Drudge-Wow!

[Annie]

Reilly here is what was on CNN today. Note there isn't a denial, as much as return accusations about waiting too long. Note also that the bottom line was, 'I'd rather have Kerry, than Bush.'

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/05/ip.01.html

<...>
WOODRUFF: We've been reporting on the debate between Vietnam veterans for and against John Kerry. With me now, two central figures in this debate. Larry Thurlow, he's with me here in Washington. Like John Kerry, he commanded a swift boat in Vietnam. He appears in that anti-Kerry television ad that we showed you a little earlier.
In Eugene, Oregon, is Jim Rassmann. He served under John Kerry's command and he credits Kerry with saving his life. Rassmann, you may remember, spoke at last week's Democratic convention.

Larry Thurlow, I want to -- I want to begin with you. You essentially, as I understand it, you, too, won a Bronze Star, like John Kerry did. The incident in which John Kerry pulled Jim Rassmann out of -- out of the river...

LARRY THURLOW, APPEARS IN ANTI-KERRY AD: Yes? WOODRUFF: ... in Vietnam, Kerry says that this happened under enemy fire, that Rassmann had been knocked in the water, he went back and was the first to get to Rassmann and pulled him out of the water. You essentially said that's not what happened. What are you saying?

THURLOW: My recollection of that day is still pretty vivid after all these years. And what I remember, Judy, is that the incident involving Mr. Rassmann, five boats had come out of the river after running an operation up in the canal earlier that day. Three boats were going through a fishing weir on the left side of the river that had put in place between the time we entered and when we were leaving.

I'm the third boat in that column left. In the column right, there are two boats. The lead boat is John Kerry's.

He's going through a rather small opening on the right bank that (ph) had been left in his boat. The boat leading our column, as it goes through that small opening almost simultaneously, is blasted completely out of the water by a command detonated mine.

WOODRUFF: This is another boat?

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...

(CROSSTALK)

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

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.
Mr. Thurlow's recollection of what occurred is not accurate. We had the boat hit the mine to our left. And John immediately had his driver, Del Sandusky (ph), turn to the left and head towards it.

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.

WOODRUFF: Now, as I understand it, Larry Thurlow, you have a different version of how Jim Rassmann was in the water.

THURLOW: Yes, I do. My thought is that since no mine was detected on the other side of the river, no blast was seen, no noise heard, there's two things that are inconsistent with my memory.

Our boats immediately put automatic weapons fire on to the left bank just in case there was an ambush in conjunction with the mine. It soon became apparent there was no ambush.

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. But I distinctly remember we were under no fire from either bank.

WOODRUFF: Jim Rassmann, what about that? You hear Mr. Thurlow saying there was no enemy fire at that point.

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.

WOODRUFF: Disingenuous. He says you are being disingenuous in not recalling what happened.

THURLOW: Let me ask Mr. Rassmann this question: I also ended up in the water that day during the rescue efforts on the 3-boat (ph). And my boat, the 51-boat (ph), came up, picked me up, business as usual. I got back on board, went about the business at hand.

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?

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.

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.

WOODRUFF: What about Mr. Rassmann's point that he thinks you're doing this for partisan purposes?

THURLOW: Well, this is not true because, the fact of the matter is, I have not been active in any political party since I got out of the service. In fact, I basically turned my back on politics because of my experience in the service.

WOODRUFF: But this -- you feel strongly enough about this to be out?

THURLOW: I certainly do. My point is, is that John Kerry, because of the actions he's taken, and then the fantastic stories he made up about this, when many people beside myself know this not to be true, negates him being the leader he claims to be. And I would hate to have him be the commander-in-chief over my grandchildren.

WOODRUFF: Jim Rassmann, you want to respond to that?

RASSMANN: I sure do. I have two wonderful kids. They're very bright, they're compassionate people. I'm here today not just because John Kerry pulled me out of that water. I'm here today because if those two kids of mine were in the military, I would want John Kerry to be the commander-in-chief, not George Bush.

I think that Mr. Thurlow has a very unusual recollection of the events. I think that it's important to note that even today John McCain has come out and called this ad that they have produced dishonest and dishonorable. And I think I would have to agree with him.

WOODRUFF: Well, gentlemen, we are going to have to leave it there. Mr. Jim Rassmann, we thank you for joining us from Eugene, Oregon.

Larry Thurlow, we thank you for joining us here in Washington. We know you're from Kansas. We appreciate it.

And I have a sense we're going to continue to hear more about this story in the days and the weeks to come. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

THURLOW: You're welcome...

 

[Reilly]

Reilly here is what was on CNN today. Note there isn't a denial, as much as return accusations about waiting too long. Note also that the bottom line was, 'I'd rather have Kerry, than Bush.'

Well, that transcript is perfectly consistent with my statement. The person whose life Kerry saved recalls being fired at while he was in the water as Kerry was picking him up (note that this man indicates that he himself put Kerry in for commendation). Fourteen of Kerry's crewmates (who actually served with him on his boat) appeared with him on stage at the Convention and support him (which one would suspect they would not do if Kerry had behaved as some of these accusations suggest). One person at the scene 30 years ago who was on another boat has a different recollection. This evidence leaves me more inclined to discount this man's recollection (whether politically motivated or just a bad memory).

 

[Avatar4321]

Who cares what McCain says? He wasnt there.

 

[Annie]

Well, that transcript is perfectly consistent with my statement. The person whose life Kerry saved recalls being fired at while he was in the water as Kerry was picking him up (note that this man indicates that he himself put Kerry in for commendation). Fourteen of Kerry's crewmates (who actually served with him on his boat) appeared with him on stage at the Convention and support him (which one would suspect they would not do if Kerry had behaved as some of these accusations suggest). One person at the scene 30 years ago who was on another boat has a different recollection. This evidence leaves me more inclined to discount this man's recollection (whether politically motivated or just a bad memory).

Actually, considering the other man wasn't in the water, but nearby, he may have had a better picture of what was happening regarding those shots. Note also that Kerry's actions, which are what really matter here, just get passed over by Rasmussen?

Besides the point, I think that Kerry's service-whatever it's merits or lack of them, should be a non-issue. For some reason, Kerry wasn't willing to just leave it be. In all likelihood, if there wasn't this lawsuit threat-see other thread, CNN wouldn't even have bothered with this. FOX would probably have mentioned it, then it would have died on it's own. His team is not doing a good job by him.

 

[Reilly]

Actually, considering the other man wasn't in the water, but nearby, he may have had a better picture of what was happening regarding those shots. Note also that Kerry's actions, which are what really matter here, just get passed over by Rasmussen?

Besides the point, I think that Kerry's service-whatever it's merits or lack of them, should be a non-issue. For some reason, Kerry wasn't willing to just leave it be. In all likelihood, if there wasn't this lawsuit threat-see other thread, CNN wouldn't even have bothered with this. FOX would probably have mentioned it, then it would have died on it's own. His team is not doing a good job by him.

Well, I dispute that the man in a nearby boat had a better view of the situation than the man whose life Kerry saved and who submitted him for commendation. As for why it is still an issue, Bush's strength is his perceived ability to keep the country safe and act decisively. Kerry has to make up ground there however he can, and one important way is to demonstrate his courage and decisiveness in battle. His actions as a soldier help demonstrate that, and he has to defend this image. At least, that is why I suspect an issue is still made of Kerry's service.

 

[Annie]

Well, I dispute that the man in a nearby boat had a better view of the situation than the man whose life Kerry saved and who submitted him for commendation. As for why it is still an issue, Bush's strength is his perceived ability to keep the country safe and act decisively. Kerry has to make up ground there however he can, and one important way is to demonstrate his courage and decisiveness in battle. His actions as a soldier help demonstrate that, and he has to defend this image. At least, that is why I suspect an issue is still made of Kerry's service.

So why don't they sue for slander instead of threatening the media? If it's all lies, sue!

 

[Reilly]

So why don't they sue for slander instead of threatening the media? If it's all lies, sue!

The legal standard for slander of a public figure is really hard to satisfy.

 

[Annie]

The legal standard for slander of a public figure is really hard to satisfy.

Gee depositions of those concerned, I mean there were 5 boats for crying out loud.

 

[Reilly]

Gee depositions of those concerned, I mean there were 5 boats for crying out loud.

First, to win in a slander suit, it would basically have to be shown that the statements were knowingly falsely made (or recklessly so). A bad memory wouldn't satisfy the standard. Second, since truth is an absolute defense to slander, Kerry could (and surely would) be called to testify at a trial and be cross-examined. Even if this shit is completely false, that wouldn't be the kind of publicity a presidential candidate would want during an election. Finally, even if Kerry won and this group were completely discredited, the trial wouldn't end till after the election, so there is really very little upside from a campaign perspective.

 

[Annie]

First, to win in a slander suit, it would basically have to be shown that the statements were knowingly falsely made (or recklessly so). A bad memory wouldn't satisfy the standard. Second, since truth is an absolute defense to slander, Kerry could (and surely would) be called to testify at a trial and be cross-examined. Even if this shit is completely false, that wouldn't be the kind of publicity a presidential candidate would want during an election.

and what if it isn't? Do you really want someone that would lie about such things?

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, I dispute that the man in a nearby boat had a better view of the situation than the man whose life Kerry saved and who submitted him for commendation. As for why it is still an issue, Bush's strength is his perceived ability to keep the country safe and act decisively. Kerry has to make up ground there however he can, and one important way is to demonstrate his courage and decisiveness in battle. His actions as a soldier help demonstrate that, and he has to defend this image. At least, that is why I suspect an issue is still made of Kerry's service.

You really should reconsider your disputation. I think its only logical that a man watching from nearby would be able to tell if there is gun fire going on more than someone who is struggling for his life to stay afloat. I think people who are calm are going to remember something better than someone who was excited and panicked. but what do i know.

 

[Reilly]

and what if it isn't? Do you really want someone that would lie about such things?

What does that have to do with his decision to sue for slander?

Regardless, no, I wouldn't support such a person. However, in light of the statements made by the man Kerry saved and the support he continues to receive from his crewmates, I don't believe the accusations. Sure, anything is possible, but in light of what I have seen, these accusations thus far seem pretty pathetic.

 

[Annie]

What does that have to do with his decision to sue for slander?

Regardless, no, I wouldn't support such a person. However, in light of the statements made by the man Kerry saved and the support he continues to receive from his crewmates, I don't believe the accusations. Sure, anything is possible, but in light of what I have seen, these accusations thus far seem pretty pathetic.

Hey, you got your vote-use it!

 

[Reilly]

You really should reconsider your disputation. I think its only logical that a man watching from nearby would be able to tell if there is gun fire going on more than someone who is struggling for his life to stay afloat. I think people who are calm are going to remember something better than someone who was excited and panicked. but what do i know.

The man claims that gunfire was splashing around him every time he attempted to come up for air. That sounds like something that would stick in the memory.

 

[Avatar4321]

and what if it isn't? Do you really want someone that would lie about such things?

My question is more on his statements afterwards. If Kerry was telling the truth and he committed war crimes, shouldnt he be prosecuted? And if he didnt but rather was lying about them to congress, shouldnt he be prosecuted for his lies?

Either way, do we want this man as Commander and Chief It boggles the mind how the liberals can be so upset over some soldiers parading prisoners around naked with underwear on their head and then nominate a confessed war criminal for President.

 

[Annie]

The man claims that gunfire was splashing around him every time he attempted to come up for air. That sounds like something that would stick in the memory.

Good Lord man, the other fellow said they were shooting, in case the VC were waiting to ambush after the mine! They had the guy in the water and were covering him. I know very little about what happens in a situation like that, but even I can figure that out.

 

[Avatar4321]

The man claims that gunfire was splashing around him every time he attempted to come up for air. That sounds like something that would stick in the memory.

If you are splashing around in the water thinking you are going to die im willing to bet you could imagine just about anything happening. The fact is the witnesses are disagreeing. They wouldnt have been caught up in the heat of the matter.

It amazes me how you guys can discount the people that were there with him so nonchalantly.

 

[Annie]

My question is more on his statements afterwards. If Kerry was telling the truth and he committed war crimes, shouldnt he be prosecuted? And if he didnt but rather was lying about them to congress, shouldnt he be prosecuted for his lies?

Either way, do we want this man as Commander and Chief It boggles the mind how the liberals can be so upset over some soldiers parading prisoners around naked with underwear on their head and then nominate a confessed war criminal for President.

I agree with your point, but I would say it's way too late for that now. No, I do not want him as Commander In Chief. But for many more reasons than these things related to Vietnam. He was stupid for wrapping himself so tightly in those medals.

 

[Reilly]

My question is more on his statements afterwards. If Kerry was telling the truth and he committed war crimes, shouldnt he be prosecuted? And if he didnt but rather was lying about them to congress, shouldnt he be prosecuted for his lies?

Either way, do we want this man as Commander and Chief It boggles the mind how the liberals can be so upset over some soldiers parading prisoners around naked with underwear on their head and then nominate a confessed war criminal for President.

I have never seen a quote where Kerry admitted commiting war crimes himself. If such quotes exist, I would like to see them to make a better judgment about the man. Please post a link and I will read it.

On another note, I am upset anytime any of our soldiers treats any prisoners inhumanely, especially if it is being done for "fun," which seems to me an even more despicable act.

 

[freeandfun1]

Jim Rassman, the man who claims that Kerry rescued him from the water on the night in question, insists that the boat was under fire. Further, 14 of Kerry's boat crewmates appeared with him on stage at the Convention and support his campaign.

I don't believe any of these people claiming that there was no fire and that Kerry did not deserve recognition for his actions were on his boat. As for the 23 persons that you are referring to, I wonder where they were to be so closely observering Kerry's actions. What the hell were they doing?

Him and Kerry are the ONLY ones that claim they were under fire. The others tell of how they PULLED TWO GUYS out of the water at the same time. They were not returning fire, as they were NOT receiving fire.

Military tactics generally require that swift boats, tanks, APCs, etc. operate in teams of at least two craft/vehicles. These other guys were on the same missions, the other guys were part of the unit, one of the other guys was Kerry's commander. The guys on stage are the enlisted guys that served with Kerry. He was their commander. I still call my old company commander Sir nearly 20 years after serving under him. He still has a "command" influence to some extent I am sure.

Kerry put himself in for his his first Purple Heart award and his silver star. A true HERO would never recommend himself for such awards as they would know that, if they deserved it, they would be put in for it. Check the records. A matter-of-fact, a quote has been posted on here previously (yesterday) from Kerry's commander (that has to sign off on award submissions) that Kerry's first Purple Heart was refused by the commander. It was only after Kerry went directly to Saigon Personnel that he got it approved.

Do you think Kerry's unit only consisted of John Kerry and HIS crew? LMFAO!