I don’t really think Kerry cares about anybody but himself. Just look at the way he marries women for their money. Kerry decided to be against the war, because he wanted to ride the bodybags of dead American soldiers into political office. Now hew’s trying to do the same with the bodybags of dead American soldiers, killed in Iraq.

Posted by: Ricky Vandal at April 23, 2004 10:31 AM

Discrepancies noted in Kerry’s record
Ex-skipper says website wrong

WASHINGTON — Vietnam combat records posted on John F. Kerry’s campaign website for the month of January 1969 as evidence of his service aboard swift boat No. 94 describe action that occurred before Kerry was skipper of that craft, according to the officer who said he commanded the boat at the time.
On the site, the Massachusetts senator is described as the skipper of Navy boat No. 94 during several actions in late January 1969.
However, Edward Peck, who was the skipper of the 94 before Kerry took over, said combat reports posted by the campaign for January 1969 involve action when he was the skipper, not Kerry. Peck, who was seriously wounded in fighting that took place on Jan. 29, 1969, said he believes Kerry campaign aides lied in claiming Kerry as skipper of the 94 at that time.
On the Kerry website, the report of the combat on that day on the 94 boat is posted as occurring during Kerry’s time as skipper of the boat. Peck said Kerry replaced him after the Jan. 29, 1969, event.

“Those are definitely mine,” Peck said, referring to the combat reports that the Kerry campaign posted as representing Kerry’s action. “There is no doubt about it.”

A Kerry campaign spokesman, Michael Meehan, said in an e-mail that the campaign had obtained the combat reports for the 94 from the Navy. He did not directly address the question of why the campaign describes Kerry being skipper of the 94 at a time when Peck says he commanded the boat.

The reports at issue are in a 20-page batch representing Kerry’s combat in January 1969. The reports include references to some dramatic action, including an ambush of Patrol Craft Fast, or PCF, 94. In addition to posting the information online, the campaign sent out an e-mail yesterday afternoon repeating the claim that Kerry was the skipper of the 94 boat throughout January and describing action the campaign said Kerry experienced while commanding the craft.

Thats the problem with being a compulsive liar. You can’t remember them all. Sooner or later, they come back to haunt you.

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 23, 2004 12:21 PM

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/04/23/discrepancies_noted_in_kerrys_record/

Of course, this means on of kerry’s claims for a purple heart is a lie as well. Oh what tangled webs we weave….

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 23, 2004 12:23 PM

For example, in a summary of action that occurred Jan. 26, 1969, the campaign says Kerry served on boat No. 94 alongside another boat, No. 66. “PCFs 94 and 66 escorted troops up the Ong Doc River early in the morning when they were ambushed by gun and rocket fire from approximately 40 men on both sides of the river,” the campaign summary says. “Two B-40 rounds hit close to Kerry’s boat, while PCF 66 received 2 B-40 rocket hits. Three men on PCF66 were wounded. A junk containing South Vietnamese troops was also sunk, killing 11 South Vietnamese troops. Intelligence reports after the mission indicated that the Viet Cong troops may have planned the ambush in advance.”

Peck said he was the skipper of the 94 at this time and that Kerry was not on the craft. While combat reports show several boats traveling with the 94, the campaign website says only that Kerry was the skipper of the 94 and does not try to place him on the other boats.

In another report, the campaign summarizes action that took place on Jan. 29, 1969, this way: “While Kerry’s boat and another [PCF72] were probing a canal along the river, Kerry’s boat came under heavy fire and was hit by a B-40 rocket in the cabin area. One member of Kerry’s crew — Forward Gunner David Alston — suffered shrapnel wounds in his head. His injuries were not considered serious and he was sent to the 29th Evac Hospital at Binh Thuy.”

Peck said he was the skipper on this day as well. Peck was also injured in the ambush and was hospitalized.

As a result, Kerry then took over the crew, Peck said. The Navy combat report posted by the Kerry campaign states that Peck and Alston were injured in the same event. There is no mention of Kerry in that report.

Kerry’s commanding officer, George Elliott, said in a telephone interview that he vividly recalls Peck’s injury and hospitalization and Kerry’s replacement of Peck. “I think somebody made a mistake who doesn’t know” the timing of Kerry’s service, Elliott said. Kerry was skipper of boat No. 44 in December and January before taking over command of the 94, he said.

hehehe! kerry told a wopper!!

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 23, 2004 12:27 PM

And he received a Purple Heart for which hallucination? I’m confused…

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at April 23, 2004 12:31 PM

What’s interesting about this is how relentless the Boston Globe is being in this. This is Kerry’s hometown rag and a more liberal rag would be hard to find.

So if they’re taking shots at Kerry one wonders what’s going on.

Also NRO have several fine articles about Kerry’s record and the his vets against the war organization posted today.

Is it possible that all this is really just fabrication? That Kerry’s record is really that overstated? Why would a well run organization make such a mistake?

Hmmmmm.

Posted by: skip at April 23, 2004 12:48 PM

Silence from Kerry, silence from the Democratics. Watch this one folks, when they get their new story coordinated, it’s going to be a WHOPPER.

Posted by: jeffers at April 23, 2004 01:24 PM

LoL! I bet! And, the Mrs. has something to hide too…

Heinz Kerry delays filing 2003 tax forms
By Patrick Healy, Globe Staff | April 23, 2004

HOUSTON — Teresa Heinz Kerry has filed for an extension on her 2003 US income tax forms, giving her husband John F. Kerry’s presidential campaign until mid-August to decide whether to make her tax records public, as some Republicans and newspaper editorial boards have demanded.

Hmmmm….

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 23, 2004 01:36 PM

It seems the Kerry campaign is switching over to damage control already so early in the campaign.

And, with Alqaida starting to play with Saddams WMD’s, things can go real bad for the Dem’s, real fast.

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 23, 2004 01:45 PM

here is a good kerry campaign poster for you
Kerry add

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 23, 2004 02:16 PM

I find it thoroughly amusing that republicans would cast such stones about a candidate’s war record when Bush avoided the draft and [barely] served in the National Guard. Yet he doesn’t seem at all shy about committing real troops to war.

I agree with the war, and that we should be there. But it’s rather hypocritical for Bush to try and poke holes in Kerry’s war record when he was hiding out here in Texas and occasionally showing up for his National Guard service.

Posted by: ron at April 23, 2004 04:17 PM

ron There are HOLES IN KERRY’S RECORD because there are holes in Kerry’s record, not because the Bush Campaign is poking them! I have been an opponent of Senator Kerry for over thirty years for his LYING, under oath, about atrocities which were never committed. That others are saying that he wrote himself up for Purple Hearts which he did not deserve is of little concern to me. There are voices that cry out from The Wall, and they cry out against the likes of Senator Kerry. Maybe nobody else can hear them, but I hear them, and some of those 58,000+ voices are my brothers. They did not die so that Senator Kerry could claim they were BabyKillers or committed atrocities, such as raping and pillaging like Genghis Khan (HIS words) on a regular basis. MOF, they didn’t commit any atrocities that I am aware of, and I ought to know.

Kerry’s less than stellar ‘war record’ is not President Bush’s fault. This ‘war record’ war was started by the DNC and Kerry himself.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at April 23, 2004 04:35 PM

Kerry was not asserting that all those who served in Vietnam were baby killers, rapists, pillagers, etc., but Kerry is not the only voice that claims that these atrocities took place.

Regardless, as a republican, how can you honestly sit here and pontificate on Kerry’s alleged “less than stellar” war record when your beloved Bush has clear issues of his own? I’m not defending Kerry’s war record, but perhaps if Bush had some ground to stand on republicans would actually have a case.

Posted by: ron at April 23, 2004 04:56 PM

ron Sir. Read my words carefully, and read HIS words even more carefully. I voiced my opposition to his lies thirty years ago, and I will not remain silent now, no matter the accusations of partisanship. I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican. I am a Citizen and Veteran and I will not have ANYONE including you claim that any of what Senator Kerry claims (ie: “on a regular basis”) actually took place. If you knew the source for some of those “stories” (lies), you too would be appalled. Your very words make you a hypocrite!

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at April 23, 2004 05:10 PM

What in my words make me a hypocrite? What have I said that make you believe I say one thing and do another? I am not a democrat nor a republican - I’ve been a registered Independent all my life. I was not defending Kerry, I was merely pointing out that all the Bush-loving republicans (not necessarily the ones on this board - Hannity and company are who I have in mind) are having a field day damning Kerry for his record while their beloved Bush has a military record than none should be proud of.

I would be interested to hear what experiences you had, directly or indirectly, with Kerry and why you came to your opinion on him. I’m not decided on who I’m voting for yet, and I’m trying to inform myself as best I can about the two candidates.

Posted by: ron at April 23, 2004 06:28 PM

Rereading my line, I realize you might have had some confusion regarding the 2nd paragraph. It started with “Regardless, as a republican …” - I did not mean to imply that you were a republican, actually, it was a rhetorical statement directed at republicans as a whole.

Posted by: ron at April 23, 2004 06:30 PM

Ron I apologize. I am passionate about this issue, for many who feel as I do cannot speak because they are dead, or have abandoned social interchange because they are ashamed to have been part of the conflict at all, and have been smeared terribly over the years by Senator Kerry. A careful examination of what Senator Kerry said in sworn testimony before Congress reveals that he did indeed, speak ill of the dead, and used the words ‘regular basis’ regarding atrocities. Do you know what regular means, Ron? If my Brothers would have ‘regularly’ chopped off ears or limbs, tortured prisoners, raped women, shot up Water Buffalo, or regularly became nothing more than terrorists, we would have no Vietnamese refugees in this Country. We abandoned SE Asia, and what happened then ended in the “Killing Fields”. Google up that one, Ron. I witnessed one incident of what I would call abuse, and I addressed the CO as I had to, to prevent that abuse from continuing. A POW must be treated humanely. Was I ashamed of my brothers for the mistreatment? Yes. Far better to say something and be admonished for insubordination, than to be ashamed with good cause for as long as I live.

Yes, Senator Kerry served. How well did he serve? I cannot answer that for I served with the Marines. Others can address his service. If I had been a Corpsman attached to the SwiftBoats, I might have some perspective on what type of service it was. My issues are WITH HIS SWORN TESTIMONY before the American people. It has never been any different.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at April 24, 2004 07:52 AM

when your beloved Bush has clear issues of his own

Bush’s service records shows he did way above and beyond his duty and all years except for his final year. ALL YEARS note plural. Which means he was in the national guard much longer than Kerry served. He was also a pilot, not a boat skipper.

He fulfilled his duty, and went on to politics. Kerry didn’t fullfill his.

He lied, faked a few scratches, lied and recieved a few more medals, and got out of the Army 8 months before he was due.
Further, BEFORE he was drafted, he tried to get out of it by saying he wanted more schooling.

So Ron, you better take a better look at records, and just see who is the better man. It isn’t Kerry.

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 24, 2004 11:57 PM

Bush’s Guard Duty.

As a a member of the Navy Reserve from 1959 - 1982 I resent Kerry and other’s who call Reservists “Draft Dodgers”. If the Governments run by Johnson, Nixon, and others did not decide to call us up during the Vietnam War, that does not make us less willing to serve than others. I came off active duty in 1966 during the height of the conflict. We were willing to return, but the Government did not call upon the Reserve and National Guard. The routing of drilling and attendance is just that, a routine. My record was not perfect, but I was eligible for recall at any time, as was Bush. Bush is the Hero. Kerry is the coward who lied, misused a good policy to leave his comrads in the field, murdered a wounded enemy soldier, and then turned on those left behind in the action.
Insulting the members of the Reserves and Guard, as many of them are fighting and dying in Iraq, as I write this, is disgusting, and someone should speak out against Kerry and those who call Guard members “Draft Dodgers.” My deceased neighbor was a member of the Guard prior to World War II. He, and his Division landed in France and fought their way across France, Belgium, and Germany, ending at the Baltic Sea after over 200 days of combat. Why is no one speaking out for the Guard and Reserve?? Why is President Bush supposed to be a bad person because he volunteered and served in National Guard????

Posted by: Navy Reserve at April 25, 2004 12:56 AM

Navy Reserve A sincere thank you for your service, sir.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at April 25, 2004 08:13 AM

For all the time and energy el-Kerry spent riding the ’60s drug anti-US/Vietnam culture into office as teddys cabin boy, he seems to spend little time speaking of the reality of the killing fields or pol pot, the complicity of international organizatoins like SEATO or indeed, the terror of most of the south vietnamese peasants as they were invaded and conscripted into the stalin-inspired communist ideological war machine after having lived under relative peace.
I suspect it will be extremely difficult to catch el-Kerry in a lie, as he has a highly refined capacity to dispossess his own previous statements…

Posted by: hound at April 25, 2004 01:55 PM

“On the site, the Massachusetts senator is described as the skipper of Navy boat No. 94 during several actions in late January 1969.”

so what, he was skipper of the 44 in December and january and then took over the 94 at the end of January. Not exactly a smoking gun.

Face facts the man has a gallant war record under heavy fire.

Posted by: Oldman at April 27, 2004 08:54 PM

unlike many veterans who served honorably, this one deserted his squad after 4mths, wrote his own purple heart requests contrary to military norm and was reprimanded , if anything, for engaging in unnecessary fights with groups of unknown persons onshore, when military policy in that zone preferred psyops tactics. He did not willingly volunteer for dangerous duty, and if he did, he must have changed his mind quickly; his desire to fight and his faith in the mission were as devout as his catholicism. Just because you’re “old” doesnt mean you can ignore the facts.

Posted by: hound at April 28, 2004 10:26 AM