Kerry's Records not Adding up.....

[MKSheppard]

Kerry's record

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

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff April 23, 2004

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 made a mistake in claiming Kerry as skipper of the 94 at that time.
Military records Combat reports Command history (From johnkerry.com)

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.

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.

***************

A lot of stuff doesn't add up about Kerry's time in Nam, like he gets
three purple hearts with zero hospitalization time, despite having
shrapnel buried in his body according to his doctor....

[Glocksman]

There's some interesting comments on his record posted on a blog

Its thin. Sorry but I was a woman Marine from 82-86 and I am aware of how this stuff is worded. The eval that is quoted in the previous blog is dubious at best. Military evals have specific phrases and wording that is code for "good" or "bad".

Does anyone here want me to explain what I mean?

As an aside I'm sorry but is anyone else reminded of Forrest Gump getting wounded in the buttocks?

Posted by: Calliope at April 21, 2004 03:41 PM




Oh, please explain, Calliope!

I do know that the bleeding arm is out, because a doctor won't write down 'contusion' if he means 'laceration'. And how can you not get a bruise when you're banging around on a boat during combat? If the Navy gave purple hearts for bruises there wouldn't be a sailor without at least a dozen of them.

However, the butt shrapnel sounds valid, I suppose.

Posted by: George Turner at April 21, 2004 03:51 PM




OK George I'll do it but I hope you understand few are going to agree with me and I'm going to get pounded for this. The left will NEVER understand what I'm talking about here. But anyway I volunteered to do it.

First everyone should understand something about military evals. They tend to read fairly rosy but that isn't always what it appears to be. For example in the USMC an enlisted person gets a series of ratings similar to what you can see in Kerry's eval. You are graded on a series of "Proficiency" and "Conduct" scales. Possible grades are 0-5. At the end the grades are averaged and you get a "Pro-Con" rating.

Now, you would think then that the average person would score 2.5-2.5 right? That isn't the way it works though. In practice a typical grade is 4.7-4.7. Anything less than 4.5 is death. 4.9 is gold, 5.0 is almost unheard of. If I came away with say 4.5-4.6 evals I would have been horrified - to the point of planning for civilian life. The score impacts directly on your promotion scores where you are listed along with everyone else at your grade for possible promotion. I don't remember the exact formula but I believe Pro/Cons were multiplied by 100. So a 4.7/4.7 was equal to 470+470=940 points. There were other factors, your physical fitness test score, various courses you could take that added to your score, etc.

BTW, in the spring of 1985 I received 5.0/5.0 Pro/Cons. I was a Marine Corporal (E-4) and worked at the Navy Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Department and was evaluated by a Navy E-6. My command Sergeant Major was horrified and chewed my ass up one side and down the next for it. This guy had served in Korea and had lost one eye, his glass eye would wander all over the room while he was chewing your butt. The madder he got, the more his eye would wander. Not that a Marine would ever dare to look a superior directly in the eye anyway, especially while "standing tall". But I digress.

In other words everyone at your grade would be listed with number 1 being the highest scoring person and down as you went through the list. Sgt Joe might have a 1300 score and I might have a 1236 (with probably 100 people between us). If there were 101 promotion slots available this go round then I don't get promoted. I'm not in the top 101. See? That tenth of a point in an eval was HUGELY important.

Posted by: Calliope at April 22, 2004 10:09 AM




With that background, I'll explain what I know about Naval officer fitreps, which isn't a lot. Officer fitreps work about the same way score-wise as what I described, but submission for promotion is based not only on scores but also on the subjective judgment of promotion boards. This is where the verbal eval by Kerry's superior comes into play.

I'll post each sentence and a brief statement of what I think afterwards.

Keep in mind, a single cross word in a military eval will follow you for your entire career. I was enlisted and this was a HUGE deal for us. Whatever it meant to us though, multiply by ten for an officer because a single non-complimentary word in even one eval can ruin an officer's career.

Here are Kerry's immediate superior's words at the end of the quoted eval and here's what I interpret/think:

"LTJG Kerry was assigned to this division for only a short time but during that time exhibited all of the traits desired of an officer in a combat environment."

Fair enough. This is a mediocre statement. Not good, not bad. This sentence says he was competent but not outstanding. Understand, only outstanding officers get promoted.

"He frequently exhibited a high sense of imagination and judgment in planning operations against the enemy in the Mekong delta."

Here's where it gets weird for non-military types. See the "frequently"? The problem here is Kerry didn't "consistently" demonstrate these virtues. He wasn't "unusually perceptive", he wasn't a "key asset in military planning for the command".

"Involved in several enemy initiated firefights, including an ambush during the Christmas truce, he effectively suppressed enemy fire and is unofficially credited with 20 enemy killed in action."

This is a simple statement of fact. Its not positive or negative, it indicates he participated in the "action". Its fluff in an eval. It is notable only in that it says nothing positive or negative about the evaluee.

"Though relatively new to the PCF he is thoroughly knowledgeable of all aspects of his boat and PCF operations."

OK, another problem area for non-military types. Notice that he doesn't demonstrate "unusual expertise"? Notice also that he isn't "thoroughly familiar" and able to adapt "with little or no supervision"? Believe it or not this sentence is a slap in the face.

"He was instrumental in planning of highly successful Sea Lords Operations."

This is a positive statement. The "instrumental" and "highly successful" are important in an eval.

"He was cited for his performance during action against the enemy by Commander Task Force in his message 080807Z JAN69."

A statement of fact. He received a citation.

Here's what's missing from the evaluation: "outstanding", "superior", "highest traditions of the Naval service", "took the initiative", "was indispensable", "unusually perceptive", "inspirational leader".

In short if I received this eval I would be disappointed. Not horrified, but disappointed. I would definitely go to my superior and confront him/her over it, ask what I needed to do to improve. It is not a career killer eval, but it is definitely not a positive eval either. The officer receiving this eval would never make Captain (0-6). If you are career military this eval says you will never advance beyond 0-5.

As I said, its thin.

Posted by: Calliope at April 22, 2004 10:15 AM




One thing you need to keep in mind when looking through these officer evaluations:

Not every rater is created equally! Some officers are not very good at writing OERs/FITREPs/etc, and consequently the ratee suffers for it.

In addition, you never know the mindset of the officer writing this evaluation. He may be the one hard-ass who actually rates HONESTLY, and feels no need to firewall every troop under his command. I'll agree he's not helping out his folks any, but most of the time I feel like we'd all be better off if evaluations were done more honestly. Of course, with the officer promotion board system as it is, that's impractical. They see anything that says you aren't completely perfect, and they tend to pass you by and look at the next guy whose OER IS perfect - they've never met either of you, and can't make judgements except based on a few sheets of paper.

Posted by: Sparky at April 22, 2004 10:52 AM




That was wonderfully done, Calliope.
One thing that made me wonder is

Involved in several enemy initiated firefights, including an ambush during the Christmas truce, he effectively suppressed enemy fire and is unofficially credited with 20 enemy killed in action."

Why were the several firefights, the only ones listed, all "enemy initiated"? Especially since in Kerry's 1971 testimony (bogus, of course) he said he was going out on all those search and destroy missions?

The gunner's mate on his first boat said Kerry would NOT seek out the enemy, and this may be an indication that he avoided intiating the firefights. Hard to say though.

And considering the point you raise, Sparky, I wonder how some of the other officer's evaluations read, specifically the ones who served with him under the same commander.

And boy aren't we nitpicky?


Posted by: George Turner at April 22, 2004 11:30 AM




Nitpicky? Well maybe. I'm just telling it like it is, or was for me anyway.

Sparky makes a good point BTW. However the fundamental point remains. Kerry's fitreps are thin. I am especially determined to emphasize this after reading my morning paper with the giddy AP report about how outstanding the fitrep is. They don't know wtf they are talking about.

On what you point at George, its very difficult for me to judge. You definitely picked up something I missed. Maybe someone with actual experience in that era will tell us what that means if anything.

As an aside, I've been a civilian for nearly twenty years now. After reading what I posted I had to laugh in nostalgia. Where else but in the USMC do you get your ass chewed for doing an outstanding job? I hadn't thought about that in many years.

Only in our United States Marine Corps. May we always have it.

Anyone more knowledgeable than I am on the subject care to comment?

[Wicked Pilot]

A lot of stuff doesn't add up about Kerry's time in Nam, like he gets three purple hearts with zero hospitalization time, despite having shrapnel buried in his body according to his doctor....

That's hardly not unexplainable. Are you suggesting that the military is part of some grand conspiracy started in the 1960s to get some future Democrat to win the 2004 elections?

[Tribun]

I think this is a cheap attempt to counter-attack.

Nothing really creative.

[Darth Wong]

And people wonder why most creationists are Republicans. Notice the same mentality: anything which seems incongruous must by definition harm the prevailing interpretation and support a nebulous alternate interpretation which they don't bother to define.

As Wicked Pilot pointed out, they seem to be hinting at a conspiracy of deception on the part of the US Military, but of course, this is too absurd so they prefer to simply go on the attack and pretend that they don't have to propose an alternate viable explanation.

[Knife]

Anyone more knowledgeable than I am on the subject care to comment?

I think she has a point, in reference to his eval. Rosey words are good, regular words are bad. On a side note, E5 and above get fitreps instead of pros-cons but thats hardly relevent to the discussion.

As to the grand conspiracy of Kerry's PH's. The military is full of people who are, well, opertunists when it comes to this shit. Lots of people purposely jumped aboard a helo for the express purpose of flying over a small corner of a combat zone so they could qual for a CAR.

Lots of people would push for their PH with minor injuries while others would just let it slide and go about their bussiness. I'm not saying this is what Kerry did, just that such things do happen but I do think Kerry or his people are over selling his record.

[Vympel]

I'm not saying this is what Kerry did, just that such things do happen but I do think Kerry or his people are over selling his record.

Well, Kerry didn't release those records without others asking.

[Knife]

I'm not saying this is what Kerry did, just that such things do happen but I do think Kerry or his people are over selling his record.

Well, Kerry didn't release those records without others asking.

True but I doubt that Kerry was going to just let his war record slide. They guy can hardly say five sentences without mentioning that he's a vet or a warhero or was in Vietnaum or..........

I don't really see it as hurting him or helping him, just blatent politicing.

[Vympel]

True but I doubt that Kerry was going to just let his war record slide. They guy can hardly say five sentences without mentioning that he's a vet or a warhero or was in Vietnaum or..........

I don't really see it as hurting him or helping him, just blatent politicing.

True that- when you've actually worn the uniform for real in combat rather than just prancing about on an aircraft carrier in a borrowed flight suit with your package hanging out, it does call for some blatant politics though.

[Joe]

More than likely Kerry will release something debunking these claims and it'll backfire on his critics like it did the first time.

[Knife]

True but I doubt that Kerry was going to just let his war record slide. They guy can hardly say five sentences without mentioning that he's a vet or a warhero or was in Vietnaum or..........

I don't really see it as hurting him or helping him, just blatent politicing.

True that- when you've actually worn the uniform for real in combat rather than just prancing about on an aircraft carrier in a borrowed flight suit with your package hanging out, it does call for some blatant politics though.

Why in Earth were you looking at his groin area?

I mean, I'm sure you were worried about the saftey of the American President, what with making sure his G-suit was properly fitted around his lower torso but........

[KrauserKrauser]

Hey now, it is of utmost concern to the entire American public the safety and girth of the Presidential Package.

[MKSheppard]

As Wicked Pilot pointed out, they seem to be hinting at a conspiracy of deception on the part of the US Military, but of course, this is too absurd so they prefer to simply go on the attack and pretend that they don't have to propose an alternate viable explanation.

Ooookay, Mike. You need to have your head checked a little. I'm not
even hinting at a Conspiracy here. It's just that Kerry keeps saying shit
that just doesn't add up. He likes to boast about his war record, but when
you look at it, it's fishy, like Tail Gunner Joe's and LBJ's.

[MKSheppard]

Secondly Mike, the Skipper of Boat 94 before Kerry is a little bothered
that Kerry's campaign is citing actions that happened on Boat 94 before
Kerry even arrived to take over as part of Kerry's war record.

[Darth Wong]

As Wicked Pilot pointed out, they seem to be hinting at a conspiracy of deception on the part of the US Military, but of course, this is too absurd so they prefer to simply go on the attack and pretend that they don't have to propose an alternate viable explanation.

Ooookay, Mike. You need to have your head checked a little. I'm not
even hinting at a Conspiracy here. It's just that Kerry keeps saying shit
that just doesn't add up.

Which means ... what, exactly? Are you admitting that your statement is utterly worthless and means nothing whatsoever, or are you willing to admit that you are trying to hint at some kind of deception? Why is the nebulous phrase "doesn't add up" any less meaningless in the absence of a meaningful hypothesis than "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit"? And keep in mind that these are MILITARY RECORDS, not just Kerry's own words.

[Wicked Pilot]

I think she has a point, in reference to his eval. Rosey words are good, regular words are bad. On a side note, E5 and above get fitreps instead of pros-cons but thats hardly relevent to the discussion.

I don't think she has a point. She was an enlisted Marine in the 80s, while Kerry was a naval officer in the 60s. What's to say that 80s marine EPRs and 60s naval OPRs are equivilant?

If I give her my latest Air Force training report, can she deciefer it to find out whether I sucked or not?

[MKSheppard]

Which means ... what, exactly? Are you admitting that your statement is utterly worthless and means nothing whatsoever, or are you willing to admit that you are trying to hint at some kind of deception?

It wouldn't surprise me if Kerry tried to have his military records jumped up
with medals he didn't deserve, for his future political career, judging by the
way he quits after just four months and immediately goes into politics.

Hell, you can't trust a guy who claims to have thrown his own medals onto the
steps of congress, and then later admits that they were someone elses.

And keep in mind that these are MILITARY RECORDS, not just Kerry's own words.

How do you explain the former CO of Swift Boat 94 going at odds
with what Kerry says on his campaign website? And lets not forget
Lyndon Baines' Johnson's Silver Star, which pissed all over all those
who had earned it in WWII.

LBJ's Silver Star Mission

[Glocksman]

However, combat veterans of a much later war seem in wide agreement: among the tragedies of WW II is the fact that, on June 9th, 1942, Petty Officer Saburo Sakai never got a shot at Congressman Lyndon Johnson.

Normally this would be a cheap shot, but like a more recent President from Texas, LBJ led us into a war without either a workable victory plan or an exit strategy when things go wrong.

It is too bad that Petty Officer Sakai never got his shot at LBJ.

[MKSheppard]

True that- when you've actually worn the uniform for real in combat rather than just prancing about on an aircraft carrier in a borrowed flight suit with your package hanging out, it does call for some blatant politics though.

I hate to say this, but Al Gore strikes me as a far more honest guy
over what he did in Vietnam. He was merely a photojournalist and
as I know, didn't participate in combat operations, yet he didn't try to
hype his record up like Kerry is. Kerry reminds me of some of the people
shamefully featured in Stolen Valor

[Knife]

I think she has a point, in reference to his eval. Rosey words are good, regular words are bad. On a side note, E5 and above get fitreps instead of pros-cons but thats hardly relevent to the discussion.

I don't think she has a point. She was an enlisted Marine in the 80s, while Kerry was a naval officer in the 60s. What's to say that 80s marine EPRs and 60s naval OPRs are equivilant?

If I give her my latest Air Force training report, can she deciefer it to find out whether I sucked or not?

Because the eval's are over politicized. If you got a fitrep that said you where an ok Sgt or LT, your career is over and you know it. Flowery words = good, while regular words means your shit.

I've seen the worst Sgts on earth get mentions like '....has superior knowledge in planning and is a worthy addition to the staff.....' and shit like that when he's a piece of shit.

How many evals have you seen where the guy/girl got an ok. If your under the 50% margin, your done.

[MKSheppard]

Because the eval's are over politicized. If you got a fitrep that said you where an ok Sgt or LT, your career is over and you know it. Flowery words = good, while regular words means your shit.

When did this get started.

[Nathan F]

Sorta funny, really, when something is said about the details of Bush's service not adding completely up, it is jumped upon and beaten to death, but when something similar about Kerry shows up, well, the general left tries it's damndest to brush it aside as nothing ever happened.

[Howedar]

And conservatives do the opposite. This surprises you somehow?

[Darth Wong]

Sorta funny, really, when something is said about the details of Bush's service not adding completely up, it is jumped upon and beaten to death, but when something similar about Kerry shows up, well, the general left tries it's damndest to brush it aside as nothing ever happened.

Let me get this straight: you're trying to say that an exaggeration of the heroism of Kerry's actions in the theatre of war is somehow tantamount to a coverup of Bush's total dereliction of duty?

Let's say that both sets of charges are true: this would mean that Kerry served honourably in the theatre of war but his heroism was exaggerated, while Bush was a fucking AWOL who should have been locked up.

Alternatively, let's say that neither set of charges ar true: this would mean that Kerry is a bone-fide war hero badass, while Bush used his Daddy's connections to avoid having to go to the theatre of war.

Either way, I can't imagine how anyone in his right mind could think that it works out equally. Either way, Bush comes out looking worse, as he should.

[Nathan F]

Firstoff, I'm not defending or condemning Bush's service in the Air National Guard. I was under the impression that papers had turned up of him (pay stubs, etc.).

Secondly, Kerry did quite a few awful things in Vietnam. Am I mistaken in that he ordered a civilian village destroyed? Am I mistaken that his 3 purple hearts were for injuries that many didn't recieve purple hearts for? Am I mistaken that Kerry jumps on every chance to mention Vietnam even though he promised to not use it as a platform?

Thirdly, you're assuming that Bush used his father's connections to not go to war. He joined the freaking AIR NATIONAL GUARD. How many people did that? Alot. *Somebody* had to stay behind to man the air defense jets, what makes his any better or worse than any other pilot? Heck, my dad served in the ANG after he left the USAF as a jet engine mechanic during the war.