Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts

On 23 Aug 2004 20:51:31 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 23 Aug 2004 14:13:26 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 20 Aug 2004 11:09:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:



I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.

Note 'what we are told', and 'whom we are told'.

Once again you've edited to put someone else's words into my mouth.

Please help me to avoid making the same mistake thrice by pointing
out the statements I misattributed to you.

The statement is the one directly under the attribution line, exactly
as I replied to your post. (And exactly as it still is shown above.) I
didn't ever say "I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on
the boat". In fact, I said exactly the opposite. I said I'd value the
opinions of his peers--other Swift boat officers; his
supervisors--others in his chain of command who were qualified to
observe and evaluate his service. And, I paralleled it to the issue of
who could comment on my performance as a single-seat fighter driver
since no one is "on the boat" with me? Or, who would better describe
my performance as an F-4 driver in combat--my WSO (who isn't a pilot)
or the leaders and wing-men I flew with?

Personally, I'm putting very little stock into the words of the "band
of brothers" who seem to be getting a lot of travel, perks and
"face-time" by being loyal to Senator Kerry.

That sounds remarkably close to slander.

How is it slander to claim that I put little stock into their words?
Or, is it slander to point out that they are traveling the country
with the candidate and not at their own expense? I've not come close
to slander in the slightest.

They don't seem to be
bothered by his subsequent slander of his "brothers" when he completed
his 4 months of duty.


As we have previously discussed, Kerry did not slander them though
arguably it is slander to claim that he did.

Lemme see now, if you quote "Viet vets" and your own experience in the
Senate testimony under oath that accuses the military in Vietnam of
atrocities, war crimes, violations of the Geneva Convention, etc.
knowing (or at least you should have known before becoming the
organization's front-man) that they are lying, often not combat vets
and often not vets at all are you not slandering me? (See Burkett's
"Stolen Valor" for evidence on the veracity and qualifications of the
Winter Soldier testimony. --Burkett's work has been thoroughly
peer-reviewed and examined for accuracy.)

If you go on "Meet the Press" and state that the command structure
from the top down to the field officer was complicit in ordering,
prescribing, tolerating war crimes are you not slandering me?

If you say that abiding by the ROE is a war crime are you not
slandering me? If you say that using a .50 cal against personnel is a
war crime (it isn't!) and I've used 20MM Vulcan against troops in the
open are you not slandering me? If you say that employing ordinance in
a free-fire zone is a war crime--knowing that free fire zones are
militarily controlled areas held by the enemy, are you not slandering
me? If you say that bombing campaigns are war crimes and I've
dutifully engaged in 250 combat missions are you not slandering me?

It isn't slander for me to apply what he clearly said in the Senate
and to Tim Russert on Meet the Press and call it lies.


Sorry I didn't pick up on this in my earlier reply but can you show
that there are 60 Swift Boat veterans who contend that Kerry is
'Unfit for Command' IIUC, the authors of the book claim only that
60 contributed to the book, not that they are all agreed on the
conclusion.

I understand your parsing here, and while it might be quite good in a
courtroom, it doesn't pass the (un)-common sense test of daily
discourse in usenet. Consider this, I'm going to write a book. I'm
planning to call it "Unfit for Command". I'm planning to entire a
political firefight challenging a major presidential candidate's
credentials. I ask you to contribute. What do you do if you don't
agree with the thesis of my book?

To directly address your question, I would make honest and truthful
statements to the authors. Why, what would you do?

But your hypothetical presumes over much. First, you assume 60
persons really did contribute, and really know that they contributed.
Perhaps you base that on faith in the authors. I don't know the
authors myself, and am not willing to make that presumption.

My point is that if I'm writing a book in which I'm seeking your
testimony about the actions of someone in combat with the intent to
disprove that individual's assertions about his own action, you won't
contribute your name to the effort if you don't agree with the book's
thesis. You're more intelligent than that.

Second you presume that the authors informed the persons they
interviewed of their intent befor even interviewing them. How could that be
unless the authors reached their conclusions befor doing their research?

This isn't academic research. It is historic recounting of the
experiences of the authors. It is collection of supporting information
to validate what they already know and to bolster their thesis. Don't
confuse it with science in which you postulate and then conduct
experiments to substantiate your hypothesis. You don't need to do a
"double-blind" on your own experiences.

Third, you assume that the authors informed those they interviewed
of that conclusion, or that they read the book. Otherwise, how would
they know what conclusion the authors had reached?

Few publishers will allow authors to quote individuals without
questioning the author regarding the accuracy and authorizations for
those quotes. The rigor does not reach the same level as reference
citations for scientific work, but the editor will be asking where you
got this stuff and you'll have to explain how you acquired the
statements. Been there, done that on two books now.

You may recall several weeks ago there was a fairly extensive document
with photos of Swifties at all levels of the chain of command who had
come forward in May of this year in a press conference in Washington
DC at the National Press Club.

No, I missed that. Can you direct me to a copy of that document?

At your service:
http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index...SwiftVetQuotes


Clearly there are a number of things going on here. One is the focus
of the Kerry campaign on the Vietnam service and not the Vietnam
resistance. That's a recognition of the fact that America IS at war
and we face a serious threat that requires sacrifice and leadership.

Yes and I agree that it is a tactical mistake. The campaign should
emphacise what they plan to do differently in the next four years,
not what was done thirty-odd years ago by either candidate.

At last, substance! So far, the candidate has indicated that he is
going to get the French and the Germans to come on board along with a
"coalition of the corrupt" forged from the cooperative and eager to
please third-world nations of the UN. Probably dangling another "food
for oil" program to insure that the administrators are properly
compensated for their cooperation. Unlikely!

Now that he has started down that path *I* personally would like
to see him continue and explain his actions after his return to the
US.

It is also a repudiation of the actions of the Senator after his brief
combat service.

No.

He doesn't appear to be running on his war resistance. That position
served him for an earlier election. Now he's running on his war
participation and running away from his record (much more substantial)
as a resister.

Apropos so long as the '60 contributors' to the book remain unamed.

Have you read the book?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 23 Aug 2004 20:51:31 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 23 Aug 2004 14:13:26 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 20 Aug 2004 11:09:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:



I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.

Note 'what we are told', and 'whom we are told'.

Once again you've edited to put someone else's words into my mouth.

Please help me to avoid making the same mistake thrice by pointing
out the statements I misattributed to you.

The statement is the one directly under the attribution line, exactly
as I replied to your post. (And exactly as it still is shown above.) I
didn't ever say "I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on
the boat".

As shown above, the statement is and was correctly attributed to myself.

The rest requires more time for a reply, manwhile thanks for the
reference to Burkett's book.

--

FF

Subject: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
From: Matt Osborn
Date: 8/24/2004 3:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 23 Aug 2004 20:51:31 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

As we have previously discussed, Kerry did not slander them though
arguably
it is slander to claim that he did.

I'm not sure where you previously discussed this, but when Kerry
claimed that I cut off heads, raped women, shot civilians, etc., I was
slandered.

You may wish to argue that Kerry didn't say that I committed war
crimes, but in his own words he said that war crimes were 'not
isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the
full awareness of officers at all levels of command.'



New pollsnow that even after the boat stuff Kerry holds a light edge over Bush.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

At last, substance! So far, the candidate has indicated that he is
going to get the French and the Germans to come on board along with a
"coalition of the corrupt" forged from the cooperative and eager to
please third-world nations of the UN. Probably dangling another "food
for oil" program to insure that the administrators are properly
compensated for their cooperation. Unlikely!

Unlikely that you are the first--or the last--to be taken in by one of
Chalabi's swindles.

LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:wpEWc.99865$Lj.83312@fed1read03...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:wNxWc.99388$Lj.5353@fed1read03...

Anyone think we should get rid of every last drop of this campaign
finance mumbo jumbo and just say "look, you can't have money from
foriegners, and you have to show where it all came from"?


Absolutely! Hell, I don't even care if a candidate takes money from
foreigners, as long as there's full disclosure.

Dunno... not sure I'd want North Korea, or China, or worse - France
trying to influence our elections... at least any more than usual.

(BTW, did you notice that Kim Jong is cheering for VietKerry?)



And Emporer (or is it king?) Moon is cheering for Bush.

Unless I missed something, Moon has not been declared to be an enemy by any
administration, including Clinton's.

In article NRRWc.102826$Lj.19277@fed1read03, "sanjian"
wrote:

LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:wpEWc.99865$Lj.83312@fed1read03...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:wNxWc.99388$Lj.5353@fed1read03...

Anyone think we should get rid of every last drop of this campaign
finance mumbo jumbo and just say "look, you can't have money from
foriegners, and you have to show where it all came from"?


Absolutely! Hell, I don't even care if a candidate takes money from
foreigners, as long as there's full disclosure.

Dunno... not sure I'd want North Korea, or China, or worse - France
trying to influence our elections... at least any more than usual.

(BTW, did you notice that Kim Jong is cheering for VietKerry?)



And Emporer (or is it king?) Moon is cheering for Bush.

Unless I missed something, Moon has not been declared to be an enemy by
any
administration, including Clinton's.



But the Kennedy Administration named Moon a target, and the actual
invasion was under Nixon.

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

But the Kennedy Administration named Moon a target, and the actual
invasion was under Nixon.


Tee hee hee.

All he needs to do is authorize the release of his attendance records for
those meetings and then we might get a bigger picture of his record.


All you need to know about his record there is contained in the story of his
BCCI investigation.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...09.sirota.html

Unless I missed something, Moon has not been declared to be an enemy by any
administration, including Clinton's.

It's only in the last few years that he started selling submarines to NK.

"Billy Preston" wrote in message news:kPTUc.7908$ni.869@okepread01...
"ArtKramr" wrote

Bush and Chaney are just attacking him to cover up their failure
to serve their country as he did.

He only served for 4 months. Not enough to measure a mans worth.

That's four month MORE in combat than Bush or Cheney.

Offhand, I think Bush and Cheney took the smarter approach and
Kerry was foolish and naive but learned what Sherman had said
about glory being moonshine and nonsense, what we would call
today, bull**** and lies.

I am quite confident that they are all three quite different
men today than they were then, in part because of their experiences
then. Kerry learned what it was like for those sent into combat
while Cheney and Bush learned what it was like for those who
were not.

Not that it matters. I hope that most people do not need to
experience combat themselves to understand the consequences of
war.

--

FF