"- - ex - -" wrote in message
...
- - ex - - wrote:
William Warren wrote:

(unatributed rant snipped)


This explains the source of the article, FWIW. Drop them a line and
maybe they can direct you how to locate the person who wrote it so that
you can personally assess his credibility.
http://frontpagemagazine.com/article...e.asp?ID=12272

-BM

I've never read "Front Page Magazine", and it's qualifications as an "Non
partison (but extremely cynical) newsletter for investors..." remain open to
question. The appeals for money on the splash page leave me to wonder which
investors it's appealing to, but for the sake of argument, let's assume they
really are an actual magazine with a meaningful readership.

The story you cite begins with the line

"The following was sent to a Marine chat net by a retired Marine Master
Sergeant
who was in S-2, 3rd Bn, 1st Marines, Korea in 1954."

But, from there, it is a copy of the smear attributed to a "Rear Admiral" in
your original post. I don't believe it was actually posted by a Marine,
either: there's too much wrong with it.

1. The gratuitous reference to Korea, and the way in backfires on the PR
man:

I don't know if being in the "3rd Bn., 1st Marines" has some cachet amoung
Marines, but it smells like FUD put in to catch the eye of a key swing
vote - older veterans. Anyone in Korea in 1954 would have to be at least 68
years old now, and I have never seen anyone of that age group participating
in something as new as a "chat net".

2. "I know the tactics and the doctrine used, and I know the equipment. ".

This doesn't make sense: why would a Marine be trained in small boat
tactics? What "doctrine" is he talking about? How would a Marine learn about
Swift boats or PBR's, when the Marines pride themselves on being combat
infantrymen and not "Rust pickers"? Don't forget, he'd have been an Sergeant
at the time of Vietnam, only ~30 years old: hardly an age or rank that would
be expected to cross-train with Navy boat crews. More to the point, how many
Marine Corps Master Sergeants would write like that?

3. Finally, the coup-de-grace that reveals this to be just more
disinformation: "The details of the event for which he was given the Silver
Star make no sense at all."

If whoever wrote that was actually a Marine, and had actually been in
combat, he'd know that nothing ever goes according to the book. When the
shooting starts, men revert to their most basic capabilities, and if Kerry
chose to confront an attacher directly, instead of running away ("put your
stern to the action and go balls to the wall") that speaks volumes about the
fact that he put himself first in the line of fire. I don't doubt for a
second that it wasn't the correct "Standard procedure", but procedures are
designed by statisticians who want commanders to do what will give the
greatest probability of success in an average encounter. Kerry threw away
the book and did it himself instead of risking his men's lives: that's why
he got the medal.

This all smells: second and third-hand slander, without a name attached,
without confirmation (something a real "magazine" would be expected to do
routinely). I don't believe it.

Of course, the Republicans hope it doesn't matter: having thrown the manure
in front of the fan, they're hoping that it will stick to Senator Kerry and
he'll be too busy cleaning it off for anyone to trace it back to the source
before the election.

Concerning your earlier post:

You're not real fond of opposing opinions are you?

I welcome opinions of all sorts, whether or not they support my viewpoint.
So long as the sources are available, I'll accept quotes without prejudice,
too.

Mostly, I'm "not fond of" Shrub's attitude that not being caught in a lie is
the same thing as telling the truth. What I am especially "not fond of" is
unattributed slander, quotes-out-of-context (as you did to me), nameless and
unverifiable attacks, or the attitude some people take that it's OK to
question Senator Kerry's courage while forgetting George Bush, Junior's
cowardice.

Bill Warren

(My email address must be modified in an obvious way for direct replies)