Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
In sum, he's a liar.- Apparently, the latest version of Kerry's Cambodia Chronicles includes the insertion of Navy SEALs by Swift boat into Cambodia in the early part of 1969. Well, I am a former Navy SEAL that served in the 1990s, my father in law is a former SEAL and he served in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam in 1970. I spoke with him about the likelihood that this story could be correct. My contention was that Swift boats were too large to be routinely used as an insertion platform for SEALs.
SEALs typically used the Medium SEAL Support Craft (MSSC) or the LSSC. My dad's platoon, had one of each assigned. These boats were designed by SEALs and specially built for the Teams to use on clandestine riverine insertions at night of usually no more than 8 operators. Swift boats operated in groups as independent entities, and not as insertion/extraction platforms for small units.
Jim Rassman's ODA was probably on there because SF A teams don't have organic boat assets and were using the Swifties because they had no other means of getting where they needed to go. Also, it is my understanding that the engagement with Kerry getting the Bronze Star took place during the day, which leads me to believe the insertion mission was either a large infantry force led by the SF guys, or a civic action type mission for which SF is well known.
Waterborne infiltrations done illegally into a "neutral" country if performed would be done by small groups of operators (less than 8), at night, in a small tributary, by a boat with a very shallow draft and jacuzzi, not propeller drive. To do otherwise, would be ridiculous.
SEALs also did not trust anyone outside of their immediate peer group. They developed their own intel by snatching high ranking VC out of their beds in the middle of the night. They did not share this info outside the platoon, boat guys, and Seawolves helo crews (close fire support assets). They learned early on that passing intel up the chain was a sure way to be compromised on future operations.
In order to get permission to conduct an illegal incursion into Cambodia by Swift boat the following must occur: 1. Extremely fresh intel of a high value target (think U.S. POW, or VC chieftain). 2. Take that intel outside the group and up to intel at a higher level (risking compromise) in order to obtain boat support from the Swifties to go into Cambodia. That is extremely unlikely to the point of absurdity.
Furthermore, neither myself or my father in law knows anyone who was inserted anywhere by a Swift boat during Vietnam. It just wasn't done. It wasn't something SEALs wanted, and it wasn't something Swifties did.
Bottom Line......Kerry is a liar.
link
|
They're all liars. So you've exposed an insignificant lie. OK.
Would you like moe to make a list of all the lies told by all four men presently running for Pres/VP? You got a few spare days. If we start now, I think I can get them all cataloged for you by noon Friday.
I don't care that Kerry lied. This might be the stupidest debate to ever touch this board, and that's coming from me - the king of stupid debates. Think of candidates like contracts. Its not any one clause that forms the basis of the bargain - its the totality of the terms. Kerry's lie is tantamount to him violating a clause which requires payment by Thursday by mailing the check Thursday. It is relevant and worth noting, but it isn't a full breach of anything. Now, Bush's lies... well, now you're in big time breach category, starting with "I'm a compassionate Rockefeller conservative" and ending with "Saddam was threat to national security."
However, just as Kerry's swift boat lies don't make him an entirely defective candidate, neither do Bush's lies. There was a method to his madness. I think he really wanted to take the war off our shores and felt the ends justified the means in doing so.
Maybe if the fucking GOP and the Dems would view the totality of the candidates, instead of gloming onto whatever dirt they can find, we'd have a real debate, instead of this pointless SwiftBoat circle jerk.
Or maybe I'm nuts for thinking a candidate is the sum of his parts, rather than only as good as his most noticeable fuck up.
