BS: Bush-Kerry: Beyond the Personal Attacks

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Kerry: Beyond the Personal Attacks
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 04:16 PM

This is the text of the entire article published by the Chicago Tribune today. The author is the third swift boat commander present on the day in question regarding Kerry's actions and his subsequent decorations for those actions. The article's author has remained silent about this day for 35 years, and has come forward with his account, partly at the behest of John Kerry himself, but, according to the author, mostly out of anger at the lies being told by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, that he feels dishonors ALL the American soldiers involved on all three swift boats that day.

Here is the article:
FEB. 28, 1969: ON THE DONG CUNG RIVER
'This is what I saw that day'

By William B. Rood
Chicago Tribune
Published August 22, 2004

There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago--three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.

For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the focus of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of swift boat veterans and others contending that Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for other actions.

Many of us wanted to put it all behind us--the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service--even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work.

But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.

Even though Kerry's own crew members have backed him, the attacks have continued, and in recent days Kerry has called me and others who were with him in those days, asking that we go public with our accounts.

I can't pretend those calls had no effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this. What matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk publicly about it.

I was part of the operation that led to Kerry's Silver Star. I have no firsthand knowledge of the events that resulted in his winning the Purple Hearts or the Bronze Star.

But on Feb. 28, 1969, I was officer in charge of PCF-23, one of three swift boats--including Kerry's PCF-94 and Lt. j.g. Donald Droz's PCF-43--that carried Vietnamese regional and Popular Force troops and a Navy demolition team up the Dong Cung, a narrow tributary of the Bay Hap River, to conduct a sweep in the area.

The approach of the noisy 50-foot aluminum boats, each driven by two huge 12-cylinder diesels and loaded down with six crew members, troops and gear, was no secret.

Ambushes were a virtual certainty, and that day was no exception.

Instructions from Kerry

The difference was that Kerry, who had tactical command of that particular operation, had talked to Droz and me beforehand about not responding the way the boats usually did to an ambush.

We agreed that if we were not crippled by the initial volley and had a clear fix on the location of the ambush, we would turn directly into it, focusing the boats' twin .50-caliber machine guns on the attackers and beaching the boats. We told our crews about the plan.

The Viet Cong in the area had come to expect that the heavily loaded boats would lumber on past an ambush, firing at the entrenched attackers, beaching upstream and putting troops ashore to sweep back down on the ambush site. Often, they were long gone by the time the troops got there.

The first time we took fire--the usual rockets and automatic weapons--Kerry ordered a "turn 90" and the three boats roared in on the ambush. It worked. We routed the ambush, killing three of the attackers. The troops, led by an Army adviser, jumped off the boats and began a sweep, which killed another half dozen VC, wounded or captured others and found weapons, blast masks and other supplies used to stage ambushes.

Meanwhile, Kerry ordered our boat to head upstream with his, leaving Droz's boat at the first site.

It happened again, another ambush. And again, Kerry ordered the turn maneuver, and again it worked. As we headed for the riverbank, I remember seeing a loaded B-40 launcher pointed at the boats. It wasn't fired as two men jumped up from their spider holes.

We called Droz's boat up to assist us, and Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a hooch--a thatched hut--maybe 15 yards inland from the ambush site. Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ.

With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire nearby.

Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation.

John O'Neill, author of a highly critical account of Kerry's Vietnam service, describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore.

The man Kerry chased was not the "lone" attacker at that site, as O'Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well. It was not the work of just one attacker.

Our initial reports of the day's action caused an immediate response from our task force headquarters in Cam Ranh Bay.

Congratulatory message

Known over radio circuits by the call sign "Latch," then-Capt. and now retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the task force commander, fired off a message congratulating the three swift boats, saying at one point that the tactic of charging the ambushes was a "shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be the most efficacious method of dealing with small numbers of ambushers."

Hoffmann has become a leading critic of Kerry's and now says that what the boats did on that day demonstrated Kerry's inclination to be impulsive to a fault.

Our decision to use that tactic under the right circumstances was not impulsive but was the result of discussions well beforehand and a mutual agreement of all three boat officers.

It was also well within the aggressive tradition that was embraced by the late Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, then commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam. Months before that day in February, a fellow boat officer, Michael Bernique, was summoned to Saigon to explain to top Navy commanders why he had made an unauthorized run up the Giang Thanh River, which runs along the Vietnam-Cambodia border. Bernique, who speaks French fluently, had been told by a source in Ha Tien at the mouth of the river that a VC tax collector was operating upstream.

Ignoring the prohibition against it, Bernique and his crew went upstream and routed the VC, pursuing and killing several.

Instead of facing disciplinary action as he had expected, Bernique was given the Silver Star, and Zumwalt ordered other swifts, which had largely patrolled coastal waters, into the rivers.

The decision sent a clear message, underscored repeatedly by Hoffmann's congratulatory messages, that aggressive patrolling was expected and that well-timed, if unconventional, tactics like Bernique's were encouraged.

What we did on Feb. 28, 1969, was well in line with the tone set by our top commanders.

Zumwalt made that clear when he flew down to our base at An Thoi off the southern tip of Vietnam to pin the Silver Star on Kerry and assorted Bronze Stars and commendation medals on the rest of us.

Error in citation

My Bronze Star citation, signed by Zumwalt, praised the charge tactic we used that day, saying the VC were "caught completely off guard."

There's at least one mistake in that citation. It incorrectly identifies the river where the main action occurred, a reminder that such documents were often done in haste and sometimes authored for their signers by staffers. It's a cautionary note for those trying to piece it all together. There's no final authority on something that happened so long ago--not the documents and not even the strained recollections of those of us who were there.

But I know that what some people are saying now is wrong. While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they're saying impugns others who are not in the public eye.

Men like Larry Lee, who was on our bow with an M-60 machine gun as we charged the riverbank, Kenneth Martin, who was in the .50-caliber gun tub atop our boat, and Benjamin Cueva, our engineman, who was at our aft gun mount suppressing the fire from the opposite bank.

Wayne Langhoffer and the other crewmen on Droz's boat went through even worse on April 12, 1969, when they saw Droz killed in a brutal ambush that left PCF-43 an abandoned pile of wreckage on the banks of the Duong Keo River. That was just a few months after the birth of his only child, Tracy.

The survivors of all these events are scattered across the country now.

Jerry Leeds lives in a tiny Kansas town where he built and sold a successful printing business. He owns a beautiful home with a lawn that sweeps to the edge of a small lake, which he also owns. Every year, flights of purple martins return to the stately birdhouses on the tall poles in his back yard.

Cueva, recently retired, has raised three daughters and is beloved by his neighbors for all the years he spent keeping their cars running. Lee is a senior computer programmer in Kentucky, and Lamberson finished a second military career in the Army.

With the debate over that long-ago day in February, they're all living that war another time.
Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Kerry: Beyond the Personal Attacks
From: mg
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 04:25 PM

I believe them. I believe all of them. I realize that a lot of you can for some reason sort it out a lot better than I can but I am not going to try to sort it out at all. Got it? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Kerry: Beyond the Personal Attacks
From: pdq
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 04:27 PM

Endless articles about Viet Nam, swift boats and medals are a waste of bandwidth here at Mudcat. The U.S. voters are going to vote issues, despite claims to the contrary.

Republicans who oppose the war and Democrats who support it will determine the election on Nov 2.

Lonesome EJ - thanks for the effort, but your issues-based discussion lasted only about 7 posts, then Mudcat reverted to business as usual.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Kerry: Beyond the Personal Attacks
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 05:18 PM

"I realize that a lot of you can for some reason sort it out a lot better than I can but I am not going to try to sort it out at all. Got it? mg"

Well, that pretty much explains how the crooks and liars keep hold of the government, doesn't it? With citizens like Mary Garvey we don't need terrorists, now do we? Rather than do the hard work of fulfilling their citizenship duties of participating in the democratic institutions of our nation and society by informing themselves of the facts before casting an informed vote, the Mary Garveys of this world would rather "believe them all" (presumably this means all the military characters in the Bush/Cheney Republican Right passion play. Any Mudcatters who have been around for long knows how much Mary worships the military, rather than informing herself of what the hell is actually going on in the world.

No wonder our country is the mess it is today. It is the Mary Garveys who are messing it up by worshipping the military instead of doing what the constitution requires they do as citizens of the US.

Well Mary, your willful, stubborn decision to refuse to accept the facts, says it all. You aren't going to participate in this democracy you claim to love, because you are "too confused" by the facts.

Pardon my French, but what a load of it. You are conveniently too confused in order to continue believing the liars.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Kerry: Beyond the Personal Attacks
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 06:23 PM

"I believe all of them." Do you mean you believe what they say? Which would mean that when some former soldier says Kerry is a liar, you believe him? And that a bthe same time, if Kerry says that's a lie, you believe him too?

Or do you mean that, regardless of what they say, you believe that they believe they are telling the truth?

Or is it that it's no business of anybody to question the truth of anything someone who has been in uniform says? But when they start accusing each other of lying? In paid advertisements?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Kerry: Beyond the Personal Attacks
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 06:35 PM

She means that, like the True Believers leader George W. Bush, she operates on faith and belief, usually to the exclusion of the facts. They aren't the least bit curious about the facts, and the Republican True Believers, beginning with Bush, knows what they believe, and that is the end of the subject. Case closed, as Mary Garvey so succinctly said herself in her last post.

These are not people who engage in critical thinking of any sort, nor do they welcome rigorous examinations of the Bush doctrine, the Bush record, the Bush policy decisions, etc. These are people who believe, as do the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, that they can only pledge their loyalty to Commander in Chief Bush. At the heart of the attack against Kerry, is the insinuation that if Kerry were to be elected, loyal Americans should NOT view him as the ultimate legitimate executive of the nation and it's commander in chief.

Which is to say, they are so lost and deluded, they truly believe that a mutiny against a democratically elected Democratic president, would be better than accepting the will of the electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Kerry: Beyond the Personal Attacks
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 09:15 PM

That's not really fair GUEST-whoever-you-are - Mary specifically said that the people she believed in this context include John Kerry, which a true-believing Bushworshipper wouldn't do. And it seems clear enough from her other posts that she doesn't fall into that category.

And why is it that just because somebody says something they disagree with, or that seems self-contradictory, this is a reason to start throwing around insults? Why copy the kind of political garbage throwing contest that degrades public life?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Kerry: Beyond the Personal Attacks
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 10:33 PM

McGrath, it seems to me that in her last post, Mary studiously avoided naming who she actually believes. When she comes out and says she now believes Kerry and the veterans supporting him, then I'll believe it.

And I don't buy that it is unfair to call attention to her tactics. Why wouldn't we call Mudcat posters engaging in the same pathetic tactics as the Bush surrogates on the Republican right, when the Mudcat poster is engaging in the very same tactics here?

That's a double standard I'm not going to comply with, just for the sake of being polite, thank you very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Kerry: Beyond the Personal Attacks
From: mg
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 11:27 PM

I believe Kerry and the veterans supporting him. I support him. I also believe the others. Comprende? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Kerry: Beyond the Personal Attacks
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 11:32 PM

No, because claiming to believe everyone when it is clear that someone is lying, is a weasely cop out, and a willful refusal to address the issue.

You also aren't saying what has caused you to change your mind in the last 24 hours, from believing what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were saying, to believing what Kerry and his supporters were saying.

What changed Mary?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Kerry: Beyond the Personal Attacks
From: Peace
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 12:26 AM

Nothing changed Mary. Still the same gal she always was. Now, if you mean, "What changed, Mary," that's different.

However, I have a question for you, GUEST.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Kerry: Beyond the Personal Attacks
From: mg
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 12:44 AM

Nothing changed on my end. That is what I always said. My mind pretty much doesn't change. But thanks for trying abusive guest. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Kerry: Beyond the Personal Attacks
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 09:11 AM

Mary pretty clearly said earlier that she believed all of them, and it was clear she included Kerry in that.

I take it that means that she thinks they all believe what they say, and that she is not making any judgements at all about the actual facts of what happened out there.

That seems to me a fair enough position to take generally about these kinds of things. Memory is pretty unreliable in stressful conditions.

But a politically motivated advertising campaign accusing Kerry of lying maybe changes things a bit - it's not as if he'd been going around picking out former comrades and accusing them of lying in this way.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Kerry: Beyond the Personal Attacks
From: van lingle
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 10:10 AM

Hey Bobert, Responding to your post of 8/22 @ 8:59 a.m. I've got to say that I'd rather see a more progressive canidate than Kerry out there like Kucinich or Nader but Kerry is what we got and the prospect of another 4 years of Bush/Cheney is, well, as Kerry points out "America Can do Better". Kerry has trumpeted his proposed rollback of the tax cuts for the top bracket to pay for social programs so strongly that it's become the centerpiece of his campaign and if he's elected he'll have what amounts to a mandate in that area. Hence, he shouldn't have any problem readjusting tax rates, IMO (of course, wether or not he gets the kind of social spending he wants is another matter).

GUEST Frank, Re your post of 8/22 @1:39 p.m. Very well said.
vl

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Kerry: Beyond the Personal Attacks
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 12:04 PM

brucie asked
"does anyone know the US debt before Bush took over and what that debt sits at now? Just wondering."

Someone else posted that it stands at 7 trillion dollars. I am not certain if that is true, but I do know that, at the end of Clinton's term, there was a budget surplus. Maybe someone else knows the exact figure of the surplus.

Cheney has been quoted as saying "budget deficits don't matter", and I believe that this philosophy is at the heart of what is currently happening. It is certainly not government's purpose to "make a profit", and the Clinton Surplus might be looked upon in that way... a profit to Big Government based on excessive tax rates. I happen to believe that a government and a business are basically the same. Both maintain a level of independence in proportion to their debt load. A business which is profitable can carry a debt load and still pursue its objectives independent of interference from its creditors. A business running a deficit (more cash going out than coming in) and who also carries a huge debt load, is going to fall more and more under the influence of those who are financing it. A strong company with a small debt load can afford perks and benefits for its people like health insurance, profit sharing etc. A deficit company cuts these benefits.

Consider the US under Bush : Definitely fits the model of a massive company with a huge debt and negative cash flow. What international creditors are we now beholden to? Are tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and corporations logical when we are fighting a war that costs billions daily? And does it make sense to use dollars, paid by the nation's workers every day in the form of Social Security withholding, to keep the government operating?

And if Social Security is bled dry and allowed to collapse, how does that differ from a tax directed at the people in this country who can least afford to pay it... the people who are depending on Social Security to allow them to at least feed and house themselves in their old age?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Kerry: Beyond the Personal Attacks
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 08:19 PM

Look---Issues are the thing.

This entire business of Swift Boats is past history and merely something to obfuscate the issues.   The man was there, the man got a medal, the man disagreed (later) with the war, and proved his worth which GWB did not. He merelyproved influence works. He being GWB---and I do not mean Geo Wahington Bridge.   The man referred to above is, of course, Kerry and not the flight suit renter.   

The point is to focus on issues and not tragic past history that was at least covered in an honest way by Kerry.

The American public votes---thankfully that is still so. Let us keep it that way. Kerry may not be the most dynamic of candidates---things have changed over the years. He is, however, a viable alternative to one who has brought us into chaos with the cry of patriotism. One who never did get the popular vote and (see today's NY Times) had his dear brother help out in the shenanigans---which continue to this day---eliminating Black voters by scare tactics by the State Police.   


Sure--we live in an age of Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee politics, (except for France)where Adolf rears his ugly moustached head.   Though I do say that Chirac is trying to nip this in the bud. Do you think that Ashcroft will grow that little bristle---I doubt it---Goebells never did. Just Adolf.


Bill Hahn

Subject: US Gross National Debt as an Issue
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 09:23 PM

The Gross National Debt was around a quarter of a billion dollars in 1940 and has grown constantlyu ever since. This is not the same as the annual deficity/surplus which is a one year quick snapshot only.

Here are the figures for the Gross National Debt from the Dept of the US Treasury:

  2005  (Estimate)          $6,118,364  million
  
  2004  (Estimate)          $6,033,583  million
  
  2003  (Estimate)          $5,946,792  million
  
  2002  (Estimate)          $5,854,990  million
  
  2001  (Estimate)          $5,768,957  million
  
  2000  (Estimate)          $5,686,338  million
  
  1999          $5,606,087  million
  
  1998          $5,478,711  million
  
  1997          $5,369,694  million
  
  1996          $5,181,921  million
  
  1995          $4,921,005  million
  
  1994          $4,643,691  million
  
  1993          $4,351,403  million
  
  1992          $4,002,123  million
  
  1991          $3,598,485  million
  
  1990          $3,206,564  million
  
  1989          $2,868,039  million
  
  1988          $2,601,307  million
  
  1987          $2,346,125  million
  
  1986          $2,120,629  million
  
  1985          $1,817,521  million
  
  1984          $1,564,657  million
  
  1983          $1,371,710  million
  
  1982          $1,137,345  million
  
  1981          $ 994,845  million
  
  1980          $ 909,050  million
  
  1979          $ 829,470  million
  
  1978          $ 776,602  million
  
  1977          $ 706,398  million
  
  Transition  Quarter
  $ 643,561  million
  
  1976          $ 628,970  million
  
  1975          $ 541,925  million
  
  1974          $ 483,893  million
  
  1973          $ 466,291  million
  
  1972          $ 435,936  million
  
  1971          $ 408,176  million
  
  1970          $ 380,921  million
  
  1969          $ 365,769  million
  
  1968          $ 368,685  million
  
  1967          $ 340,445  million
  
  1966          $ 328,498  million
  
  1965          $ 322,318  million
  
  1964          $ 316,059  million
  
  1963          $ 310,324  million
  
  1962          $ 302,928  million
  
  1961          $ 292,648  million
  
  1960          $ 290,525  million
  
  ...
  
  1952          $ 259,097  million
  
  1951          $ 255,288  million
  
  1950          $ 256,853  million
  
  1949          $ 252,610  million
  
  1948          $ 252,031  million
  
  1947          $ 257,149  million
  
  1946          $ 270,991  million
  
  1945          $ 260,123  million

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Kerry: Beyond the Personal Attacks
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 09:34 PM

"Washington - This year's federal deficit will soar to a record $445 billion, the White House projected Friday in a report provoking immediate election-season tussling over how well President Bush has handled the economy.

    The administration's annual summertime budget update forecast shortfalls falling to $331 billion next year, then fading to $229 billion by 2009. For each year, the red ink was smaller than the White House envisioned six months ago.

    The analysis was released the same day the Commerce Department said economic growth slowed this spring to an annual rate of 3 percent, well below the 3.8 percent spurt that many economists expected. The slowdown was caused by a spending cutback by consumers in the face of high gasoline costs, the department said.

    Administration officials hailed the budget figures as a solid improvement over the deficits analysts forecast early this year, and said they were on their way to their goal of halving this year's shortfall in five years. The White House estimated a $521 billion budget gap for 2004 in February, while the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted a $477 billion deficit."

From Truthout.org

---

Budget deficit

A Budget deficit occurs when an entity, usually a government spends more money than it takes in. The opposite is a budget surplus. Budget deficits are important political issues. From 1970 to 1997, the United States Government ran significant deficits. By 1998, budget surpluses became common, lasting through 2001. An issue about counting so-called "off-budget" items such as Social Security, which are presently running a large surplus, complicates discussion of budget deficits.

Starve-the-beast strategies usually lead to high budget deficits.

from The Budget Deficit Encyclopedia

Subject: RE: BS: Bush-Kerry: Beyond the Personal Attacks
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 10:09 PM

Van Lingle,

I mean no disrespect but has it ever crossed your mind that it's not time for John Kerry to be president?

Think about it. A Republican controlled Congress. a lot of problems that are so buggered up that they cannot be fixed easily. An electorate that doesn't have a clue but sho nuff wants to vote for a "winner". Failed policies everywhere you look...

Maybe what America needs is another 4 years of Bush. Seems like the Democratic Party sho nuff does. Even after Howard Dean, it still doesn't get it!

Hey, this don't mean I like Bush the weisel, and sure he can do a lot more damage with another 4 years but, hey, maybe another four years will break the "Southern Stategy" (which now includes the midwest) forever.

So, if ya' can, vote for something!

Nadar in '04.

Maybe a Dem in '08...

Bobert