August 2004 – Herrick Home Page

Updated Thursday, September 09, 2004 Click here for David’s BLOG

If you got to this page by way of the pop-up , click here to bring the previous window to the front.

August 30, 2004

We had a great weekend, sunsets, orchids, and a kayak ride on Brooker Creek!

Sunset Friday:

Pam at our Kayak on Brooker Creek:

Brooker Creek:

Orchids:

The orchid I purchased, it is only 1/4 inch in width, about the size of my little fingernail!

August 28, 2004

Roger Bansemer sent a picture of a pair of apples:

Saturn is the second-largest planet in the Solar System. If Saturn and its rings were placed between Earth (on the left) and Moon, they would barely fit. And that excludes Saturn’s diffuse outer E Ring! The distance between Earth and Moon is 238,900 miles while the diameter of the A Ring outer edge measures 169,980 miles.

The rings are named in the order they were discovered. The E ring is huge!

August 22, 2004

We sent to the beach last night and found a coconut floating in the surf!

Today we went kayaking and saw a herd of manatees! The came up every few minutes for a breath but they went down so quickly it was difficult to catch them! See the tail of one by the boy in front! And look at the smile on the boy in the middle! The manatee came up right beside them:

A snout!

A repeat!!

August 19, 2004

Pictures of the sunset last night:

August 16, 2004

I had my first fatality of Hurricane Charley: my fish jumped out of his tank and was a “petrified” fish this morning. After looking at all the pictures and reading the stories, I am so glad Charley did not come here!

August 15, 2004

We went kayaking over to Shell Key this morning!

Pam and I had the beach to ourselves!

A scallop

US!

Joe showed up as we were paddling back.

Jim sent an email that says it all!WOW = TALK ABOUT DODGING A BULLET, OR WINNING THE LOTTERY ! FOR TWO DAYS THE FORECAST WAS FOR CHARLEY TO HIT TAMPA BAY – AND IT WAS FOLLOWING THE FORECAST TO AN INCH – IN FACT A COUPLE FORECASTS HAAD IT COMING RIGHT UP THE BAY ITSELF. THE DAMAGE WOULD HAVE BEEN GIGANTIC – DOWNTOWN TAMPA WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER 15 -20 FT OF WATER- ALL OF PINELLAS COUNTY, INCLUDING ST. PETE, WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER WATER – NOT TO MENTION THE LEVEL 4 145 MPH WIND DAMAGE AND MUCH LIGHTING AND THE MANY TORNADOS IT SPAWNED – IT WOULD HAVE TOTALLY DESTROYED MY H. HOME — AND THEN ABOUT 4 HOURS BEFORE IT WAS TO HIT HERE IT TOOK A RIGHT TURN AND SLAMMED INTO PORT CHARLOTTE, BAD FOR THEM, LUCKY US AND ME! THANK GOD! JIM GIESLER AKA “LUCKY JIM”
I installed plywood over my windows on Thursday night, then removed it yesterday! We had a few clouds come over and drop a little rain, but nothing unusual. Thanks for the calls (Daniel, Roger, etc.), we are fine.

August 7, 2004

OK, who is right:

Republicans:

T Boat Quotes about John Kerry

“We resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back
from Vietnam in 1971 and repeated in the book “Tour of Duty.” We think
those cast an aspersion on all those living and dead, from our unit and
other units in Vietnam. We think that he knew he was lying when he made
the charges, and we think that they’re insupportable. We intend to bring
the truth about that to the American people.
We believe, based on our experience with him, that he is totally unfit
to be the Commander-in-Chief.”

— John O’Neill

“I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the
armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is
a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust
— all absolute tenets of command. His biography, ‘Tour of Duty,’ by
Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of
fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military
and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography.
He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a
self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political
future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment,
often with disregard for specific tactical assignments. He was a ‘loose
cannon.’ In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days, and with his
specious medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his infamous
betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War. That included
our soldiers, our marines, our sailors, our coast guardsmen, our airmen,
and our POWs.
His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and
testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable
atrocities remain an undocumented but nevertheless meticulous stain on
the men and women who honorably stayed the course. Senator Kerry is not
fit for command.”

— Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)

“During Lt.(jg) Kerry’s tour, he was under my command for two or three
specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment
are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his
grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous
lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs
and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting
effect on all military veterans and their families.
Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative,
disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you’d
hear is ‘requires constant supervision.'”

— Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)

“Thirty-five years ago, many of us fell silent when we came back to the
stain of sewage that Mr. Kerry had thrown on us, and all of our
colleagues who served over there. I don’t intend to be silent today or
ever again.
Our young men and women who are serving deserve no less.”

— Andrew Horne

“In my specific, personal experience in both coastal and river patrols
over a 12-month period, I never once saw or heard anything remotely
resembling the atrocities described by Senator Kerry. If I had, it would
have been my obligation to report them in writing to a higher authority,
and I would certainly have done that. If Senator Kerry actually
witnessed or participated in these atrocities or, as he described them,
‘war crimes,’ he was obligated to report them. That he did not until
later when it suited his political purposes strikes me as opportunism of
the worst kind.
That he would malign my service and that of his fellow sailors with no
regard for the truth makes him totally unqualified to serve as
Commander-in-Chief.”

— Jeffrey Wainscott

“I signed that letter because I, too felt a deep sense of betrayal that
someone who took the same oath of loyalty as I did as an officer in the
United States Navy would abandon his group here (points to group photo)
to join this group here (points to VVAW protest photo), and come home
and attempt to rally the American public against the effort that this
group was so valiantly pursuing.
It is a fact that in the entire Vietnam War we did not lose one major
battle. We lost the war at home .. and at home, John Kerry was the Field
General.”

— Robert Elder

“My daughters and my wife have read portions of the book ‘Tour of
Duty.’ They wanted to know if I took part in the atrocities described. I
do not believe the things that are described happened.
Let me give you an example. In Brinkley’s book, on pages 170 to 171,
about something called the ‘Bo De massacre’ on November 24th of 1968…
In Kerry’s description of the engagement, first he claimed there were 17
servicemen that were wounded. Three of us were wounded. I was the
first…”

— Joseph Ponder

“While in Cam Rahn Bay, he trained on several 24-hour indoctrination
missions, and one special skimmer operation with my most senior and
trusted Lieutenant. The briefing from some members of that crew the
morning after revealed that they had not received any enemy fire, and
yet Lt.(jg) Kerry informed me of a wound — he showed me a scratch on
his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one
of our own M-79s. It was later reported to me that Lt.(jg) Kerry had
fired an M-79, and it had exploded off the adjacent shoreline. I do not
recall being advised of any medical treatment, and probably said
something like ‘Forget it.’ He later received a Purple Heart for that
scratch, and I have no information as to how or whom.
Lt.(jg) Kerry was allowed to return to the good old USA after 4 months
and a few days in-country, and then he proceeded to betray his former
shipmates, calling them criminals who were committing atrocities.
Today we are here to tell you that just the opposite is true. Our rules
of engagement were quite strict, and the officers and men of Swift often
did not even return fire when they were under fire if there was a
possibility that innocent people — fishermen, in a lot of cases —
might be hurt or injured. The rules and the good intentions of the men
increased the possibility that we might take friendly casualties.”

— Commander Grant Hibbard, USN (retired)

“Lt. Kerry returned home from the war to make some outrageous statements
and allegations … of numerous criminal acts in violation of the law of
war were cited by Kerry, disparaging those who had fought with honor in
that conflict. Had war crimes been committed by US forces in Vietnam?
Yes, but such acts were few and far between. Yet Lt. Kerry have numerous
speeches and testimony before Congress inappropriately leading his
audiences to believe that what was only an anomaly in the conduct of
America’s fighting men was an epidemic. Furthermore, he suggested that
they were being encouraged to violated the law of war by those within
the chain of command.

Very specific orders, on file at the Vietnam archives at Texas Tech
University, were issued by my father [Admiral Elmo Zumwalt] and others
in his chain of command instructing subordinates to act responsibly in
preserving the life and property of Vietnamese civilians.”

— Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, USMC (retired)

“We look at Vietnam … after all these years it is still languishing in
isolated poverty and helplessness and tyranny. This is John Kerry’s
legacy. I deeply resent John Kerry’s using his Swift boat experience,
and his betrayal of those who fought there as a steppingstone to his
political ambitions.”

— Barnard Wolff

“In a whole year that I spent patrolling, I didn’t see anything like a
war crime, an atrocity, anything like that. Time and again I saw
American fighting men put themselves in graver danger trying to avoid
collateral damage.
When John Kerry returned to the country, he was sworn in front of
Congress. And then he told my family — my parents, my sister, my
brother, my neighbors — he told everyone I knew and everyone I’d ever
know that I and my comrades had committed unspeakable atrocities.”

— David Wallace

“I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men
served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no
acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and
it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men
including Lt.(jg) Kerry.
In 1971, ’72, for almost 18 months, he stood before the television
audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in
combat, were all villains — there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero
from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United
States and Commander-in-Chief. It just galls one to think about it.”

— Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)

“During the Vietnam War I was Task Force Commander at An Thoi, and my
tour of duty was 13 months, from the end of Tet to the beginning of the
Vietnamization of the Navy units.
Now when I went there right after Tet, I was restricted in my movements.
I couldn’t go much of anyplace because the Vietcong controlled most of
the area. When I left, I could go anywhere I wanted, just about.
Commerce was booming, the buses were running, trucks were going, the
waterways were filled with sampans with goods going to market, but yet
in Kerry’s biography he says that our operations were a complete
failure. He also mentions a formal conference with me, to try to get
more air cover and so on. That conference never happened…”

— Captain Adrian Lonsdale, USCG (retired)

“I was in An Thoi from June of ’68 to June of ’69, covering the whole
period that John Kerry was there. I operated in every river, in every
canal, and every offshore patrol area in the 4th Corps area, from
Cambodia all the way around to the Bo De River. I never saw, even heard
of all of these so-called atrocities and things that we were supposed to
have done.
This is not true. We’re not standing for it. We want to set the record
straight.”

— William Shumadine

“In 1971, when John Kerry spoke out to America, labeling all Vietnam
veterans as thugs and murderers, I was shocked and almost brought to my
knees, because even though I had served at the same time and same unit,
I had never witnessed or participated in any of the events that the
Senator had accused us of. I strongly believe that the statements made
by the Senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful
to the United States’ efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the
world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the antiwar movement and
their allies, retreated to a life of despair and suicide. Two of my
crewmates were among them. For that there is no forgiveness. “

— Richard O’Meara

“My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of
duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in ’68 and ’69,
involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John
Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is
portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from
him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat,
put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy … if a man like
that can’t handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our
Commander-in-Chief

— Steven Gardner

“I served in Vietnam as a boat officer from June of 1968 to July of
1969. My service was three months in Coastal Division 13 out of Cat Lo,
and nine months with Coastal Division 11 based in An Thoi. John Kerry
was in An Thoi the same time I was. I’m here today to express the anger
I have harbored for over 33 years, about being accused
with my fellow shipmates of war atrocities.
All I can say is when I leave here today, I’m going down to the Wall to
tell my two crew members it’s not true, and that they and the other 49
Swiftees who are on the Wall were then and are still now the best.”

— Robert Brant

“I never saw, heard of, or participated in any Swift boat crews killing
cattle, poisoning crops, or raping and killing civilians as charged by
John Kerry, both in his book and in public statements. Since we both
operated at the same time, in the same general area, and on the same
missions under the same commanders, it is hard to believe his claims of
atrocities and poor planning of Sea Lord missions.
I signed this letter because I feel that he used Swift boat sailors to
proclaim his antiwar statements after the war, and now he uses the same
Swift boat sailors to support his claims of being a war hero. He cannot
have it both ways, and we are here to ask for full disclosure of the
proof of his claims.”

— James Steffes

A spokesman for President Bush on Thursday (8-5-04) told reporters, “We have not and will not question Senator Kerry’s service in Vietnam.”

Kerry flip flops: http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacenter/read.aspx?ID=2439

Conduct Unbecoming
by Stephen ShermanA turning point may have been reached in the Iowa caucuses when Special Forces Lt. James Rassmann came forward to thank John Kerry for saving his life in Vietnam. Although Mr. Rassmann, like most of my veteran friends, is a Republican, he said that he’d vote for Mr. Kerry. I don’t know if the incident influenced the caucus results. But I took special interest in the story because Jim served in my unit.

Service in Vietnam is an important credential to me. Many felt that such service was beneath them, and removed themselves from the manpower pool. That Mr. Kerry served at all is a reason for a bond with fellow veterans; that his service earned him a Bronze Star for Valor (“for personal bravery”) and a Silver Star (“for gallantry”) is even more compelling. Unfortunately, Mr. Kerry came home to Massachusetts, the one state George McGovern carried in 1972. He joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and emceed the Winter Soldier Investigation (both financed by Jane Fonda). Many veterans believe these protests led to more American deaths, and to the enslavement of the people on whose behalf the protests were ostensibly being undertaken. But being a take-charge kind of guy, Mr. Kerry became a leader in the VVAW and even testified before Congress on the findings of the Investigation, which he accepted at face value.

In his book “Stolen Valor,” B.G. Burkett points out that Mr. Kerry liberally used phony veterans to testify to atrocities they could not possibly have committed. Mr. Kerry later threw what he represented as his awards at the Capitol in protest. But as the war diminished as a political issue, he left the VVAW, which was a bit too radical for his political future, and was ultimately elected to the Senate. After his awards were seen framed on his office wall, he claimed to have thrown away someone else’s medals–so now he can reclaim his gallantry in Vietnam.

Mr. Kerry hasn’t given me any reason to trust his judgment. As co-chairman of the Senate investigating committee, he quashed a revealing inquiry into the POW/MIA issue, and he supports trade initiatives with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam while blocking any legislation requiring Hanoi to adhere to basic human rights. I’m not surprised that there are veterans who support a VVAW activist, if only because there are so few fellow veterans in politics. Ideally, there’d be many more. If you are going to vote on military appropriations, it would be nice if you didn’t disrespect the soldiers. Congress hasn’t had the courage to declare war in more than 60 years, despite numerous instances in which we have sent our military in harm’s way. Of all the “lessons of Vietnam,” surely one is that America needs a leader capable of demonstrating in himself, and encouraging in others, the resolve to finish what they have collectively started.But the bond between veterans has to be tempered in light of the individual’s record. Just as Mr. Kerry threw away medals only to claim them back again, Sen. Kerry voted to take action against Iraq, but claims to take that vote back by voting against funding the result. So I can understand my former comrade-in-arms hugging the man who saved his life, but not the act of choosing him for president out of gratitude. And I would hate to see anyone giving Mr. Kerry a sympathy vote for president just because being a Vietnam veteran is “back in style.”

Kerry Commands Voters to Forget Politics, History

by Daniel Henninger | Aug 06 ’04

In his acceptance speech, John Kerry said, “Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required.” Of course, he said a lot of other things on the subject, too.

The ideas of John Kerry and George Bush on the use of military force–where, when and for what reason–is the issue that will most determine the outcome of this election. And the one word that sits at the nuclear core of this heated argument, boiling everywhere in America the past year, is “pre-emption.”

Mr. Kerry says that as president he would act with more caution and prudence than his opponent, around whose neck he has hung a scarlet P. Normally such claims would come before the voters as abstract predictions about contingent events. The times, alas, are not normal. To assist in choosing between these two, we have a real world of bombs, beheadings and broadcast threats. Recent days tossed up the 9/11 Commission Report and the Wall Street terror alert.

To achieve bipartisan consensus, the 9/11 report softened many hard disputes, for example the Patriot Act. But compare the arguments and conclusions inside this report against the antiwar craziness of last year’s Democratic presidential contest–the candidates’ rhetoric and the marches in San Francisco and New York City. The 9/11 report is a reality check for any who take time to read it. It moves mainstream thinking toward a more activist response than our political elites would allow before the morning of September 11. (It pointedly cites the example of Pearl Harbor.) The report is most certainly not suggesting that we postpone acting until after another attack such as September 11.

“Once the danger has fully materialized, evident to all, mobilizing action is easier–but then it may be too late,” the report says. Those last words are the new conventional wisdom: Waiting is deadly.

A cautionary tale follows of how we responded to the known threat in Afghanistan from bin Laden and the Taliban: “The warning [an implicit threat of U.S. military action] had been given in 1998, again in late 1999, once more in the fall of 2000, and again in the summer of 2001. Delivering it repeatedly did not make it more effective.” Translation: Empty threats are passé. Elsewhere the report says our “strategy should include offensive operations to counter terrorism.” The report’s first listed recommendation: Pursue potential terrorist sanctuaries “using all elements of national power.”

The “P” word appears nowhere, but clearly the idea of pre-emptive attack, in some form, is what this commission is talking about. If you don’t want to pre-empt, ever, than you don’t want to fight the global war on terror as described by the 9/11 commission. The question before us is, where is John Kerry? What would Mr. Kerry do as president if presented with a clear and persuasive argument for pre-emptive military action?

Immediately following his “let there be no mistake” declaration on force, Mr. Kerry told his convention: “Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.” Big deal. Even President Sharpton would respond to an attack. The more “complex” issue the commission has on the table is whether he would use force to forestall an attack, not respond to one. There is nothing on that issue in Mr. Kerry’s acceptance. A fair reading would be that he requires irrefutable evidence to ever use force. Indeed his assertion–“You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace”–is arguably a case for never going to war.

The commission report is a 567-page treatise on the nonexistence of any such paint-by-numbers world today. John Lewis Gaddis, the noted foreign-policy historian, said several months ago that any Democratic nominee should acknowledge “that pre-emption does have a place in American foreign policy. . . . Pre-emption is out there now for discussion and debate as a legitimate instrument of foreign policy, in a way that it certainly wasn’t before September 11.”

The Kerry campaign recently directed voters to the new Kerry-Edwards book, “Our Plan for America: Stronger at Home, Respected in the World.” The book’s main text has one reference to pre-emption: “And his doctrine of unilateral pre-emption has driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations.” It sounds like a Barbra Streisand song: I want to be loved by you, just you, nobody but you.

North Korea? The book says, “We will work toward negotiating a comprehensive agreement. . . .” And: “Continue the current six-nation negotiations with North Korea, but be prepared to engage in direct U.S. bilateral negotiations.” Iran? “We will join our European allies to offer Iran a simple deal. . . .” Why is this not an outdated re-run of the arms-control and perpetual negotiation strategy of the Cold War?

Can the Democratic Party modernize? Reading through the commission’s long account (including the footnotes) of how Osama bin Laden was handled through the ’90s, one finds the same ambivalence in the Clinton years–public acknowledgment of the threat and aggressive plans to deal with it, which then get shelved or down-shifted at the moment of decision.

John Kerry is the leader of a Democratic Party whose largest voting blocs haven’t yet arrived at even the lowest common denominator of reality expressed by this bipartisan commission. Sen. Joe Lieberman, the one candidate in the primaries who came close to the foreign-policy upgrade suggested by John Lewis Gaddis, got virtually no votes from this party.

Mr. Kerry is now attempting the trick of holding his constituencies in place while appealing to the broader public’s obviously greater willingness to wage war against this new enemy. The result was Mr. Kerry’s weirdly abstract acceptance speech, steroidal with patriotism but unconnected to anything specific that would require a tough, unpopular call on national security.

Mr. Kerry publicly embraced all the report’s recommendations the moment they appeared. My reading is that for reasons of party politics and foreign-policy breeding, a Kerry Oval Office would instinctively seek reasons to ratchet back from the level of aggression suggested by this bipartisan commission. Mr. Kerry’s supporters may disagree, but I don’t see that the candidate has made a case yet for believing otherwise.Lt. Kerry Runs for President

by Brendan Miniter | Aug 03 ’04

Give John Kerry his due for taking aim at a key Republican constituency: the military and military families. If a prime time salute, a convention hall full of flag wavers and his own “Band of Brothers” were enough, Mr. Kerry might have sliced a core voting bloc away from President Bush.

A day after his acceptance speech last week, Mr. Kerry found winning the military vote isn’t so easy when he dropped in on a Wendy’s in Newburg, N.Y. He walked over to a table where two active duty Marines sat eating. He shook their hands and wished them luck. The Marines responded with short, curt answers. And after he left, they said flat out that they wouldn’t be voting for Mr. Kerry. “I’m 100% against” the Democrat, one Marine told a reporter. “We support our commander in chief 100%.”

But at that same Wendy’s Mr. Kerry met a couple–who were both Republicans–with a son who’d just re-enlisted. They said they were now going to vote for him. This may surprise veteran election watchers, but there are three reasons for Mr. Kerry to be optimistic about appealing to these voters. First is what Mr. Kerry calls the “backdoor draft.” Soldiers who never expected to be deployed for very long have found their National Guard and reserve units called up and sent to Iraq. Military duty has chafed even more for reservists who planned on coming home, only to see the schedule revised and to be left in theater.

Second, the military is now in the midst of “transformation”–a process that is breaking the Pentagon loose from its World-War-II-warfighting foundation and grounding it in small scale warfare tactics. In the end, the military will be more adaptable and better able to fight insurgents in urban environments, deploy special ops to hunt down terrorists as well as meet large armies on massive battlefields. This revolutionary undertaking in military thinking is bound to toss up critics until it is complete (and probably for a long time afterward). That leaves a large segment of the old military establishment predisposed to support Democrats.

And third, the military is not doing all it can to ensure that necessary equipment is reaching soldiers on the front lines. As Mr. Kerry put it on Thursday: “You don’t value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service.”

Thirty years ago Mr. Kerry asked “how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” This year he says the government isn’t asking for enough. And why not? War is always hardest on those who have to fight it and their loved ones back home. Mr. Kerry hopes that by promising to repeal the pre-emption doctrine, increase the size of the military by 40,000 and get other nations (France and Germany) to share the burden of the war, he’ll appeal to the voters who are bearing the heaviest burden.

But what it comes down to is credibility. And it’s more than voting for and then against the $87 billion to fund troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. While Mr. Kerry was off campaigning and his Senate colleagues were busy grandstanding about the Abu Ghraib scandal, the House Armed Services Committee drafted legislation to increase the size of the military. Congress has already set aside $1.3 billion for higher troop levels and will decide how many more to add sometime in September. The House is pushing for almost 40,000 new troops over the next three years, while the Senate wants 20,000 added next year. Mr. Kerry doesn’t need to run for president to get his 40,000 new soldiers, only a little more time on Capitol Hill.

Then there’s the small matter of getting soldiers the body armor they need in Iraq. No one can seriously suggest that the military isn’t spending enough money. The problem lies in the supply chain, which somehow isn’t getting all the necessary gear to frontline troops. But once again, legislation has passed the House to help address the problem and now is in need of a champion in the Senate. And in this case it even has a snappy name, “Rapid Acquisition Authority”–snappy by Capitol Hill standards.

This legislation is very simple. It would allowed the secretary of defense to bypass Pentagon bureaucracy when it comes to equipping soldiers in the field during war. This power would only kick in when a combat casualty has occurred and wouldn’t authorize any additional money to be spent. We know it works, because the bill was modeled on an Army test program that successful equipped troops shortly before they invaded Afghanistan.

Mr. Kerry was given two easy ways to champion the interests of military voters recently, and be flubbed both of them. Now he’s asking for their votes.

Democrat:

(from www.johnkerry.com)

None of the Speakers in (the above) Served on Either of Kerry’s Two SWIFT Boats (PCF44 & PCF94). Absolutely NONE of these men served on John Kerry’s SWIFT boats in Vietnam. Some of them were in Vietnam at the same time, some of them did serve on SWIFT boats but none of them were on John Kerry’s SWIFT boat.

The Simple Truth: John Kerry was nominated for the Bronze Star by James Rassmann and eyewitness accounts, official naval documents and independent analyses all state that Kerry and his crew were under fire on the day in question.Official Naval documents available to the public at the Naval Historical Center in Washington, DC and available at www.JohnKerry.com include the after action reports, also known as “spot reports.” These reports contain the details of the four boats involved in these actions on March, 13. 1969-including Kerry’s boat PCF-94. These reports contain specific details of time, personnel, combat action and even maps. These report specifically detail the boats involved receiving, “HEAVY A/W (automatic weapons) AND S/A (small arms) FROM BOTH BANKS. FIRECONTINUED FOZNABOUT 5000 METERS.”Kerry’s injury report for this action, also available at the Naval Historical Center in Washington DC, reads: KERRY, JOHN F., XXXXXX, USN WOUNDED IN ACTION – 13 March 1969 vicinity of Song Bay Hap, South Vietnam. Received shrapnel wounds in the left buttocks and contusions on the right forearm when a mine detonated close to PCF-94 while engaged in operations on river. CONDITIONS AND PROGNOSIS EXCELLENT. RESULT OF HOSTILE ACTION The Boston Globe, which has repeatedly criticized John Kerry for any exaggeration or misstatement for the past 30 years, did their own investigation into Kerry’s military career. The Globe wrote in their book, “John F. Kerry; A Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best”, that a mine blast threw James Rassmann into the water and made him “a bobbing target as he dodged the bullets whizzing around him.” [p.106]Eyewitness account from James Rassmann also detail the fact that PCF-94 and other boats were under fire. In March of 2004, Rassmann, a registered Republican who had not seen Kerry in more than 30 years before their reunion in Iowa this year, recalled the following: “Viet Cong snipers fired at him, and Rassmann submerged over and over to avoid being hit. The bullets came from both banks, and Rassmann had nowhere to go. He began thinking his time had come, but the fifth time he came up, he saw the convoy had turned around. Kerry had ordered the boats back to pick up the man overboard. Kerry’s boat, under heavy fire, sidled up to the struggling soldier. Rassmann tried to scramble up a cargo net at the bow but was too exhausted to make it all the way. He clung to the net as bullets whizzed past.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/13/04]Kerry’s Bronze Star citation recounts the events of that day and include this sentence, “In addition, all units began receiving small arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks.” Versions of this citation were signed by the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces in Vietnam. This citation is available for the public to read at www.JohnKerry.com.

“The President again is choosing misleading ads over articulating a positive vision for America. He doesn’t tell the truth on the campaign trail either. He says ‘we’ve turned the corner,’ but 42 million people lack health insurance, 1.9 million have lost their jobs, we’re bogged down in Iraq and deficits have reached record highs. We need a president who will restore trust and credibility to the White House.” – Kerry campaign spokesman, Chad Clanton.

As he was about to graduate from Yale, John Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam – because, as he later said, “it was the right thing to do.” He believed that because he had had a lot of privileges in life – for example, attending a great university like Yale – he had a responsibility to give something back to his country. His two great heroes – his father and John F. Kennedy – had served during World War II. John Kerry wanted to follow both their example and that of some of his best friends, who also went to Vietnam.

John Kerry enlisted in the Navy in 1966. After completing Naval Officer Candidates School, he began his first tour of duty on the USS Gridley, a guided-missile frigate in the waters adjacent to Vietnam. In 1968, John Kerry began his second tour of duty, and volunteered to serve on a Swift Boat, one of the most dangerous assignments of the war. Swift Boats patrolled the narrow inlets and canals around the Mekong Delta “to draw fire and smoke out the enemy,” according to the The Boston Globe.

To the men who served with him, John Kerry was “one of the most daring skippers in the US Navy, relentlessly and courageously engaging the enemy,” according to The Boston Globe. William Zaladonis, who served under Kerry on a Swift Boat, said that he was more interested than some other commanding officers in his crewmates’ lives, hopes, and dreams. John Kerry put his crewmates at ease, telling them to “call me John – you don’t have to call me sir.” When “we were out on patrol,” Zaladonis recalls, “we were a family.”

Lt. John Kerry’s leadership, courage, and sacrifice earned him a Silver Star, the Navy’s fifth highest medal, a Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts, awarded for wounds received in combat. John Kerry was awarded a Bronze Star for rescuing a Green Beret, who had gone overboard during a mission. According to his Bronze Star citation, “Lt. Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain, with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man aboard. Lt. Kerry’s calmness, professionalism, and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the US Naval Service.”

John Kerry left Vietnam in 1969. But to this day, he carries with him the lessons he learned while he was there. On that Swift Boat, there were people who came from places as diverse as South Carolina, Iowa, and Arkansas. They were literally all in the same boat and they came together as one. No one asked the others’ politics. No one asked where the others came from or who their fathers were or where they went to school. They were simply a band of brothers who all fought under the same flag and all prayed to the same God. And that is the America John Kerry wants today – an America where we all come together to build a better country.

In Vietnam, John Kerry saw the lives of his fellow soldiers put at risk because some leaders in Washington were making bad decisions.

When he returned home, he became a spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW).

The Bush Record Exposed

Most of us remember…Bush does not…

Documented Service Records of John Kerry and George Bush

So, while the news networks have sat on this explosive story for months, it’s well documented that George W. Bush never showed up for National Guard duty for a period of approximately one year, possibly more, in 1972-1973. Despite all the talk about “honor and dignity,” Bush seems to have a problem meeting his commitments.

“Those of us who were in the military wonder how it is that someone who is supposedly serving on active duty…can miss a whole year of service without even explaining where it went,” said [Senator John] Kerry.
(Source)

AWOL—-absent for 30 days or less.
Desertion—–absent for more than 30 days with evidence of no intent to return to duty.
Is he guilty of one or both? You read the facts here and decide.

This is not the story of a search for missing records. We have the pertinent records.

This is not a hunt for credible eyewitnesses and first hand statements. The officers involved have stepped forward. We have their testimony and we have the signed statements of those no longer living.

This is the story of how George Walker Bush walked away from a years duty while in the National Guard.

And, this is the story of how he has thus far gotten away with it.

Update: Jul 23, 2004

Questionable Timing

“Discovery” of Bush Records Late Friday Afternoon as Reporters Move to Cover Democratic National ConventionWashington DC — According to CNN, some of President Bush’s missing records from his time in the Air National Guard were found today. The payroll records that were discovered were initially reported destroyed. In response, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Spokesman Jano Cabrera issued the following statement: “The supposed discovery of these records on Friday afternoon, as reporters converge on Boston to cover the Democratic National Convention, is highly questionable. If the Bush Administration continues to search, maybe they’ll find answers to the long list of unanswered questions that remain about George W. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard. Bush’s military records seem to show up as randomly as he did for duty.”

Gary Hart:

Where Is Bush Leading Us?
By Gary Hart
The Boston Globe

Monday 02 June 2003

SOMETIME LAST FALL, between the successful overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the notion of ”regime change” in Iraq, the war on terrorism as it threatened America became a war on all terrorism everywhere. And ”terrorism” came to include all evil and governments we didn’t like. It would be interesting to know how this happened. Even more, it is important to know how this happened, because when the Bush administration decided to go after terrorism everywhere it fundamentally defined a new role for America in the world.

Iraq represented no immediate or unavoidable threat to the United States. We overthrew its government because key Bush administration officials convinced the president it was the next step in the war on terrorism. But they had decided Saddam Hussein must go a full decade before 9/11. The destruction of the World Trade towers, which Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with, simply gave them the excuse to resurrect an old agenda.

But the war on terrorism is now the excuse for America to assume imperial powers and to employ those powers even when our traditional allies oppose our actions. The war on terrorism is fundamentally altering our global policies. We have discarded our half-century reliance on the Atlantic Alliance for collective security. We have marginalized the United Nations at the precise time it should have been empowered to undertake peacemaking roles. And we have alienated key regional powers, including Russia, China, and India, at a time when we should be encouraging them to assume greater responsibilities for regional stability.

All this has transpired in the space of a few months without congressional hearings or review, any comprehensive statement by the administration, serious editorial discussion, or public debate over this new foreign policy. Throughout American history major departures in foreign policy have been the occasion for lively, even contentious debate. This has not been the case as the war on terrorism morphed into the centerpiece of a new imperial foreign policy.

Consequences abound. A nation whose announced national security policy is to eradicate dictators possessing weapons of mass destruction is then immediately faced with North Korea. Indeed, we are faced with a good number of nations fitting this description. Either we mean what we say, or we pick and choose. And if we pick and choose, what standards do we use? Whom do we invade and with whom do we negotiate? And if we can adopt this preemptive policy, why cannot other nations? If we can engage in preventive wars, why then cannot India or Pakistan or a rather large number of other antagonists do the same thing? Wipe out your enemy now on the grounds that he may someday represent a threat to you. And what about eradicating dictators who assault their own people – an argument used against Saddam Hussein? There are certainly plenty of those around.

A president who campaigned on a platform of humility in international dealings and resistance to ”nation-building” now finds himself waving a big stick at almost everyone and rebuilding nations right and left. When exactly did this transformation occur? Was it 9/11 or was it the project of a handful of advisers perpetually eager to remake the Middle East? And how did the Philippines suddenly get into all of this? If the invasion of Iraq is simply the completion of Gulf War I, then perhaps deployment of special forces to the Philippines is the completion of the Spanish-American war. Who can tell? No one in Washington, including in my own Democratic Party, seems to be up to asking any tough questions.

A short year and a half ago America was astride the world like a moral colossus. Virtually the entire world united behind us in our grim search for justice against Al Qaeda. Sometime last fall, however, when Saddam replaced bin Laden as our white whale, we started on our own crusade and left the rest of the world behind. You can either believe much of the rest of the world became, almost overnight, obtuse and anti-American, or you can more plausibly believe we unilaterally launched ourselves on a mission that made little sense to much of the rest of the world.

Before we take the next step, wherever that may be (Syria? Iran? North Korea?), perhaps we should stop and take stock. What is our mission here? What exactly are we trying to achieve? Should not the president spell out in considerably more detail where he is leading us and what price, including in American lives and international goodwill, we must be willing to pay to achieve his goal?

America is a republic. Throughout history, republics have never been compatible with empire. Read the Romans, among others. When republics begin to seek hegemony and expand the reach and scope of their power, they no longer remain republics. America is still too young – and too noble – for that.

Gary Hart, a US senator from Colorado from 1975-87, recently served as co-chair of the US Commission on National Security/21st Century.

August 4, 2004

Jim sent this along:

THE FATITUDES

In the beginning, God covered the earth with broccoli,
cauliflower and spinach, with green and yellow and red
vegetables of all kinds, so Man and Woman would live long
and healthy lives.

Then, using God’s bountiful gifts, Satan created Ben and
Jerry’s, and Krispy Kreme.

And Satan said: “You want hot fudge with that?”

And Man said: “Yes!”

And Woman said: “I’ll have one, too…with sprinkles.”

And lo they gained 10 pounds.

And God created the healthful yogurt that Woman might keep
the figure that Man found so fair.

And Satan brought forth white flour from the wheat, and
sugar from the cane, and combined them.

And Woman went from size 2 to size 14.

So God said: “Try my fresh green garden salad.”

And Satan presented crumbled Bleu Cheese dressing and garlic
toast on the side.

And Man and Woman unfastened their belts following the
repast.

God then said: “I have sent you heart-healthy vegetables and
olive oil in which to cook them.”

And Satan brought forth deep-fried coconut shrimp,
butter-dipped lobster chunks, and chicken-fried steak so big
it needed its own platter.

And Man’s cholesterol went through the roof.

Then God brought forth the potato, naturally low in fat and
brimming with potassium and good nutrition.

Then Satan peeled off the healthful skin, sliced the starchy
center into chips and deep-fried them in animal fats adding
copious quantities of salt.

And Man packed on more pounds.

God then brought forth running shoes so that his children
might lose those extra pounds.

And Satan introduced cable TV with remote control so Man
would not have to toil changing the channels.

And Man and Woman laughed and cried before the flickering
light and started wearing stretchy Lycra jogging suits.

God then gave lean beef so that Man might consume fewer
calories and still satisfy his appetite.

And Satan created McDonald’s and the 99-cent double
cheeseburger.

Then Satan said: “You want fries with that?”

And Man replied: “Yes! And super size ’em!”

And Satan said: ” It is good.”

And Man and Woman went into cardiac arrest.

God sighed…and created quadruple by-pass surgery.

Satan chuckled and created HMOs.

Two people sent this to me; guess they thought I liked “toilet humor”.

August 3, 2004

Pam and I had a busy weekend, down to Venice to visit her parents, up to Zephyrhills to visit Dad and Betty. (one of Dad’s red roses below)

Then last night Pam had a big presentation to give to 1000 people! She had asked me to come; I made it near the end. She did very well! Then all of the people went to their homerooms. There were many that wanted a different schedule for their kids, Pam took care of a lot of them!

I found the above Art Gallery and have listed some of my pictures for sale there!! Anyone can display their art there!

Herrick Recipes [Click Lower left for music too!]

Click here for David’s BLOG

John and Pam, and Darrell and Marilyn’s weather:Weekend trip weather:

Amy and Darren’s weather:

Dad and Betty’s weather:

Susan and Al’s weather:

David’ and jeans weather:

Donald and jeanne’s weather:

Daniel and candy’s weather:

Heather and michael’s weather:

Rod and jill’s weather:

Don in California 2004 was cancelled, see you in Maine in 2005!

2005	David and Jean’s Housewarming party, Pocomoonshine Lake, Princeton, Maine
2006	Darrell & Marilyn
2007	Dan
2008	Sue and Al
2009	John
2010	Donald