Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Kerry's Belodeau eulogy: Yet another version of the Rassman rescue, and screaming up the river "50 yards from Cambodia" in the dead of night
Among young Lt. Kerry's crew on PCF 94 was the late Thomas M. Belodeau, who died in 1997. Without a trace of snark or sarcasm, I begin this post by saying that I mourn Mr. Belodeau's death, and I honor his service to his country. What follows does not discredit him in any way. An unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of the current SwiftVets vs. Kerry controversy, however, is that we cannot dig through the factual record of Sen. Kerry's Vietnam service — which as even his supporters recognize, Sen. Kerry himself has chosen to make "the seminal character issue of his presidential campaign" — without discussing at least briefly some of our other veterans, like Mr. Belodeau, who've since passed away.
Mr. Belodeau's description of the event in which Sen. Kerry won his Silver Star was the genesis of Boston Globe reporter David Warsh's column during Sen. Kerry's 1996 re-election campaign that essentially accused Sen. Kerry of being a war criminal. Many — including some who are now part of the SwiftVets' efforts — objected to what they thought was Warsh's cheap shot, and it appears that Mr. Belodeau actively assisted Sen. Kerry in rebutting that accusation, to the credit of them both.
It is unsurprising, then — and again to Sen. Kerry's credit — that reporter Mike Barnicle would write of him, just before the Democratic National Convention in Boston last month:
But John Kerry can cry. And listen. And see pain. All of that and more because of an element of his personality that he is often reluctant to display: He knows what it’s like to be afraid, to be vulnerable, to, quite literally, be wounded.
Part of him went to war and never came back. That portion occasionally reappears at odd, sometimes sad events: the funeral of Tommy Belodeau, a decent, solid, hard-working guy who was part of Kerry’s Swift Boat crew in Vietnam and had a difficult life after the war. Kerry could barely keep his composure giving the eulogy the day Belodeau was buried a few years ago; at small dinners where Kerry is surrounded by other veterans, men who have a shared friendship now due to a shared horror from the past. Intimacy and the alliance of combat can indeed expose his soul.
So, too, it is to Sen. Kerry's genuine credit that — as one of my commenters, Patrick R. Sullivan, pointed out on an earlier post, and as reader Alexandra H. Mulkern emailed me with a helpful link — Sen. Kerry spoke, quite eloquently, at Mr. Belodeau's funeral. Only a ghoul would begrudge the tiny expense to the public fisc from Sen. Kerry's gracious gesture on January 28, 1998, in inserting into the Congressional Record a written version of the eulogy (.pdf files: first page, second page; or you can access the entry directly through the link-unfriendly search engine at the Congressional Record website) that Sen. Kerry delivered on behalf of Mr. Belodeau on November 10, 1997. It was altogether fitting and proper that he do so. Sen. Kerry was writing to honor a departed friend and brother whose "steady hand and courageous heart" helped keep young Lt. Kerry alive. "How do you say goodbye to a man who shared the most challenging and terrifying moments of your life?" Surely, at a minimum, one writes such a goodbye only with great care and attention to detail.
Like so many of Sen. Kerry's other written and oral recollections of his Vietnam service, however, this one contains discrepancies that are hard to reconcile. In it, among those "most challenging and terrifying moments" of their lives, Sen. Kerry recounts what clearly seem to be the same incidents out of which young Lt. Kerry was awarded his Silver Star and his Bronze Star. With regard to the latter:
There was the time we were carrying special forces up a river and a mine exploded under our boat sending it 2 feet into the air. We were receiving incoming rocket and small arms fire and Tommy was returning fire with his M-60 machine gun when it literally broke apart in his hands. He was left holding the pieces unable to fire back while one of the Green Berets walked along the edge of the boat to get Tommy another M-60. As he was doing so, the boat made a high speed turn to starboard and the Green Beret kept going — straight into the river. The entire time while the boat went back to get the Green Beret, Tommy was without a machine gun or a weapon of any kind, but all the time he was hurling the greatest single string of Lowell-Chelmsford curses ever heard at the Viet Cong. He literally had swear words with tracers on them!
The "Green Beret" in question almost certainly must have been Mr. Rassmann. In this account, however, Mr. Rassmann is not sitting and eating a chocolate chip cookie when he's thrown into the river, but rather moving to get Mr. Belodeau another weapon when a "high speed turn" caused him to fall overboard. This version only mentions one mine, which is consistent with the recollection of the SwiftVets who've described the episode from their perspectives on the other boats in formation with PCF 93; but this story has the single mine exploding under Sen. Kerry's boat. And indeed, in this version, enough time had passed between the single mine explosion and the loss of Mr. Rassmann overboard that Mr. Belodeau's M-60 had time to "[break] apart in his hands." Thus, this version events as told in Mr. Belodeau's eulogy fits none of the other published accounts from any of the participants, including Sen. Kerry as he's told of these events on other occasions, orally and in writing.
And then there's Cambodia, again (boldface added):
I cannot adequately convey or describe to you the measure of this man at war — standing in his peak tank in the bow, screaming up a river in the dead of night, no moon, 50 yards from Cambodia literally bouncing off the river bank, waiting for a mine to go off or a rocket to explode — and always steady, always dependable, always there for the rest of the crew.
I do not doubt that Mr. Belodeau deserved all the praise Sen. Kerry rendered in his eulogy. And yet, I find myself asking the same question that Sen. Kerry ascribed to Mr. Belodeau in what was, no doubt, one of the eulogy's deft, lighter moments:
As many of you know, he was not a man of many words. So he'd just give you a look. And the look would tell it all — fierce determination; rollicking good fun; profound sadness. I know you can see his expression for any mood he had. My favorite look of all was his bemused, "What the hell does the skipper think he's doing now?"
But I ask that question with utmost gravity, and without a trace of bemusement.
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Kerry's Belodeau eulogy: Yet another version of the Rassman rescue, and screaming up the river "50 yards from Cambodia" in the dead of night and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
» Developing... from QandO
Tracked on Aug 18, 2004 8:45:58 AM
(1) cjg made the following comment | Aug 17, 2004 7:40:05 PM | Permalink
I do wonder how practiced a liar Mr. Kerry is, or does he see himself in his mind doing or seeing this stuff?
Like a child daydreaming of the being the world's greatest basketball player, a hero to all.
Or did he tell these stories to comfort the parents etc of this man?
He frightens me, this man lives in a different reality than than the rest of us, a lovely space where he is always the hero, always the winner, always the "nice" guy who is only here to help the comman man. Vote Bush, please.
(2) Reg made the following comment | Aug 17, 2004 8:57:18 PM | Permalink
Careful here Beldar.
This specific quote about Kerry very near Cambodia is probably substantially true.
While I can't confirm that the exact distance was 50 yards I can confirm that Kerry's PCF-94 was very near the Cambodian border. Don't get side tracked by Kerry's now substantially retracted and discredited X-mas eve story. Look at Kerry's Feb. 12-14 1969 mission up the RACH GIANG THAN. You'll find this mission described in the first four pages of the Feb. Spot Reports at Johnkerry.com.
I've compared the navigational positions mentioned in the report to a defense department map and they confirm that Kerry was on the Rach Giang Than extremely close to the Cambodian border.
Furthermore, although less definitive, Brinkley ["TofD" page 324-328] quotes Kerry's War Notes describing Kerry's final mission in Vietnam. Kerry describes the mission up the Rach Giang Than in his "War Notes" by writing:
"...On my left there were occasional open field[s] that allowed us a clear view into Cambodia. At some points, the border was only fifty yards away and it then would meander out to several hundred or even as much as a thousand yards away. Always making me wonder what lay on the other side..." [From my notes of "TofD" p.324].
The bottom line is that there is strong evidence that Kerry was very near the Cambodian border with SEALs at least on the Feb. 12-14 mission. There may have been others but the Spot Reports are not currently on Johnkerry.com to verify those additional missions.
So "very near" w/ SEALs: yes.
Actually "crossing" the border, running covert deniable "black missions", or "gun running" into Cambodia: I see no evidence of that, yet.
(3) Reg made the following comment | Aug 17, 2004 9:08:31 PM | Permalink
And yes it is interesting that Kerry writes:
"...Always making me [one?] wonder what lay on the other side..."
about what Brinkely calls his FINAL mission in Vietnam.
Reg, you make an excellent pair of points, and I see that I was less than clear about what I thought the significance of the Cambodia reference in the eulogy was.
After admitting that he'd "misremembered" the Christmas in Cambodia fairy tale, Sen. Kerry's proxies have insisted that he nevertheless was near the border on several occasions, and that he actually entered Cambodia to drop off SEALs and/or special ops forces on covert missions. Besides showing a sort of "Cambodia on the brain" mentality, what struck me was the phrase "screaming up a river in the dead of night." From everything I've read, the Swift Boats were indeed quite noisy, making them very poorly suited for covert insertions (even apart from their obvious lack of "plausible deniability" if sunk or captured). This seemed to me to be an implicit acknowledgement of that by Sen. Kerry himself. But perhaps I'm reading too much into it.
(5) Reg made the following comment | Aug 17, 2004 9:49:21 PM | Permalink
"From everything I've read, the Swift Boats were indeed quite noisy, making them very poorly suited for covert insertions (even apart from their obvious lack of "plausible deniability" if sunk or captured). This seemed to me to be an implicit acknowledgement of that by Sen. Kerry himself. But perhaps I'm reading too much into it."
Your not reading to much into it. Again from my notes of Brinkley "TofD" p.327 Kerry's "War Notes":
"About an hour past and then we heard the noise of the SEAL special boat moving slowly towards us it[s] red light flashing intermitantly to identify it. We were all amazed at how little the sound of the engine would carry and frightened when we thought that his engine, [as] compared to ours, has been especially designed for clandestine missions and was supposed to be particularly silent..."
Kerry goes on to say how his SWIFT could probably be heard 3 miles away and it's no wonder the SWIFT boats had such a tough time finding contraband in VC sampans.
(6) John Hansen made the following comment | Aug 18, 2004 1:29:53 AM | Permalink
Good post..good work
I found this last night. It's the story of a man who served on PCF 94. It says it was written in 1999 and the page info says it was last modified April 2, 2003. After reading it, I'm far more confused than ever:
"We were ready to take PCF 94 into action.
"We had gotten is a few small firefights and the adrenaline was always flowing. You never knew what was around the next bend in the river. I could talk for days about those patrols and raids but I am going to move now to March 7, 1969.
"...I'm not sure of the number of the 3rd boat that went along that day but I know the second one was PCF 38. We did not have the 94 boat this day because it was damaged in some earlier action and was in for repairs. Re-aluminizing is what we used to call it. We used PCF 5 that day."
The dates in the story are a bit spotty, but it looks like this guy was with the crew that Tedd Peck replaced on 94 in late January (one week before his injury sent him home). Except there is no hint in this story of the earlier crew ever giving up the boat to anyone else. They used the 5 boat on March 7 only because their regular boat, 94 had been damaged.
(8) ter0 made the following comment | Aug 18, 2004 9:02:50 AM | Permalink
Good research Beldar and comment (Reg). I agree with treading lightly on sensitive issues (eulogies) but it is the cumulative weight of evidence of these inconsistent statements that will force Kerry to release the remaining military records, so keep it up.
FYI, some time ago a staffer for Admiral Zumwalt commenting on Command-Post discussed the unliklihood of using Swift Boats for special ops insertion; here (scroll down)
Beldar, could you find the Bush records for me? Also, the WMDs? Perhaps the connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq? And also, please connect the dots between Halliburton and the administration? I know that Bush, being a poor boy from Texas, who never benefitted from his father's influence, has never told a lie or made a mistake.
I do agree Kerry should release the records. Perhaps Cheney should release the notes from his meetings on environmental policy?
(10) jim made the following comment | Aug 18, 2004 10:35:20 AM | Permalink
Everything I've read so far indicated that the forward gunner opened up with 50 plus or minus .50 caliber rounds on the running VC. That would be coming from an MA-2, or 'Ma Deuce' automatic weapon, which is not man-portable or fireable from an unsupported position and would likely be mounted on a fixed swivel base.
Now you say Kerry says that Belodeau was burning up and Rassmann was replacing an M-60. That is a substantially smaller 7.62mm or .308 caliber automatic weapon which is nearly man-portable and fireable(SEALS do it), but better fired from a swiveling tripod or smaller fixed swivel mount.
Both the above are still considered crew-served weapons. A boat would possibly carry a spare M-60, but likely never carry a spare .50 cal.
While the M-60 throws out a round that will definitely ruin your day, a hit from an MA-2 can nearly cut a man in half, and the massive shock even from an appendage hit would spin him around and literally throw him through the air.
And what I've seen/read indicates that the VC was known to be hit point-blank at a mere 20-30 yards.
First, the truth DOES matters, and this absolutely affects all three direct participants: Kerry, Rassmann and Belodeau.
Second, how badly the VC was hit would determine if Kerry might have actually fought a lightly wounded enemy, left behind a recoverable and medically treatable enemy source of intel, delivered a coup-de-grace to an inevitably dying man, or simply puked and fired over over a bunch of largely disconnected but still twitching bloody pieces.
Remember, Kerry was the only one to leave the vessel, and there were no witnesses before or after the shooting to assess what Kerry had done. It is his word alone.
The more I think about this the more it really bothers me.
Rassmann would not have been a lone SF officer on a Sift boat, but he would have 2-3 NCO's and possibly another SF officer with him, and he would have filed an official after action report during a formal debriefing.
If we can't get better (or more politically acceptable) facts from the Navy, perhaps it's time to get Rassmann to identify his SF unit, his mission, his compadres, who debriefed him, and the contents of his AAR.
Those records are likely to be FOIL'able from 5th Group archives or even from MAC-V/SOG, if de-classified.
I'm betting they can be obtained.
Time for a cross-check.
I hate to do this, because I am also a former Infantry/Special Forces officer, and have great difficulty coming to grips with the possibility that Rassmann might have let his gratitude cause him to sell out to the dark side. You have to understand also that Special Forces personnel are trained heavily in observation and detailed recall under fire and stress, so Rassmann, by job description and training, should clearly have the best memory of all. But I regretfully can't believe anything I've heard him write or say, since it is so nebulous and so conflicted. I'm guessing they write stuff for his signature and speaking. That just plain sucks.
(11) Reg made the following comment | Aug 18, 2004 12:30:25 PM | Permalink
"It's the story of a man who served on PCF 94. It says it was written in 1999 and the page info says it was last modified April 2, 2003. After reading it, I'm far more confused than ever."
Ann, apparently the answer is same boat, same time, different shift. Muharsky's OinC was apparently Lt. Salinas not Kerry. See this story:
"Both Kerry and Muharsky were assigned to Coastal Division 11, stationed at An Thoi, on the small island of Phu Quoc in the Gulf of Siam. Both men arrived in An Thoi within weeks of each other, and both left within weeks of each other. Both worked out of PCF 94. Just never at the same time.
"We shared the 94 boat, but different crews used the same boat for different 'shifts,' " he said. "I saw Kerry around the barracks ship, and he was on a different boat on a couple of raids I was on."
Ann, your post is a good one because it reminds us we need to be careful what we are assuming when we read the military record 35 years after the fact. Interesting, Muharsky seems to be a moderator at a pro-Kerry web site.
Jim or anyone familiar with Vietnam/Military jargon.
Any guess on what "CTE 188.8.131.52" stands for? It's in one of the after action "spot reports" and I believe it refers to a SEAL unit? Does the CTE stand for "Commander Task Element"? How about the numbers?
(12) Mark made the following comment | Aug 18, 2004 1:34:17 PM | Permalink
CTE is Command Task Element if I remember correctly. The 194 would be the Command Task Force (CTF), the 194.5.4 Command Task Unit (CTU). I'm blanking on the other one (194.5)
(13) Chris made the following comment | Aug 18, 2004 3:03:06 PM | Permalink
John Wilkins conveniently ignored.
Good luck in your attempt to belittle Kerry's war service. I can't keep track, is Elliott with you or against you right now? Doesn't matter, he'll change his mind again soon.
While you guys are busy turning over syllables looking for lies, don't mind too much if the rest of the country goes ahead and votes on things that matter.
(14) Reg made the following comment | Aug 18, 2004 3:23:17 PM | Permalink
Thanks for your insights, Mark. Is that general navy or military terminology or something specific to SEALs etc.?
Wanna take a shot at "ATC 131.9"
If your really ambitious take a look at page three:
Especially the following:
"4.(C) CTE 184.108.40.206, PCF 50, PCF 94, ATC 131.9
5.(C) M/T RAIDERS INSERTED SEAL TEAMS AND PROVIDED PROTECTION JE [?] CONDUCTING RIVER OPERATION REPT., EVAL. 32 , THAT V.C. WERE DUG IN AND WAITING TO AMBUSH PCF's AT VS 478515 SO GAVE AREA GOOD PREP FIRE AND ATC 131.9 SPRAYED BANKS ON K
CE INSERTED ATC 131.9 RETURNED TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION FOR VNN REACTION TEAM TO AREA OF POSSIBLE ENEMY INITIATED FIRE FIGHT POSITION. NEG CONTACT, NEG FRI. CAS.."
6.(C) EXP. 50 RDS HE, 1,200 RDS 50 CAL; 500 RDS M-60; 850 RDS 20MM.”
(15) markmacg made the following comment | Aug 18, 2004 3:54:17 PM | Permalink
Note also from the eulogy:
"When the Chief Petty Officer, Del Sandusky--known as `Sky', who came from Illinois to be with Tom today, finally gave me the seal of enlisted man's approval, Tommy was the first to enthusiastically say: `I told you so, Sky, he's from Massachusetts!!"
And this from Muharsky's web site:
"Everybody in CIC had a nickname. Jim's was Charlie Echo, short for his first two initials, C.E. I was Sky. That came because we already had a guy named Smykowski and my name ended in Sky so I became Sky."
Two men puportedly serving in the same unit,and at various times the same boat, both having the same nickname "sky".
(16) Jumbo made the following comment | Aug 18, 2004 8:14:31 PM | Permalink
Ann and Reg:
You're both right about Joe Muharsky and PCF-94! And there is even an odder bit.
Ann, the site you refer to is Joe Muharsky's , an Ohio Democrat active in party politics before this campaign. He now runs the Kerry campaign vet forum (and I have no idea what his comments there may have been.) He was a crewman, RD-2, bow gunner, on the M-60 light(er) machine gun on PCF-94 from late February or early March, 1969 until sometime in April 69 when he rotated out. He claims 94 as his boat, and a Lt.jg Salinas as his skipper.
(FWIW, the big "twin .50" 2-barreled M-2 was located in the "gun tub" which was placed high above the pilothouse; the "single-barreled" .50, sometimes with a grenade launcher configuration, was mounted on the fantail, or rear deck area. Vis a' vis another post above about one version of the Rassman event which alluded to Rassman passing a .50 up to a forward mount (to Tom Belodeau?), I wonder if that is likely: neither of the big heavy-recoiling .50's could be realistically fired without a gun mount to secure it, and I don't think they would "marry" whatever mount existed for the much smaller and lighter M-60 in the bow.Maybe so. Gunners?)
Muharsky's webpage account, written in 1999, indeed lays out few dates, but the ones he does give about patrols on 94 don't really clear much up. I can only assume that such a big, expensive asset as a SWIFT was not allowed to remain idel just because a crew was standing down, and that two (or more?) crews may have shared and "hotbunked" the boat. Is this a solid fact, Reg? Anyway, Salinas' crew and Kerry's crew almost certainly shared 94 to some degree in the first two weeks in March, 1969. Didn't Kerry have just two patrols in March 69, the last being March 13 Rassman patrol?
Muharsky never was on a patrol on the same boat with Kerry. (I guess by Lanny Davis standards he didn't "serve" with Kerry, eh?) The ONLY mention about Kerry on his page (written 1999) is a reference that "Senator Kerry was another Lt jg in our group." And the only reason he's mentioned at all is because Muharsky has up a picture of himself skiing behind a SWIFT, and the picture was signed by Kerry with the notation, "Joe, you never looked so good! Thanks for being there. [signed]John Kerry." (The content of the message and its context to the webpage make clear it was signed long after the war when Kerry had achieved his Senate seat.)
But it's odd; no mention of another crew, sharing the boat (just as Kerry doesn't mention to my knowledge the existence of the Salinas/Muharsky crew or any 94-sharing), or mention of Kerry in any context other than that the Senator signed his picture. Just odd to me.
But the slimy thing is, the way two phtos still up at Muharsky's site were appropriated (I'm sure with permission) by the Kerry campaign site and perhaps T of D. The pictures depict 94 next to burning hootches with Muharsky's caption: "Picture of PCF 94 wasting village in Cai Nap Canal. Mar 6, 1969. EN3 Barry Bogart was Wounded In Action in this raid. Crew members names included. PCF 38 was also on this raid." Below it is the second picture of the other boat with an almost identical caption: "Picture of PCF 38 wasting village in Cai Nap Canal. Mar 6, 1969. EN3 Barry Bogart was Wounded In Action in this raid. PCF 94 was also on this raid."
Okay the slimy part: Kerry campaign (and maybe T o D) posted the pictures and changed "PCF-94" in both photos to read "Kerry's boat".
The offensive thing? THE MISSION DEPICTED WAS MARCH 6, 1969, AND KERRY WAS NOT ON PCF-94! This is apparent not only from Muharsky's page, but also from Kerry's own "war journal". But you wouldn't know that from Kerry's people, would you? Is it still up like this there?
(17) Chris made the following comment | Aug 19, 2004 8:32:41 AM | Permalink
From the WaPo article about how Thurlow's own medal citation cites enemy fire that he says didn't exist:
"In a telephone interview Tuesday evening after he attended a Swift Boat Veterans strategy session in an Arlington hotel, Thurlow said he lost his Bronze Star citation more than 20 years ago. He said he was unwilling to authorize release of his military records because he feared attempts by the Kerry campaign to discredit him and other anti-Kerry veterans."
Wow. Seriously? You people are serious? Wow. So Kerry should release his records because they don't mesh with the accusations you are making that don't mesh with your own records that you won't release? And this is not political? Wow.
(18) Jumbo made the following comment | Aug 19, 2004 9:32:44 AM | Permalink
"Wow. Seriously? You people are serious? Wow. So Kerry should release his records because they don't mesh with the accusations you are making that don't mesh with your own records that you won't release? And this is not political? Wow."
Once again, not a response on point, not a defense of their man's credibility, explanation of all the contradictions just coming from his own mouth alone. Assuming as completely correct and accurate the conclusions implied by the WaPo article, the effect on the stark anomalies presented by Kerry's own tortured and resectioned versions of his Vietnam experience is...?
And the WaPo article addresses, much less resolves, the Kerry campaign versions vs. Brinkley versions vs. some of Kerry's "Band of Brothers personl participation in and witness of various of Kerry's exploits (e.g., Dave Alston), in what way...?
(19) Chris made the following comment | Aug 19, 2004 9:47:39 AM | Permalink
Jumbo, you can't draw such fine lines 35 years after the fact. That's the point most of you are missing here. Everyone here seems to think they have Truth Almighty on their side, but no one does. Anomalies in records and oral accounts are going to be present when you are reviewing something that happened 35 years ago, especially something as relatively insignificant as this. The SBV are taking advantage of ambiguities by making unverifiable accusations, which are really just a foothold to launch their character attacks.
The fact that their own accusations are vulnerable to the same ambiguities that they say indict Kerry should show you how ridiculous this whole affair is.
(20) harsh made the following comment | Aug 19, 2004 9:59:54 AM | Permalink
So, Chris -- would it have been your father or maybe your grandfather, standing shoulder-to-shoulder at Kerry's side over in Vietnam/Cambodia?
Perhaps he was the anonymous cameraman who took all those home movies?
Chris, re John Wilkins' comment, you're right that I've ignored it. It's way off topic and pure snark-bordering-on-insult.
Opposing viewpoints, expressed in a civil manner, are certainly welcome here, as have been your comments so far, Chris. But to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I paid for this microphone; my TypePad bandwidth surcharge is gonna be ugly this month; and I don't care to subsidize comment space for folks who don't add to the substance of the discussion. A good clue that someone isn't adding to the substance of the SwiftVets vs. Kerry debate would be the words "Halliburton" or "WMDs" (although those might be appropriate on different posts with different topics).
Regarding the WaPo story about Thurlow, it's an interesting development from at least a couple of angles, and I hope to put up a new post about it later today if time permits.
If you would like to know about me and my wervice, why don't you ask me.
Forward machine gunner PCF 78, PCF 94
If you would like to know about me and my service, why don't you ask me. You assume first of all that I am a Democrat which is wrong. I vote for the candidate of my choice in any given election. I defy any of you to find any post's from me that are derogatory to President Bush. I prefer to promote my candidate, not put down someone elses. I try to conduct myself with dignity and respect. You might be interested in how I feel about "The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."
You will find it here.
Forward machine gunner PCF 78, PCF 94
The comments to this entry are closed.