Thursday, August 26, 2004

Kerry Under Oath.

I want to follow-up on this later, but just to share my initial thoughts. If I am reading the posts below accurately, it seems to me that Kerry testified to the US Senate about field reports that he wrote being changed up the chain and reported in Stars & Stripes. The posts indicate that he would not have seen the revised reports unless they were printed elsewhere, and that it was highly unlikely that they were printed in Stars & Stripes.

Now, this should be easily proven. It is also not Winter Soldier stuff - this is Kerry testifying about his personal observations. And "testifying" is the key - under oath.

Little help from people with better resources than me? I will check further, too. ckm

From Thoughts On-Line "Maybe I'm just knee-jerking to everything Kerry says and said, but to me the idea of Stars and Stripes (the daily newspaper put out by the Pentagon) running stories on Kerry's Vietnam missions strikes me as far-fetched. I used to read the paper in my younger days and I sort of recall reading about the big, big battles, but I find it hard to believe that they would have reported on what a bunch of Swiftboats were doing (no offense to you guys). Notice in particular Kerry's quote "I often read about my own missions in the Stars and Stripes and the very mission we had been on had been doubled in figures and tripled in figures" that he mentions multiple coverage in the paper.Anybody coming to this site who has some access to the old papers and can do a bit of research, well this is potentially another opportunity to demonstrate Kerry's tendency to inflate his exploits...Let me know...UPDATE: I just checked with the old airman who confirmed that the Stars and Stripes was very, very, very unlikely to have had any mention of Kerry's exploits. As to Kerry's broader point, that he often saw that numbers (body counts, seized weapons, et.) were inflated, the old airman points out that after Kerry submitted his after-action report, should someone up the food chain have inflated the counts, Kerry would never have seen those revised numbers. In particular, his comment was that no superior officer, having revised the numbers submitted by a subordinate was likely to go and show the report to that subordinate, nor were these reports sitting in a binder waiting for Kerry to come peruse.

To MY TRUTH GOT MANGLED [Tim Graham] shows Kerry once had a different take on the credibility of military documents: Sen. Symington asked Kerry, "Mr. Kerry, from your experience in Vietnam do you think it is possible for the President or Congress to get accurate and undistorted information through official military channels.[?]" Kerry responded, "I had direct experience with that. Senator, I had direct experience with that and I can recall often sending in the spot reports which we made after each mission; and including the GDA, gunfire damage assessments, in which we would say, maybe 15 sampans sunk or whatever it was. And I often read about my own missions in the Stars and Stripes and the very mission we had been on had been doubled in figures and tripled in figures. Kerry later added, "I also think men in the military, sir, as do men in many other things, have a tendency to report what they want to report and see what they want to see." Posted at National Review.

No comments:

Post a Comment