🚀 go-pugleaf

On 28 Aug 2005 07:47:56 -0700, "Doug Reese" <dreese@erols.com> wrote:

>
>Mike Smith wrote:
>> On 27 Aug 2005 15:26:52 -0700, "Doug Reese" <dreese@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Smith wrote:
>> >> On 23 Aug 2005 17:53:46 -0700, "Doug Reese" <dreese@erols.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >tom spillman wrote:
>> >> >> rms1@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >> >> >>JT, Jeffrey is forever going to believe his delusional impression of
>> >> >> >>the swift boat vets.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No, you see, it goes like this: Jeffrey, as a thinking person, is never
>> >> >> > going to believe YOUR delusional impression of the swiftboat vets, who
>> >> >> > lied about Kerry.  Thought you should know.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> I agree that they may have gone a bit overboard in their dislike for the
>> >> >> self-aggrandizing Kerry.  However, NO ONE can doubt that his testimony
>> >> >> before Congress was anything but treasonable.  I remember seeing it at
>> >> >> the time. As I understand it, few if any of the Swift Boat vets were on
>> >> >> his boat, but they always operated in close proximity of each other,
>> >> >> i.e., close enough to see what was going on in his boat.
>> >> >
>> >> >Pretty much correct Tom. When the Swifts went out, it was typically
>> >> >3-4-5 boats. For the incident where Kerry received the Bronze Star, for
>> >> >example, there were five Swift Boats.
>> >> >
>> >> >And out of the 30 Swiftees and two Special Forces guys there that day,
>> >> >there were just four who disputed Kerry's version of what happened. 35
>> >> >years later, 4 out of 32 said it happened differently from what Kerry
>> >> >said happened.
>> >> >
>> >> >Doug Reese
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> And what did the other 28 say? Is their silence deafening? Or did the
>> >> other 28 actually comment on his actions over the last several years?
>> >
>> >Some have commented -- Kerry's crew, of course, and Jim Rassmann, the
>> >guy Kerry pulled out of the river.
>> >
>> >Then there were several people on other boats who backed-up Kerry's
>> >story, including another officer.
>> >
>> >The private investigator tried to find other people who would dispute
>> >what Kerry said, but those four (Thurlow, Chenowith, Pease and Van
>> >O'Dell) were it.
>> >
>> >Many have chosen to stay silent.
>>
>> I believe those 4, based on Kerry's history. They seem normal; Kerry
>> seems extremely self-centered and snobbish, and he is a known/proven
>> liar.
>
>Then you are saying that the other, lets' say 10-11 guys are liars. Is
>that correct?

10-11? I thought it was your 4 against their 4....


>
>> >
>> >> {liberals are notorious for omitting facts that refute their rants}
>> >
>> >Actually, that award in this case goes to the Swift Boat Veterans for
>> >"truth". The facts that they have omitted in Unfit for Command are so
>> >numerous it would take another book to list them all.
>>
>> Such as? {yes, you should have at least posted one or two examples,
>> instead of what you did post}
>
>OK, you are such a fan that you don't have the book (I say this from
>your comment below, asking where they dispute his SS), which in itself
>is interesting. I have the book, and you don't. Hmmm . . . . 

I have their webpage and did not see any dispute about the Silver
Star.


>anyway, let me quote a passage:
>
>This is on page 82, should you ever get a copy of the book and read
>some of it, about 2/3 of the page . . . . .
>
>1. They say that "According to Doug Reese, a pro-Kerry Army veteran,
>and many others, what happened that day differs from the retelling in
>the citation."

So they were stating the obvious? How does that "dispute" the SS?

>
>What they omit is the fact that they are quoting from a citation
>written YEARS later. It has some wording that is found nowhere, in any
>other paperwork, which was apparently inserted by an awards clerk when
>he/she was re-doing the citation, and making it shorter.

Why did that happen? Was it an attempt to "clean up" the record? Save
paperwork? Eliminate a few random electrons?

Why would the citation be re-written?

>
>The citation they curiously ignore, written at the time of the
>incident, is accurate in every detail. As is the after-action report.
>Both of which agree with what EVERYONE THERE has said happened.

Including the 4 SBV's?
>
>2. Here's another deception on their part. Pretty tricky, too, the way
>they word it.
>
>After talking about what happened where I and the other advisors were,
>they say "None of the participants from Reese's boat received any
>Silver Stars. Indeed, most, if not all, of the non-PCF troops received
>no medals for this action. Doug Reese, who advised the South Vietnamese
>who were the first group ashore and who killed most of the Viet Cong
>received a well-deserved Army Commendation Medal -- a much lower medal
>than the Silver Star."

The sentence "Indeed, most, if not all, of the non-PCF troops received
no medals for this action." is poorly structured. Are you "sure" that
is the way it is worded?

Did anyone else, besides Kerry, receive a Silver Star?

>
>The deception is multi-layered, but I'll just mention part of it.
>
>When they say "non-PCF troops", just who are they talking about? The
>Vietnamese? Maybe, but who knows about their awards? So they must be
>talking about the three advisors, right? That's all I can think of. And
>guess what, ALL of the advisors received medals. Mine, in fact, was the
>lowest. The other two guys received Bronze Stars.

Did you ask any of themn what they meant by "non-PCF troops"?
Why not?
>
>Technically speaking, they didn't lie, as the Vietnamese fall in the
>category of "non-PCF troops".
>
>Oh, one more thing . . . . no mention is made of any PCF troops
>receiving, or not receiving, and awards -- other than to say none of
>those on my boat received any Silver Stars. However, what they manage
>to omit is that EVERY PCF GUY received an award for that incident --
>something like 19 guys, total.
>
>3. They manage to omit the fact that no one present that day, out of
>all thsoe people, disputes Kerry receiving the Silver Star. And that
>includes the one (and only) member of the Swift Boat Veterans for
>"truth". That guy didn't support Kerry for the presidency, but he does
>support him receiving the SS.

So what part of the SS story did the SBV's dispute? I ddiin't see you
post anything significant, like "Kerry did not deserve the SS"...

>
>4. Hmm, what else . . so many to choose from . . OK, how about this. I
>am NOT quoted in the book. Why is this? well, because if they quoted
>me, there would be one of those little numbers by my name. And with
>that number you could go to the back of the book and see the reference
>for that quote.
>
>They wanted to OMIT the source of my quotes, so they didn't quote me.
>They did twist what I said. They did OMIT some of what I said. Mainly,
>they wanted to use my name.
>
>But, if they did quote me, and you went to the back of the book to see
>where that quote came from, you'd read something like this: Doug Reese
>as told to Tom Rupprath, private investigator hired by SBV'T", in a
>June 2004 interview.

Is that what happened? Were you quoted from a June 2004 interview?

>
>> >
>> >Example -- for the Silver Star incident, none out of about 25-26
>> >present have disputed what Kerry said.
>> >
>> >Doug Reese
>>
>> OK, where did the Swift Boat Vets dispute his silver star?
>
>You have GOT to be kidding!
>
>> {This is what I mean about intentionally deceptive liberals}
>
>You seem like an intelligent person. So why do you keep tossing out
>that "intentionally deceptive liberals" bit? Especially when, in this
>case, the SBV"t" have devoted SEVEN PAGES IN THEIR BOOK to disputing
>Kerry's Silver Star.

But I thought you would have posted the pertinent parts that actually
dispute Kerry's SS. Are you going to post that part?

>
>(Either YOU are being intentionally deceptive, or, well, you haven't
>researched this subject very well.)
>
>And then there's the early August drudge report which was devoted to
>the book, and disputing the Silver Star. It is all over the internet.

What I remember is an intense dispute over the Bronze star and Kerry's
1st purple heart.

>
>And the there's God-knows-how-many talk shows John O'Neill was on,
>disputing the Silver Star and all-things-Kerry.
>
>> Here's a link for you to scan. It has their topics of discussion about
>> Kerry.:
>> http://horse.he.net/~swiftpow/index.php?topic=Latest
>
>Thanks. I took part in their discussion forum from May 2004 up until a
>few months ago. I am very much aware of what they talk about.
>
>Doug

Where, in their website, do they dispute Kerry's SS?

Mike Smith