Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
William Rood, an editor for the Chicago Trib, served alongside Kerry the day that they stormed the riverbank and chased down the VC firing upon them, and breaks his 30 year silence on the subject to contest the Swiftvets for Revenge, whose allegations he says are both untrue, and are placing doubt on everyone who served there.
Among other things, Rood's account determines that the VC Kerry chased down and killed was a grown man, not "teenager in a loincloth," that Kerry's decision to turn on the bank was not impulsive but discussed beforehand with all three skippers of the boats, and that Rear Adm. Hoffman (who has since been very critical of the Kerry campaign) said at one point in a congratulatory message that the tactic of charging the ambushes was a "shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be the most efficacious method of dealing with small numbers of ambushers."
Of course, Rood is a journalist for a major newspaper, and is undoubtedly biased. Fucking liberal.
|
To the unwitting reader who doesn't follow the details of national stories (e.g., the 50%+ who thought that Saddam Hussein built Osama bin Laden from clay), the story came across as an authoritative contradiction of the Swiftees. But that was just the tone, not necessarily the substance within the article.
What is clear from the article is that Kerry fragged himself in the ass and then was wounded (again) slightly later because he bumped his arm around the time of an explosion which presumably was caused by enemy munitions (of course, its hard to guarantee as this part of the story is told immediately after the part where its made clear that Kerry wasn't too careful with his own). Believe me, I'm doing my best not to put quotes around the term "wounded" there, but I think think the description of hte incident is enough. Than again, in my old stressful life, I used to tell my coworkers that every day was a potential sick day, because there is probably something or other that ain't perfect on any given day. Similarly, I'm wounding my fingers typing this message into the keyboard. 3 Purple Hearts and out, right?
What I really, really, really liked in the article though, was that Kerry's "diaries" were written circa 1971. That's a cute trick. For. Describing. 1969.
Oh, and Kerry's camp refuses to release or authorize the release of papers, claiming that they have an exclusive obligation to his biographer. Isn't his biographer that Boston Globe dude who is like his communications director or something (I seriously might be mistaken)? Either way, whatever.
I'd be perfectly happy if people left the war out of it, but it was too hard for Kerry's camp to pass by the Texas Air national guard thing. Yeah, that shit troubles me too. But the difference shows here. Bush keeps smiling (sorta like Reagan or Clinton would).
In stark contrast, Kerry is an insecure and sanctimonious little prick. So he see's the attack, and rather than letting out a belly laugh, he gets a serious look on his face and actually tries to debate half of the flippin Vietnam era navy. The smart thing to do would have been to make a few jokes about it, and never address it with a serious comment.
Christ, I don't think Bubba ever showed that he was taking the Monica thing seriously until he realized the tests would show his DNA was on her dress. The penalty for P-E-R-J-U-R-Y scared Bill, politics and questions about the past scare O'Kerrystein.
Kerry looks plainly pissed. And whiny. And shrill. And pathetic. There is no way he comes out of a battle with hundreds of his contemporary veterans looking good. The only real choice here was not to directly engage. All in all, this has been a disaster for Kerry.
Hell(edited because the points I'm making could have been stated soooo much better the first time)o
