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God." So if Mr. Russell's recollection is accurate, one or more VC from one beach fired small arms more or less continuously for several minutes at the three swift boats that were stationary around the stricken PCF 3 — inaccurately, and notwithstanding suppressive fire from three heavy machine guns aboard each of at least three swift boats. If so, these were indeed persistent, brave, and very, very lucky VC sniper(s), albeit very inaccurate ones, to keep firing wildly (and thereby drawing countering suppressive fire), yet to no good effect, in the face of that kind of return fire.
Mr. Russell says nothing about the rescue efforts for PCF 3 and its injured crewmen, although presumably he would have been in the middle of that during the hour and a half it took to secure the wounded and overboard sailors and rig PCF 3 for towing back to base. Although his account is silent on the subject, it seems fair to presume that at some point, the shooting must have died down.
I confess I don't quite know what to make of this. For Lt. Kerry's rescue of Rassmann to be deemed significantly more valorous than Sen. Kerry's rescue of Licorice the Unlucky Hamster some years later, the key question is whether he braved enemy fire to do so. Mr. Russell can be added to the list of eyewitnesses who claim that he did, I suppose, assuming his bona fides check out.
The balance of Mr. Russell's letter to the editor is an impassioned plea to the SwiftVets to stop questioning Sen. Kerry's combat record, which he characterizes as " evil extreme right wing attacks." He believes that the SwiftVets "are being used by these unpatriotic right wing extremist political operatives," and that since the Bush administration hasn't "disavowed itself or distanced itself in anyway from any of these scurrilous attacks, past or present," therefore the Bush administration is "truly responsible for these attacks." Okay, that's fine; like anyone else, Mr. Russell's entitled to have his own politics and perhaps it's to his credit that he makes no effort to conceal them. I'm unpersuaded, but then I have obviously different political views; and I no more dismiss out of hand Mr. Russell's factual recollections because of his obviously pro-Kerry politics than I'd dismiss any of the SwiftVets' recollections simply because in their personal politics they may support Dubya.
Rather, it's the internal inconsistencies in Mr. Russell's own story, and the inconsistencies between it and other pro-Kerry witnesses, that I'd suggest are far more relevant to the question of his, and their, credibility. So far, Mr. Russell's seems to be yet another mutually inconsistent accounting for events, even among the Kerry supporters — which frankly detracts somewhat from the credibility of all of them.
Update: A reader points out that both Mr. Rood's and Mr. Russell's accounts are in the Sunday versions of their respective newspapers' online editions. I don't know whether Mr. Rood's version, which was available over the internet by at least mid-day yesterday (Saturday), had appeared before Mr. Russell's letter to the editor was submitted or went to press. My speculation that one influenced the other was based on Mr. Russell's "I later learned" parenthetical, and may be entirely off-base.
Posted by Beldar
beldar.blogs.com |
