Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry?

Mike wrote:

No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it...it just didn't make sense
to
him.


Really? And where do you get this conclusion from?

From an ABC radio interview. He was asked about the citation claiming enemy
fire and he stated he was surprised by that since there was no enemy fire.

In an interview with the Washington Post this week, Mr. Thurlow stated
he had received the award "for helping to rescue the boat that was
mined."

The issue isn't what the award was given for, but the circumstances involved.
Enemy fire is not required to receive a Bronze Star.

You and I have both served and am sure both have medals. Mine are
nothing to write home to mom about, but I do know that when I was
awarded them, I was verbally informed of why I was getting them

Me too, however I was not forewarned of the citation text.

The Republican Party made actions during the Vietnam war a related
presidential election issue from 1991-2000

Close, they made it an issue in 1992. When that failed, they *did not* make any
mention of Vietnam in '96. They did tout Dole's WWII record, but did not make
it the center piece of the campaign.

why is it now unrelated?

I guess the same question could also be put the DNC. 12 years ago Kerry himself
stated that Clinton's actions during the war were not relevent to the
Presidential election and he chastized the Republican party for opening old
wounds. What's changed since '92?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it...it just didn't make sense
to
him.


Really? And where do you get this conclusion from?

From an ABC radio interview. He was asked about the citation claiming enemy
fire and he stated he was surprised by that since there was no enemy fire.

And he said in an interview 2-3 days ago (I'm sorry, but I can't
remember the source) that he always thought he had received the Bronze
Star for saving the mined boat and that he did not know the citation (as
well as the post op reports) stated that he had done so under fire.

He's claiming the whole under fire thing for his citation is a current
surprise to him, that he disagrees with it, and that if the wording is
in fact true...he doesn't deserve that Bronze Star.


This seems in stark contrast to what he claims in your account of ABC
interview where he claims he knew the citation said he was under fire
and just "shrugged" it off.


One Mr. Thurlow is lying, as both accounts cannot simultaneously be true.


In an interview with the Washington Post this week, Mr. Thurlow stated
he had received the award "for helping to rescue the boat that was
mined."

The issue isn't what the award was given for, but the circumstances involved.
Enemy fire is not required to receive a Bronze Star.


Didn't say it was...but Mr. Thurlow's citation for his Bronze Star
states he was under fire (as do the post op reports). Being the senior
officer on scene, he must surely have been aware of that. And if he
wasn't then, he would have when his award citation was read.



You and I have both served and am sure both have medals. Mine are
nothing to write home to mom about, but I do know that when I was
awarded them, I was verbally informed of why I was getting them

Me too, however I was not forewarned of the citation text.


Neither was I, but it was still verbalized none the less. How is it Mr.
Thurlow missed the repeated instances of "under enemy fire" in his
citation?



why is it now unrelated?

I guess the same question could also be put the DNC. 12 years ago Kerry
himself
stated that Clinton's actions during the war were not relevent to the
Presidential election and he chastized the Republican party for opening old
wounds. What's changed since '92?


I'm not a Democrat, so I wouldn't know. I imagine it might have
something to do with the media making it an issue from the start.


--Mike

Michael Wise wrote:

And he said in an interview 2-3 days ago (I'm sorry, but I can't
remember the source) that he always thought he had received the Bronze
Star for saving the mined boat and that he did not know the citation (as
well as the post op reports) stated that he had done so under fire.


That was not the impression I got from the interview and I doubt your version
of it simply because it's ridiculous. You are trying to say that a man just
realized what the text of his citation read after 35 years. The only way this
is possibe is if he were awarded the Bronze Star after seperating and received
it in the mail and never read the citation.

He's claiming the whole under fire thing for his citation is a current
surprise to him

That's not the impression I got from the ABC interview and it seems absurd no?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:


And he said in an interview 2-3 days ago (I'm sorry, but I can't
remember the source) that he always thought he had received the Bronze
Star for saving the mined boat and that he did not know the citation (as
well as the post op reports) stated that he had done so under fire.


That was not the impression I got from the interview and I doubt your version
of it simply because it's ridiculous.


You are trying to say that a man just
realized what the text of his citation read after 35 years.

I just located the source I got the info from: Washington Post,
08.19.04, Michael Dobbs

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug18.html

Here are some relevant excerpts:

------------------------------------
...."It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case,"
Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze
Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for
coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on
anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."...
------------------------------------

Seems to me he's claiming he always believed his award was for coming to
the rescue of the mined boat and the fact that his citation states in
numerous instances that he was under fire.

How could he not know what his citation said? How is it he can say in
the ABC interview your heard (do you know if a written transcript
exists?) that he knew what his citation stated and simply shrugged it
off?


But it gets better...

------------------------------------
Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under
enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't
under fire," he said.
------------------------------------

This even further suggests he is claiming that we wasn't aware of what
his citation said...and now that he is aware (after having the text read
to him), he considers his own award to be fraudulent. Naturally, he
doesn't go on to say whether or not be will be petitioning to have his
"fraudulent" award revoked.



The only way this
is possibe is if he were awarded the Bronze Star after seperating and received
it in the mail and never read the citation.


Could be. The same article states that Mr. Thurlow claims to have lost
his award 20 years ago. A different article (also in the W. Post, I
believe) stated that he received his award via mail in Kansas after
returning home.

Fair enough, seems like an air-tight case of him not being aware of what
his Bronze Star was for. How to you reconcile that claim with his other
claim (which you yourself cite as evidence) that he knew what the award
was for all along and just "shrugged" it off?


He's claiming the whole under fire thing for his citation is a current
surprise to him

That's not the impression I got from the ABC interview and it seems absurd no?


It seems absurd until confronted with Mr. Thurlow's own words.



--Mike

Michael Wise wrote:

How could he not know what his citation said? How is it he can say in
the ABC interview your heard (do you know if a written transcript
exists?) that he knew what his citation stated and simply shrugged it
off?

I never claimed he stated he "shrugged it off", just that the impression I got
was that the citation containing enemy fire didn't seem like a surprise to him.

Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under
enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't
under fire," he said.

Sounds pretty definitive to me. Exactly what has this guy to gain by saying
this? Nothing.

This even further suggests he is claiming that we wasn't aware of what
his citation said...and now that he is aware (after having the text read
to him), he considers his own award to be fraudulent.

Sounds like that to me too.

Naturally, he
doesn't go on to say whether or not be will be petitioning to have his
"fraudulent" award revoked.

Lots of luck on that mission. A 35 year old Bronze Star doesn't jump to the top
of the list of a Board for the Correction of Military Records.

The only way this
is possibe is if he were awarded the Bronze Star after seperating and
received
it in the mail and never read the citation.


Could be. The same article states that Mr. Thurlow claims to have lost
his award 20 years ago. A different article (also in the W. Post, I
believe) stated that he received his award via mail in Kansas after
returning home.

So do you doubt this guy got his citation after seperating and just put it in a
trunk somewhere without reading it? Sounds very likely to me, especially since
he wound up losing it.

Fair enough, seems like an air-tight case of him not being aware of what
his Bronze Star was for. How to you reconcile that claim with his other
claim (which you yourself cite as evidence) that he knew what the award
was for all along and just "shrugged" it off?


I never claimed he made any statement about "shrugging it off", those were my
words. In the ABC interview he did not seem surprised that his award included
what he felt to be inaccurate information.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

How could he not know what his citation said? How is it he can say in
the ABC interview your heard (do you know if a written transcript
exists?) that he knew what his citation stated and simply shrugged it
off?

I never claimed he stated he "shrugged it off", just that the impression I
got
was that the citation containing enemy fire didn't seem like a surprise to
him.


Hmmmm, in the last few posts, you use the word impression...but just
yesterday, in the post this sub-thread was in response to, you wrote:

-----------------------------------------------
"No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it.....it just didn't make
sense to him."
-----------------------------------------------


I don't see any mention there of that being merely your impression.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...60758fd6.04082
20846.159fedbc%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fsafe%3Dimages%2
6ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_ugroup%3Drec.aviation.military%26as_usubjec t%3DSwif
t%2520Boat%2520Veterans%2520For%2520Truth%26lr%3D% 26hl%3Den



Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under
enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't
under fire," he said.

Sounds pretty definitive to me. Exactly what has this guy to gain by saying
this? Nothing.

I wouldn't call attempting to influence the outcome of a presidential
election as "nothing."


This even further suggests he is claiming that we wasn't aware of what
his citation said...and now that he is aware (after having the text read
to him), he considers his own award to be fraudulent.

Sounds like that to me too.

Naturally, he
doesn't go on to say whether or not be will be petitioning to have his
"fraudulent" award revoked.

Lots of luck on that mission. A 35 year old Bronze Star doesn't jump to the
top
of the list of a Board for the Correction of Military Records.


Never the less, do you suppose we can expect the Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth also lobby to have Thurlow's medal revoked? After all, they just
want the "truth"...right?


The only way this
is possibe is if he were awarded the Bronze Star after seperating and
received
it in the mail and never read the citation.


Could be. The same article states that Mr. Thurlow claims to have lost
his award 20 years ago. A different article (also in the W. Post, I
believe) stated that he received his award via mail in Kansas after
returning home.

So do you doubt this guy got his citation after seperating and just put it in
a
trunk somewhere without reading it? Sounds very likely to me, especially
since
he wound up losing it.


No I don't doubt it, but it doesn't reconcile with your previous
contention of:

"No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it.....it just didn't make
sense to him."




--Mike

Michael Wise wrote:

Hmmmm, in the last few posts, you use the word impression...but just
yesterday, in the post this sub-thread was in response to, you wrote:

-----------------------------------------------
"No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it.....it just didn't make
sense to him."

I should have been more clear, however I never did claim he said anything
specifically. I was giving my impression of the interview.

Never the less, do you suppose we can expect the Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth also lobby to have Thurlow's medal revoked? After all, they just
want the "truth"...right?

The consequences of an "unearned" Bronze Star awarded 30+ years ago is hardly
as relevent (to the Swift Vets) as their percieved concerns about Kerry.
Personally I don't care about either issue and wish they would go away. The
problem is, Kerry won't let them go away.

"No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it.....it just didn't make
sense to him."

Again, my impression, not his words.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"