Kerry, in 1971, Admitted Writing Combat Reports
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 16,353
Likes: 0
From: Ossining, New York
Kerry, in 1971, Admitted Writing Combat Reports
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Pag...T20040826a.html
Kerry, in 1971, Admitted Writing Combat Reports
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 26, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reveals that the then anti-war activist admitted to writing many of the battle reports during his four months of combat in Vietnam.
Kerry told the committee on April 22, 1971, "...I can recall often sending in the spot reports which we made after each mission..."
Kerry also said that many in the military had "a tendency to report what they want to report and see what they want to see."
Kerry's comments about the battle reports came in response to a question from then Senator Stuart Symington (D- Mo.), who wondered about the accuracy of information from military sources.
According to the testimony , which is available in the Congressional Record, 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."
The 34-year-old testimony could shed light on the present debate over who wrote key battlefield reports that critics of Kerry say allowed him to win awards.
B. G. Burkett, author of the book Stolen Valor and a military researcher, calls the 1971 testimony "significant."
"What is significant about this is [Kerry] is readily admitting that he often submitted reports and he is implying that he himself exaggerated in those reports," Burkett told CNSNews.com.
"We have no way of knowing specifically which documents Kerry composed; and of the the ones he did compose -- did he in fact exaggerate or outright lie in those reports? That is the issue here," Burkett said.
The controversy about who authored the now controversial after-action reports arose earlier this week, when the Washington Post obtained the military records of Larry Thurlow, one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Thurlow's military records indicated that enemy fire erupted after Kerry's boat was hit by a mine explosion on March 13, 1969.
Thurlow now insists there was no enemy fire that day. The best selling new book by John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, details the groups' critique of Kerry. Kerry has denounced the book and the Swift Boat vets and accused them of being an affiliate of President Bush's re-election campaign.
Thurlow and Kerry were each awarded a Bronze Star for heroism on that 13th day of March. Kerry also received his third Purple Heart as a result of the events of that day.
At the center of the controversy is whether or not there was enemy fire during Kerry's rescue of James Rassmann from the Bay Hap River. Kerry and Rassmann and others say there was enemy fire, while Thurlow and other swift boat veterans insist there was not.
Thurlow's own Bronze Star citation states that there was "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units." But Thurlow believes his citation was based on Kerry's own account of the day.
"I am convinced that the language used in my citation ... was language taken directly from John Kerry's report," Thurlow said earlier this week. "John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incident," Thurlow added.
The Washington Post summed up the controversy this way: "Much of the debate over who is telling the truth boils down to whether the two-page after-action report and other Navy records are accurate or whether they have been embellished by Kerry or someone else."
Burkett believes that Kerry stated the controversy surrounding his war record.
"Kerry thought that he could make a grand presentation of his combat record, and there would be no response, obviously, from the Republicans, considering the lack of military experience on that side of the aisle," Burkett said.
"I think [Kerry] completely misjudged the anger of Vietnam Veterans collectively and their ability to organize and have an answer to John Kerry," he added.
Kerry, in 1971, Admitted Writing Combat Reports
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 26, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reveals that the then anti-war activist admitted to writing many of the battle reports during his four months of combat in Vietnam.
Kerry told the committee on April 22, 1971, "...I can recall often sending in the spot reports which we made after each mission..."
Kerry also said that many in the military had "a tendency to report what they want to report and see what they want to see."
Kerry's comments about the battle reports came in response to a question from then Senator Stuart Symington (D- Mo.), who wondered about the accuracy of information from military sources.
According to the testimony , which is available in the Congressional Record, 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."
The 34-year-old testimony could shed light on the present debate over who wrote key battlefield reports that critics of Kerry say allowed him to win awards.
B. G. Burkett, author of the book Stolen Valor and a military researcher, calls the 1971 testimony "significant."
"What is significant about this is [Kerry] is readily admitting that he often submitted reports and he is implying that he himself exaggerated in those reports," Burkett told CNSNews.com.
"We have no way of knowing specifically which documents Kerry composed; and of the the ones he did compose -- did he in fact exaggerate or outright lie in those reports? That is the issue here," Burkett said.
The controversy about who authored the now controversial after-action reports arose earlier this week, when the Washington Post obtained the military records of Larry Thurlow, one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Thurlow's military records indicated that enemy fire erupted after Kerry's boat was hit by a mine explosion on March 13, 1969.
Thurlow now insists there was no enemy fire that day. The best selling new book by John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, details the groups' critique of Kerry. Kerry has denounced the book and the Swift Boat vets and accused them of being an affiliate of President Bush's re-election campaign.
Thurlow and Kerry were each awarded a Bronze Star for heroism on that 13th day of March. Kerry also received his third Purple Heart as a result of the events of that day.
At the center of the controversy is whether or not there was enemy fire during Kerry's rescue of James Rassmann from the Bay Hap River. Kerry and Rassmann and others say there was enemy fire, while Thurlow and other swift boat veterans insist there was not.
Thurlow's own Bronze Star citation states that there was "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units." But Thurlow believes his citation was based on Kerry's own account of the day.
"I am convinced that the language used in my citation ... was language taken directly from John Kerry's report," Thurlow said earlier this week. "John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incident," Thurlow added.
The Washington Post summed up the controversy this way: "Much of the debate over who is telling the truth boils down to whether the two-page after-action report and other Navy records are accurate or whether they have been embellished by Kerry or someone else."
Burkett believes that Kerry stated the controversy surrounding his war record.
"Kerry thought that he could make a grand presentation of his combat record, and there would be no response, obviously, from the Republicans, considering the lack of military experience on that side of the aisle," Burkett said.
"I think [Kerry] completely misjudged the anger of Vietnam Veterans collectively and their ability to organize and have an answer to John Kerry," he added.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 16,353
Likes: 0
From: Ossining, New York
Originally Posted by RB
He still had the balls to go to war, when he didn't have to, unlike someone else I know of. Still gives him more credit in my book.
I definetly give him credit for going over there. But he did lie time and time again. All he has run on is his war record and since he has lied about it, what would he lie about if he was elected to office. If he wanted to alleve all doubt he would release his full records. He hasn't and I believe he never will. Bush has released all records and has nothing to hide.
Sinner
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,599
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Originally Posted by RB
He still had the balls to go to war, when he didn't have to, unlike someone else I know of. Still gives him more credit in my book.
I got worms.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 32,238
Likes: 0
From: Utah
It's not about their damn records about their service to our country. You can be a damned idiot and go to war, you can be smart and go to war. I think Kerry's an idiot.
__________________
99 Integra GSR
06 TSX
duck squad member #00003
99 Integra GSR
06 TSX
duck squad member #00003
snitches get stitches
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 49,696
Likes: 1
From: Portland, OR
Originally Posted by /^Blackmagik^\
not when he consistenly lies about the details for personal gain :down:
Yeah I can feel you on that...but you gotta realize that back in teh 70's, the war was scary shit for a lot of people, and he didn't back down and pus out just because he could. Yeah he lied about a few things and fluffed some stuff, but I still think it shows more integrity that he risked his life.
Frankly, Vietnam was a dirty war...and hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy to say that doing one thing was bad, but in the heat of the war, things happen that aren't exactly see as humanitarian. It happened on both sides.
Originally Posted by reno96teg
but it wasn't a problem when clinton did it, huh?
I didn't vote for Clinton, nor was I a Clinton supporter.
snitches get stitches
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 49,696
Likes: 1
From: Portland, OR
Originally Posted by 94civicEX
It's not about their damn records about their service to our country. You can be a damned idiot and go to war, you can be smart and go to war. I think Kerry's an idiot.
and bush is brilliant? wow chanc...
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 16,353
Likes: 0
From: Ossining, New York
Originally Posted by RB
Yeah I can feel you on that...but you gotta realize that back in teh 70's, the war was scary shit for a lot of people, and he didn't back down and pus out just because he could. Yeah he lied about a few things and fluffed some stuff, but I still think it shows more integrity that he risked his life.
Frankly, Vietnam was a dirty war...and hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy to say that doing one thing was bad, but in the heat of the war, things happen that aren't exactly see as humanitarian. It happened on both sides.
I didn't vote for Clinton, nor was I a Clinton supporter.
Frankly, Vietnam was a dirty war...and hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy to say that doing one thing was bad, but in the heat of the war, things happen that aren't exactly see as humanitarian. It happened on both sides.
I didn't vote for Clinton, nor was I a Clinton supporter.