Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Brad: You're better than this. You should delete this post.

Why delete it? This is a very real issue. And 7 minutes meant a hell of alot on that morning. Why are people so afraid to ask really hard questions of those "in charge"?

"I Thought Reading 'My Pet Goat'" Was the Highest-Priority Use of My Time..."

The book was _Reading Mastery 2_ and...

~~quote~~

Gwendolyn Tose'-Rigell, the principal at Emma E. Booker Elementary School, says Bush handled himself properly.

"I don't think anyone could have handled it better" Tose'-Rigell told the Sarasota Herald-Tribune...

She said the video doesn't convey all that was going on in the classroom, but Bush's presence had a calming effect and "helped us get through a very difficult day."...

The principal said she didn't vote for Bush. "But that day I would have voted for him."

http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/florida/article/0,2071,NPDN_14910_2985640,00.html
~~~

JT is correct. Making an effort to be worse than Michael Moore and feeling righteous about it is pretty bad.

The politics on this site are getting as slimey as anywhere else.

Bush owed the citizens of NYC and of this country his full attention at that moment---not the teachers and students, however much they may have appreciated it.
Every minute counted on 9/1: a few more minutes and an AF intercept would have been able to shoot down the second jet, saving hundreds or thousands of lives.
Bush failed us on that day. Kerry's statement was perfectly acceptable; moreoever, he shows his superior character by delivering the message himself---unlike Bush, who wouldn't DARE criticize Kerry's military service himself.
By the way, I think what Kerry will do is make this swift boat attack a personal matter with Bush, as he should.

Here's a schedule for the Repub Convention:

http://www.michaelhanscom.com/eclecticism/2004/06/2004_republican.html

I second Marky. Bush's responsibilities went a tad bit beyond a single classroom. Remember, 7 minutes was one-third of the time for the passengers on flight 93 to go from normality to hijack hostages to heroes.

And Jim - when we sink to the level of McCain slanderers, or Cleland slanderers, or swift boat veterans for the lie, then you'll have the right to make that accusation. Until then, look to your own people.

I think this became an issue when Bush started promoting himself as a decisive war leader. As well as that made-for-TV movie with Timothy Bottoms portraying Bush as a decisive leader, fictionalizing most of his actions on 9-11-01.

Kerry's point is simple: unlike Bush he is someone who will know what to do in a crisis.

Yeah, Brad! How dare you refer to Bush's demonstrated cowardice. It's not fair. Please do not mention or refer to any of Bush's numerous failings ever again. Anyway, the principal said he acted very nice!

Dear Jim Glass:

When I want an elementary-school principal making expert judgments about what is and isn't appropriate behavior for the Chief Executive during a surprise attack, I will vote for her.

Love,
Anderson

Jim -

I don't understand. Why does the teacher's opinion prove anything? As it happens, I think it helps Kerry's side more than Bush's, because she praises Bush ~from the perspective of someone looking out for the students,~ as opposed to that of someone concerned with the way the government runs. That is, her praise is based on the wrong perspective for the issue.

Calling this slimey isn't quite the same thing as making a point. Bush failed in his moment of truth, Kerry pointed this out and said a leader should do better, Brad said that Kerry was correct. Kerry was critical but did not use a harsh or rude tone.

So at the end of the day, you just sound like a reflexive partisan and an idiot.

"Bush owed the citizens of NYC and of this country his full attention at that moment---not the teachers and students, however much they may have appreciated it."

Thanks, Marky.

"Why does the teacher's opinion prove anything?"

Because she's an expert on the how children should behave.

Good one, Adam!

Quote of the Day:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

George W. Bush
Remarks by the President at the Signing of H.R. 4613
August 5, 2004

2 things:

1. via Andrew Tobias today, Snopes page covering[negative] claims about Kerry -http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/kerry.asp

2. I was just told by a [different] coworker that the repub. claim is that the whisper in Bush's ear was _not_ "a plane has hit the WTC", but rather something more generic like "there's been a terrorist attack in NY". Not that this would excuse the 7 min, but what's the truth as to what he was told ? (or rather, since we can't verify it, have the administration stories as to what he was told been consistent?
(sorry if this is rehashing old potato(e)s, feel free to ignore if so)

The shorter Patrick R. Sullivan:
Kerry: rich French-looking liberal, atheist commie-loving, peacenik traitor, soft on national security.
Bush and Cheney: honest christian patriots, rags to riches businessman, protecting our homeland from evildoers without and liberals within.

Bush says he was in favour of the war, but takes the coward's way out and joins TANG, then goes AWOL for about 12 months at the end of his service.

Kerry is not drafted, enlists and serves with distinction, awarded a silver star and three purple hearts. Comes home to America and argues against the war.

Bush had the opportunity to put himself in harm's way in service of his country but chose not to. Kerry had the opportunity, and he took it.

The rest is just details.

I third marky. Bush sat around reading for 7 minutes like a deer in the headlights, then spent another 20 minutes hiding in the hallway.

Let me ask how long it takes an ICBM to get to California fro Korea?

I didn't think you knew, 20 minutes. That's right, 20 minutes. So while Bush sat around with his thumb up his ass we could have been wiped out. Time was of the essence and Bush showed he doesn't have the brain power to defend us. And this is the jackass with the nuclear football. He can't even pronounc nuclear.

oops - moral of story: google before you post.

An Interesting Day:
President Bush's Movements and Actions on 9/11
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

"When I want an elementary-school principal making expert judgments about what is and isn't appropriate..."

Ah, the people who were *there*, as it happened, say "nobody else could have handled it better" -- but you all, who weren't, deduce it must have all been personal failure, because he's Bush after all, and the same Democrats who once proudly billed themselves as 'the smarter party' now follow the lead of Michael Moore in matters of intellect and integrity. ;-) If he said it it's true!

Well, except for the name of the book, for starters. ;-)

"Bush owed the citizens of NYC and of this country his full attention at that moment..."

I'm a citizen of NYC and of this country who was in sight of the WTC at the time. Personally, I don't feel slighted by his actions, and didn't that night when I saw the film of him with the school kids on TV. All this criticsm to me as a NYCer, who was paying a great deal of attention at the time, seems rather a bit of opportunistic election year revisionism.

But hey, maybe you could get me to feel slighted by Dubya by telling me, precisely, what he *could* have done in that seven minutes that he didn't do? And what just makes you think the situation didn't have his full attention??

Do you think he should have run off into a hallway or a closet to wait for information he didn't have? Rather than act with composure in public?

Oooh, I can just see Michael Moore's film and you guys then, "Not knowing what had happened, and not waiting even a few moments to find out, Bushed panicked and bolted out of the room of children ... This guy who can't even lead a second grade class in a moment of crisis is supposed to lead the nation??" ;-)

Oh, well, at least we all can agree that Dubya showed a lot more composure out there in public than Franklin Roosevelt showed to his crew when he got *his* bad news....
~~~~~

[T]he President ... said to Mr. Hopkins, he says, "My God, my God, how did it happen?"

He had his head in hands and at his desk like this. He says, "How did it happen?" He says, "Now I'll go down in history disgraced."...

Labor Secretary Frances Perkins found Roosevelt deeply shaken. "He was having actual physical difficulty in getting out the words that put him on record as knowing the Navy was caught unawares"...

He looked drawn. His face was kind of pale-ish-like and tired-like, and it seemed to be a maze around him, just a blind sort of fog around him.

When I looked at him, I got that impression from him, that he was in a fog, and he was so despondent...

He said, "We don't know what's out there"...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/
~~~~~

Geeeze, imagine if Michael Moore had been *there* with a camera, and what he could have done with *that*!!

After all, FDR certainly owed the people of Hawaii and the nation a good deal more than a confused funk and despair about his own dang reputation. When as far as he knew the Japanese could have been approaching California. Eh?

"We don't know what's out there"... A *great* trailer, closing fade, the audience sure would remember that!

Patrick R. Sullivan:

Thurlow, who you quote, also got a bronze star for the same events Kerry got *his* for.

Maybe you should ask Thurlow why he hasn't returned his apparently undeserved bronze star?

Thurlow asks:
"I received no fire. But the thing I would like to ask is, we have five boats now, John's returning, and four boats basically dead in the water, working on the 3-boat (ph). If we were receiving fire off the bank, how come not one single boat received one bullet hole, nobody was hit, no sign of any rounds hitting the water while I was in it?"
One answer:
RASSMANN: Mr. Thurlow is being disingenuous. I don't know what his motivation is, but I was receiving fire in the water every time I came up for air. I don't recall anybody being in the area around us until I came up maybe five or six times for air and Kerry came back to pick me up out of the water.

Then there is this answer:
And it was at that time that our gunner on the bow got his gun knocked out and he started screaming for another weapon. I ran another weapon up to me, and we hit something or something hit us. There was an explosion, and I was blown off the boat to the right.

WOODRUFF: And you ended up in the water how?

RASSMANN: I was blown into the water, and I had boats coming up behind me. So, I went to the bottom of the river.
So there was damage to the boat and furthermore the USA does investigate these things before they award the medal to make sure shall we say that it was a true version of events.

Now what's really interesting is Thurlow also got a bronze star that day. For courage "under fire."

What looks bad for these guys (not Kerry) is how over the top they are. You have them also claiming that he treated Kerry for wounds and they were self inflicted yhet he was niot the guy who signed the medical papers.

The following is from American History Magazine and includes Thurlows actions. For which he too won a bronze star.

Snip
"Thurlow remained on the crippled PCF-3, and the other two boats slowly began a procession out of the Bay Hap River, working desperately to keep the damaged Swift afloat. The overboard discharge pipe had been blown apart inside the engine room, and the hull was quickly filling with water. It became a race against time to get PCF-3 out of the river before it sank. One of the Swifts that had gone out with the wounded was on its way back with a damage-control team from the LST, but if they didn't get back soon there would be no boat to pump. Just as they reached the mouth of the river, the crewmen aboard PCF-94 and the other healthy Swift positioned their boats on either side of their endangered cohort to hold the boat up between them. A bucket brigade of tired and bloody sailors kept bailing for all they were worth and managed to keep PCF-3 afloat despite the water pouring into it. And all this while Bac She De's corpse lay in a poncho on PCF-94 's fantail.

Finally the LST damage team arrived with the pump."

You will note that crew were wounded, boats damaged and an LST was called in to repair the sinking boat. While Thurlow help-ed a wounded comrade. Cognitive dissonance doesn't begin to describe this.

Give 'Em Hell, Kerry!

When I walked out my front door that day in Brooklyn, somebody came by and said "a plane just hit the World Trade Center" as she was running towards the river. I turned to follow her. My first thought was a Cesna hit one the antennas on top of the building. My second thought, immediately afterwards, was this is terrorism. As I walked to the river, the smoke went from grey and whispy to thick and black. Then I had no doubt it wasn't a Cessna.

Now Bush has been briefed a month earlier that Al Qaeda "Was Determined To Attack America." He is informed a plane hit the WTC in the hallway outside the classroom. So why did Bush walk into the classroom in the first place? Doesn't he make the connection I made? Then he is told a SECOND plane had hit the WTC and he does nothing. He is not even the one who decided to leave the classroom. Andy Card had to come back and tell him he has to go.

So let's recap.

Aug 6 Bush told that Al Qeada is determined to attack US.

Sept 9 Plane hits WTC.
Bush is told about this plane before he enters the classroom for a photo op.

A second plane hits the the WTC. Bush is told by Andy Card about this second plane and told that "America is under attack"
Bush does nothing.
Seven minutes later Andy Card tells the president, that he has to go.

Months later Bush tells this lie:

Q One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country. And another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack? (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html
That is from the WhiteHouse transcript. Now everybody remembers that there was no video of the first plane hitting the tower until that night. Also officials from the school point out that there was not TV in the hallway. Bush has told about 7 different stories about his actions that day. Now that the 9/11 Commission has revealed all the warnings that Bush had gotten in 2001, Bush's actions that day are even more shameful.

You don't think he didn't traumatize those kids?

I wonder what they would say now if anyone has interviewed them.

When they realize who the president really is, what his role for the nation and it's defense is supposed to be. And they see the video of the WTC in flames, getting hit by that second plane, collapsing to the ground, and the pictures of those poor souls flinging themselves from it's top floors, and they learn of the many horribly burned alive and the many crushed. And they put it together with what they witnessed firsthand, if they have any intelligence or awareness at all they will be horrified beyond compare. Who will protect them now? Who can protect them? Who is even interested in protecting them at all?

That was the most egregious failure of leadership by a president imagineable. The kids might have felt a momentary sense of anxiety at the president calmly excusing himself, at least once they first hear the news themselves. But soon after and for the rest of their lives they would have felt secure in the knowledge that the president had acted to save everyone he could.

If that was leadership, then I'm the Pope.

And since I know there are bound to be more than a few wingnuts out there who will claim that to be the very paragon of presidential leadership then as your Pope I prounounce thusly, ex cathedra

Go, shtup any mutually consenting adult you please.

If you consider yourself homosexual and want to get married you have my blessing. May you have many many blissful years together, support one another's dreams and aspirations and fulfill one another's greatest desires.
(If you consider yourself heterosexual and desire to marry I say to you: What are you crazy? We all know it'll only end in tears and I'd don't mean in a funereal parlor. Don't do it. Trust me, after two times I know.

You have my permission to use any form of birth control you desire.

If there is a little dryness I know of some excellent lubricants you may use.

You may have abortions without compunction in the first trimester. Second trimester I ask that you think about it a second time. Third trimester....are there any medical complications?

If you have an exclusive committment to one partner then don't cheat. That's still a sin in my view and I'm the Pope, remember. If you don't think you can help it then first you must tell your partner so they can get a little on the side. After all, why should you have all the fun?

Be good to one another.

If my pope is going to use words like "shtup" I hope he has decency to use the Latin.

Jim, Bush had no frickin' idea what else might have been going on. There might have been more hijakcings; there might have been other attacks of other forms; there might have been financial panic; there might have been a chance to shoot down hijacked planes; who the hell knows what might have been?

The fact that we now know there wasn't doesn't mean a thing. Bush was derelict in his duty as commander-in-chief. Defending that dereliction is enabling of the worst, most pathetic, stripe. And Bush's own defense - not that he had nothing he could do, but that he felt he should project calm - undercuts your own asinine argument.

If my pope is going to use words like "shtup" I hope he has decency to use the Latin.

KevinNYC you're so silly! If you read my other comments here in the "McCain Denounces the Republican Slime Machine" post then you'd know that I'm only 12. And they don't teach Latin here until High School.

How do you know the kids weren't traumatized. They may, years from now, feel guilty because they held the Presidents attention when it should have been directed at the national interest.
When I was in fourth grade, our teacher "stroked out" in the class, ran out of the room with her hands on top of her head, and died the next day. I never knew it affected me until a few years ago, and I'm north of 40.
The teacher has no idea if they are, were, or will be traumatized by what happened. I predict they will be affected by what happened when they grow up, which some posters here need to do.

[[[[a few more minutes and an AF intercept would have been able to shoot down the second jet, saving hundreds or thousands of lives.]]]]

the problems with AF intercepts was that they weren't armed, not that they were 7 minutes away from making the intercept. it's fine not to like bush, but to do so by making up such implausible reasons is rather silly

as a practical matter, bush reading "My Pet Goat" probably did not effect the situation all that much. but, from an emotional standpoint, him doing so is pretty damn ridiculous.

How do you know the kids weren't traumatized. They may, years from now, feel guilty because they held the Presidents attention when it should have been directed at the national interest.

Excellent point and much stronger than the one I made concerning this. If any were traumatized on account of the reason I gave above, and I don't doubt some were, that should fade as they come into adulthood with the realization that ultimately no one can protect you.

But any child who has even the spark of a conscience would be devestated by that. Those fortunate enough to give the matter further thought will be relieved when they realize that what could W do anyway? He'd probably muck things up even more. And of course we know Cheney had the situation well in hand.

At one point Patrick posted a transcript from CNN where Thurow and Rassman debate the event.
It reveals alot about Patrick's methodology and basic mendacity.

Here is where Patrick left off:
Snip
(Thurow)
I received no fire. But the thing I would like to ask is, we have five boats now, John's returning, and four boats basically dead in the water, working on the 3-boat (ph). If we were receiving fire off the bank, how come not one single boat received one bullet hole, nobody was hit, no sign of any rounds hitting the water while I was in it?
Patricks ends here:

The Answer
WOODRUFF: What about that, Jim Rassmann, quickly?

RASSMANN: There were definitely rounds hitting the water around me. If Mr. Thurlow feels that what his story is purported to be was the case, he had ample opportunity 35 years ago to deal with it. He never did, nor did anyone else. John Kerry did not tell this story. I told this story when I put him in for a Silver Star for coming back to rescue me. The Navy saw fit to reduce it to a Bronze Star for valor.

That's OK with me. But If Mr. Furlow had a problem with that, he should have dealt with it long, long ago. To bring it up now, I think, is very disingenuous. I think that this is partisan motivation on his part and for the part of his whole organization."

There are two important points in this response. First it was Rassman, a special forces guy who put him in for the medal. Second, the Navy would have taken his statement and investigated. As part of that process they would have asked Thurow about his version of events. If thurow, and others had contradicted Rassman's version then there would have been no medal. They thus have this problem. And its a big problem for them. THEY ARE FLIP FLOPPERS.

Patrick Sullivan engaged in selective editing.

Well I'm shocked. Just shocked.

Jim wrote: "Do you think he should have run off into a hallway or a closet to wait for information he didn't have? Rather than act with composure in public?"

Let's parse these questions a bit.

"...run off into a hallway or a closet..."
No, we expect a commander in chief to walk, not run, to an appropriate place where he can confer with the appropriate people.

"...to wait for information he didn't have?"
If you don't have it, you have to wait for it. The question is: What is a more appropriate venue for waiting for more information? Is it in a classroom, reading a book aloud? Or is it in a school office or limousine, with access to phones and one's aides? Jim thinks the classroom, reading "My Pet Goat," was a more appropriate venue for a commander in chief to get information and make decisions during an attack. I disagree, and believe that it would have been better for Bush to have been conferring with his aides in privacy.

"Rather than act with composure in public?"
Most public figures, by the time they have achieved the presidency, have learned how to handle awkward situations with grace. John Kerry says: "I would have told those kids very nicely and politely that the president of the United States has something that he needs to attend to." I believe he would have pulled this off with composure, just as he acted coolly when he earned his Bronze Star and Silver Star.

"maybe you could get me to feel slighted by Dubya by telling me, precisely, what he *could* have done in that seven minutes that he didn't do?"

This is one of the dumbest retorts that keeps coming back in this whole situation.

Uhhhhh, let's see.. whatever it was he did next, he could have been doing 7 minutes earlier! And had more time to discuss his options with his staff, so as to make better decisions! Duh.

So here's a question back at the noodges who harp on this: if it was such a fine thing for him to do, would you have liked him to stay with the kids longer?

How long WOULD be too long? An hour? Four hours?

God forbid that a war start when a President is reading to children; he'll be hostage to the kids' emotional states! For national security's sake, keep the President away from groups of children so he's always free to act!

I hope Lawrence isn't in Dutch with Prof. DeLong for reposting the transcript that he'd deleted. However, the commentary once again demonstrates the weak reading comprehension allowed at the U of Hawaii.

No one disputes that a boat hit a mine. What is disputed by two Swift Boat veterans--Odell and Thurlow--is that Kerry's boat hit another mine and that there was incoming fire from the riverbank. Both men, who were there at the time (and not underwater during most of the incident as Rassman was), say "no" to both claims.

And the evidence seems to support them. Consider the damage to the boat that indisputably DID hit a mine; everyone injured, the boat lifted six feet out of the water, nearly sinking even with the assistance of three other boats. Compare that to the condition of Kerry's boat; no damage whatsoever. No visible injuries to anyone on board (with the possible exception of a scratch to Kerry, who wasn't hopitalized).

No one hit by any enemy bullets, even though all those boats were there for an hour.

Patrick, are you still under the delusion that you have even a shred of credibility left?

Jim Glass mentions Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor, but he has forgetten the Democrat Van Buren's shameful performance during the Aroostook War. The Maine potato farmers are still paying a terrible price for that bit of Democratic cowardice!

First of all, MSNBC has it wrong: as the video, parts of which Michael Moore included in his film, George was not reading at all. The children were reading, and Bush was sitting there, silently uninvolved.

The truth is, George Bush is practically illiterate. He doesn't read, because he, in fact, has great difficulty reading, due to the same affliction, which causes his public speaking to be full of pratfalls, despite scripts, which rarely contain words over three syllables or sentences with more than a half dozen significant words or compound clauses of any kind.

The video reveals what is perfectly obvious to anyone able to objectively review the conduct of his administration: the man is a moron!

oops - moral of story: google before you post.

Oh I get we believe the Bush/Cheney joint appearance but forget what Bush says in the White zhouse transcripts. Or are you saying that it doesn't take 20 minutes for an ICBM to reach California?

Speaking of selected editing, Lawrence tells us:

' There are two important points in this response. "First it was Rassman, a special forces guy who put him in for the medal. Second, the Navy would have taken his statement and investigated. As part of that process they would have asked Thurow about his version of events. If thurow, and others had contradicted Rassman's version then there would have been no medal. " '

Thurlow himself answers Rassman in the CNN transcript, and Lawrence either missed it or deliberately left it out:

WOODRUFF: Mr. Thurlow, why didn't you bring this up earlier?

THURLOW: For one thing, I did not know that John had been put in for a Bronze Star, a Silver Star or, for that matter, a Purple Heart on that day. I did not see the after-action report, which, in fact, was written by John. And as the years went by, John was not running for the highest office in the free world.

http://www.thehistorynet.com/ah/blkerryinvietnam/index2.html

Something else Lawrence didn't notice is this problem with the American History (and Tour of Duty) article:

--------quote-------
The five boats had gone about half a mile when the blast came. Right where they had been hit on an earlier mission, a mine exploded directly beneath Lieutenant James Rassman's PCF-3 near Kerry's port side. Rassman's Swift lifted about two feet up out of the water, engulfed in mud and spray, then settled, rocking so hard from side to side that the boat started zigzagging from the banks to the middle of the river. Everybody on board PCF-3 was wounded. "At the same moment, we came under a hail of small-arms fire from both banks," Kerry recorded in his journal. "I turned the boat into the fire on the left with the intention of trying to get the troops ashore on the outskirts of the ambush, but Sandusky, who was driving the boat and who had his eyes glued on the crippled 3 boat, pointed out to me how badly hit they had been. We veered back toward her then and tried to provide cover from the engaged side. Suddenly another explosion went off right beside us, and the concussion threw me violently against the bulkhead on the door, and I smashed my arm. At the same instant, Jim Rassman was blown overboard..
--------endquote------

We're there two Jim Rassman's on this mission?

Also, "The following is from American History Magazine and includes Thurlows actions. For which he too won a bronze star."

He didn't win his Bronze Star for this mission. And note that Kerry's version of events doesn't jibe with the official version either, he doesn't say he was wounded and bleeding, merely that he hurt his arm being slammed around inside his boat.

From the Boston Globe:
Snip
"Yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book. "
Snip

Sullivan is just soo confused. You have an eyewitness who recomended Kerry for a silver star (he got a bronze star), who says there was shooting, there were several wounded and thus purple hearts were awarded, as a commanding officer Thurow would have submitted an after action report, naming the wounded, he would have been asked as part of the Navy investigation preceeding the award, and of course they now change their story (after 35 years). In the meantime as the Globe article above indicates, the conspiracy seems to be falling apart unbder the weight of the evidence.

Why do you hate America so Patrick.

Lawrence, the wounded were from the boat that sustained the mine explosion. No one was wounded by enemy fire from the river banks.

Second, the eyewitness who backs up Kerry's version was UNDERWATER while the two eyewitnesses who say there was no enemy fire were atop their Swift Boats.

Sullivan:ITS NOT "KERRY"S VERSION ITS RASSMAN'S STORY.

Furlow was underwater too REMEMBER. Look at the transcript and the American History article. In fact he was in the water longer than Rassman. So you can't say something like he had a better view. There is a technical term for this. Its called LYING.

RASSMAN was UNDERWATER because he was being SHOT AT. There were wounded in Kerry's boat as well. One can't help but notice the descrepency. Bullet holes in bodies and none in boats? Rassman expressly states that, others, includinging those on Kerry's boat concur.

Then we have this from the ad.
"Adrian Lonsdale, finishes the thought, saying: "And, he lacks the capacity to lead."

Looks like he had a different opinion before Kerry decided to run for President:

"As far as I was concerned, the war was won over there in that part for that period. And it was mainly won because of the bravado and the courage of the young officers that ran the boats, the SWIFT boats and the Coast Guard cutters and Senator Kerry was no exception. He was among the finest of those," he said in 1996.

Is this a "flip flop?" Or does only Kerry get to do that?

This thing is not just falling apart. It is falling apart in such a way that it will become an absolute embarassment for Bush.

This is an administration that can't really do anything right. Jobs. WMD's. Getting the power on in Iraq. Even Negative campaigning. Its incompetance is incredible.

Hey guys, Bush has made a huge thing of his wonderful leadership on 9/11. The fact that his leadership was non-existent is absolutely fair game. It is not just the 7 minutes that is the issue, the President and Air Force one spent the whole day in a state of confusion and inaction.

A few hours after the Birghton bomb almost killed her and her entire cabinet, Margaret Thatcher was giving one of the best speeches she ever gave to the Conservative party conference. After a cabinet meeting was interrupted by mortar fire that brought down part of the cabinet room, PM John Major calmly said to his collegues, "Gentlemen I think we should meet elsewhere", led everyone out to carry on the meeting in another room.

The seven minutes was excusable, the abject TV performances were not. Call them what you will they were not examples of world class leadership which is what you would expect from a US President. Clinton and Reagan both did far better.

It is hard to imagine that Kerry would have survived Vietnam, let alone won bronze and silver stars if his response to his boat comming under fire was to continue reading my pet goat or drift off into space for seven minutes.

Judge the candidates on the record of their reactions when they came under fire. Kerry won awards for bravery, Bush waited to be told what to do by his aides.

Equally important, judge them by the preparations they made for the attack. Kerry wrote a book on terrorism, Bush demoted the position of counter-terrorism co-ordinator and when told that an Al Qaeda attack is imminent went to his ranch for a month long vacation.

The jobs numbers out today probably ensure that Bush will be able to break ground on his presidential library at the end of January. Presumably the centerpiece of the library will be "My Pet Goat"?

Hello all:

The post about King George being illiterate is an excellent synopsis. Albeit cruel, he surely can read some words...but I remember before 9-11-01 on C-span cable television network, The Prez was doing a photo op reading to students with a children's book. A book with the letters in big font, probably a 4-year-old level book.
Ok, it was very similar to scene in Florida on 9-11.
On this ealrier occasion, he was sitting with the 1st lady. Bush was about to commence reading the book to the squatting children. Before he was about to begin reading the 1st word, he paused and handed the book to his wife to read - as he passed her the book, he gave off a sheepish grin, like "here, you do it better"- like you read to children better; or you read better; or I have no attention span; or this is not presidential; this is why I have the 1st lady sitting with me...He then had a Mad magazine: Alfred E. Nuemann look of "what me worry" all over his face.
I laughed so hard back then that it really hurts today.

either way, he wanted no part of that book. Hey, look, it is not easy being the president. It is a very taxing scehdule. I wish we could make him take a IQ test to really find out what is cognitive thinking ability really is???????????

Hey Jim,
DOW 36000?

Nobody seems to have noticed the error in the story - but Bush was NOT reading the story to the kids, but merely following along. How disruptive to the photo-op would it have been for him to apologize and step out of the room? (Incidentally, how telling is it that his handlers wouldn't risk having him actually read the book out loud?).....

"Furlow was underwater too REMEMBER. Look at the transcript and the American History article. In fact he was in the water longer than Rassman. So you can't say something like he had a better view. There is a technical term for this. Its called LYING."

The technical term is "reading comprehension" and clearly Lawrence doesn't. Thurlow only went into the water LATER; after he'd jumped onto the damaged #3 and it ran aground. By that time Rassman had already been picked up by Kerry's boat. So, Thurlow definitely did have a better view of what was going on.

"RASSMAN was UNDERWATER because he was being SHOT AT. There were wounded in Kerry's boat as well."

No, there weren't. Unless you count the bruised arm Kerry suffered by being slammed around his boat. Kerry's own "after action report" doesn't claim he was "bleeding" as the Bronze Star citation claims. This information is all available on the internet, Lawrence.

"One can't help but notice the descrepency. Bullet holes in bodies and none in boats? Rassman expressly states that, others, includinging those on Kerry's boat concur."

Absolutely false. No one was hit by enemy bullets during this incident.

Thurlow was in the water when fire was being directed at the boats:
Snip
"Thurlow was struggling to get PCF-3's wounded gunner out of his hole and onto the deck when the damaged Swift ran aground hard on a shoal on the right side of the river, sending Thurlow somersaulting into the water. At the same moment, the five Swifts came under fire from the right side again.."
Snip

Could he have missed the action because he was underwater? Nah. He's just lying.

Of course Rasmussin was out of the water by that time.
Rasmussin adamately reports that there were being fired upon. The after action reports agree. And the Naval investigation inot the ambush also agreed.

The problem with this attempt is that unlike other smear jobs (such as McCain's) is that this one is not well thought out. It is too direct, and easily countered. Why ? Because of all those written military records.

The second problem is that this is the sort of pissing contest Bush can't win. On the one hand it highlights the fact that Kerry was in Nam and Bush was not. It invites a backlash by vets once they look into it. And it could only work if there were not amp-le easily available sources (including live people) or the person be mauled had few if in any resources, or didn't know about it. I'm eagerly awaiting the outcome. Thus far it does not look good for Bush.

One of the things that most annoys me whenever I hear the "he was keeping the children calm" defence is that he was willing to risk placing them in harm's way. Think that's going too far? Consider that his itinery was public record and known in advance. Consider America is under attack by unknown attackers, and the attack has just begun. IF President Bush HAD been targetted for attack as well, something no one could have ruled out at the time, then by staying in that classroom he was placing those children's lives at risk on top of his dereliction.

Botom line is that there is no good explanation for what happened other than he froze in the crunch. I sometimes wonder if the "determination" he has show since is overcompensation for this freeze, which he knows he did, even if he isn't admitting it to others.

Lawrence, you could be right. But most veterans will not look into it, they'll accept what they're told from sources they usually consider reliable.

Lawrence is truly a glutton for punishment. From the American History article:

"Thurlow was struggling to get PCF-3's wounded gunner out of his hole and onto the deck when the damaged Swift ran aground hard on a shoal on the right side of the river, sending Thurlow somersaulting into the water. At the same moment, the five Swifts came under fire from the right side again, and Kerry remembered thinking that was it -- they were going to get completely cut off and annihilated in a crossfire. Spontaneously, however, every boat there stood its ground and filled the entire right bank of the river with .50-caliber, M-79, M-16 and any other firepower they had, while one of the Swifts moved in and retrieved Thurlow, who had picked himself up out of the mud."

Since it undoubtedly won't register: Thurlow is pitched into the river in a shallow spot UNLIKE RASSMAN. He stands up in the MUD, he is not underwater at all.

Rassman himself says he went under five or six times. Isn't it likely that Thurlow would know whether or not he was being fired at as he stood in the mud?

'One of the things that most annoys me whenever I hear the "he was keeping the children calm" defence is that he was willing to risk placing them in harm's way. Think that's going too far?'

Um, yes.

'Consider that his itinery was public record and known in advance.... IF President Bush HAD been targetted for attack as well, something no one could have ruled out at the time, then by staying in that classroom he was placing those children's lives at risk...'

Ah, so you are saying that if Dubya had left the classroom after one minute instead of seven, the outside attackers who had targeted the school on the basis of the public itinerary would have known it and said to each other: He left the classroom one minute ago, drat, call off the attack. Sure. ;-)

Such fervid following of their new intellectual leader Michael Moore to such inescapable deductions of fact is causing the Democrats to forfeit forever whatever claim they ever thought they had to being the 'smarter party'.

Using your own logic, did you even consider the possibility that maybe Bush's handlers wanted him to stay put for a few moments because being in a classroom surrounded by the Secret Service was the *safest* place for him to be until they got a grip on what was happening?

Face it, the bottom line is that following their new Pied Piper, the Dems are (suddenly, 2 1/2 years after the fact) slanging Bush for the sin of showing composure in public during the first few minutes of a crisis -- and being a veritable Rock of Gibraltar compared to FDR, who held his head in his hands, moaned about his reputation, and could barely talk for hours (at least).

And, hey, I didn't even mention George Stephanopoulos' description of the reactions of Clinton to *his* bad news occasions -- but all off camera of course!

Savaging a president for showing composure in public ... smarter party no more. ;-(

'I sometimes wonder if the "determination" he has show since is overcompensation for this freeze...'

Do you also figure the Normandy invasion and developing the Atom Bomb were FDR's way of overcompensating for going into a "despondent fog", holding his head in his hands and moaning about his reputation?

Er, Jim. The point is that, after having one of his top aides whisper in his ear that "America is under attack" (to quote the 9-11 Commission report), he did not excuse himself, walk into the next room, and try to find out from his aides what the hell was going on and how to deal with it. Instead, he sat in the room for the next 7 minutes reading "My Pet Goat". A very peculiar reaction, and a very dangerous one. One does wonder how he would have responded to news of an imminent nuclear attack.

Nor does the Commission -- which interviewed both Bush and his aides -- say a word about the Secret Service ordering him to stay in that room. Quite the contrary; Bush told them he made the decision on his lonesome lone to show "strength and calm". Or something. Its description of the whole remarkable event can be found on pg. 38-39 of the Report.)

And the fact that FDR apparently did exactly the same thing (after his own negligence had led to the Pearl Harbor attack) is not really much of a defense. As I pointed out on Tom Maguire's site, if we actually have had a large number of presidents who faint like Victorian maiden aunts every time the country undergoes a serious and urgent crisis, it's a miracle we've survived as long as we have.

Patrick, your claim and Thurlow's claim is that the official report is a lie. Either the report is lying or Thrlow is lying.

Now you are using details from the official report to decide whether Thurlow would know whether it's a lie. But that's useless. If the report is lying then it could just as easily be lying about whether Thurlow was in position to see what was going on.

And if Thurlow is lying then it doesn't matter whether he could see or not.

Now, if the report is right, 5 US boats were shooting everything they had at the right bank beyond him. He would know better than to stand up and look around to see whether there was any other fire.

But if the report is wrong, then the question is what he says happened. If one boat hit a mine and there was no shooting from the banks, maybe there was no return fire either, and everybody there would have some idea that probably nobody was getting shot at -- except maybe sailors who got deafened when the mine went off.

Two stories. An ambush, one boat hits a mine, Kerry takes off and loses a man. Kerry comes back to get his man while the attackers fire maybe from both shores (that's how I'd do it anyway), the boats return fire to suppress the attackers while they pick up the guys in the water, then they all leave.

An unattended minefield, one boat hits a mine and then runs aground spilling men. Kerry takes off and loses a man. Kerry comes back and gets his man while everybody else sorts themselves out, presumably without any shooting. They all leave.

Could Thurlow be mistaken? He's had a nearby explosion and then he's been thrown off the boat. Maybe shook up, and if the boats *were* firing over him he has some incentive not to stand up and find out whether there's shooting the other direction. He'd be wrong to be so certain but perhaps he could be mistaken rather than lying.

If it's worth finding out, maybe the inquiry might have some info. It would at least say what some crewmen claimed back then, as opposed to now.

Lawrence: "The following is from American History Magazine and includes Thurlow's actions. For which he too won a bronze star."

Patrick Sullivan: "He didn't win his Bronze Star for this mission. And note that Kerry's version of events doesn't jibe with the official version either, he doesn't say he was wounded and bleeding, merely that he hurt his arm being slammed around inside his boat."

Odd: Douglas Brinkley finishes his article by saying that Thurlow DID get a Bronze Star for that action. What did he get it for, Patrick?

Also, note that -- just as with the Wounded VC Affair -- Kerry supposedly actually DOWNSCALES his account of his own courage at precisely the time when it would politically benefit him the most not to do so, and when there are fewer other fresh memories among his fellow vets to contradict him.

Sullivan: "Second, the eyewitness who backs up Kerry's version was UNDERWATER while the two eyewitnesses who say there was no enemy fire were atop their Swift Boats."

Rassman, in the "Inside Politics" transcript ( http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/05/ip.01.html):

"Mr. Thurlow is being disingenuous. I don't know what his motivation is, but I was receiving fire in the water every time I came up for air. I don't recall anybody being in the area around us until I came up maybe five or six times for air and Kerry came back to pick me up out of the water."

In short, Rassmann was not Captain Nemo. You can't just imply he might have been mistaken because he was "underwater" the entire time, Patrick. One of these two men is lying through his teeth.

I'm still trying to find out where Thurlow won his Bronze Star (no clue yet on Google). But, in the process, I have dug up one odd disparity in Thurlow's testimony. From his Woodruff interview:

"THURLOW: This is a 3-boat (ph) -- this is on the opposite side of the river of John Kerry's boat. At this point, John Kerry speeds out of the area, I assume to clear the kill zone. The rest of the boats, however, went to the aid of the 3-boat (ph), which was completely disabled. Two members of that crew are in the water, the rest are badly wounded and basically incapacitated on board that boat.

"WOODRUFF: You're basically saying he fled when there was...

"THURLOW: I am saying he fled the area on the explosion under the 3-boat (ph). "

Now consider http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-12-kerry-vietnam_x.htm :

"...[E]ven those who felt betrayed by Kerry for later leading Vietnam Veterans Against the War and who call themselves Bush supporters acknowledge that he showed courage under fire. 'He was extremely brave, and I wouldn't argue that point,' Thurlow says."

Well, he's certainly arguing it now where this incident is concerned.

It's that Moomaw "Appallingly Sloppy" Reading Syndrome at work again. Thurlow isn't accusing Kerry of cowardice in the river that day. He's accusing him of embellishing what happened.

And Brinkley's account is riddled with error--he's got Rassman being blown off two different boats IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH.

When are you going to break down and enroll in a remedial reading class?

Wow, potkettleblack.
The absolute bestest rose food.

Open wide, my American Beauties.

"When are you going to break down and enroll in a remedial reading class?"

Well, Patrick, some consdierable time after you do. I DID ask you to tell us what your source is for saying Thurman got his Bronze Star elsewhere, rather than for this action as Brinkley says. And I DID ask you to explain to us how Rassmann could have been mistaken about ther being "any enemy fire at all" because he was "underwater" the whole time, when during the Woodruff interview he explciitly says he was shot at intensely every one of the "five or six times" he came up for air. And, comb that paragraph you mention as I may, I can't see any evidence that Brinkley said Rassman was blown off "two different boats". Quite the contrary; what I see is an account of two separate mine explosions, the second of which simultaneously threw Kerry aginst the bulkhead on his own boat and knocked Rassmann overboard from PCF-3 immediately nearby.

As for Thurman not "accusing Kerry of cowardice": he's accusing him of "fleeing the area" the moment those mines went off, and not coming back. Or rather, he's NOW suddenly accusing him of it, after telling "USA Today" four months ago that he "wouldn't argue that Kerry was extremely brave".

Meanwhile, some intriguing revelations on the glaring self-contradictions in the statements of Adm. Roy Hoffmann; co-founder of SBVT.

LA Times, July 5 ( http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-kerryviet5jul05,1,7788862.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage ):

"...Hoffmann and Kerry had few direct dealings in Vietnam. A Los Angeles Times examination of Navy archives found that Hoffmann praised Kerry's performance in cabled messages after several river skirmishes...

"Hoffmann, a decorated Korean War veteran whom Navy officials chose to carry out that strategy, has not forgiven Kerry for questioning Sealords' results.

" 'He never saw the big picture,' Hoffmann, 78, said during an interview at his Virginia home. 'The key concept was to take over the rivers and work up to the Cambodian border. Well, we did that.'

"Plucked off a destroyer to head the Navy's effort to slash Vietcong supply routes, Capt. Hoffmann demanded initiative and obedience. A distant figure known by his code name, Latch, he popped in on missions, standing watch on deck with a .45 on his hip and a cigar clenched in his teeth. He gave officers authority to fire at will, and demanded body counts to prove their success. Favored lieutenants were cheered on with terse 'Bravo Zulu' messages that signified 'Well done.' Sometimes Hoffmann added: 'Good shooting.'

"Kerry's charge won him a Silver Star, personally awarded by Zumwalt in a Saigon ceremony. Three days after the skirmish, Kerry and his crew also received a cable from Sealords task force headquarters.

" 'The tactic of attack and assault thoroughly surprised the enemy in his spider-holes and proved to be immensely effective in rousting him into the open,' the message read.

"The cable was from Hoffmann. Four times in February and March, he cabled Kerry and his crew, praising them and other Swift boats after skirmishes. Hoffmann acknowledged the cables, saying Kerry showed 'some pretty sharp thinking. He had courage. But he was loose. He went out on his own too much.'

"Hoffmann and several former Swift officers said Kerry's boat sometimes veered off during missions without explanation — a criticism Kerry and his crewmen dismissed.

"There are no official rebukes in Navy archives or Kerry's available personnel file. Hoffmann's criticism is also at odds with the glowing evaluations of Kerry in his official Navy record."

Hoffmann, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, May 6 ( http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/may04/227671.asp?format=print ): "Hoffmann acknowledged he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's claims to valor and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn't know Kerry much personally."

Hoffmann, NY Times, Aug. 5 ( http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/05/politics/campaign/05veterans.html ): "'We were on the same operations, we were operating within 25-50 yards of him all the time, and for them to suggest we don't know John Kerry is pure old bull,' Mr. Hoffmann said."

Hoffmann, "Sean Hannity Show", Aug. 5: "I knew him well, because I operated very closely with him and, uh, many of the operations, uh, most of the operations were -- were conducted with multiple boats."

Odd. Apparently he didn't operate closely enough with Kerry to ever criticize him seriously during the actual war. Something tells me the co-founder of SBVT may get a pimple on his tongue...

Indeed (as Hoffmann told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel), he got it significantly in for Kerry ONLY after Kerry came out against the war and accused US troops of frequent war crimes -- which Tommy Franks has now told Sean Hannity he thinks Kerry may perhaps have been right on. (Given the Toledo Blade's Pulizer-winning account of the Tiger Force, and Charles Lane's 1995 "New Republic" account of Americal Division's actvities, it would be rather difficult to deny that now.)

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040512/SRTIGERFORCE/405120331

http://www.tnr.com/politics/cnote/lane041795.html

Bruce Moomaw hands me a Big Bertha, and then places his head upon a tee:

"...comb that paragraph you mention as I may, I can't see any evidence that Brinkley said Rassman was blown off 'two different boats'. Quite the contrary; what I see is an account of two separate mine explosions, the second of which simultaneously threw Kerry aginst the bulkhead on his own boat and knocked Rassmann overboard from PCF-3 immediately nearby."

You can collect your head about 300 yards down the fairway, Bruce:

----------quote----------
a mine exploded directly beneath Lieutenant James Rassman's PCF-3 near Kerry's port side. Rassman's Swift lifted about two feet up out of the water, engulfed in mud and spray, then settled, rocking so hard from side to side that the boat started zigzagging from the banks to the middle of the river. Everybody on board PCF-3 was wounded. "At the same moment, we came under a hail of small-arms fire from both banks," Kerry recorded in his journal. "I turned the boat into the fire on the left with the intention of trying to get the troops ashore on the outskirts of the ambush, but Sandusky, who was driving the boat and who had his eyes glued on the crippled 3 boat, pointed out to me how badly hit they had been. We veered back toward her then and tried to provide cover from the engaged side. Suddenly another explosion went off right beside us, and the concussion threw me violently against the bulkhead on the door, and I smashed my arm. At the same instant, Jim Rassman was blown overboard, although nobody knew it
----------endquote-----------

Do you see a pattern regarding your ability to read, Bruce?

No, but I certainly see one where YOURS is concerned, Patrick. Where, in that paragraph, does it say Rassmann wasn't thrown overboard from PFC-3 (which, as I say, was very close to Kerry's boat) by the same explosion?

And I'm still waiting for your answers to those other questions...

To give a helping hand to our favorite reading challenged poster to SDJ, here's Rassman talking to Judy Woodruff:

------------quote---------
WOODRUFF: All right. Well, before -- and let me ask Jim Rassmann about that part of the story before we ask what happened to him.

Jim Rassmann, what -- what do you say happened that day in March, 1969?

JIM RASSMANN, KERRY SUPPORTER: Well, first, I was not part of John Kerry's command. I was a Special Forces officer who happened to be on his boat at that time.
----------endquote--------

Kerry's boat was #94.

And, as for Bruce's latest blunder:

"As for Thurman not 'accusing Kerry of cowardice': he's accusing him of "fleeing the area" the moment those mines went off, and not coming back."

Here's what Thurlow said to Judy Woodruff:

---------quote--------------
THURLOW: ....

The rescue efforts began on the 3-boat (ph). And at this time, the second boat in line, mine being the third boat on the left bank, began to do this.

Now, two members in this boat, keep in mind, are in the river at that time. They're picked up. The boat that picks them up starts toward Lieutenant Rassmann at this time, that's the 23-boat (ph). But before they get there, ***John does return*** and pick him up.
-------------endquote-----------

(My *** in the above)

Ah. So Brinkley does NOT have "Rassmann blown off two different boats IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH" -- the disparity, instead, is between that paragraph and one passing comment Rassmann made during the Woodruff interview. So you're saying that Brinkley's account differs from BOTH men's testimony during the Woodruff interview? And -- to repeat what I said earlier -- that one of these two men is flat-out lying through his teeth, rather than Rassmann simply being mistaken because he was "underwater" the entire time? And that as of this April -- during which time Thurlow was still insisting that Kerry was "extremely brave" -- that he still didn't know Kerry had received a Bronze Star for the incident in which he claims Kerry actually acted like a flat-out coward?

And I'm still waiting for you to tell us where Thurlow did get his own Bronze Star.

The best way to resolve this particular Rashomon-type situation is to find out what the skippers of the OTHER three Swift boats in that affair say. According to Brinkley's article, they were Rich McCann, Skip Barker and Don Droz.

Well, a 2-minute stroll through Google reveals that:

(1) Barker is an wildly enthusiastic supporter of Kerry. (See http://www.abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/politics/072804_politics_kerry_vet.html and http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1090919792168000.xml , to name just two of dozens of entries.)

(2) Droz was killed in Vietnam -- but not before sending his widow a whole series admiring letters about Kerry (whose anti-war views he shared):
http://www.abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/politics/072804_politics_kerry_vet.html

and not before (according to Brinkley's book) accompanying Kerry in his unsuccessful attempt to confront Captain Adrian Lonsdale about supposedly lousy, destructive orders by Adm. Hoffmann -- at which point, according to Kerry, Lonsdale told them he had no power to countermand those orders:
http://www.s-t.com/daily/11-96/11-04-96/d01lo120.htm

Again, there are literally dozens of Google entries about Droz and Kerry. What's especially interesting about this is that Lonsdale is now a member of SBVT on the grounds of Kerry's accusations of frequent US war crimes -- but nevertheless told "South Coast Today" in Nov. 1996: that he had known Kerry very well personally: "He was opposed to the war but it didn't make any difference in his performance...He was a very good officer."
http://www.s-t.com/daily/11-96/11-04-96/d01lo120.htm

(3) There's only one other Google entry on Rich McCann, and it's from another Kerry article Brinkley did for "Salon" this April ("Why Kerry Threw His Ribbons", cached on Google) in which he says: "Watching TV that evening was Rich McCann, who had traveled the Mekong Delta rivers with Kerry and was now a graduate student at George Washington University. 'When he threw those medals over the fence, I was pretty upset,' McCann recalled. 'I was grappling with a lot of issues myself. It was hard to accept that I had given a year of my life for a lost cause. In retrospect, however, what he did was right.' "

Now, the obvious next step is to find out whether Brinkley's correct about the IDs of those three skippers, and then to talk to McCann, Barker and Droz's widow (who kept her husband's handwritten letters). If Brinkley IS right about their identities, then it seems just a wee bit strange that none of them raised hell about Kerry's behavior during that incident.

And, yes, I did catch Thurlow's statement that Kerry did come back -- eventually.

Several Google entries confirm that Barker was one of the three other skippers in that affair, but I cannot confirm that Droz and McCann were.

"...and not before (according to Brinkley's book) accompanying Kerry in his unsuccessful attempt to confront Captain Adrian Lonsdale about supposedly lousy, destructive orders by Adm. Hoffmann -- at which point, according to Kerry, Lonsdale told them he had no power to countermand those orders:
http://www.s-t.com/daily/11-96/11-04-96/d01lo120.htm "

Wrong URL -- it's http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Adrian_Lonsdale .

Sorry.

Some people here are beyond embarrassment:

"Ah. So Brinkley does NOT have "Rassmann blown off two different boats IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH" -- the disparity, instead, is between that paragraph and one passing comment Rassmann made during the Woodruff interview."

No Bruce, the bit from the Woodruff interview was A HINT for you. Which didn't register. So let's go the the kindergartern class, Brinkley first says:

"a mine exploded directly beneath Lieutenant James Rassman's PCF-3 near Kerry's port side."

Then, after a description of the damage to PCF-3, he has Kerry saying:

" Suddenly another explosion went off right beside us, and the concussion threw me violently against the bulkhead on the door, and I smashed my arm. At the same instant, Jim Rassman was blown overboard, although nobody knew it."

Now do you get it?

I see Bruce is trying to lose the thread in irrelevancies about who else might have been on the river that day, and what they MIGHT have said about the incident. However, we don't need to speculate about what THREE of the men who WERE there, DID say.

1. Von Odell is a former enlisted man, who I have heard on the radio saying that there was no fire from either river bank.

2. Jack Chenowith was skipper of one the Swift Boats (PCF-23, I believe) who picked up the men in the water from PCF-3, and was about to pick up Rassman when Kerry got to him first. Chenowith agrees with Odell and Thurlow; there was NO enemy fire from the river banks.

3. Larry Thurlow was the third skipper, and as above tells the same story as Odell and Chenowith.

Not that you will be able to comprehend what is written here, but go to the following, and scroll down to The Bronze Star Lie:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002202.php

And yet Sen. Kerry is quoted on Larry King Live with his wife as saying he was in the Capitol when he heard, along with Tom Daschle, and a few others. (paraphrasing but accurately) We all sat around and like we couldn't think. We were jogged into action when we heard of the crash into the Pentagon."

anyone know how much time elapsed between the two events/ 40+minutes! Over 40 minutes where he is quoted as saying he and a group of prominent democrats "couldn't think" or comprehend of what was happening. I frankly don't blame them, but to use this as a criticsm when there really wasn't anything for Bush to do is disingenuous at best.

What the President should have done during those seven minutes

Gwendolyn Tose'-Rigell says "What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?"...

1) Bush was ENDANGERING those kids by not evacuating the school immediately.

* Bush is a top terrorist target

* Bush's location on 9/11 was all over the news since Sept. 7th

* America is under attack.

* There is an International Airport within 5 miles of the Booker Elementary School.

2) Any first grader knows the President is a busy man

By being a parent, I am sure the average 6 year old would not be scared if the President had to leave "for a phone call". Also I know any parent would rather have his kids scared than under deadly danger.

Don't they do any fire drills at Booker elementary ?!!? Does Booker Elementary teach kids and teachers to stay calm reading in a classroom - instead of evacuating the school - during a fire ?

3) Bush knew about the first attack before entering the classroom

Why didn't he delay his photo op until he saw what was going on ? When told about the second plane he shouldn't have been surprised, he knew - or should have known- terrorists were targeting planes. And having been a pilot shouldn't Bush have asked himself: "Gee, isn't there something a President needs to authorize during an attack on America's skies ?"

4) Bush himself has said: "I knew I needed to act.

I knew that if the nation's under attack, the role of the Commander-In-Chief is to respond forcefully to prevent other attacks from happening"
(from the same WH link posted above, where he LIES he saw the first plane)

5) Bush's quick action could have saved 200 lives on the Pentagon

Jets can go pretty fast, there was enough time for jets to intercept the pentagon flight and the last flight. But an order from Bush was the only way to authorize any jets to fire on a civilian plane

See more at
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/13/171340/620

What the President should have done during those seven minutes

Gwendolyn Tose'-Rigell says "What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?"...

1) Bush was ENDANGERING those kids by not evacuating the school immediately.

* Bush is a top terrorist target

* Bush's location on 9/11 was all over the news since Sept. 7th

* America is under attack.

* There is an International Airport within 5 miles of the Booker Elementary School.

2) Any first grader knows the President is a busy man

By being a parent, I am sure the average 6 year old would not be scared if the President had to leave "for a phone call". Also I know any parent would rather have his kids scared than under deadly danger.

Don't they do any fire drills at Booker elementary ?!!? Does Booker Elementary teach kids and teachers to stay calm reading in a classroom - instead of evacuating the school - during a fire ?

3) Bush knew about the first attack before entering the classroom

Why didn't he delay his photo op until he saw what was going on ? When told about the second plane he shouldn't have been surprised, he knew - or should have known- terrorists were targeting planes. And having been a pilot shouldn't Bush have asked himself: "Gee, isn't there something a President needs to authorize during an attack on America's skies ?"

4) Bush himself has said: "I knew I needed to act.

I knew that if the nation's under attack, the role of the Commander-In-Chief is to respond forcefully to prevent other attacks from happening"
(from the same WH link posted above, where he LIES he saw the first plane)

5) Bush's quick action could have saved 200 lives on the Pentagon

Jets can go pretty fast, there was enough time for jets to intercept the pentagon flight and the last flight. But an order from Bush was the only way to authorize any jets to fire on a civilian plane

See more at
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/13/171340/620