DescentBB

Looks like Thurlow's own bronze star citation is putting his charges against Kerry into doubt:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Aug18.html

Excerpts:
"But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

As one of five Swift boat skippers who led the raid up the Bay Hap River, Thurlow was a direct participant in the disputed events. He is also a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans dismayed by Kerry's subsequent antiwar activities, which has aired a controversial television advertisement attacking his war record.....

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.....
The Post filed an independent request for the documents with the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, which is the central repository for veterans' records. The documents were faxed to The Post by officials at the records center yesterday."

What's your spin, Woody and Bash? Thurlow's story is looking increasingly less trustworthy.

"What's your spin, Woody and Bash?"

Instapundit hasn't given it to them yet.

Sorry, that was low.

if kerry had not won any medals, would we still be arguing? If he was just a grunt in the bush, would that change the right's mind on his service? I could care less about all the medals or if he "wanted" to go to Europe like Will said, he was in Vietnam in fire zones. 10 medals or no medals, his service surpasses anything Bush ever did.

Zuruck wrote:if kerry had not won any medals, would we still be arguing? If he was just a grunt in the bush, would that change the right's mind on his service? I could care less about all the medals or if he "wanted" to go to Europe like Will said, he was in Vietnam in fire zones. 10 medals or no medals, his service surpasses anything Bush ever did.

Supposedly.

my grandpa was in the marines for a long long time, and he's never met kerry, but he did say that it was commonplace for soldiers to lie for themselves and each other to make them look better, to get them home earlier, or to get them laid more.

what makes you think any of this is anything but that?

that's exactly my point kurupt. forget all his medals and all that crap...he went to vietnam. case closed for me. national guard is where the people went to eek out of the war...he went to vietnam, whether he thought he was going to europe or not, he went, and he fought.

Zuruck wrote:that's exactly my point kurupt. forget all his medals and all that crap...he went to vietnam. case closed for me. national guard is where the people went to eek out of the war...he went to vietnam, whether he thought he was going to europe or not, he went, and he fought.

The WHOLE POINT in this case is not whether he served or not, or whether he got any medals, or what bush did in comparison.

The point is that Kerry has made his Viet Nam service and medals one of THE central issues in his campaign, and the Swift Vets are saying that some of the SPECIFIC examples used by Kerry to bolster his 'fitness' for command didn't happen the way he says they happened.

According to the SVs, the whole incident took place in a section of the river that was about 75 yards wide, and all of the boats (save Kerry's) were clustered around the damaged boat after it hit the mine. No injuries were reported in that aftermath, and NO BOATS took ANY hits. If they were really taking fire, one would assume that at least ONE of those shots would have hit SOMETHING.

Further, all of the other boat commanders that were on the scene say that there was no enemy fire, AND that reports of it came from Kerry. The citations were based on those Kerry reports (they say). It IS possible that the SVs are ALL liars, but their explaination is completely plausible.

This is by no means the worst of the accusations brought forth by the SVs, which btw is comprised of over 200 people, as compared to the Kerry-supporting BOBs tallying somthing like 12. Its just one that someone thinks they found records to disprove.

In my experience, military people are, in general, very honorable. Granted, Viet Nam was different from today in that many were drafted. Still, most of the SVs are decorated officers.

I certainly believe that a couple of low-lifes could come out this many years later, and make up crap for political reasons. I just can't believe that THIS MANY mature and seemingly honorable people would do it. Sorry, but calling all of these guys liars just doesn't make any sense.

Now the question is how many of those 200 SBVT guys are just swift boat men who are Republicans, or have inside info that Kerry is lying.

Well, like I think Will said, this feud is not new. Apparently this Thurow guy is a pretty big Republican and he was disgusted by Kerry's anti-war movement thing when he got back. If I was to believe anybody in this whole story, it would be the Green Beret that was saved. He doesn't seem to have any political aspirations and he was Special Forces, those guys are a different breed. He said there were bullets all over the place, I believe him. Thurow says "There were no bullets, nothing, he fabricated everything". But his own medal citation says the same thing as Kerry. So now he says "well, it's all a fraud then"...he's had his medal citation for 30 years and just know read the fineprint? Obviously, there is doubt, but the mere fact that Kerry really hasn't said anything that was proven otherwise in Vietnam makes me believe his side of it a little more.

My take is this. A heavily Republican funded group that didn't like Kerry's stance after the war finally found the avenue to try and make a point. The US Navy doesn't hand out medals to just anyone and their own citation and the testimony of a special forces officer contradict that of the group. I'm just glad that Kerry didnt' dodge out like the last two presidents, it must be tough for the right to have to try and discredit a vet's service.

How can anyone be 'disgusted' about someone who went to war, then came back and argued against it? Talk about bloodthirsty people.

If it was JUST Thurlow, or a just a small group, I'd be inclined to agree.

Testiculese wrote:How can anyone be 'disgusted' about someone who went to war, then came back and argued against it? Talk about bloodthirsty people.

The way YOU put (spin) it, yeah. What Kerry did, though, was come back and talk about all of the attrocities that he witnessed. Being that he was always with the SVs, that DIRECTLY implicated them as BAD guys. Then, guess which side spit on them when they came home????

According to the SVs...

1. Kerry PERSONNALLY torched (with his Zippo) a small villiage (a few huts) and ordered the slaughter of all of those people's animals, even though there was NO evidence that they were involved in ANY way with the conflict. No flags, no political evidence whatsoever. Is this one of those attrocities???

2. Kerry's Silver Star was issued for an incident that was actually him taking off after a teenage kid that had already been shot in the leg, and shooting him in the back while trying to run away. Now, MAYBE under the circumstances, what he did was considered OK, but it hardly deserves a citation.

3. Kerry shot up a saipan, killing a man and a baby. His report did not include mention that the child was there, and made the whole thing sound heroic. I realize that bad ★■◆● happens in war, but spinning it the way he did says something, no?

These SV guys swear up and down that all of their statements are accurate and true. I'm not saying that either side here is probably 100% accurate. But if what they're saying is real, they sure as HELL have the right to bring it up, ESPECIALLY now.

So what then do you make of Thurlow's own medal contradiction?

Birdseye wrote:So what then do you make of Thurlow's own medal contradiction?

Well, his own explanation is here

Excerpt:

Larry Thurlow wrote:For Immediate Release August 19, 2004

Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow

I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star was language taken directly from John Kerry's report which falsely described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river.

To this day, I can say without a doubt in my mind, along with other accounts from my shipmates-there was no hostile enemy fire directed at my boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day.

I submitted no paperwork for a medal nor did I file an after action report describing the incident. To my knowledge, John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incidents that occurred on the river that day.

It was not until I had left the Navy-approximately three months after I left the service-that I was notified that I was to receive a citation for my actions on that day.

I believed then as I believe now that I received my Bronze Star for my efforts to rescue the injured crewmen from swift boat number three and to conduct damage control to prevent that boat from sinking. My boat and several other swift boats went to the aid of our fellow swift boat sailors whose craft was adrift and taking on water. We provided immediate rescue and damage control to prevent boat three from sinking and to offer immediate protection and comfort to the injured crew.

After the mine exploded, leaving swift boat three dead in the water, John Kerry's boat, which was on the opposite side of the river, fled the scene. US Army Special Forces officer Jim Rassmann, who was on Kerry's boat at the time, fell off the boat and into the water. Kerry's boat returned several minutes later-under no hail of enemy gunfire-to retrieve Rassmann from the river only seconds before another boat was going to pick him up.

Kerry campaign spokespersons have conflicting accounts of this incident-the latest one being that Kerry's boat did leave but only briefly and returned under withering enemy fire to rescue Mr. Rassmann. However, none of the other boats on the river that day reported enemy fire nor was anyone wounded by small arms action. The only damage on that day was done to boat three-a result of the underwater mine. None of the other swift boats received damage from enemy gunfire.

And in a new development, Kerry campaign officials are now finally acknowledging that while Kerry's boat left the scene, none of the other boats on the river ever left the damaged swift boat. This is a direct contradiction to previous accounts made by Jim Rassmann in the Oregonian newspaper and a direct contradiction to the "No Man Left Behind" theme during the Democratic National Convention.

These ever changing accounts of the Bay Hap River incident by Kerry campaign officials leave me asking one question. If no one ever left the scene of the Bay Hap River incident, how could anyone be left behind?

Again, his account is entirely plausible. Btw, they have a very interesting web site, and they've been making statements there every time someone tries to disprove anything that they're saying.

Nice that you consider his account plausible, but you're totally dodging the subject of this thread.

Re-read the story I posted, think it over, and comment on that issue specifically, rather than dodging and regurgitating thurlow's already widely known account that now apparently contradicts his own medal.

Hehe, OK, I'll play. But I have to tell you... snotty patronizing responses like that are annoying. Now go back and read my last sentence, think about it, and then I'll tell you why I wasn't, and am STILL not dodging your post .

First, I have to admit that I'm not going to register for that site. I'd be happy to read the entire article otherwise. So, I'm only going based on what your excerpt included, and what I've read about the article elsewhere. I'm assuming that you've included what you wanted to make your assault.

I think the operative part in the 'finding' is:

... several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla...

As far as I read that, it's directly referring to Thurlow's citation verbage, and that's all. If there's other information "in his records" that additionally verify the arms fire, I'd be happy to honestly re-evaluate my position.

The swifties in the other boats ALL contend that there was NO ENEMY arms fire, and that the verbage was based on what they ALL say was Kerry's report. Kerry's was the ONLY boat that fled the scene when the mine went off, and thus he wasn't there to witness the fire in the first place.

According to the other swifties, they DID lay down suppression fire, and maybe Kerry heard that and assumed enemy fire. That could even explain what Rassmann heard, and could make both he and Kerry believe that there indeed WAS enemy fire. Still, that doesn't mean it happened.

As far as the fairness of the article's author...

John O'Neill wrote:It's interesting because that same Washington Post reporter that prepared that, we contacted him on Monday and Tuesday of this week when we had 50 swift boat people here and invited him to talk to the seven or eight people who were involved in the March 13 incident who knew that there was no fire. He declined that invitation.

It's obvious that the reporter is doing his best to vilify the swifties. Generally, when something truly stinks, you hear that the other side was unavailable for comment. This time, you hear that the reporter refused to listen to the other side.

To restate, in case you still think I'm dodging, I think that Thurlow's explanation of the contradiction is plausible. Moreover, I think its honest, and I believe him. So, to reply to the subject directly, I DO NOT believe he is lying.

In THIS SPECIFIC case, because of the POSSIBLE mis-identification of who was firing, it IS possible that Kerry and Rassmann ALSO believe that they are telling the truth, but I don't believe that their recollection of events is correct. If the swifties are correct, Kerry did not earn any medals that day.

Btw, I haven't heard any reports or read any articles that mention the possibility of fire misidentification as an explaination of the contradicting stories. Has anyone else?

Followup...

I believe that the "real" purpose of this thread is an attempt to blow holes in Thurlow, thus tarnishing the believability of all of the SVs, their ad, and the book.

I think that I've put forth a possible explanation of events that could make both sides think they're right. Granted, in this specific case, it bolster's Kerry's integrity if he really is telling what he believes is the truth.

However, more to the intended result of the original post, it ALSO dispels the assault on the SVs, and means they haven't been effectively discredited.

Is this the best anyone can find against these guys? And, why aren't any of the more serious charges getting any attention?

First we should all be ashamed that two Bozo's like Kerry and Bush get to pick our next president by who can out flame the other over something they did/didn't do decades ago that has no bearing on our future!!!

That aside, I'll play too...

The question is, is Kerry the liar they say he is or not and the answer is available to shine through all the spin from both sides.

Kerry can prove them all liars and make himself absolutely invulnerable on this issue...quite probably turn the tide in the election by doing one thing....release all the medical and military records so we can see 1)who wrote the reports 2)who requested the medals 3)what were the injurys sustained ...etc. etc.

He won't do it though and I think I know why. Because there is a lot of truth in what many of his shipmates are saying, 'He's a liar'.

Seriously can anyone tell me why, if he's been truthful, he wont release *all* the records that would clear up most of the debate once and for all?
Like when and where was he during the Cambodian missions....who requested the medals...who wrote the language Thurlow claims Kerry wrote in his Bronze star request....who requested Kerry's purple hearts....

Can any one give one reason why he has the evidence to prove he's right but won't show it?
And please, don't give me that "He's standing on principle and protecting our privacy rights..." BS.

I think it's obvious Kerry is a pompous ass who isn't used to being challenged on the BS he spews forth. There is much evidence of it in his public life.


How about considering Kerry's own account of one of those incidents, the first purple heart. By the way, you have to be wounded from enemy fire to get a purple heart, keep that in mind when you read this.

From A passage in John Kerry's approved war biography, citing his own journals:

"While the date of the four-day excursion on PCF-44 [Patrol Craft Fast] is not specified, Brinkley notes it commenced when Kerry "had just turned 25, on Dec. 11, 1968," which was nine days after the incident in which he claimed he had been wounded by enemy fire.

Brinkley recounts the outset of that mid-December journey, which included a crew of radarman James Wasser, engineman William Zaladonis, gunner's mate Stephen Gardner and boatswain's mates Drew Whitlow and Stephen Hatch:

"They pulled away from the pier at Cat Lo with spirits high, feeling satisfied with the way things were going for them. They had no lust for battle, but they also were were not afraid. Kerry wrote in his notebook, 'A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky.'"

The diary entry apparently confirms assertions made by Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, a group of more than 250 vets opposing his presidential candidacy who served in the Naval operation that patrolled the rivers and canals of the Mekong Delta area controlled by North Vietnam."

", 'A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky.'"

That could have been taken in the context of the boat as a whole, not just him. The crew hadn't been shot at yet, so they were all cocky. When did he write it? First day with that crew, a week later?

Testiculese wrote:When did he write it? First day with that crew, a week later?

He wrote it nine days *after* supposedly being wounded by enemy fire. When he says "...we hadn't been shot at yet..." I kind of get the impression he meant 'we' as in he and the others on the boat.
But hey, to hell with the facts, which definition will get you to vote for him that is what's important

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

Bush would make me vote for Kerry. Kerry can't do or say anything that would make me vote for him on his own standing.

Kerry is lying, Thurlow is lying. It is who can lie best that wins. Just like in court!

Testiculese wrote:It is who can lie best that wins.

Exactly, and the best way we can avoid our future presidents coming from this kind of a fixed-fight is to break up the two-party stranglehold on our elections process.

Vote for a third party...any third party and encourage others to do the same.

Will Robinson wrote:

Testiculese wrote:It is who can lie best that wins.

Vote for a third party...any third party and encourage others to do the same.

Doesn't always work.
At the last national election here in Denmark we had; i think it was, 10-11 parties running.
Result!
10-11 parties pitching bull.

Well it's not a one step solution but without opening the door nothing gets through...

Will Robinson wrote:Well it's not a one step solution but without opening the door nothing gets through...

Y're probably right.
But it still seems like a choice between Pest and Cholera!

My question is...How can someone be a "War Hero" in a war they consider immoral?

Do you consider Vietnam a moral war? I think most of us in hindsite can agree (hopefully) that Vietnam was a mistake. That being said, I still respect those whom I know, who went. I still consider them heros.

I don't agree with this war. But I still respect those who I know that went, and do not respect those whom were enlisted and went to canada.

Despite the right wing slander, it is entirely possible to be against a war and still support our troops.

The question is only relative to Kerry.

heh.

I'm curious as to why you don't respect those that were enlisted and went to Canada. I mean, if you disagree with a war, should you still go over there and end human life forever just because you're enlisted? Just to keep your word to yourself? To "follow through" with your commitments? Nah. That's not right.

Some people believe that war can be either just or unjust. I think the majority of those enlisted feel this way. Their enlistment is an act of trust. They trust the government to make the right decisions. When the right decisions are not being made, they have an obligation not to participate.

I personally respect anyone who chooses not to participate in unjust wars, however they manage to escape (as long as it doesn't hurt others).

I think this issue is more emotional then logical with me. I know six people that I grew up with that are over there. If someone skips out, then someone else goes in your place. I think most people my age are in this position.

I guess if pressed to try and make a logical argument, it would be that no war would be possible if each soldiers was allowed to choose if they wanted to go or not with no repercussions. "do not respect" may have been a poor choice of words.

I guess with this war I believe that saying, "just or unjust" trivializes the situation even though you can lean to one side or another, I certainly do. If we went to invade Japan to enslave their people, I wouldn't go. But with this war, I understand the logic that the, mostly, conservatives believe for going, I just disagree with it.

I don't think it will make us safer, I don't think it will make Iraqies safer. However I do think that leaving at this point would make everyone unsafer.

If you're going to get onto the Iraqi war...

I think Bush simply can't say the real reason for going to war with Iraq. It isn't politically correct. I think the real reason we went to war with Iraq is that many Muslims hate our guts and would do pretty much anything to kill the "infidels." It was our goal in Iraq to rid ourselves of these people before they make an attempt to rid themselves of us (which is basically what happened on 9/11). I think Bush probably lied about our real reason for going to war. That diminishes my respect for him. But I still think he can do a heck of a lot better of a job than Kerry, whether Kerry is right or not. The Bush campaign has distanced themselves from the SVs. I have no doubt the SVs were financed by Republicans, but I do NOT believe that 200 people, most of whom served honorably, would lie about something of this importance.

If it doesn't make Iraqis safer, you're implying that we've just put in place a government that will kill millions of its own citizens without a second thought.

As for leaving now making everyone less safe, I agree with you there. We went in, for whatever reason, and we have to finish this.

If we're on the topic of a just war, consider this:
If Bush killed, say, 5,000 people to test out a poison gas, the world would come after him with everything they had. You and I would fully support that measure.
Saddam Hussein killed many, MANY more of his people than 5,000 for no other reason than to test out his gas. Therefore, we let him stay in power, and people were screaming at the US to leave him alone.

On the topic of Kerry's war record, I think he might be telling what he believes is true in most cases. War is hell. When your boat just got blown up by a mine and your companions are laying down a protective fire, you might just mistake that fire for enemy fire. Kerry, who might not have been in sight of the incident, might also have assumed that the men were under fire. This is all speculation, but it is plausible. Quite frankly, I don't think Kerry is suited to hold office whether the 200 SVs are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, or not. He has done nothing but talk about his medals and say that he has a "plan" for just about everything under the sun (probably including the sun, too). When he describes his "plans," I hear nothing coming out of his mouth that has meaning. I hear him say that he will reform medicare and social security. I have yet to hear exactly how. If Kerry becomes president, I still don't think I will learn exactly what Kerry's plan of action is, mostly because I think his "plans" involve nothing but talking the matter to death. But that's another topic.

Strykers gone political

Stryker, there are a billion Muslims on this earth. Don't you think that fight is a little too big? This will not ever end.

I tell you what, I would like Kerry to release his medal records IF Bush releases all his National Guard service records that actually prove something. I can believe Thurlow's story, what I can't believe is that only now does he see that his medal citation says what it says and is a big deal. It's been over 30 years and he just now looks at it? C'mon, if you think Kerry is lying you cannot believe this guy. Not once at a party did he get it out to show people, read it to his kids, do anything that would entail looking at it?

Kerry hasn't run for president until now; there's been no need for the exposure until now.

There is no doubt the republican machine has grabbed a hold of the Swift Boat Vet's protest and tried to make Kery pay a political price for it but that doesn't mean the Swift Boat Vet's aren't for real. They feel they have been abused by Kerry and they want to make him pay for it...
A couple of excerpts from the Swifty's book here and here

There is a lot more corroborating evidence to back them than there is to disprove their allegations by far. Although Kerry has the ability to release the documents that would prove they are lying *if* he's telling the truth that is.
So why won't he show the records...

kufyit wrote:â?¦if you disagree with a war, should you still go over there and end human life forever just because you're enlisted? Just to keep your word to yourself? To "follow through" with your commitments? Nah. That's not right.

A poser for sure.
A statement that I totally disagree with, yet it contains a kernel of free will and choice that makes it hard to argue against.
But the core of it must be, that having made a commitment to both yourself and your country, you are both legally and morally bound to follow through on your sworn oath.
The rights and wrongs are something that ought to have been considered before signing on the dotted line.

kufyit wrote: They trust the government to make the right decisions. When the right decisions are not being made, they have an obligation not to participate.

Again a question of free will and choice. The average enlistee might not be in a position to determine the just or unjust aspect of the war wherein they are engaged. If they do make a choice of conscience, they better beware of the consequences. TANSTAAFL!

kufyit wrote:I personally respect anyone who chooses not to participate in unjust wars, however they manage to escape (as long as it doesn't hurt others)

Gooberman wrote:â?¦If someone skips out, then someone else goes in your place.

The point in this kufyit is that others may be hurt! It just may be fellow members of the squad you trained with, who will have to fill the slot of the conscience stricken with a rank outsider. The choice should have been made before signing on.

Gooberman wrote:â?¦it would be that no war would be possible if each soldiers was allowed to choose if they wanted to go or not with no repercussions.

I donâ??t think that you have made allowances for such things as duty, patriotism and ideals on the positive side. Nor, hatred, avarice and resentment on the negative side.

Stryker wrote: We went in, for whatever reason, and we have to finish this.

Right!
Apparently the Big Brains have come up with the right formula for winning a war.
Now let them come up with an equally right way of wining a peace.

Not one of you agreed to my deal of releasing all records about both's services/citations and whatnot. Will, I don't disagree with the Vets, I just find it strange that in all that time this Thurlow guy never noticed that he was decorated under the same guise as Kerry. Not once in 30 years did he say "Hey wait a minute, this isn't how it happened. It's all a fraud" He had problems with Kerry and has spoke out against him, but what he's said is that "Kerry didn't deserve it and I did"

Zuruck, I know it is not possible to remove all muslims from the face of the earth, even if we wanted to do so. What I'm saying is that we need to take out the ones that want our guts for bowstrings BEFORE they decide to remove us. Police-type defense can only react to an attack. If we can only react, it would take at least one attack by every terrorist group in the world to allow us to go in and exterminate them. That many attacks would be enough to cripple us from doing so. We cannot simply lay around all day and say "Hi Mr. Terrorist!" when we see terrorists walking around. If the world had the same political mindset in WWI or WWII that it has today, this BB would be in German, if it existed at all. I'm not trying to just make emotional attacks here, either. If we'd had journalists on the beaches of Normandy, TV cameras in the trenches as Hitler's mortars came flying in, do you really think we'd have stayed in the war?

How about the war of 1812? America's capitol was burned. If everyone in the country had known that, and some wild-eyed reporter been screaming "THE END HAS COME! THE USA IS NO MORE!" into a microphone, would the American people still be free, or would we still be under the rule of the British? If we'd had live video of the British hanging or executing American "rebels," who do you think would be the King of the USA?

If the Spanish Armada had not been sunk or turned back, due to a bunch of people counting to see if the 1,000th casualty had been reached and ready to pull out the millisecond it happened, would Spanish be the dominant language today?

We have overrationalized, oversensationalized, and we have made the individual life--even if it is the life of a criminal or terrorist--of more importance than the welfare of the people as a whole. Anyone remember the Civil War? People were horrified enough of the casualties then. If we'd had reporters broadcasting live video of a battle, of thousands of men getting out of their trenches, running, shooting, getting shot, dying--if we'd seen these pictures, chances are that the USA would be two countries right now.

What I'm saying is, we need to go forward and exterminate as many of these vermin as is humanly possible. Terrorists sure aren't going to wait around for us to come get them, so should we just wait around for them to come get us? Look at Israel, with Palestinian suicide bombers running rampant, killing civilians, military personnel, women, children, whoever was in their way. Israel started building a wall, attacking Palestine terrorist leaders, and defending itself. Notice how rare it is today to hear of a Palestinian suicide bomber blowing himself up in Israel.

These tactics work. Once terrorists get the message that we aren't going to just sit around on our hands and wait for someone to blow themselves up next to us, maybe they'll back off. Maybe they'll attack more. If they back off, we should keep hunting them until they either give up and consent to live normal, human lives again, or until they all are dead. If they keep attacking, we will demolish them. I do not think John Kerry has the backbone to follow terrorism into its own haunts and blow the heck out of it. I think Bush does, even if he sometimes is dishonest. Tell me, who among us has not lied? No one can lay claim to that level of perfection, and we cannot try to. That doesn't make it any more excusable. What I'm saying is that liberals that go around pointing fingers and saying "liar" should examine themselves first. Get the 2x4 away from your eyes before you try to remove the speck in someone else's eyes.

Zuruck by all means release it ALL.
I think the guys citation or medal doesn't contain the language of the report that deemed him worthy of the medal. He said he always thought he got it for staying and helping rescue the others which makes me think he doesn't have access to the report.