THE SINGLE TOUR

Kerry claimed two tours in Vietnam. The first could be aboard the ship “Gridley.” However, the Gridley made a circular trip past Subic Bay, paused adjacent to Vietnam for a few weeks, and continued on to New Zealand. The ship departed for WEST Pacific in February 9, 1968, and returned to California in early June, 1968; it was a four-month sail. Hardly considered a combat tour in Vietnam.

Here is the first tour [ToD, p188]:
“PCF-44’s first patrol out of Cat Lo—“

Individually, the events of those four days seemed insignificant compared with many incidents later in Kerry’s second tour of duty.

Therefore, those first days on PCF-44 (in November/December, 1968) were Kerry’s FIRST Tour of Duty. The first tour did not last a full year; it ended approximately four months later, after 3 Purple Hearts and Kerry’s request to leave Vietnam.

When was the second tour?

NOT OBVIOUS

DIVISION PLACEMENTS:

Coastal Flotilla - 1
Boat Squadron - 1Coastal Squadron - 1
PCF Division - 101 (An Thoi)Coastal Division - 11 (An Thoi)
PCF Division - 102 (Danang/Chu Lai)Coastal Division - 12 (Danang/Chu Lai)
PCF Division - 103 (Cat Lo)Coastal Division - 13 (Cat Lo)
PCF Division - 104 (Cam Ranh Bay)Coastal Division - 14 (Cam Ranh Bay)
PCF Division - 105 (Qui Nhon)Coastal Division - 15 (Qui Nhon)


If John Kerry is not trying to fool us, why this:

December 6, 1968 Kerry moved to Coastal Division 11 at An Thoi on Phu Quoc Island.

December 13, 1968 Kerry moved to Coastal Division 13, Cam Rahn Bay.

December 24, 1968 Kerry involved in combat . . .

Coastal Division 13 was Cat Lo, not Cam Rahn Bay.

What is it about Cat Lo that we are not supposed to see?

KERRY'S UNFIT CONCOCTION

Seems the accusations fit the "unfit."

Over 30 paragraphs and only 6 about Kerry:

The President's opponent is an experienced senator. He speaks often of his service in Vietnam, and we honor him for it. But there is also a record of more than three decades since. And on the question of America's role in the world, the differences between Senator Kerry and President Bush are the sharpest, and the stakes for the country are the highest. History has shown that a strong and purposeful America is vital to preserving freedom and keeping us safe — yet time and again Senator Kerry has made the wrong call on national security. Senator Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed "only at the directive of the United Nations." During the 1980s, Senator Kerry opposed Ronald Reagan's major defense initiatives that brought victory in the Cold War. In 1991, when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait and stood poised to dominate the Persian Gulf, Senator Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm.

Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a "more sensitive war on terror," as though Al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side. He declared at the Democratic Convention that he will forcefully defend America — after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked, and faced with an enemy who seeks the deadliest of weapons to use against us, we cannot wait for the next attack. We must do everything we can to prevent it — and that includes the use of military force.

Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve — as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics. In fact, in the global war on terror, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side. But as the President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few. George W. Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people.

Senator Kerry also takes a different view when it comes to supporting our military. Although he voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, he then decided he was opposed to the war, and voted against funding for our men and women in the field. He voted against body armor, ammunition, fuel, spare parts, armored vehicles, extra pay for hardship duty, and support for military families. Senator Kerry is campaigning for the position of commander in chief. Yet he does not seem to understand the first obligation of a commander in chief — and that is to support American troops in combat.

In his years in Washington, John Kerry has been one of a hundred votes in the United States Senate — and very fortunately on matters of national security, his views rarely prevailed. But the presidency is an entirely different proposition. A senator can be wrong for 20 years, without consequence to the nation. But a president — a president — always casts the deciding vote. And in this time of challenge, America needs — and America has — a president we can count on to get it right.

On Iraq, Senator Kerry has disagreed with many of his fellow Democrats. But Senator Kerry's liveliest disagreement is with himself. His back-and- forth reflects a habit of indecision, and sends a message of confusion. And it is all part of a pattern. He has, in the last several years, been for the No Child Left Behind Act — and against it. He has spoken in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement — and against it. He is for the Patriot Act — and against it. Senator Kerry says he sees two Americas. It makes the whole thing mutual — America sees two John Kerrys.

Where does Cheney call Kerry unfit? He did not.

Cheney made a very good case for it--based on Kerry's actions and decisions. Cheney did not call Kerry unfit. John Kerry is the one who recognized the description as "unfit."

The statements were not refuted; Kerry mentioned two tours and Cheney's five deferments as his great rebuttal. It's been all about Vietnam; it's still all about Vietnam.

KERRY CLARITY

One thing is perfectly clear: John Kerry claims to have promoted facing the enemy--directing the full fire of the swift boat by beaching the boat, by advancing regardless of enemy fire power. John Kerry said that he was the ONLY SWIFT BOAT SPEEDING TOWARD PCF-3 (March 13, 1969); actually, he was the only swift boat NOT SPEEDING TOWARD, BUT SPEEDING AWAY.

This much has become clear. If Kerry promoted advancing and beaching; why was he going away? Although some might mutter “cowardice,” one fact is obvious: John Kerry lied; and, John Kerry promoted something which he was not willing to do himself. He turned on his own theory. He didn’t combine his belief with his actions.


Of all the things which are murky, this is perfectly clear about the incident on March 13, 1969: John Kerry didn’t trust in John Kerry.

NAVY INVESTIGATION REQUESTED

Kerry medal complaint reaches Navy secretaryProbe request comes as ex-chief Lehman calls Silver Star citation 'complete mystery'

Art Moore

The request was made by the public interest group Judicial Watch after news reports revealed Kerry's campaign website displays a document listing a "Silver Star with combat 'V'" even though the combat "V" device is never given with the nation's third highest award for heroism.

TRICKS?

Another blogger saw it, too:

PCF-66

August 02, 2004
More: Why Ask Questions?
OK... I've been stewing all day on this

I had seen Kerry listed for PCF-66 at the swiftboats.net site, then it wasn't there. Someone else saw it, too.

[Additional:
Rumor One: That the Navy will be (or is) investigating the information concerning one of the medals. (Bandit at idexer.com)

The document signed by John Lehman could have triggered an investigation. Lehman doesn’t seem to know who, when, (how, or by whom) his signature appears on John Kerry’s third rendition of his citation. This should be cause for an investigation; the Navy should investigate the matter. The citation may disappear from the Kerry website, if it hasn’t already. There aren’t puffs of smoke to signal the “POOF!”; things are just gone. As usual, there is little in the news; and, some of the bloggers are working very hard to get to the truth.

Rumor Two: That John Kerry made more than one trip to Paris—apparently, to visit with enemies. According to Bandit, Newt Gingrich said, slowly and clearly, that there were more trips to Paris.

I heard it, too. I hope someone has valid documentation. Those who are solidly behind Kerry would not believe video of a conference, nor would they confirm it if they had witnessed it. The rest of us are in the dark . . .again.

There are always rumors and some are more interesting than others. I placed the above rumors on the blog because some rumors will gain substance, others will disappear and it is interesting to follow the gossip. Be aware, this is rumor/gossip.

In the rumor/fact category: I posted about the “A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because” entry in Kerry’s journal, and labeled it as rumor. According to the same Bandit (mentioned above) the journal entry appears on page 189, (ToD) and I have verified it. It is there—complete with the phrase “WE HADN’T BEEN SHOT AT YET . . .”]

Anti-Kerry (fair warning)

If you would like to say the Swift Boat Vets were out to sink Kerry’s boat, you’re right. They would not have been able to accomplish it if Kerry were not running for President; they would not have bothered. The Swiftees would not have been able to pull together enough people who wished to spend their time fighting again. Many veterans had experienced enough. But, this is anti-Kerry. It’s all about Kerry’s choices and actions.

When they came back home they wanted a life without fighting, without strife; they wanted to have a normal life, again. They were not seeking public office; they were seeking normal lives. They could have overlooked injustice, if they had known there was injustice. It might have been irritating to see John Kerry campaign and win a Senate Seat. Irritation was not a strong enough reason to compel the average person to toss themselves in front of a camera knowing the press would inspect every molecule of their lives. John Kerry counted on it.

John Kerry was an in-the-face attention-getter. John Kerry propelled himself through the primaries, with the help of his “brother” Rassmann, with the assistance of Vietnam stories; John Kerry’s fame/infamy was, has been, and will be *Vietnam.* You saw it during the Convention, you saw it during the campaign. It’s about Vietnam, and about John Kerry in Vietnam, and about medals.

For the talking heads, the Republican Veterans, John McCain in particular, it is demeaning to discuss a war record in less than glowing terms. Well, John McCain is exempt, he is admired. We knew where he was, and what he was doing, and it was more than unpleasant for him . . .it was painful and it was long; and we are glad he made it back. However, this does not mean we must agree with John McCain; it means we should respect his point of view.

Respecting a point of view does not include a responsibility to see everything as he sees it. Because Kerry and McCain are “friends” does not mean ignoring Kerry’s bid for the highest office, or ignoring Kerry’s record. Because John Kerry’s campaign has been about Vietnam; and, he is reporting for duty; we are obligated to inspect his credentials about Vietnam and his service in the Senate. And, we should not accept a candidate based upon stories and hype; but, accept the reality and truth of a candidate.

As a member of the “Heroes,” John McCain should accept no brother but one who is sincerely and genuinely a Hero of truth, and of fact, and of actions. John McCain should not be so willing to accept a “paper” hero for us. John Kerry was not John McCain’s friend while McCain was a POW; and, John Kerry was not our friend when he performed during the Fulbright Hearing. As much as John McCain’s service is valued, John Kerry’s actions are scorned.

John Kerry was not the hero of the Vietnam War; rather, he was the focus of the media for his anti-war activities. He valued his awards so well that he tossed his medals over the barrier in protest. Whether or not he actually threw his own medals over the barrier, he went through the motions, he gave the impression that he did the deed; and, to say otherwise (later) means he was deceptive, purposely deceiving for all to see. He is the same man now, with some refinements. The refinements are superficial.

He organized protests; he swayed opinion; he spoke the words of Hanoi; he spoke to a representative of the enemy—when he was still in the military or was a private citizen, either way brings up the words “anti-American promoter” or “traitorous activist.” It hurt US; it demoralized US; it weakened US; it betrayed our troops; and, it was there for the world to see, courtesy in large part to John Kerry. The flag was turned upside down on the cover of Kerry’s book—a distress signal. John Kerry helped to smear us with a layer of stench and it has been 30 long years trying to get away from the smell.

During those 30 years we have been subjected to an Al Jazeera-like propaganda, which we did not deserve. During the Vietnam era, we were subjected to shouts of “it’s the oil.” After the war, no one mentioned much about it; seems oil had little or nothing to do with it. Before Gulf War I, it was the oil, again; and yet, we didn’t get it; we don’t own Kuwait or their oil; and the oil-voices stopped shouting. Afghanistan, “no oil for blood”; it’s the oil, it’s the pipeline . . .it was (in fact) just the same shouting, from the same groups . . .it slowed to a murmur. Ah HA! Iraq! “Not in my name” will you get the “oil for blood.” This time, Saddam Hussein pointed out the demonstrators.

Well, it’s been more than 30 years and I’d like to know where the oil is? And, I’d like to know why the John Kerry supporters are saying the same as the enemy—time after time, again and again? And, I’d like to know why we have to be subjected to John Kerry, after all these years? It’s a rhetorical question; I know the reason. We weren’t paying attention.

If Kerry had sought a quiet life, I wouldn’t have crossed the street to say a good word, or a bad word to John Kerry. Now, I consider him the POP-UP CANDIDATE—the nice outfit covers the clown-drag. He’s all dressed up; he’s polished; he popped up; and the humorous part is that the laugh is on US. We weren’t looking.

We are looking now. The photograph of John Kerry at the Fulbright Hearings was more than an eye-opener; it was another Kerry national slap-in-the-face. “Look at me, now! The Candidate for the highest office!” Well, some are saying, "Oh No, not you again!" It is amazing to me that every veteran in this nation does not stand up and turn a collective back to John Kerry. It is astonishing that any POW or veteran would stand shoulder to shoulder with Kerry.

A Kerry supporter just said that the purpose (of the sbvft) is to slime Kerry because Bush and Cheney never went to Vietnam. Almost 60 veterans, honorable medal holders, need to be slimed to save John Kerry from his past. If the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are telling the truth, it wouldn’t slime, it would be fact. If the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are telling the truth, it would be important for Kerry to make it difficult to believe the Swiftees. He tried that. If they are liars, he could have revealed the rest of the records. Kerry did not; he chose to slime the Swift Vets. Rather than show the records, Kerry chose to stop the Swift Vets.

Rather than address the facts, Kerry chose to hide the documents, change the timeline. John Kerry was a protestor whose symbolic actions of throwing away the medals and whose associations with flag-burners (and with our enemies) have shown US what he thinks of this country. John Kerry’s reluctance to let the truth come out; Kerry’s preoccupation with silencing the Swift Boaters; Kerry’s brothers calling Swiftees liars; all of this, demonstrates Kerry’s opinion of the truth. Apparently we don’t need it; and if John Kerry has a choice, we aren’t going to get it.

Q. When is it better to silence the opposition?
A. When you can’t afford to let the truth come out.

Net, News, and Note

Adam wrote:

Regardless of the veracity of individual charges made by the Swift Boat Veterans from Truth, there is one single and utterly verifiable fact which convincingly proves their overall case that John Kerry is unfit for command. To put it simply: John Kerry’s actions in supporting our enemies during the Vietnam War constitute a betrayal of the nation and its warriors that is simply unforgivable, either in this life or the next. As much as any other single individual, John Forbes Kerry contributed to the ultimate defeat in the Vietnam War.(…)

The woodwork began to rattle and out they came . . .in attack mode. The mobile minions with the sharp teeth start to gnaw away at Adam’s words. John Kerry should have produced the records. He seems to be stunned speechless.

SILVER STAR:
According to one of the blogs, Kerry may not have a choice. There is a rumor that the Navy may investigate the Silver Star Citation.

HEWITT and the CAPTAIN:
The Captain (of Captainsquartersblog.com) is at the Republican Convention; Hugh Hewitt is there, too. Even Democrats are watching the convention . . . for ammo.

MEDIA LIES:
http://antimedia.blogspot.com Antimedia has a number of interesting items today, complete with links and comments.

[NOTE: Finally received the “Unfit” book—which is why I’ve blogged less and have been reading more.]

Kerry Cartoon

Kerry has had shots across the bow; shrapnel in the stern. And now, his own cartoon:

CARTOON HERE


Thanks to: antimedia

JOHN'S BOAT LIST

As the facts slowly immerge from the political swamp, there is an effort to pull them back into obscurity. Documents which were at Kerry’s website have disappeared, and timelines were changed—items deleted. Pages were blocked. Pages were missing. Information was put up and pulled off.

One of the difficulties was the description of the action on January 29, 1969. PCF-94 was in the action; the reference was “Kerry’s boat” but it was not Kerry’s boat at the time. The Officer-in-Charge was Edward “Tedd” Peck, who was wounded. It was a lie of omission. It was not accidental. The purpose was to “trump up” Kerry’s service. It was deceptive; it wasn’t accidental; and, Kerry knew he wasn’t on PCF-94, commanding the action at that time. It was deleted. It was deceptive. That’s a problem.

John Kerry is not Bob Kerrey; but somehow, John was credited with Bob’s record on the Intelligence Committee. A simple mistake of the spelling of “Kerry”, it confuses people that the names are so similar. But, the campaign staff should have known that “Bob” is not “John.” They were not thorough. And, John should know that he is not Bob; certainly Bob knows he is not John. It may be confusing because John does not know who John is—even though he has had over sixty years to find out who John is. If John Kerry does not know who he is, we can’t help him; because we don’t know who the real John Kerry is.

It was an advantage to absorb Bob Kerrey into the John Kerry record. The mistake has been corrected, but it leaves a bad taste. It’s particularly distasteful after the January, 1969 Peck/PCF-94/Kerry’s boat fiasco.

THE NEW SOLDIER (Free ebook)

THE NEW SOLDIER, by John Kerry

Someone made it an ebook. Apparently it is a free download or printable provided by a concerned citizen. I’ve heard the book is no longer in print, that it would not be reprinted.

Get it while you can:

HERE

and

HERE