It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Admiral speaks out, Disputes Kerry's account of 1st wound

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
A nonpartisan retired Rear Admiral has come forward to dispute John Kerry's first Purple Heart.
 



www.suntimes.com
NEW YORK -- Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. said Thursday in his first on-the-record interview about the swift boat veterans dispute that "I was absolutely in the skimmer" in the early morning on Dec. 2, 1968, when Lt. (j.g.) John Kerry was involved in an incident that led to his first Purple Heart.



"Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 [grenade launcher]," Schachte said in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C. He said, "Kerry requested a Purple Heart."

Schachte, also a lieutenant junior grade, said he was in command of the small boat called a Boston whaler or skimmer, with Kerry aboard in his first combat mission in the Vietnam War. The third crew member was an enlisted man, whose name Schachte did not remember.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


John Kerry will have a difficult time refuting the statements made by Rear Adm. William L. Schachte, Jr (Ret.); Kerry, who has been careful not to personally engage in any replies to the contrary on this subject will have to respond before Election Night. His veracity on this centerpiece of his campaign has come into question, and may be causing him to fall in the polls against President Bush.

Related News Links:
www.newsday.com
www.suntimes.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Kerry Lied about 'Christmas in Cambodia'

[edit on 8-27-2004 by Valhall]

[edit on 8-27-2004 by Valhall]




posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Hmmm, maybe we can have a dueling banjko theme for this. This is a sticky issue for Kerry. Sticky as in it wont go away no matter how much bullying or intimadation that he and his cronies try. Will he file a SLAP suit on this guy as well?

Mirthful, you are correct, how can Kerry go after this retired non partisan Admiral? He can't Plain and simple, but who knows.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Well, I think finally, we can get to the bottom of this issue and also stop beating the mess out of a bunch of veterans.

Kerry's own journal that he kept while in Viet Nam has his own handwritten entry 8 days after this incident happened that states that he or his crew have yet to be fired at.

He sunk his own boat (pardon the pun) in 1968 in his journal...but you can't even trust him enough to use his own words against him...lol. It takes an Admiral to confirm he was telling the truth then...and not now.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   
So why was this granted? Didn't this person who spoke out try to stop the purple heart from being granted? Why is it that people seem to suddenly have memories of an event over 30 years ago (clearly remember it) yet can't remember the name of another soldier who was there. Seems all these swift boat type people have VERY SELECTIVE memories.

Then again what does this matter? I mean in the long run this will affect his ability to run the country in no way. We are not harping on the fact that Bush has a CRIMINAL record are we? I am just waiting for the day we get to here both sides talk about what is really important.

Also since the swift boat guys used creative editing in their ads cutting out parts of speeches to make them fit their point of view I will believe nothing of this unless we hear a recording of the entire conversation this man had.

God help us all if we can't move on to the important issues. Vietnam is over, Kerry served, why do we need to know more?



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Kerry's own journal that he kept while in Viet Nam has his own handwritten entry 8 days after this incident happened that states that he or his crew have yet to be fired at.


Christ, Valhall I did not know this at all. Talk about a smoking gun. Now we are up to two confimed lies. At this point all we know so sure is that he was in Vietnam, and thats about it eh?



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by nativeokie

Then again what does this matter? I mean in the long run this will affect his ability to run the country in no way. We are not harping on the fact that Bush has a CRIMINAL record are we? I am just waiting for the day we get to here both sides talk about what is really important.



Well, first thing that comes to my mind is his inability to tell truth from lie...that seems like it ought to be a requirement for the Presidency.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Can someone explain to me what the hell what he did or did not do in Vietnam has to do with whether he would make a good president or not?



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by nativeokie
God help us all if we can't move on to the important issues. Vietnam is over, Kerry served, why do we need to know more?


Ive said it once, Ill say it again. Kerry used his service as a cornerstone of his campaign to counteract claims he is soft on defence. If you doubt this see my Defence post on the Issues 2004 forum. He opened the Pandoras box and brought his record up for scrutiny. Its not anyones fault but his and his handlers that they did not look more closely at his record before they used it. The Genie is out of the bottle and try as he might Kerry can't force, SLAP sue, or get his wife to buy its way back in.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   
one of the reasons all this stuff about his military is important is because it shows the kind of person he was then.

One of the real problems for USA in the Vietnam conflict was that the protocol for officer promotion had become totally bureaucratized. Basically, young men from prominent families could pad their resumes with minimal risk to their own safety, and minimal contribution to the war effort.

I don't know the navy rules, (I never served) but my understanding is that in the army, a person who wanted to be promoted to officer had to earn the "combat infantry badge." This is a little emblem on the shirt picturing a rifle on a (blue?) field. It shows that the person has actually served in combat, and not merely an administrative post.

So many Senator's sons and rich kids wanted a military title, that the military shortened the term of service needed to earn the CIB for junior officers. For much of Vietnam war, the time was 120 days of real combat risk. Not that you fought the whole time, but that you were "leading" in combat conditions.

Some men, like Norman Schwartzkopf, (or the officer who told me this stuff) served multiple tours, or were given specific missions. Others had themselves sent "forward" to a quiet area for the exact number of days needed for the CIB, then rotated back to the rear. I think a lot of vets, without articulating it, may resent Kerry for serving the exact minimum of combat-days to earn a badge. Of course, he was navy, and the rules may have been different, but if I reached these conclusions, I bet some others have, too.

If you think about it, it's not too surprising that America didn't win Vietnam. If the leaders were only serving for 90 or 120 or 150 days to earn "points," then they really didn't care about the men OR the mission, since they'd be home in 4 months no matter what. You can imagine what that does to morale, for a unit to get its 3rd new officer in a year, and all the new guy wants to do is engage in a firefight, regardless of strategic or even tactical implications. No wonder Nam was a 'commuter war.'

"Proof" of courage under fire comes in the form of the purple heart, right? Well, the procedure for giving them out has always differed. In WWII, I think that senior officers had to endorse the medal. I understand that in Korea, it was usually a doctor who signed someone up for a PH. I think that by 'nam, a soldier could request one on his own behalf, and submit the proper paper work.

How would you like to serve under an officer like that? Now picture the whole military, where the grunts know that the officers are only interested in social/political advancement, and not victory.

Was Kerry that kind of man? I'll leave that to each of you to decide for yourselves.

I suggest you find a combat vet, buy 'em a coffee or beer, and ask them about conditions and rules for this kind of thing. It won't be a waste of your time, I assure you.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Perhaps it's time to break out those "home movies" again, and "massage the message". John Kerry, and his Campaign Managers are waging a campaign of obfuscation, eschewing the REAL issues, inflating what little accomplishments he has, and ignoring 20 years of Senatorial absentia; relying on minions (Soros, Moore, Move On, et al) to do his dirty work, the American public is well on their way to seeing the Quality of Character of the Junior Senator from Massachusetts.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by nativeokie
Then again what does this matter? I mean in the long run this will affect his ability to run the country in no way.


It matters because it speaks to who John Kerry really is and just what lengths he is prepared to go to for his own self-promotion and rise to power. It also shows him to be right in line with the democratic stratagy of throwing lawsuits at someone if there is no other way to get what you want. At least we know how Kerry feels about free speech, now. On the other hand, Bush hasn't sued Michael Moore or Moveon.org, has he?


We are not harping on the fact that Bush has a CRIMINAL record are we? I am just waiting for the day we get to here both sides talk about what is really important.


LOL. People on this board have said about every nasty and malicious thing you could think of about Bush. He didn't hold his past up as the reason he should be elected though.

Kerry made this issue important by asking the American people to elect him based on this issue. It's a valid subject for debate since Kerry put it out there and "reported for duty". I too think this will end up sinking Kerry's election hopes. I don't think he has as many people fooled as he thinks he does.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Okay so his service (or lack there of in Vietnam) goes to the type of person he is as president. Then why can't we discuss GWB's criminal record? His arrest for drunk driving, the girl and the abortion clinic, his in-ability to run a company succesfully or his stellar record of killing more texans than any other govenor? What about his sudden change to finding GOD when he needed to win an election? What about the fact he is an alchoholic and as they say once you are one you are always one? Why can't we worry about him hitting the bottle again? Happens to people all the time. Is that open for discussion? No, because it became un american to say anything negative about him after 9/11. What the hell were we thinking?

What I am saying is that if we consider what Kerry did 35 years ago as relevant to his ability to run the country then we should have an equally open debate about what GWB did then and how it might affect his ability to run this country, or even how it already has had an affect.

Again there are more pressing issues we need to address, let's get to them and stop sniping at each other over Vietnam especially when these half assed eye witness accounts can't seem to reconcile against the actual records of the time. This is another case where someone can remember every single detail of John Kerry but can't recall who was there with him at the time (forgetting names, etc). It is all spin because he came home and protested the war.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   
The only reason that we are discussing Vietnam at all is because KERRY decided to make his service the centerpiece of his campaign.

The centerpiece is a sham.

Lets now dissect what KERRY has done, or not done in 20 years of service in the Senate.

For KERRY needs to define himself. (which he hasn't).

As Bush is already PRESIDENT, voters will focus solely on his record as PRESIDENT, as they should.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
Can someone explain to me what the hell what he did or did not do in Vietnam has to do with whether he would make a good president or not?



Yes, I can explain. He lied about "what he did" in Vietnam.

He cut his pinky and requested a purple heart...and then he came back 30 some odd years later and lied about the injury. I'm just wondering if the affidavits of that purple heart show that he submitted a false report.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   
The news just keeps getting worse, a little digging has brought the previously obscure Rear Admiral William L. Schachte, Jr. into focus. I wonder how the Democratic Attack Dogs will tangle with a storied career such as his.


Rear Admiral William L. Schachte, Jr. (Ret.) resume



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I don't know the navy rules, (I never served) but my understanding is that in the army, a person who wanted to be promoted to officer had to earn the "combat infantry badge." This is a little emblem on the shirt picturing a rifle on a (blue?) field. It shows that the person has actually served in combat, and not merely an administrative post.



CIB 1st award, subsequent awards would include a star or stars above the wreath to identify 2nd, 3rd, 4th awards of this badge.


III. AWARD ELIGIBILITY: Awarded to personnel in the grade of Colonel or below with an infantry or special forces military occupational specialty who have satisfactorily performed duty while assigned as a member of an infantry/special forces unit, brigade or smaller size, during any period subsequent to 6 December 1941 when the unit was engaged in active ground combat. The policy was expanded to permit award to Command Sergeants Major of infantry battalions or brigades, effective 1 December 1967. Specific criteria for each conflict was also established. Only one award is authorized for service in Vietnam, Laos, the Dominican Republic, Korea (subsequent to 4 January 1969), El Salvador, Grenada, Panama, the Southwest Asia and Somalia, regardless of whether an individual has served in one or more of these areas. The complete criteria for each area and inclusive dates are listed in Army Regulation 600-8-22.



The Infantryman Badge is shown here, similar but note the lack of wreath, the wreath identifies it as combat infantryman badge.


AWARD ELIGIBILITY: Personnel must meet Department of the Army established testing requirements and must possess a military occupational specialty within Career Management Field 11 (Infantry) or 18 (Special Forces), less MOS 18D.

FYI

[edit on 8-27-2004 by William One Sac]



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
The news just keeps getting worse, a little digging has brought the previously obscure Rear Admiral William L. Schachte, Jr. into focus. I wonder how the Democratic Attack Dogs will tangle with a storied career such as his.


His record speaks for itself:
Admiral Schachte's personal decorations include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with Gold Star (in lieu of second award), the Bronze Star with "V", the Meritorious Service Medal with Gold Star (in lieu of second award) and the Combat Action Ribbon



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   
The general Jerry Springer persona of this country needs tweeking a bit. Kerry was just a lad when these events unfolded. God help me if I ran for high office...in the midst of this petty electorate?



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Martin
The general Jerry Springer persona of this country needs tweeking a bit. Kerry was just a lad when these events unfolded. God help me if I ran for high office...in the midst of this petty electorate?


There is a term that would allow you and JFK to run for presidential office with youth as an excuse, "disclosure" as in "upfront"

[edit on 27-8-2004 by Phoenix]



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Kind of neat how all of the democrats on the board are even making excuses for Kerry's lies now. Not that Bush is this great honest man because he is not but I would say they are equal snakes.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join