KERRY'S OWN VIETNAM ACCOUNTS AND FACTS

Politics > Politics-USA > KERRY'S OWN VIETNAM ACCOUNTS AND FACTS

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 3

Topic:	Politics > Politics-USA
User:	"DGVREIMAN"
Date:	22 Feb 2005 03:28:01 PM
Object:	KERRY'S OWN VIETNAM ACCOUNTS AND FACTS

Since, suddenly, there seems to be some dispute and question as
to what Kerry actually did in Vietnam, I thought I would start to
repost just some of Kerry's and his men's personal accounts of
what actually happened, along with some eye witness accounts as
well.
KERRY'S OWN ACCOUNTS -SWIFT BOAT ACCUSATIONS
© Copyright 2004 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
It is easy to prove who is lying, the 65 officers and men of the
Swift Boats (who have no universal political affiliations) or the
so-called "Veteran" spokesperson for John Kerry. The spokesperson
that is speaking for Mr. Kerry admits (1) he never rode on a
Swift Boat in his life, and (2) never served with John Kerry,
ever, under any circumstances. So why is Mr. Hurley (Mr. Hurley
is the Veteran spokesperson for John Kerry) speaking for John
Kerry instead of at least one of his "band of brothers?" Mr.
Hurley often claims Kerry's crew "will confirm everything he and
John Kerry are claiming." So why is Mr. Kerry afraid to allow his
crew to speak publicly? Mr. Hurley, who did not even serve in the
same service as John Kerry, is quick to claim all of Kerry's crew
members will verify everything he is saying, but frankly I doubt
it.
I believe I know the reason why John Kerry does not want his crew
members to speak publicly. Part of Mr. Kerry's crew were already
interviewed previously by Mr. Brinkly when Brinkly completed his
biographical book on John Kerry, and during those interviews,
many of John Kerry's crew had something quite different to say
about John Kerry and those "missions" that earned Kerry all those
"medals." Ergo, Kerry is keeping his "band of brothers" as far
away from the camera as possible. Moreover, what promises has
John Kerry made to his "band of brothers" to get them to change
or modify their stories? We know they are traveling with the
Democratic candidate, and they are enjoying lavish hotels, meals,
and other "perks." But what else has Kerry offered them to
"change or modify their story" from previous accounts? It appears
that John Kerry does not want that question to be asked of his
"band of brothers" so he is hiding them from the press and
sending out Mr. Hurley, who can do no real damage because he
admits he never served with Kerry, to run interference with the
Press in respect to this hot issue.
I should also mention the Swift Boat members represent John Kerry's
entire chain of command when he was in Vietnam. Moreover, the
Swift Boat members have not been promised anything by anyone to
tell the truth, and further, Mr. O'Neil has said all proceeds
from his book "Unfit to Command" will be donated to charity.
Mr. Kerry's spokesperson, Mr. Hurley, constantly refers to Navy
documents that seem to substantiate John Kerry's version of Kerry's
Vietnam missions in question. But Hurley's reference to those
documents is clearly a deceptive and false reference. All of the
Navy documents Mr. Hurley is referencing are based completely on
the Spot or Incident reports that were initially filed after each
mission. Now guess who wrote up the accounts of those missions
and wrote them in a manner they would make him look like a hero?
Yep, you guessed it, ol Hanoi John Kerry himself. Also, guess
which documents' John Kerry is refusing to release (along with
several fitness reports that are not very complementary)? John
Kerry is refusing to release the Spot or Incident reports that he
authored and that he filed with a higher command so
surreptitiously that his fellow officers never saw them. The
public has a right to see those spot or incident reports you
authored Mr. Kerry. Please release them.
John Kerry took an 8mm Camera with him to Vietnam, and he
constantly reenacted missions on film that were distortions of
the real missions. That we know is a fact based upon statements
from his fellow officers. (One of those reinactments was shown at
the Democratic Convention and was misrepresented as a real
account and not a Hollywood version. But when the Swift Boat
members started to talk about Kerry's film, then Kerry admitted
his "version" was akin to a Michael Moore production). So if Mr.
Kerry will distort the filming of reinactments of missions in
Vietnam, and he will lie to Congress about what American Veterans
did in Vietnam, and clearly Kerry lied about being in Cambodia
(Kerry conjured up that lie so as to embarrass the Nixon
administration with hype and lies, true to Kerry's style) - so
considering all of the lies and distortions we have already
caught John Kerry trying to sell to the American people, can we
also believe that John Kerry would sink so low as to distort and
lie on Spot or Incident reports to gain medals that he clearly
did not deserve?
The Spot or Incident reports that gained Kerry his medals need to
be released and reviewed by the American public. If Kerry wrote
up his own reports in such a manner to gain him medals he did not
deserve, then Kerry should be forced to return those medals and
apologize to the American people for using deceit and deception
to gain Military awards he clearly did not merit.
The following is an account of John Kerry's Vietnam missions
based upon what some of Kerry's crew told Mr. David Brinkly years
back when Mr. Brinkly was preparing his Biography on John Kerry,
and what some of Kerry's Swift Boat comrades have said, and what
John Kerry said himself on record before he became a candidate
for the Presidency of the United States. (See Kerry's own account
at the end of this article. It contradicts what Kerry is saying
now).
During a patrol in the Mekong Delta in 1969 Kerry's crew caught
sight of a Vietnamese Sampan. So without checking the Sampan, who
was on board, or even if the Sampans were Viet Cong or just
civilian fishing boats, Kerry gave the signal for his crew to
open fire on the defenseless fishermen. Kerry later described the
fishermen as "running away like gazelles." - which is
understandable considering the amount of machine gun and M16
rifle fire that was directed toward them coming from Kerry's
boat. During this encounter, without a single shot fired at Kerry
or his boat, somehow, someway, Lt. Kerry suffered a very minor
scratch to his arm (probably from a self-inflicted wound as none
of his men saw him receive the wound, nor did he even announce
the wound to his crew when he claimed he received it). Yet after
Kerry returned from the mission, he immediately demanded a
"Purple Heart"medal for that tiny scratch, and for some
mysterious reason and contrary to Navy regulations, his request
for that medal was granted.
The above is a true account of Lt. Kerry's first Purple Heart
medal -a scratch on the arm not even caused by hostile fire,
directly nor indirectly, and not treated by any medical
personnel. Note also the Purple Heart medal regulations at the
time required any wound to be "treated by medical personnel"
before it could even qualify for the Purple Heart medal. The fact
the Navy Doctor that "looked at"( looking at is not "treating")
Kerry's tiny scratch on his arm (which did not come from hostile
fire and probably was self-inflicted) has come forward on his on
volition and stated for the record that he did not "treat Kerry's
wound" and he further said it did not require any treatment it
was such a minor scratch. So how did Kerry manage to wrangle his
Purple Heart medal for a tiny scratch that was not caused by any
hostile fire nor required treatment by medical personnel? Shouldn't
Kerry be required to give that Purple Heart medal back? Or, is
Hanoi Kerry "still" above the law today like he was then -
considering his privileged rich life, and all of his proper prep
schools and him being close friends with the politically elite?
John Kerry had unmeasured political influence when he entered the
Navy, (the Kennedys) and it seems that his political influence
was at work during his four total months of service on the swift
boats in Vietnam. Purple Hearts are supposed to be awarded for
wounds suffered in Combat, not for firing on innocent fishermen
nor purposefully scratching your arm in the process. All of Kerry's
life he has gotten away with deception and duplicitous positions
on political matters, such as when he graduated from Yale he
presented a condemning and scathing speech against the U.S.
Military and our war in Vietnam - but then after graduation he
went out and joined the Navy! Why? What was Kerry up to?
I spent 15 months in Vietnam and 12 months in Korea. If I had put
in for a Purple Heart for every jungle scratch I received, or had
any of my men, we would have been laughed at and scorned by our
fellow soldiers. Not to mention been denied those medals for
scratches that (1) were not as a result of combat and (2) did not
even require medical attention nor even a band-aid nor even an
aspirin. But for some strange reason, Kerry received his first
medal for scratches that most soldiers in Vietnam suffered almost
on a daily basis.
To add even more mystery to Kerry's shameless pandering for
medals, Kerry's immediate commander at the time, Mr. Grant
Hibbard, has come forward on his own volition and confirmed on
national television that: (1) During the encounter in question
Kerry nor his boat ever took any enemy fire. (2) Kerry had a tiny
scratch on his arm that did not require medical attention. (3)
He, (Commander Hibbard) did not authorize, nor recommend Kerry's
purple heart medal. (4) There was no way Kerry could receive a
Purple Heart medal for that encounter without his immediate
commander's recommendation. (End of paraphrase of Commander
Hibbard's statements on Cable news).
To add to this obvious deception by Kerry, the Naval doctor that
looked at Kerry's "wound" said that Kerry's "wound" was nothing
more than a tiny scratch caused by a tiny splinter of metal that
did not occur from hostile fire, and that scratch at worst would
require a tiny band-aid, and that he did not recommend any
treatment for the scratch as these scratches are incurred by all
soldiers almost on a daily basis in the jungles of Vietnam.
The testimony from Kerry's commanding officer, and the Navy
Doctor, prove the only way Hanoi John Kerry could have received a
Purple Heart for a tiny scratch on his arm that was not received
in combat or by hostile fire, and that was not recommended nor
approved by his commanding officer was to either (1) forge an
incident report (2) produce and sign incident reports as the
commander of the boat that would falsely authorize him to receive
such a medal, or (3) go over his immediate commander's head and
use political influence to gain a medal he clearly did not
deserve.
Moreover, the primary reason I believe Kerry's tiny scratch was
"self-inflicted" is at the time of the alleged wound Kerry did
not tell anyone about it! Although he said it was "pitch black"
and he received a "stinging wound" in his arm (which is
impossible because no one was shooting at him) he still did not
call for a Corpsman, nor did Kerry mention the wound to any
members of his crew at the time he allegedly received the wound.
All of the soldiers I know would have at least wanted to know how
badly they were hit if they were hit in combat. Wouldn't you want
to know whether you should tie the wound off or otherwise treat
it before you bleed to death? Yet Kerry not only failed to even
mention his alleged wound at the time he allegedly received it,
none of his crew witnessed him receiving any would, and
amazingly, Kerry did not even bother checking his "wound" ever
until the mission was completely over and he had returned to his
base camp. Kerry's wound, to me at least, is a classic example of
a "self-inflicted wound." I should also add that at the time of
Kerry's alleged wound, he was not even located in a metal boat
and his boat was not drawing any fire - so where did the tiny
sliver of metal come from - Kerry's pocket probably?
Note also that Kerry is willing to release the General orders
awarding him his Purple Heart medal, but he mysteriously refuses
to release the incident report or the application forms that were
relied upon by the Navy that somehow gained him a medal that he
clearly did not deserve! We need to see that application for the
Purple Heart to determine how Kerry received this prestigious
award when he clearly did not deserve it. Did Kerry forge, shred
or alter documents and lie as early as 1969 like he did when he
returned from Vietnam? The American people have a right to see
who signed the incident reports and application for the Purple
Hearts and other medals Kerry supposedly received, all under
extremely questionable and bizarre circumstances. (See below).
In Kerry's so-called "second encounter with the enemy" Lt. Kerry
spots yet another two unarmed Sampans, and Kerry ordered his boat
to follow these unarmed Sampans into a small fishing village.
Kerry later claimed that his boat "took some sniper fire" from
the Village, but his boat was not hit, nor do any members of
Kerry's crew remember receiving that mysterious sniper fire, and
of course the village later turned out to be a friendly village
which housed several of our allies - members of the South
Vietnamese Army. Regardless, according to Kerry, he ordered his
machine gunner, Mr. James Wasser, to open fire on the Sampans and
the village. Yet Wasser told Brinkly that the only "enemy" that
Kerry ordered him to fire upon was "an old man leading a water
buffalo."
"I am haunted by that old man's face," said Mr. Wasser. "He was
just doing his daily farming, hurting nobody, yet he got hit in
the chest with a M60 machine gun." As it turns out Lt. Kerry had
ordered his boat to fire on a "friendly" village which also
contained a garrison of ARVN soldiers, (our allies) two of which
were wounded from Kerry's recklessness and wanton aggression on a
peaceful fishing village. The dead villager's and the wounded
South Vietnamese soldiers were outraged and their families filed
complaints with the Americans . . . yet mysteriously Lt. Kerry
escaped all punishment. If any other G.I. had wantonly murdered
villagers or fired on our allies and created causalities amongst
our allies, I wonder what would have happened to him? Lt. Cally
from My Lai fame comes to mind. There is little difference
between Lt. Kerry's actions in respect to firing on friendly
villages and Lt. Cally's actions at My Lai. Yet Lt. Cally was
court-martialed and Lt. Kerry received a medal! Someone very high
up in politics was clearly watching over Lt. Kerry.
The world remembers the My Lai massacre in which two U.S. Army
officers were court-martialed for ordering or not preventing
their men to kill civilians. Why was Lt. Kerry's massacre of
innocent fishermen and our own allies covered up - not once but
twice? Especially when we have an first hand account of an
obvious wanton murder by Kerry, as told and witnessed by one of
his own men! As far as I know there is no statute of limitations
for murder - and this issue must be resolved prior to Hanoi John
Kerry running for our highest office. The American people simply
cannot elect a wanton murderer to the Presidency of the United
States. Such a travesty of justice would go down in our history
as our biggest mistake, and we would become reviled and hated by
the rest of the honorable world. Un prosecuted murderers simply
should not have any place in our Government, not to mention
becoming the commander in chief of our military!
It is clear that John Kerry knew that to be successful in
politics he first had to become a "War Hero." Kerry was desperate
for notoriety, and he was using the Vietnam war and his political
connections back in the States to achieve that notoriety. It also
appears that was his ambition and reason for going to Vietnam in
the first place. (Remember that Kerry had delivered a scathing
fulmination speech against the U.S. Military and the Vietnam war
when he graduated from Yale - then after that speech he went out
and immediately joined the Navy!) Kerry clearly had a hidden
agenda when he joined the Navy, and Hanoi Kerry seized every
opportunity during his Vietnam service to demand a medal,
regardless of how trivial the circumstances were, or how
undeserving he was to receive such an award.
As a further case in point in respect to Hanoi John Kerry's lack
of scruples, on Feb 28, 1969, Kerry claims his boat was fired
upon by a rocket-propelled grenade from shore. The grenade missed
the boat. And since Kerry was the commander of the boat, he was
able to write up his own "incident reports" about the "encounter"
with the enemy. (Kerry is also refusing to release this incident
report as well as all others that involve his "medals').
Consequently, Kerry wrote up the account in such a manner as to
make him appear as a hero. According to Kerry's incident
report-based citation, Kerry beached his boat and ordered a
charge on an enemy position and killed a VC standing a few feet
from him with a B-40 rocket launcher. Yet according to all other
accounts of his crew, the rocket launcher was an empty weapon, or
so said two of Kerry's crew members, Messrs. Mike Medeiros and
Tommy Belodeau. In 1996, Kerry's machine-gunner Mr. Tommy
Belodeau described the full incident to the Boston Globe's David
Conflictsh:
Mr. Belodeau said that he fired on the single VC with his M60
machine gun at a range of only ten feet, and cut his legs out
from under him. The wounded VC then crawled behind a hut, and
then Kerry suddenly grabbed an M16 rifle, deserted his boat and
his command, and ran behind the hut to shoot the VC who according
to Mr. Belodeau, "was near death." Of course Kerry's account was
much different. According to Kerry's account the VC (wounded
several times in the legs with M60 machine gun rounds) amazingly
got up and ran off down a trail, and ran around a bend. When
Kerry finally caught up with the speedy VC (with no legs) the VC
was pointing his (empty) B-40 Grenade launcher at him and Kerry
shot the VC dead before he could fire.
For this encounter, Lt. Kerry was awarded the Silver Star . . .
for shooting a single wounded enemy in the back that by all real
accounts was already dead or should have been taken prisoner. It
is clear to me as a Vietnam Veteran that Hanoi John Kerry was
receiving some very special treatment during his tour of duty.
Most soldiers would have been court-martialed for shooting a
wounded prisoner, but Lt. Kerry received the Silver Star!
Even if Kerry's account is completely true since when does the
Navy award a Silver Star for shooting a single unarmed enemy! If
Kerry had shot a single armed enemy, I suspect he would have been
awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor! Can you imagine how
many soldiers in Vietnam, just during the Tet offensive, shot
enemy soldiers that were armed and shooting at them? Try
thousands - and did they all get the Silver Star for doing what
was basically their job to do? No, of course not. But Kerry
received the Silver Star for shooting a solitary, critically
wounded, VC that "was near death?" The political fix was
obviously alive and well in regards to Lt. John Kerry.
But Kerry's shame does continue; On March 13, 1969, Lt. Kerry
reached down off his boat and pulled another officer out the
water after the boat carrying the swimming officer had hit a
mine. For that amazing display of "valor" Lt. Kerry was awarded
the "Bronze Star" - if Bronze Stars were awarded to every Soldier
that pulled another out of a river or a rice paddy, everyone that
went to Vietnam would have received a Bronze Star!
However, the mine that hit the other boat did create a "water
wake" in the river that caused Lt. Kerry to bump his arm against
a bulkhead on his own boat, which produced a small bruise on his
arm . . . and yep, you guessed it, Lt. Kerry put in for yet
another "Purple Heart" for that bruise, and he got it! Now Lt.
Kerry has two "Purple Hearts," one "Silver Star" and one "Bronze
Star." His undeserved medal collection is growing by leaps and
bounds. But Kerry still was not through:
Kerry's boat had been on a mission ferrying Special Forces
personnel. Kerry spotted another village (which turned out to be
also friendly of course) and he inexplicably ordered his boat to
open fire on the village along with the Special Forces personnel
that were passengers on his boat. However, Kerry once again
mistook our allies, which were South Vietnamese soldiers, as the
enemy. The South Vietnamese troops were busy interrogating some
Women and Children from the friendly village, and after the first
barrage of fire Kerry had ordered at least ten of the Women and
Children were consequently killed. Then after Lt. Kerry had
ordered his boat to fire on the friendly village, Kerry, once
again, abandoned his boat (against specific orders not to do that
again) and ran into the friendly village shooting everything that
moved and throwing grenades into civilian hooches. When one of
the South Vietnamese soldiers (our allies) threw a grenade to
defend himself into a hut which was a storeroom for rice, some of
the rice grains and bits of metal hit Lt. Kerry in the buttocks
and leg. That meant Kerry had just earned his third "Purple
Heart." (I should also mention that none of the scratches Kerry
received which resulted in a "Purple Heart" medal ever cost Lt.
Kerry a single day of lost duty except the rice grains he
received in the ***** while he was busy murdering civilians, and
that "wound" cost Kerry a total of two whole days of off duty).
Lt. Kerry then parlayed his three "Purple Hearts" into an early
return to the states as the then Navy regulations allowed for an
early return to the States for any sailor that was awarded three
or more Purple Hearts. All in all, Lt. Kerry spent about four
months in Vietnam on the swift boats.
To sum up Lt. Kerry's Vietnam service, all one needs to do is
repeat what Assistant Secretary of Defense and Professor W. Scott
Thompson said Admiral Zumwalt told him about Lt. John Kerry: Mr.
Thompson said, "Adm. Elmo Zumwalt told me that young Kerry had
created great problems for him and the other top brass by killing
so many noncombatant civilians and going after other nonmilitary
targets, that 'We had to virtually straitjacket him (Kerry) to
keep him under control,' Admiral Zumwalt said.
Even General George S. Patton III (son of the famous WWII
General) said; "John Kerry has given aid and comfort to the
enemy." In referring what Lt. Kerry did during and after the
Vietnam war.
In summary, John Kerry received his first Purple Heart for a
scratch that was not even caused by any type of enemy fire, and
was probably caused by a self-inflicted wound. He received his
second Purple Heart due to a wave in the river rocking his boat
and bumping his arm slightly against a bulkhead, thereby causing
a small bruise on his arm. He received his third Purple Heart for
getting hit in the ***** from some flying rice grains when he was
busy murdering defenseless civilians. Kerry received his "Silver
Star" for firing on a friendly village, killing old men farming
and walking water buffalos, wounding two allied soldiers, and
murdering a wounded Viet Cong soldier that should have been taken
prisoner. Kerry received a Bronze Star during an attack on yet
another friendly village, after wantonly helping to murder not
less than ten innocent women and children, and while racing
through the friendly village shooting and blowing up everything
in sight.
In conclusion it should be clear to all that Hanoi John Kerry is
not a "war hero" - a "war criminal" perhaps, but certainly not a
"war hero."
Then after Hanoi John Kerry returned to the USA from his four
months in Vietnam, he disgraced his medals by throwing them away
in the Capitol building pond, and told Congress that all Vietnam
Vets were "Rapists and Murderers." Kerry also lied to Congress
under oath, and fabricated stories from Veterans he named. Yet
when those so-called "Veterans" Kerry named were later
interviewed by the U.S. Navy and FBI, they claimed they never
said anything near what Kerry claimed they said, and further,
many of the "Veteran's" Kerry named turned out not to be Veteran's
at all but were in truth working for Hanoi Jane Fonda's and the
KGB's Coffee House organization that she and Kerry used to try
and persuade American service personnel to desert.
During this same period John Kerry denied attending a VVAW (a
Jane Fonda sponsored anti-American New Left group that Kerry
helped create) meeting in which the assassination of key
anti-Communist senators was discussed and planned. Kerry claimed
he had resigned from the VVAW long before that seditious meeting,
but when the FBI surveillance team placed Kerry squarely at the
meeting, suddenly, John Kerry said "I have no recollection of the
meeting, but I might have been there." Someone should tell ol
John Kerry that conspiring to murder U.S. Senators is not
something that is easy to forget. Kerry seems to suffer from
"selective amnesia" quite a bit. Can you imagine this unethical
loony tune with his finger on America's nuclear button? Hanoi
John Kerry has proved he is not only impulsive and reckless
during stressful situations, but also he is incapable to follow
even the most basic of instructions. And this clown is the best
choice the Democratic party could make for the position of our
Commander in Chief?
Since when does the American electorate elect an Un prosecuted
murderer to the Presidency of the United States? As a case in
point former president of Mexico Luis Echeverria was indicted on
July 23, 2004 for involvement in the murders of protesters that
were attacked by Mexican troops on June 10, 1971. If Mexico can
prosecute their leaders for murders and atrocities that were
commited 33 years ago, and they should, then why ares the United
States Federal Prosecutors ignoring all of the evidence that John
Kerry commited worse or at least equal murders during the same
period? If Kerry deceives enough people to get elected, will the
indictments for murder come later - against a sitting President
of the United States?
Please understand that my articles on John Kerry are not
politically motivated. I voted for Al Gore in the last
presidential election, and I believe the Democratic party could
have selected any number of candidates that would have been
acceptable to the American people. Yet picking John Kerry is not
only a tremendous blunder by the Democrats, it is a travesty of
justice. John Kerry should be indicted for murder, not chosen as
the best candidate for the U.S. Presidency the Democratic party
has to offer! Based upon my exhaustive research on Kerry
everything I have presented in this article I believe to be true.
I started and completed by research without malice, and I was
flabbergasted at what I found. I invite John Kerry or his
campaign to refute anything I have said in this article with any
documents that contradict the testimony of his Commanding
officer, the Navy Doctor, or the accounts of his own crew
members. I should also mention that John Kerry is using a
photograph of him along with several Vietnam veterans that was
taken during the Vietnam war in his campaign advertisements. The
connotation of Kerry's advertisement is that all those men in the
said photograph support Kerry - but when interviewed 85% of the
men in the photograph said they would vote for President Bush and
that Kerry is not capable to become our Commander in Chief! Also
since I first published this article, an organization of Swift
Boat commanders has come forward also claiming they do not
support John Kerry, as his performance on the Swift Boats
indicated to them Kerry was not stable enough to become the
Commander in Chief of our Military. Moreover, what I have
presented in this article reflects only on what John Kerry did
during his service in Vietnam. Although it is astonishing how
many crimes Kerry commited in Vietnam and how well he covered
them up by claiming medals he did not deserve, all that is but a
mere pittance in comparison to what John Kerry did to his country
and his fellow veterans after he returned from Vietnam. I will
present the outrageous transgressions Kerry committed against the
American people and his fellow veterans after he returned from
Vietnam in subsequent articles.
As an addendum to the above article, I have found Kerry's own
account of the events leading up to him receiving his first
Purple Heart medal. You will find by Kerry's own testimony he
validates many key points in the above article"
HANOI KERRY'S OWN PURPLE HEART ACCOUNT
Kerry:
"It was a half-assed action that hardly qualified as combat, but
it was my first, and that made it very exciting," [Kerry said].
"Three of us, two enlisted men and myself, had stayed up all
night in a Boston Whaler [a foam-filled-fiberglass boat]
patrolling the shore off a Viet Cong-infested peninsula north of
Cam Ranh . . . Most of the night had been spent being scared
shitless by fisherman whom we would suddenly creep up on in the
darkness. Once, one of the sailors was so startled by two men who
surprised us as we came around a corner ten yards from the shore
that he actually pulled the trigger on his machine gun.
Fortunately for the two men, he had forgotten to switch off the
safety . . ."
Doug Says: It is clear that Kerry did not have control of his
men, and they were so frightened they were ready to shoot at
anything that moved, without first determining whether their
target was friend or foe. Kerry was some commander.
Kerry continues:
"As it turned out, the two men really were just a pair of
innocent fisherman who didn't know where one zone began and the
other ended. Their papers were perfectly in order, if their
night's fishing over. The fear was that they were VC. Allowing
them to continue might have compromised the mission. For the next
four hours Kerry's Boston Whaler, using paddles, brought
boatloads of fisherman they found in sampans, all operating in a
curfew zone, back to the Swift. It was tiring work. "We deposited
them with the Swift boat that remained out in the deep water to
give us cover," Kerry continued. "Then, very early in the
morning, around 2:00 or 3:00, while it was still dark, we
proceeded up the tiny inlet between the island and the peninsula
to the point designated as our objective. The jungle closed in on
us on both sides. It was scary as hell. You could hear yourself
breathing. We were almost touching the shore. Suddenly, through
the magnified moonlight of the infrared 'starlight scope,' I
watched, mesmerized, as a group of sampans glided in toward the
shore. We had been briefed that this was a favorite crossing area
for VC trafficking contraband."
With its motor turned off, Kerry paddled the Boston Whaler out of
the inlet into the beginning of the bay. Simultaneously the
Vietnamese pulled their sampans up onto the beach and began to
unload something; he couldn't tell what, so he decided to
illuminate the proceedings with a flare. The entire sky seemed to
explode into daylight. The men from the sampans bolted erect,
stiff with shock for only an instant before they sprang for cover
like a herd of panicked gazelles Kerry had once seen on TV's Wild
Kingdom. "We opened fire," he went on. "The light from the flares
started to fade, the air was full of explosions. My -16 jammed,
and as I bent down in the boat to grab another gun, a stinging
piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like
hell. By this time one of the sailors had started the engine and
we ran by the beach, strafing it. Then it was quiet.
"We stayed quiet and low because we did not want to illuminate
ourselves at that point," Kerry explained. "In the dead of night,
without any knowledge of what kind of force was there, we were
not all about to go crawling on the beach to get our asses shot
off. We were unprotected; we didn't have ammunition, we didn't
have cover, we just weren't prepared for that . . . So we first
shot the sampans so that they were destroyed and whatever was in
them was destroyed." Then their cover boat warned of a possible
VC ambush in the small channel they had to exit through, and
Kerry and company departed the area."
Doug Says: Kerry said that he fired a flare and only saw Sampans.
The owners of the Sampans did not have weapons, nor did they fire
at Kerry or at his men. Yet Kerry ordered his men to open fire on
the innocent fishermen without first determining whether they
were friend or foe. Since the fishermen never fired back, how did
Hanoi John Kerry receive his "stinging wound" from hostile fire?
Kerry said the men on the Sampans bolted for cover, and only his
men "opened fire." It is clear the "wound" Hanoi Kerry received
was most likely self-inflicted as the Navy doctor that looked at
the tiny scratch said it was caused by a tiny sliver of metal and
the wound did not warrant any medical treatment. Moreover, Kerry
was not in a metal boat at the time he claimed he received the
wound, nor did he receive any enemy fire, nor did any of this men
see Kerry receive any kind of a wound, and further, and what is
the most damning, Kerry never announced nor even mentioned that
he was hit to any of his crew, even by his own account above!
Moreover, Navy regulations require that any wound that qualifies
for a Purple Heart must (1) be severe enough to be treated by a
Doctor. Kerry's wound was not treated. And (2) that the immediate
commander of the wounded sailor recommend the recipient of the
wound be awarded the medal. Kerry's commander at the time, Mr.
Grant Hibbard, has come forward in Florida and said he never
authorized nor recommended Kerry for the purple heart medal for
the above action. Moreover, firing on fishing Sampans without
first determining whether they were friend or foe does warrant
some type of action by Kerry's commanding officer . . . usually a
court martial.
Murdering innocent civilians is a war crime. But instead of being
court-martialed for his crime, Kerry received a medal! How did he
receive that medal when everything he did was against Navy
regulations and he clearly did not deserve the Purple Heart?
Although Kerry is eager to paint his Vietnam service into his
campaign advertisements, and he loves to tell war stories, the
truth about Kerry's "medals" is something Kerry will NOT talk
about!
Doug Grant (Tm)
.

User: "Doug Reese"
Title: Re: KERRY'S OWN VIETNAM ACCOUNTS AND FACTS	23 Feb 2005 06:17:08 PM

DGVREIMAN wrote:

KERRY'S OWN ACCOUNTS -SWIFT BOAT ACCUSATIONS

=A9 Copyright 2004 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.

Doug Reese Says: Ahh, you reserve the right to lie, is that it?

Interesting . . .

It is easy to prove who is lying, . . . . . .

Doug Reese Says: Yes, it sure is. Let's get right to one of those
lies,
shall we?

I'll cut out the rest to get to a lie. . . .

The above is a true account of Lt. Kerry's first Purple Heart
medal -a scratch on the arm not even caused by hostile fire,
directly nor indirectly, and not treated by any medical
personnel. Note also the Purple Heart medal regulations at the
time required any wound to be "treated by medical personnel"
before it could even qualify for the Purple Heart medal. The
fact
the Navy Doctor that "looked at"( looking at is not "treating")
Kerry's tiny scratch on his arm (which did not come from
hostile
fire and probably was self-inflicted) has come forward on his
on
volition and stated for the record that he did not "treat
Kerry's
wound"

Doug Reese Says: That is a lie. Not the doctor, he isn't lying --
you
are. Would you like a quote and a source for that quote?

I can provide a quote from that doctor -- if memory serves me
correct,
two quotes -- that prove you are lying, and that he said he DID
treat
Kerry's wound.

What about you? What is your source? Do you even have one? Let's
see
it.

I'll be back tomorrow with mine. You won't, because there is no
such
quote. Dr. Letson never said what you claimed he said "for the
record".

Then we'll get to some of your other lies.

Doug Says: Of course he did. He said he "looked at Kerry's
wound" but it did not require any treatment other than a bandaid.
That wound and "treatment" does not qualify under Navy
regulations as a wound acceptable for a purple heart. So it
appears, Mr. Reece, you are the one that is lying, and have been
caught several times so far doing so, not me.

Doug Grant (Tm)
=20
Doug Reese
=20

Doug Grant (Tm)

User: "DGVREIMAN"
Title: Re: KERRY'S OWN VIETNAM ACCOUNTS AND FACTS	24 Feb 2005 10:27:15 AM

"Doug Reese" <dreese@erols.com> wrote in message
news:1109204228.519134.32210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
DGVREIMAN wrote:

KERRY'S OWN ACCOUNTS -SWIFT BOAT ACCUSATIONS

© Copyright 2004 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.

Doug Reese Says: Ahh, you reserve the right to lie, is that it?

Interesting . . .

It is easy to prove who is lying, . . . . . .

Doug Reese Says: Yes, it sure is. Let's get right to one of
those
lies,
shall we?

I'll cut out the rest to get to a lie. . . .

The above is a true account of Lt. Kerry's first Purple Heart
medal -a scratch on the arm not even caused by hostile fire,
directly nor indirectly, and not treated by any medical
personnel. Note also the Purple Heart medal regulations at
the
time required any wound to be "treated by medical personnel"
before it could even qualify for the Purple Heart medal. The
fact
the Navy Doctor that "looked at"( looking at is not
"treating")
Kerry's tiny scratch on his arm (which did not come from
hostile
fire and probably was self-inflicted) has come forward on his
on
volition and stated for the record that he did not "treat
Kerry's
wound"

Doug Reese Says: That is a lie. Not the doctor, he isn't
lying --
you
are. Would you like a quote and a source for that quote?

I can provide a quote from that doctor -- if memory serves me
correct,
two quotes -- that prove you are lying, and that he said he DID
treat
Kerry's wound.

What about you? What is your source? Do you even have one?
Let's
see
it.

I'll be back tomorrow with mine. You won't, because there is no
such
quote. Dr. Letson never said what you claimed he said "for the
record".

Then we'll get to some of your other lies.

Doug Says: Of course he did. He said he "looked at Kerry's
wound" but it did not require any treatment other than a
bandaid.
That wound and "treatment" does not qualify under Navy
regulations as a wound acceptable for a purple heart. So it
appears, Mr. Reece, you are the one that is lying, and have
been
caught several times so far doing so, not me.

OK, here's my cites. Please note that it comes along with a
reference
as to where that information/quote can be found.
I will follow it with a reminder of what you said about this
doctor,
and what he did/didn't do regarding Kerry's slight wound from
that
incident.
1) Unfit for Command, page 37:
Dr. Letson used tweezers to remove the tiny fragment, which he
identified as shrapnel like that from an M-79 (not from a fifle
bullet,
etc.) and put a small bandage on Kerry's arm.
Doug Says: So you agree with what I said about Kerrys wound.
That's nice. Also, we all know who fired the M-79, it was Kerry,
and his wound was self-inflicted, you omitted that fact.
2) Unfit for Command, page 39:
"That seemed to fit the injury I treated". Dr. Louis Letson
3) Unfit for Command, page 40:
"I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the
skin with
forceps." Dr. Lewis Letson
===========================================
The following statements by Doug Grant can be found in the post
right
above these comments.
Doug's False Statement #1: (Regarding Dr. Letson) He said he
"looked at
Kerry's wound" but it did not require any treatment other than a
bandaid.
Doug Says: Doug Reese is Lying: Duh, Moron, I said is
precisely what you said the Doctor confirmed - A BANDAID!
Clearly you are the one that is lying. Moreover, you claimed
that Kerry was not ordered to leave his boat, I proved that you
lied about that as well - and further we are still waiting for
your answer in respect to whether you were with Kerry when he
murdered civilians or not. And one more lie you told was that I
dated the day he murdered civilians on March 13, - which is yet
another lie.
Doug's False Statement #2: Note also the Purple Heart medal
regulations
at the time required any wound to be "treated by medical
personnel"
before it could even qualify for the Purple Heart medal. The fact
the
Navy Doctor that "looked at"( looking at is not "treating")
Kerry's
tiny scratch on his arm . . . .
Doug Says: Doug Reese is lying: The regulations require medical
treatment, a "bandaid" as he has confirmed the Doctor said he
used does not qualify under the regulation as enough treatment
to warrant a Purple Heart medal - if it did, everyone in Vietnam
would have received that medal.
Doug's False Statement #3: (Regarding Dr. Letson) has come
forward on
his on volition and stated for the record that he did not "treat
Kerry's wound"
Doug Says: Doug Reese is Lying: Treatment in the context of
warranting a purple heart medal, wich was the topic of the issue.
Reese omitted that context and is lying about what I said.
Doug's False Statement #4: That wound and "treatment" does not
qualify
under Navy regulations as a wound acceptable for a purple heart.
Doug Says: Doug Reese is lying: A scratch that only requires a
small "Band-Aid" does not qualify for a Purple Heart medal.
Moreover, Reese is omitting what else the Doctor said about
Kerry's boo boo Band-Aid self inflicted wound. Reese is also
omitting what Kerry's Commanding Officer said about Kerry's
"Purple Heart." Reese is lying to the group, and he has now been
caught doing so several times. Kerry did not deserve his first
Purple Heart medal - his "wound" was self-inflicted (the boat did
not receive any hostile fire that night based upon Kerry's own
log entries) and Kerry's tiny scratch on his arm only required a
"Band-Aid" which by itself does not qualify for a Purple Heart
medal. Reese admits what I said about the scratch only needing a
"Band-Aid" is correct, yet he still claims that Kerry is entitled
to a medal for a self inflicted wound that only required a
Band-Aid for "treatment." That premise is utter nonsense, and is
quite frankly, a lie.
Kerry's immediate Commander in Vietnam, then Commander Grant
Hibbard, stated on April 28, 2004 during an interview on a cable
news program in respect to Kerry's first Purple Heart award, that
he interviewed Kerry immediately after the Sampan shooting and
noted:
1. Kerry had a tiny scratch on his arm that was not caused by
shrapnel or any type of hostile fire.
2. That Lt. Kerry was not fired upon by the enemy during the
entire encounter and his boat did not take any kind of hits
whatsoever.
3. That he, Kerry's immediate commander, did not recommend nor
approve of any Purple Heart award for Kerry.
So if Kerry's immediate commander did not approve nor recommended
Kerry's Purple Heart medal, then how did Kerry manage to receive
that prestigious award?
According to Mr. Hibbard, Naval regulations state the Purple
Heart cannot be awarded without an immediate commander in the
chain of command approving or recommending the award. So how did
Kerry circumvent these regulations and his field commander, and
manage to appropriate a medal he clearly did not deserve? Its
simple, Kerry "exploited the system and the circumstances" like
he usually does.
If I or any of my men in Vietnam claimed a purple heart for every
Band-Aid required "scratch" we received in the Jungle or on
patrol, or during an enemy attack back at base camp, we all would
have received dozens of "Purple Hearts" and all 500,000 men that
went to Vietnam would have been able to return early, just like
Hanoi John Kerry did due to some "Band-Aid Scratches."
Nevertheless, Hanoi John wants us to remember his "Vietnam
Service" but to selectively not remember what he did to attack
America and all other Vietnam Vets when he returned from Vietnam:
======================================================
I rest my case.
Unless, of course, you can come up with actual quotes from Dr.
Letson,
and a source for those quotes, that actually back up your
statments.
Doug Reese
Doug Says: Reese, you don't have a case to rest. All you did
was confirm what I had said, and then tried to take other
statements from me out of context so you could ridicule your own
pathetic distortions. Kerry did not deserve that medal - his own
CO said so. Moreover, you are ducking the question whether you
were with Kerry when he murdered civilians or not - at first you
claimed that Kerry did not murder civilians or allies, and when I
proved otherwise, you now do not want to touch that issue again.
Stop ducking and distorting, you are making a fool out of
yourself, and I have not even started to help you do so. I
clearly know a lot more about Kerry's past than you do, and I
have the cites to back it up. So stop lying please.
PS. Dr. Letson stated that he treated the wound with a bandaid.
My page
37 cite was someone summarizing (repeating?) what Dr. Letson
said. They
reported "bandage". He later said "bandaid".
Doug Says: You are quoting from a book, I am quoting from
previously published testimony from the Doctor himself. Would
you like to read what else he said about Kerry's scratch? You
need to update your sources at least.
Also, Reese, were you with Kerry or not when he murdered
civilians? Please stop ducking that question.

Doug Grant (Tm)

Doug Reese

Doug Grant (Tm)

User: "Doug Reese"
Title: Re: KERRY'S OWN VIETNAM ACCOUNTS AND FACTS	24 Feb 2005 11:23:45 AM

DGVREIMAN wrote:

"Doug Reese" <dreese@erols.com> wrote in message
news:1109204228.519134.32210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
DGVREIMAN wrote:

KERRY'S OWN ACCOUNTS -SWIFT BOAT ACCUSATIONS

=A9 Copyright 2004 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.

Doug Reese Says: Ahh, you reserve the right to lie, is that it?

Interesting . . .

It is easy to prove who is lying, . . . . . .

Doug Reese Says: Yes, it sure is. Let's get right to one of
those
lies,
shall we?

I'll cut out the rest to get to a lie. . . .

The above is a true account of Lt. Kerry's first Purple Heart
medal -a scratch on the arm not even caused by hostile fire,
directly nor indirectly, and not treated by any medical
personnel. Note also the Purple Heart medal regulations at
the
time required any wound to be "treated by medical personnel"
before it could even qualify for the Purple Heart medal. The
fact
the Navy Doctor that "looked at"( looking at is not
"treating")
Kerry's tiny scratch on his arm (which did not come from
hostile
fire and probably was self-inflicted) has come forward on his
on
volition and stated for the record that he did not "treat
Kerry's
wound"

Doug Reese Says: That is a lie. Not the doctor, he isn't
lying --
you
are. Would you like a quote and a source for that quote?

I can provide a quote from that doctor -- if memory serves me
correct,
two quotes -- that prove you are lying, and that he said he DID
treat
Kerry's wound.

What about you? What is your source? Do you even have one?
Let's
see
it.

I'll be back tomorrow with mine. You won't, because there is no
such
quote. Dr. Letson never said what you claimed he said "for the
record".

Then we'll get to some of your other lies.

Doug Says: Of course he did. He said he "looked at Kerry's
wound" but it did not require any treatment other than a
bandaid.
That wound and "treatment" does not qualify under Navy
regulations as a wound acceptable for a purple heart. So it
appears, Mr. Reece, you are the one that is lying, and have
been
caught several times so far doing so, not me.

Doug Reese Says: I omitted nothing. I took a passage from the book.

2) Unfit for Command, page 39:

"That seemed to fit the injury I treated". Dr. Louis Letson

3) Unfit for Command, page 40:

"I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the
skin with
forceps." Dr. Lewis Letson
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

The following statements by Doug Grant can be found in the post
right
above these comments.

Doug's False Statement #1: (Regarding Dr. Letson) He said he
"looked at
Kerry's wound" but it did not require any treatment other than a
bandaid.

Doug Says: Doug Reese is Lying: Duh, Moron, I said is
precisely what you said the Doctor confirmed - A BANDAID!

Doug Reese Says: Not quite. You said the following, regarding Dr.
Letson -- He said he "looked at Kerry's wound" but it did not require
any treatment other than a bandaid.
In fact, in Dr. Letson's own words, it DID require treatment beyond
that bandaid.

Clearly you are the one that is lying.
Moreover, you claimed
that Kerry was not ordered to leave his boat, I proved that you
lied about that as well - and further we are still waiting for
your answer in respect to whether you were with Kerry when he
murdered civilians or not. And one more lie you told was that I
dated the day he murdered civilians on March 13, - which is yet
another lie.

Doug Reese Says: I said one topic at a time. And that's what I meant.
Let's stick to that, OK?

Doug's False Statement #2: Note also the Purple Heart medal
regulations
at the time required any wound to be "treated by medical
personnel"
before it could even qualify for the Purple Heart medal. The fact
the
Navy Doctor that "looked at"( looking at is not "treating")
Kerry's
tiny scratch on his arm . . . .

Doug Says: Doug Reese is lying: The regulations require medical
treatment, a "bandaid" as he has confirmed the Doctor said he
used does not qualify under the regulation as enough treatment
to warrant a Purple Heart medal - if it did, everyone in Vietnam
would have received that medal.

Doug Reese Says: Sorry, it was more than a bandaid. In fact, it was
more than was done for a shrapnel would I received. In my case, the
doctor took a look, and covered the wound with a bandaid. There was no
other treatment. With Kerry, he removed the shrapnel. I received a
Purple Heart, Kerry received a Purple Heart.
Why don't you show us the regulations, and what they say about the
"treatment"?

Doug's False Statement #3: (Regarding Dr. Letson) has come
forward on
his on volition and stated for the record that he did not "treat
Kerry's wound"

Doug Says: Doug Reese is Lying: Treatment in the context of
warranting a purple heart medal, wich was the topic of the issue.
Reese omitted that context and is lying about what I said.

Doug's False Statement #4: That wound and "treatment" does not
qualify
under Navy regulations as a wound acceptable for a purple heart.

Doug Says: Doug Reese is lying: A scratch that only requires a
small "Band-Aid" does not qualify for a Purple Heart medal.

Doug Reese Says: Prove it. Where ware the regulations?

Moreover, Reese is omitting what else the Doctor said about
Kerry's boo boo Band-Aid self inflicted wound. Reese is also
omitting what Kerry's Commanding Officer said about Kerry's
"Purple Heart." Reese is lying to the group, and he has now been
caught doing so several times. Kerry did not deserve his first
Purple Heart medal - his "wound" was self-inflicted (the boat did
not receive any hostile fire that night based upon Kerry's own
log entries) and Kerry's tiny scratch on his arm only required a
"Band-Aid" which by itself does not qualify for a Purple Heart
medal. Reese admits what I said about the scratch only needing a
"Band-Aid" is correct, yet he still claims that Kerry is entitled
to a medal for a self inflicted wound that only required a
Band-Aid for "treatment." That premise is utter nonsense, and is
quite frankly, a lie.

Doug Reese Says: Boy, you are amazing. I QUOTED the doctor. He TREATED
the wound, not just "looked at it" as you said. The fact (if it is a
fact) that the wound was covered by a bandaid, in no way disqualifies
it for a Purple Heart.

Kerry's immediate Commander in Vietnam, then Commander Grant
Hibbard, stated on April 28, 2004 during an interview on a cable
news program in respect to Kerry's first Purple Heart award, that
he interviewed Kerry immediately after the Sampan shooting and
noted:

1. Kerry had a tiny scratch on his arm that was not caused by
shrapnel or any type of hostile fire.

2. That Lt. Kerry was not fired upon by the enemy during the
entire encounter and his boat did not take any kind of hits
whatsoever.

3. That he, Kerry's immediate commander, did not recommend nor
approve of any Purple Heart award for Kerry.

So if Kerry's immediate commander did not approve nor recommended
Kerry's Purple Heart medal, then how did Kerry manage to receive
that prestigious award?

According to Mr. Hibbard, Naval regulations state the Purple
Heart cannot be awarded without an immediate commander in the
chain of command approving or recommending the award. So how did
Kerry circumvent these regulations and his field commander, and
manage to appropriate a medal he clearly did not deserve? Its
simple, Kerry "exploited the system and the circumstances" like
he usually does.

If I or any of my men in Vietnam claimed a purple heart for every
Band-Aid required "scratch" we received in the Jungle or on
patrol, or during an enemy attack back at base camp, we all would
have received dozens of "Purple Hearts" and all 500,000 men that
went to Vietnam would have been able to return early, just like
Hanoi John Kerry did due to some "Band-Aid Scratches."
Nevertheless, Hanoi John wants us to remember his "Vietnam
Service" but to selectively not remember what he did to attack
America and all other Vietnam Vets when he returned from Vietnam:

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

I rest my case.

Unless, of course, you can come up with actual quotes from Dr.
Letson,
and a source for those quotes, that actually back up your
statments.

Doug Reese

Doug Says: Reese, you don't have a case to rest. All you did
was confirm what I had said, and then tried to take other
statements from me out of context so you could ridicule your own
pathetic distortions. Kerry did not deserve that medal - his own
CO said so. Moreover, you are ducking the question whether you
were with Kerry when he murdered civilians or not - at first you
claimed that Kerry did not murder civilians or allies, and when I
proved otherwise, you now do not want to touch that issue again.

Doug Reese Says: Hold on a minute. Where did I say I don't want to
touch that issue again? In fact, I already have "touched that issue",
all by itself, in another thread.

Stop ducking and distorting, you are making a fool out of
yourself, and I have not even started to help you do so. I
clearly know a lot more about Kerry's past than you do, and I
have the cites to back it up. So stop lying please.

PS. Dr. Letson stated that he treated the wound with a bandaid.
My page
37 cite was someone summarizing (repeating?) what Dr. Letson
said. They
reported "bandage". He later said "bandaid".

Doug Says: You are quoting from a book, I am quoting from
previously published testimony from the Doctor himself.

Doug Reese Says: I said that one passage was a summary. The other two
were QUOTES FROM THE DOCTOR. Can you read? Do you have the books? Where
do you get this stuff from, as I notice you never seem to mention
references?

Would
you like to read what else he said about Kerry's scratch? You
need to update your sources at least.

Also, Reese, were you with Kerry or not when he murdered
civilians? Please stop ducking that question.

Doug Reese Says: Already done -- hours ago. I will be interested to see
what kind of fantasy-world answers you have for that.
Doug Reese

Doug Grant (Tm)

Doug Reese

Doug Grant (Tm)

User: "Cmd Buzz Corey"
Title: Re: KERRY'S OWN VIETNAM ACCOUNTS AND FACTS	22 Feb 2005 04:18:02 PM

DGVREIMAN wrote:

But it's all a moot point as Bush won and Kerry lost.
.

User: "American Truth"
Title: Re: KERRY'S OWN VIETNAM ACCOUNTS AND FACTS	22 Feb 2005 05:02:07 PM

"Cmd Buzz Corey" <me@that.net> wrote in message
news:NtqdnSoKq41fLIbfRVn-ug@gbronline.com...

DGVREIMAN wrote:

But it's all a moot point as Bush won and Kerry lost.

Bush won Vietnam, now?
I thought he was in the ANG?
.

User: "Danzig"
Title: Re: KERRY'S OWN VIETNAM ACCOUNTS AND FACTS	25 Feb 2005 11:54:10 AM

Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:

DGVREIMAN wrote:

But it's all a moot point as Bush won and Kerry lost.

Give it up Dougie
.

User: "Fat, drunk, and Democrat is no way to go through life, son."
Title: Re: KERRY'S OWN VIETNAM ACCOUNTS AND FACTS	25 Feb 2005 12:04:28 PM

"Danzig" <tyatcak@telus.net> wrote in message
news:6DJTd.7876$ab2.6549@edtnps89...

Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:

DGVREIMAN wrote:

But it's all a moot point as Bush won and Kerry lost.

Give it up Dougie

Doug is right of course - Bush won, and Kerry and Dean lost.
.

User: "Al Dykes"
Title: Re: KERRY'S OWN VIETNAM ACCOUNTS AND FACTS	25 Feb 2005 04:13:13 PM

In article <MMJTd.5646$873.2031@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Fat, drunk, and Democrat is no way to go through life, son. <pantload@NancyPelosi.com> wrote:

"Danzig" <tyatcak@telus.net> wrote in message
news:6DJTd.7876$ab2.6549@edtnps89...

Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:

DGVREIMAN wrote:

But it's all a moot point as Bush won and Kerry lost.

Give it up Dougie

Doug is right of course - Bush won, and Kerry and Dean lost.

And talking about Kerry, and picking last weekend to release the "Bush
did drugs" tapes is an attempt to get the act that Bush's FAA ignored
52 hijack warnings in the months prior to 9-11 and he's been caught
with a gay pimp in the whitehouse newsroom.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
.

User: "DGVREIMAN"
Title: PRESS CREDENTIALS (WAS Re: KERRY'S OWN VIETNAM ACCOUNTS AND FACTS	26 Feb 2005 12:43:53 PM

"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cvo7tp$7ln$1@panix5.panix.com...

In article
<MMJTd.5646$873.2031@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Fat, drunk, and Democrat is no way to go through life, son.
<pantload@NancyPelosi.com> wrote:

"Danzig" <tyatcak@telus.net> wrote in message
news:6DJTd.7876$ab2.6549@edtnps89...

Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:

DGVREIMAN wrote:

But it's all a moot point as Bush won and Kerry lost.

Give it up Dougie

Doug is right of course - Bush won, and Kerry and Dean lost.

And talking about Kerry, and picking last weekend to release
the "Bush
did drugs" tapes is an attempt to get the act that Bush's FAA
ignored
52 hijack warnings in the months prior to 9-11 and he's been
caught
with a gay pimp in the whitehouse newsroom.
--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

Doug Says: I suspect that if we want to count all of the false
threats our FAA receives, the Clinton administration's FAA
ignored hundreds of threats - tell your terrorist friends Al that
we will not shut down our entire commercial air fleet just over
some wild goose threats. Also, President Bush does not hand out
the press passes, nor does the White House approve Press
credentials. DUH!
Doug Grant (Tm)
.

User: "John Agosta"
Title: Re: PRESS CREDENTIALS (WAS Re: KERRY'S OWN VIETNAM ACCOUNTS AND FACTS	26 Feb 2005 01:37:56 PM

"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:nsadnZVlzJzLXr3fRVn-gQ@comcast.com...

Also, President Bush does not hand out
the press passes, nor does the White House approve Press
credentials. DUH!

Utter nonsense !!
The White House absolutely decides who enters to attend press briefings.
Just ask Helen Thomas.
.

User: "DGVREIMAN"
Title: Re: PRESS CREDENTIALS (WAS Re: KERRY'S OWN VIETNAM ACCOUNTS AND FACTS	26 Feb 2005 07:09:28 PM

"John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote in message
news:jqydnaFLN4KJTb3fRVn-1Q@wideopenwest.com...

"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:nsadnZVlzJzLXr3fRVn-gQ@comcast.com...

Also, President Bush does not hand out
the press passes, nor does the White House approve Press
credentials. DUH!

Utter nonsense !!

The White House absolutely decides who enters to attend press
briefings.
Just ask Helen Thomas.

Doug Says: Duh - Helen Thomas is not President Bush - Duh.
Doug Grant (Tm)

User: "John Agosta"
Title: Re: PRESS CREDENTIALS (WAS Re: KERRY'S OWN VIETNAM ACCOUNTS AND FACTS	27 Feb 2005 10:22:43 AM

"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:u_idnVh3g8IpgLzfRVn-qg@comcast.com...

"John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote in message
news:jqydnaFLN4KJTb3fRVn-1Q@wideopenwest.com...

"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:nsadnZVlzJzLXr3fRVn-gQ@comcast.com...

Also, President Bush does not hand out
the press passes, nor does the White House approve Press
credentials. DUH!

Utter nonsense !!

The White House absolutely decides who enters to attend press
briefings.
Just ask Helen Thomas.

Doug Says: Duh - Helen Thomas is not President Bush - Duh.

Doug Grant (Tm)

Your lack of response is duly noted.
By the way, I'm still waiting for my 100 bucks.
Let me know when you're ready for my po box #.
.

User: "DGVREIMAN"
Title: Re: PRESS CREDENTIALS (WAS Re: KERRY'S OWN VIETNAM ACCOUNTS AND FACTS	27 Feb 2005 01:43:40 PM

"John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote in message
news:FoCdnfCVo-lJbrzfRVn-rw@wideopenwest.com...

"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:u_idnVh3g8IpgLzfRVn-qg@comcast.com...

"John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote in
message
news:jqydnaFLN4KJTb3fRVn-1Q@wideopenwest.com...

"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:nsadnZVlzJzLXr3fRVn-gQ@comcast.com...

Also, President Bush does not hand out
the press passes, nor does the White House approve Press
credentials. DUH!

Utter nonsense !!

The White House absolutely decides who enters to attend
press
briefings.
Just ask Helen Thomas.

Doug Says: Duh - Helen Thomas is not President Bush - Duh.

Doug Grant (Tm)

Your lack of response is duly noted.

By the way, I'm still waiting for my 100 bucks.
Let me know when you're ready for my po box #.

Doug Says: Considering you have never won a bet with me, I have
no idea what you are talking about in respect to me owing you
anything. Moreover, my response was applicable to your claim
that the President of the United States personally approves press
passes, which is utter nonsense. The man in question was a
journalist working for Talon - that company might be owned by
Republicans, but then how many others journalists in the White
House press room work for known screaming liberal medias? The
White House Press Corps wanted a SLA (SLA=Screaming Liberal Army)
monopoly - and they do not have a leg to howl about a
right-winger infiltrating their ranks.
Doug Grant (Tm)

User: "John Agosta"
Title: Re: PRESS CREDENTIALS (WAS Re: KERRY'S OWN VIETNAM ACCOUNTS AND FACTS	27 Feb 2005 02:56:38 PM

"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:YPydnSRDJuFIv7_fRVn-jQ@comcast.com...

"John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote in message
news:FoCdnfCVo-lJbrzfRVn-rw@wideopenwest.com...

"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:u_idnVh3g8IpgLzfRVn-qg@comcast.com...

"John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote in
message
news:jqydnaFLN4KJTb3fRVn-1Q@wideopenwest.com...

"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:nsadnZVlzJzLXr3fRVn-gQ@comcast.com...

Also, President Bush does not hand out
the press passes, DUH!

Utter nonsense !!

The White House absolutely decides who enters to attend
press
briefings.
Just ask Helen Thomas.

Doug Says: Duh - Helen Thomas is not President Bush - Duh.

Doug Grant (Tm)

Your lack of response is duly noted.

By the way, I'm still waiting for my 100 bucks.
Let me know when you're ready for my po box #.

Doug Says: Considering you have never won a bet with me, I have
no idea what you are talking about in respect to me owing you
anything.

Oh, I have won a wager. You owe. 100 bucks.
I know you'll weasle out on it, so I'll give you an 'out'
by suggesting you give it to charity. You can alsways say that you did
give it to charity and save your lying face.
Where was Bush #1, what was he doing, and who was he with on Sept 11?

Moreover, my response was applicable to your claim
that the President of the United States personally approves press
passes, which is utter nonsense.

Your quote : "nor does the White House approve Press
credentials. "
Now stop trying to change your own words, duffus.
My quote : " The White House absolutely decides who enters to attend
press briefings."

The man in question was a
journalist working for Talon - that company might be owned by
Republicans, but then how many others journalists in the White
House press room work for known screaming liberal medias? The
White House Press Corps wanted a SLA (SLA=Screaming Liberal Army)
monopoly - and they do not have a leg to howl about a
right-winger infiltrating their ranks.

Doug Grant (Tm)

The man in question was no journalist, but a 'plant' put there by the White
House for the express purpose of spreading propaganda.
Just like all the other paid propagandists this administration so much
enjoys having on hand.
You're a shill, and like so many times before, caught in another lie.
.

User: "DGVREIMAN"
Title: Re: PRESS CREDENTIALS (WAS Re: KERRY'S OWN VIETNAM ACCOUNTS AND FACTS	28 Feb 2005 11:29:24 AM

"John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote in message
news:392dnczpUM6bqb_fRVn-sA@wideopenwest.com...

"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:YPydnSRDJuFIv7_fRVn-jQ@comcast.com...

"John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote in
message
news:FoCdnfCVo-lJbrzfRVn-rw@wideopenwest.com...

"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:u_idnVh3g8IpgLzfRVn-qg@comcast.com...

"John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote in
message
news:jqydnaFLN4KJTb3fRVn-1Q@wideopenwest.com...

"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:nsadnZVlzJzLXr3fRVn-gQ@comcast.com...

Also, President Bush does not hand out
the press passes, DUH!

Utter nonsense !!

The White House absolutely decides who enters to attend
press
briefings.
Just ask Helen Thomas.

Doug Says: Duh - Helen Thomas is not President Bush - Duh.

Doug Grant (Tm)

Your lack of response is duly noted.

By the way, I'm still waiting for my 100 bucks.
Let me know when you're ready for my po box #.

Doug Says: Considering you have never won a bet with me, I
have
no idea what you are talking about in respect to me owing you
anything.

Oh, I have won a wager. You owe. 100 bucks.
I know you'll weasle out on it, so I'll give you an 'out'
by suggesting you give it to charity. You can alsways say that
you did
give it to charity and save your lying face.

Where was Bush #1, what was he doing, and who was he with on
Sept 11?

Moreover, my response was applicable to your claim
that the President of the United States personally approves
press
passes, which is utter nonsense.

Your quote : "nor does the White House approve Press
credentials. "

Now stop trying to change your own words, duffus.

My quote : " The White House absolutely decides who enters
to attend
press briefings."

The man in question was a
journalist working for Talon - that company might be owned by
Republicans, but then how many others journalists in the White
House press room work for known screaming liberal medias? The
White House Press Corps wanted a SLA (SLA=Screaming Liberal
Army)
monopoly - and they do not have a leg to howl about a
right-winger infiltrating their ranks.

Doug Grant (Tm)

The man in question was no journalist, but a 'plant' put there
by the White
House for the express purpose of spreading propaganda.
Just like all the other paid propagandists this administration
so much
enjoys having on hand.

You're a shill, and like so many times before, caught in
another lie.

Doug Says: You know I never lie. Of course he was a journalist,
and of course he worked for Talon News, which is owned by a
GOP supporter - so what? Count all of the "journalists" that are
in the White House press corps that work for media that are
clearly supporting the Democrats. They outnumber Talon news by
about ten to one - and you are howling about the "one."
No one likes biased reporting, but what is "Sauce for the Goose
is Sauce for the Gander."
Doug Grant (Tm)

User: "John Agosta"
Title: Re: PRESS CREDENTIALS (WAS Re: KERRY'S OWN VIETNAM ACCOUNTS AND FACTS	02 Mar 2005 10:11:08 PM

"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:rpudnSZyj8dpyb7fRVn-qQ@comcast.com...