Kerry convicts himself out of his own mouth. What a
tangled web we weave...........
Donald Sensing blog -
An exegesis of Kerry's Navy documents
A hard look at both sides' claims and Navy records yields tough questions for both
John Kerry's senior campaign manager Ted Devine said today on FoxNews that Kerry and his boat came under fire three separate times on Christmas Eve 1968, the third time after nightfall. "And that's three more times that one day than Bush or Cheney came under fire at all," Devine added. He also said that Kerry's boat was "somewhere" around the border with Cambodia that day, having started out 40 miles away (presumably at Sa Dec, where Kerry's own journal places him all day that day and which is actually more than 50 miles from Cambodia).
If you go to Kerry's campaign website you will find a set of after-action report (AAR) summaries written by Kerry. The page says all the actions took place "near the south end of the Mekong Delta in Vietnam," meaning far away from Cambodia. Yet this is the time frame Kerry's apologists claim that he was conducting missions into Cambodia.
Why does his own campaign site not include AARs for the
Cambodia missions that are alleged to have taken place?
For that matter, where is the AAR for Kerry's action near
Cambodia on Dec. 24/25, 1968? After all, according to
Devine, Kerry's boat came under fire three different
times. No report? Why not?
Everyone who has been even idly following the charges made by Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth about Kerry is aware of the action on 13 March 1969 involving Army 1st Lt. Jim Rassman, whom Kerry pulled from the Bay Hap river. Rassman and Kerry - and Navy documents - say that this deed was done under fire. SBVT says there was no fire, there was only a mine that put another boat dead in the water.
In any event, Kerry was awarded the Bronze Star Medal and the Purple Heart for this day. According to para. 7 of the official personnel casualty report, posted on Kerry's campaign website, Kerry suffered a "shrapnel wound left buttock and contusion rt. forearm (minor)." A contusion, btw, is a bruise. Page 8 of the report states Kerry was, "treated by medical officer aboard USCGC [US Coast Guard Cutter] Spencer (WHEC-36) and returned to duty." (This report begins on p. 7 of the posted PDF document, with Kerry's information on p. 8; there is more than one report in the whole PDF document.)
Now it gets interesting. The official citation for Kerry's Bronze Star awarded for that day, also found on his campaign web site, states,
<<<
Shortly after LTJG KERRY was informed that he had a man overboard [Rassman], he immediately turned his boat around to assist the man in the water, who by this time was receiving sniper fire from the river banks. LTJG KERRY, from his exposed position on the bow of the boat, managed to pull LT RASSMAN aboard despite the painful wound in his right arm.
>>>
If the AAR is to be believed, the arm bruise was "minor." I have been terribly bruised twice. I was hit by a truck that ran a yield sign while I was riding my motorcycle, turning my body jet black over my entire left and right sides (impacted the truck and the road, respectively). The other was when my car lost traction on a chemical-spilled road and struck a tree at my door (had broken bones and lacerations on that one, too).
In my experience, bruises are themselves not very painful nor restrictive of mobility unless they are very severe. A minor bruise results from damages only to the capillaries of the skin. It takes a very hard blow to damage the muscle tissues to the point of persistent pain in movement and restriction of mobility.
Certainly any shrapnel wound in the buttocks would be hugely more painful than the worst bruise that could possibly be called minor.
So there is a real discrepancy between the description of Kerry's wounds in the casualty report and in the BSM recommendation, which makes no mention of the shrapnel wound at all.
The BSM recommendation is signed by Lt. Cmdr. George Elliott, Kerry's commander at the time of the action.
The casualty report is not "signed" because it was sent as a standardized report (as casualty reports always are), but the "from" line reads NSA DET AN THOI, meaning Naval Support Activity at An Thoi, South Vietnam. This was the US base from which Kerry's unit operated. This kind of report would routinely have been prepared by clerical personnel and reviewed either by a senior rating or an officer.
Why there is a significant discrepancy between the BSM paperwork and the casualty report I don't know and really can't even realistically imagine.
But it gets even more interesting. SBVT has insisted that on 13 March 1969, the "Rassman rescue day" as it were, that there was no enemy fire from either river bank, that only one mine exploded, and that under PCF-3 (Kerry's boat was PCF-94) and that no damage was sustained to any boat except PCF-3. These allegations are so well documented across the internet by now that I don't think I have to link to citations.
Kerry and Rassman (and I presume some others) equally insist that there was heavy small-arms fire and that another mine exploded "close aboard" Kerry's boat, according to the BSM recommendation.
However, we find that on 14 March, the day after, COMCOSDIV ONE ONE (abbreviation for "Commander Coastal Division 11," Kerry's unit commander) sent to higher headquarters a status report on Kerry's boat, PCF-94. It reports (abbreviations written out here for clarity),
Two starboard and one port main windows blown out. VRC-46 radio and all remote units pilot house inoperative. AC wiring shorted out, onan [?] generator inop. Steerage control after helm inop. Starboard bilge pump broken. Screws curled and chipped, radar gear box frozen, main engines experienced RPM drop.
The report specifically attributes this condition to battle damage and states that the boat is "not capable of executing Market Time patrol," which I presume was an upcoming operation.
So questions:
1. For SBVT:
a. If only one mine detonated, and that under PCF-3, how does SBVT explain Lt. Cmdr. Elliott's report that Kerry's boat sustained this kind of battle damage? As I have said before, the burden of proof rests on SBVT here, and in my mind they have not met it. (Update: I see in this interview that SBVT spokesman John O'Neill says that Kerry's authorized biography, Tour of Duty, states on p. 304 that the damage was sustained the day before Rassman's rescue.)
b. Kerry's BSM recommendation, signed by Elliott, states that after pulling Lt. Rassman from the water, Kerry ordered his boat to the disabled PCF-3, had his crew attach a line, and "towed the boat clear of danger." Yet SBVT insists that Kerry sped away from the scene when PCF-3 was damaged, returning only to fish out Rassman, and did not assist PCF-3. Was Elliott telling the truth in the BSM recommendation? What boat towed PCF-3 from the scene if not Kerry's?
2. For Kerry:
a. Did Lt. Cmdr. Elliott personally inspect the battle damage of your boat, or did you submit a report that he accepted and sent on?
b. With the kind of damage the report says your boat sustained - wiring shorted out, broken communications, steering control inoperative, curled screws, lost-power engines - how were you able to tow PCF-3 anywhere, much less under the "heavy fire" your site says was being directed at you?
c. Other than your boat and PCF-3, was battle damage suffered by any other PCF boat at the scene? If so, will you post the battle-damage reports for it/them? If not, can you reconcile your claim that enemy fire was heavy from both banks with the fact that in a 90-minute action on the narrow river, not one enemy bullet or RPG found its target?
d. Dick Cheney has been shot at an equal number of times as John Edwards. If you insist that combat experience is so vital for a successful presidency, why did you select Edwards as the man to be one heartbeat away from the office? Why not another war vet?
e. And again, where are the after-action reports for your three occasions under fire on Dec. 24, 1968, and for the covert missions you made into Cambodia delivering CIA, SF and SEAL missions?
Update: Additional question for Kerry:
f. On what date did your boat sustain the damage listed as I have described above? If on the day you rescued Rassman, how do you account for the report's utter absence of damage from small-arms fire when you say the fire was "heavy"?
g. Why does Jim Rassman say he was aboard your boat before he went into the water, which agrees with your BSM recommendation, but you say that he was in the boat behind yours?
donaldsensing.com. |
