Clelland's Tantrum

[crimresearch]

This thread appears to have gotten derailed. Searching the last 14 posts, I find the word "Cleland" just once. I wouldn't be making a deal of this except that this or similar discussions are being held in a number of other threads.

Maybe we need just one all-inclusive thread, call it "Who Stinks Worse, Bush or Kerry?" That way you won't go OT unless you start talking about Martians.

Really? Was this supposed to be a thread only about Cleland?

I must have missed the memo, because I thought it was a thread about the lengths that politicians will go to sling mud on their opponents, and how skeptics should be able to see through that sort of crap from BOTH sides.

Or is skepticism now considered OT here?

 

[aerocontrols]

I wonder who those special ops people got there? Do you think they may have been dropped off by boat perhaps? I don't know.

The Swift Vets claim that no Swift Boats were ever used to move Special Forces into Cambodia.

The Commander of the Swift Boats during the entire time Kerry was there, Admiral Roy Hoffman, says that his swift boats were never put to such use, and he would have had to know about even secret missions for his guys.

Official histories based on released secret documents show that special forces were moved into and out of Cambodia by helicopter.

The only person saying that John Kerry went into Cambodia in a swift boat is John Kerry, and even he's not saying it anymore. Not even "the men who served with Kerry on his boat" will back up this claim.

MattJ

 

[Lurker]

It is quite possible that all 3 versions of events are correct.

How is it that you will accept part of Lambert's eyewitness account (that there was enemy fire) and yet reject another part (that Thurlow didn't know that there was enemy fire)?
Everything else that you criticize about Thurlow's opinion of Kerry is based upon the specious claim that Thurlow did know that there was enemy fire and is lying. And the 'evidence' of that is your claim that Lambert refutes Thurlow, which is prima facie incorrect.

Lambert contradicts Thurlow on the presence of enemy fire. I have no problem with Thurlow saying ther was no enemy fire if he thinks that. Now that his own gunner has said there was is Thurlow going to admit the possibility that he may not have noticed it? I have yet to see Thurlow raise that possibility.

I don't know who is 100% right. But for Thurlow to question someone's medal when he himself may not be sure and has been contradicted by his own crewman, well, let's just say *I* would be quite a bit more hesitant to cast base aspersions on someone else's medal if I had this level of evidence.

Lurker

 

[Lurker]

The Swift Vets claim that no Swift Boats were ever used to move Special Forces into Cambodia.

The Commander of the Swift Boats during the entire time Kerry was there, Admiral Roy Hoffman, says that his swift boats were never put to such use, and he would have had to know about even secret missions for his guys.

Official histories based on released secret documents show that special forces were moved into and out of Cambodia by helicopter.

The only person saying that John Kerry went into Cambodia in a swift boat is John Kerry, and even he's not saying it anymore. Not even "the men who served with Kerry on his boat" will back up this claim.

MattJ

Good point. Do you think Kerry never left Sa Dec at all? I ahev no idea what his purpose was to leave it and head towards Cambodia. I gave one possibility but have no idea if it is true or not. Also, we know Swift Boats *WERE* in Cambodia as the Swift Baot Veteran for Truth, John O'Neil, admits as such in his testimony to Richard Nixon from 1971. O'Neil was in Cambodia only months after Kerry allegedly was.

Lurker

 

[dsm]

How is it that you will accept part of Lambert's eyewitness account (that there was enemy fire) and yet reject another part (that Thurlow didn't know that there was enemy fire)?

Where is the statement of Lambert's account? Do you have a reference?

Believing the first part is relatively easy as all it requires is belief that Lambert had eyes and ears to know what was going on. On the other hand, believing the second part may entail believing that Lambert could read Thurlow's mind. We might accept Lambert's belief that Thurlow didn't know about the enemy fire, but it would still be naive to believe that that really means that Thurlow didn't know about the enemy fire.

 

[crimresearch]

Where is the statement of Lambert's account? Do you have a reference?

Believing the first part is relatively easy as all it requires is belief that Lambert had eyes and ears to know what was going on. On the other hand, believing the second part may entail believing that Lambert could read Thurlow's mind. We might accept Lambert's belief that Thurlow didn't know about the enemy fire, but it would still be naive to believe that that really means that Thurlow didn't know about the enemy fire.

As previously posted:

"Thurlow was far too distracted with rescue efforts to even realize he was under fire. He was concentrating on trying to save lives."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040827/ap_on_el_pr/swift_boat_witness_1

I agree with your assessment of the first part..Lambert was in a position to support Kerry's version of events with direct observations.

I disagree slightly with your second point...it may not require Lambert to be a mind reader, it may just require him to draw a reasonable inference from his own observations, to support Thurlow's claim (albeit mistaken) of no enemy fire.

What does require mindreading ability is the notion (advanced by others, not by dsm) that Thurlow knew there was enemy fire, and chose to lie about it, and that Lambert supported Kerry on the enemy fire, but knew that Thurlow was also aware of the enemy fire, and that both men chose to lie about it.

As far as what someone who is in the water during the aftermath of a mine explosion, during the previously cited suppressing fire, *must* have heard or known, I'll leave that up to those who can cite factual references to comment on.

 

[dsm]

As previously posted:

"Thurlow was far too distracted with rescue efforts to even realize he was under fire. He was concentrating on trying to save lives."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040827/ap_on_el_pr/swift_boat_witness_1

Yes, my apologies for not reading far enough back in the thread to see this reference.

I agree with your assessment of the first part..Lambert was in a position to support Kerry's version of events with direct observations.

Not only does he agree with Kerry, he apparently agrees with the Navy records of the time.

I disagree slightly with your second point...it may not require Lambert to be a mind reader, it may just require him to draw a reasonable inference from his own observations, to support Thurlow's claim (albeit mistaken) of no enemy fire.

The question is when did he draw that inference? Did Thurlow and Lambert basically agree about what happened at the time (perhaps without mentioning enemy fire to each other)? With the recent statements by Thurlow, is Lambert now trying to (somewhat) justify his old boat captain's account based upon 35 year old recollections?

What does require mindreading ability is the notion (advanced by others, not by dsm) that Thurlow knew there was enemy fire, and chose to lie about it, and that Lambert supported Kerry on the enemy fire, but knew that Thurlow was also aware of the enemy fire, and that both men chose to lie about it.

As far as what someone who is in the water during the aftermath of a mine explosion, during the previously cited suppressing fire, *must* have heard or known, I'll leave that up to those who can cite factual references to comment on.

The actual point is that there is considerable evidence arrayed against Thurlow's account and, yet, he won't at least entertain the notion that he might not have heard the gun fire. This begs the question of why? Could it be that he is anti-Kerry/pro-Bush and to admit that his memory might be faulty would mean watching his SBVfT attack on Kerry crumble?

 

[crimresearch]

The actual point is that there is considerable evidence arrayed against Thurlow's account and, yet, he won't at least entertain the notion that he might not have heard the gun fire. This begs the question of why? Could it be that he is anti-Kerry/pro-Bush and to admit that his memory might be faulty would mean watching his SBVfT attack on Kerry crumble?

Well the considerable evidence is also pasted together with what looks like a few assumptions in my mind...assumptions that could be supported or refuted more easily , but never fully laid to rest, by full access to Kerry's records.

As far as Thurlow's admission of not having perfect recall, he pretty much seems to have done that when he said he didn't even know what was in his own commendation. A full on lying scumbag with blind devotion to a partisan agenda might not have even admitted that much.

No matter what he says or does, hell, if someone came out with a long lost film that showed them *all* sitting around getting high, and concocting the entire incident, the campaigns would continue to insist that their respective side is pure truth and everything the other side says is all lies.

And I'm just looking for the middle.

 

[Lurker]

As far as Thurlow's admission of not having perfect recall, he pretty much seems to have done that when he said he didn't even know what was in his own commendation. A full on lying scumbag with blind devotion to a partisan agenda might not have even admitted that much.

No, this in no way is an admisssion by Thurlow that his memory may be in error. This is Thurlow saying he had no idea what was in his commendation as he evinced surprise at what was written there. Thurlow has not questioned his recollection of events as of yet. He even said that if his citation was written the way it was then it was wrong. How is that an admission fo faulty memory on his part?

so, how long do we wait for Thurlow to go on the record and admit that his memory of events may be wrong or incomplete? If he does, I gain respect for the man. If he doesn't, is it all right if I join Varwoche and call him an asswipe? I presume you will do the same, crimresearch.

Lurker

 

[hgc]

... If he doesn't, is it all right if I join Varwoche and call him an asswipe? I presume you will do the same, crimresearch.

Lurker

Haven't you ever heard of professional courtesy among asswipes?

Hey, crime, it's a joke. Take it easy.

 

[crimresearch]

I've had Lurker on ignore as an official member of the JREF Axis of Intolerance, since an earlier inane outburst of his, so I have no idea what he is on about...

What is there to joke about?

 

[hgc]

I've had Lurker on ignore as an official member of the JREF Axis of Intolerance, since an earlier inane outburst of his, so I have no idea what he is on about...

What is there to joke about?

Forget it. The moment has passed.

 

[Lurker]

Yes, my asking Crimeresearch to support his assertions must have unhinged the poor man. Sorry, crim. I won't ask you to support anything you say in the future.

Lurker

 

[aerocontrols]

Good point. Do you think Kerry never left Sa Dec at all? I ahev no idea what his purpose was to leave it and head towards Cambodia. I gave one possibility but have no idea if it is true or not. Also, we know Swift Boats *WERE* in Cambodia as the Swift Baot Veteran for Truth, John O'Neil, admits as such in his testimony to Richard Nixon from 1971. O'Neil was in Cambodia only months after Kerry allegedly was.

Lurker

Up the Mekong delta is 'towards' Cambodia'. One presumes he was on patrol.

Was O'Neill in Cambodia to sneak Special Forces across the border while the President was denying that any such thing was going on, as Kerry claims to have been, or was O'Neill in Cambodia in support of Operation Tran Hung Dao XI?

You understand the importance of the 'secretly moving special forces (or maybe CIA) across the border' point, right? Kerry has personalized a bit of history that doesn't belong to him, first when writing a 'me, too' movie review of Apocolypse Now, and later on the floor of the Senate, using his false tales of personal experience to oppose Reagan foreign policy in Nicaragua. (I want to be clear on this - Hoffman's claim is about secret missions, there's every possibility that Special forces accompanied the Swifts when they made overt incursions into Cambodia. Of course, Kerry wasn't around at that time)

Kerry left Vietnam in March of 1969. O'Neill was there until the summer of 1970. When was O'Neill in Cambodia? How many months?

MattJ

 

[Lurker]

Up the Mekong delta is 'towards' Cambodia'. One presumes he was on patrol.

Was O'Neill in Cambodia to sneak Special Forces across the border while the President was denying that any such thing was going on, as Kerry claims to have been, or was O'Neill in Cambodia in support of Operation Tran Hung Dao XI?

I have no idea.

You understand the importance of the 'secretly moving special forces (or maybe CIA) across the border' point, right? Kerry has personalized a bit of history that doesn't belong to him, first when writing a 'me, too' movie review of Apocolypse Now, and later on the floor of the Senate, using his false tales of personal experience to oppose Reagan foreign policy in Nicaragua. (I want to be clear on this - Hoffman's claim is about secret missions, there's every possibility that Special forces accompanied the Swifts when they made overt incursions into Cambodia. Of course, Kerry wasn't around at that time)

Kerry left Vietnam in March of 1969. O'Neill was there until the summer of 1970. When was O'Neill in Cambodia? How many months?

MattJ

I see your point and perhaps Kerry was embellishing when he should not have been. I guess we may never know at this point. I'll have to go back and check to see if we can determine when O'Neill was in Cambodia.

Lurker

 

[Dorian Gray]

In other words, stop trying to claim these reports are authoritative. Frankly, its embarassing to watch someone so naive claiming these are authoritative because you want it to be true .

Right, Corplinx, I knew you'd eventually say something like this.

Now please reread your comment out loud after visiting AWOLBush.com. The 'authoritative' argument is the same argument being used by George Bush about HIS military service record. Since none of us was there in either situation, we either have to believe BOTH accounts (Bush's from the TANG, Kerry's from the US Navy) are true, or we have to believe they were both fabricated or faulty. You can't have it both ways.

With the exception, of course, that numerous people remember Kerry being in Vietnam, while practically no one remembers Bush being in TANG or AANG during the time in question.

 

[Dogwood]

Kerry says there was enemy fire. Thurlow says there was no enemy fire. Lambert says there was enemy fire. Lamberts account contradicts Thurlows account. Either Thurlow is wrong or Kerry and Lambert are wrong.

Originally posted by crimresearch
Well, except for the fact (as already referenced) that Lambert's account *supports* Thurlows account, you almost had a point there. Unfortunately you have resorted to a false dichotomy. It is quite possible that all 3 versions of events are correct.

There is no false dichotomy precisely because it is not possible that all three versions are correct. Lamberts account plainly contradicts Thurlows account. There was enemy fire vs. there was no enemy fire. Half-guessed excuses 35 years later cannot get around that. That goes for the whole Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia special as well.


is it that you will accept part of Lambert's eyewitness account (that there was enemy fire) and yet reject another part (that Thurlow didn't know that there was enemy fire)?

Because Lambert can state authoritatively whether or not he personally witnessed enemy fire. He cannot state authoritatively whether or not he witnessed another man "noticing" something. Are you actually suggesting that Lamberts speculation that Thurlow might not have noticed the gunfire because he was "too busy" should supercede Thurlows absolute statement that it did not happen? Remember, Thurlow has expressed no uncertainty about the event, or his ability to judge events for himself at the time. His account directly contradicts Lamberts.


If so, in order to take this suggestion seriously, we must now embrace several equally unlikely assumptions. We must assume that while Lambert was being shot at, that he was in a position to accurately note Thurlow's state of awareness. That after Lambert pulled Thurlow from the river, he neglected to mention to his superior officer that five swiftboats had just been shot at by multiple gunmen from both banks of the river. That no other crewmembers ever mentioned these events to Thurlow. Oh, and that Thurlow never read his own recommendation.

....?

I personally tend to think that Occam's Razor is overused in discussions here, but maybe you should seriously think about getting yours sharpened.

Everything else that you criticize about Thurlow's opinion of Kerry is based upon the specious claim that Thurlow did know that there was enemy fire and is lying.

Please show where I said Thurlow was lying. I said either he is wrong, or Lambert and Kerry are wrong. I will not accuse Thurlow of lying because that requires a certainty of knowledge of intent on his part which I do not have. By the way, I could not care less about Thurlow's opinion of Kerry or even what he has to say about him, unless it is contradicted by evidence.

And the 'evidence' of that is your claim that Lambert refutes Thurlow, which is prima facie incorrect.

No. It is, on the face of it, quite correct that Lamberts statement contradicts Thurlows. I did not say that Lambert refuted Thurlow. Offering excuses for someone is not a refutation.

The claims about damage to the boats have been explained, and now the claims that Thurlow knew there was enemy fire have been plausibly refuted.

Not to my satisfaction. Regarding the bullet holes, Thurlow has offered that one hole was due to fire from the previous day. However the U.S. Navy reports three. Thurlows explanation is two holes shy. If you are aware of any further explanations regarding this, then please share.

All that is left to support your position is blind faith, which along with a dollar, won't even buy you a cup of coffee in a skeptic's forum.

That's really funny. My position is backed up by numerous eyewitness accounts, official U.S. Navy reports, and physical evidence. Your position is backed up by numerous eyewitness accounts and speculation which is internally inconsistent and relies on unreasonable assumptions. I am relying on no faith, as I have none. I am also willing to change my position if evidence is produced that contradicts it.

You are in no position to advise me what belongs on a skeptics forum.

 

[crimresearch]

Lamberts account plainly contradicts Thurlows account. There was enemy fire vs. there was no enemy fire. Half-guessed excuses 35 years later cannot get around that. That goes for the whole Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia special as well.
...No. It is, on the face of it, quite correct that Lamberts statement contradicts Thurlows. I did not say that Lambert refuted Thurlow. Offering excuses for someone is not a refutation.
...That's really funny. My position is backed up by numerous eyewitness accounts, official U.S. Navy reports, and physical evidence. Your position is backed up by numerous eyewitness accounts and speculation which is internally inconsistent and relies on unreasonable assumptions. I am relying on no faith, as I have none. I am also willing to change my position if evidence is produced that contradicts it.
You are in no position to advise me what belongs on a skeptics forum.

Not only am I in an excellent position to point out your substitution of agit-prop for facts, and your selective acceptance and rejection of the evidence you mention above, I can also explain to you that you need a thesaurus in order to understand the use of words like 'refute' and 'contradict'...(Hint: they are not antonyms).
What no one can do for you is teach you how to abandon rhetoric and embrace skepticism.

Have all the faith you wish that one side is telling some sort of 'truth' here and the other side is lying...'truth' resides in the middle, and that is where you cannot look, because of your inability to think for yourself.
I'll leave you to your blind faith.

 

[corplinx]

There were seven people who claimed there was no enemy fire. Thurlow was just cherrypicked since he got a medal for his efforts to rescue the people from boat 3 and it said there was enemy fire.

Kerry did not help rescue people from boat 3 and left the scene for a while. I would say the people on his boat then are the worst witnesses for whether or not there was enemy fire.

I keep hearing about the "mounds of evidence" and the "naval records" but these were all written by people who either wanted medals or wanted others to have them. I have corrected this over and over again. Please stop using the medal citations as evidence _since it is not_.

 

[DavidJames]

I keep hearing about the "mounds of evidence" and the "naval records" but these were all written by people who either wanted medals or wanted others to have them. I have corrected this over and over again. Please stop using the medal citations as evidence _since it is not_.

I think you've consumed way to much of your koolaid and have been wacked in the head to often with your signs. This comment ranks on the top of an already sky high pile of plain silly things you've said.