Homer Up!

Homer,

I think this was actually posted here on AWV yesterday. Anyway, this is similar to
a few other replies I've made to people who have the situation all screwed up. It
does add a bit to what I told you in the two posts in the other thread.

Doug
================================================== ==========
>Power Line
>http://www.powerlineblog.com
>
>Our posts on John Kerry continue to elicit information, support,
>and encouragement from Kerry's fabled band of brothers -- the
>guys who served in Vietnam while Kerry was trashing them before
>adoring audiences back home and clawing his way to fame over
>their bloodied reputations. Funny he hasn't gotten around to
>extending an apology to the "band of brothers" whose loyalty he
>claims.
>
>Peyton Randolph writes to add his information:
>
>"From numerous discussions of That Prick's heroic action which
>'earned' him a Silver Star, it seems clear to me that he jumped
>off of his boat, while leaving it grounded and vulnerable, to
>chase down and execute a lone enemy soldier who was grievously
>wounded and no longer firing at That Prick's boat. I was 9 years
>active duty in the Army, and the above describes a court-martial
>offense. We were taught in no uncertain terms that administering
>a coup de grace to wounded enemy soldiers was a big no-no [see
>below].

Absolutely false, Mr. Randolph. Kerry did no such thing. (see below)

>Peyton Randolph said ". . .he jumped off of his boat, while
>leaving it grounded and vulnerable, to chase down and execute a
>lone enemy soldier who was grievously wounded and no longer
>firing at That Prick's boat. I was 9 years active duty in the
>Army, and the above describes a court-martial offense. We were
>taught in no uncertain terms that administering a coup de grace
>to wounded enemy soldiers was a big no-no. . ."

Let me tell you what really happened, Mr. Randolph, as you don't quite
have it right. I don't know if you realize you don't have it right, so I
won't call you a liar. Whoever originated the information you are
repeating, well, he/she/it is a liar.

The following are FACTS, Mr. Randolph. Not someone's opinion who does, or
does not, like John Kerry. Whenever you want to spout off about what
happened 28 Feb, 1969, please keep these facts in mind:

1. He did NOT leave his boat vulnerable.

2. The enemy soldier was NOT alone.

3. The enemy soldier was NOT grievously wounded.

4. It was NOT a coup de grace.

5. The enemy soldier was "no longer firing at" Kerry's boat? Gee, I don't
really know how to answer this one. You did say you were a combat vet of
the war, didn't you? You do know the basics of a B-40 rocket/grenade
launcher, don't you?

The B-40 of this particular enemy was still loaded. And the only reason it
was still loaded was because Kerry's boat had been "grounded" about 2 feet
from this enemy soldier's spider hole, thereby putting the enemy soldier
in a position where he could NOT fire. (I assume those of you who aren't
familiar with the B-40 can figure out why this guy didn't fire it, right?)
He was falling back -- running, actually, to a position were he COULD
fire.

Like you, I was also with the 9th Inf Div. I can't recall a single time,
in the MIDDLE OF A FIREFIGHT, when we asked the enemy we were fighting
with to lay down their weapons. Perhaps they did things differently in the
2/47th than they did in the 6/31st, but I seriously doubt it.

Anyway, Mr. Randolph, those are the facts. Do with them as you may, but
please keep them in mind the next time you want to pass judgement on John
Kerry for what happened that day.

Doug Reese
6/31st Inf, 9th Div -- 1968
MACV -- 1969

PS. If someone who is more competent than I would please pass my comments
on to Mr. Randolph and/or Powerline, I would appreciate it.

Doug Reese wrote in message news:<402c6ac7$0$3138$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
> Homer,
>
> I think this was actually posted here on AWV yesterday. Anyway, this is similar
> to a few other replies I've made to people who have the situation all screwed
> up. It does add a bit to what I told you in the two posts in the other thread.
>
>
> 1. He did NOT leave his boat vulnerable.
>
> 2. The enemy soldier was NOT alone.

How many others were there? What were they doing? If an unarmored
boat beaches near several enemy, and the crew spots only one, and they
can't get their guns to fire, the crew sounds vulnerable to me.

>
> 3. The enemy soldier was NOT grievously wounded.

Was there an autopsy to determine that? When a 7.62mm round knocks a
man down, isn't that presumed to be serious?

>
> 4. It was NOT a coup de grace.

Would any living person but Kerry know that?

>
> 5. The enemy soldier was "no longer firing at" Kerry's boat? Gee, I don't
> really know how to answer this one. You did say you were a combat vet of
> the war, didn't you? You do know the basics of a B-40 rocket/grenade
> launcher, don't you?

I don't know much about either. How does the safety mechanism in an
M-79 shell work? Have you verified that the B-40 had one?

>
> The B-40 of this particular enemy was still loaded. And the only reason it
> was still loaded was because Kerry's boat had been "grounded" about 2 feet
> from this enemy soldier's spider hole, thereby putting the enemy soldier
> in a position where he could NOT fire. (I assume those of you who aren't
> familiar with the B-40 can figure out why this guy didn't fire it, right?)
> He was falling back -- running, actually, to a position were he COULD
> fire.

How many seconds does it take to reload a B-40? How many seconds
after the first shot did Kerry's boat hit the beach? If the Vietcong
wasn't ready to put a round into the pilothouse of the approaching
boat, perhaps he hadn't reloaded immediately.

If I were going to fire a slow projectile at a boat, I would choose a
position near the water to minimize the range. I would want bushes or
other screens on both sides so sailors wouldn't spot me as they
approached or looked back. If the Vietcong had a restricted field of
view, he may not have reloaded immediately because he didn't expect to
get a second shot.

After firing, he hears the boat coming his way, peeks up, and sees the
boat coming directly toward him because that's the only clear shore in
the vicinity. When he reloads and looks up again, the boat is aground
and looming over him.

He had thought he was safe when he fired. The boat had attacked
unexpectedly. He had apparently tried to load and fire before it
reached him. He failed. Wouldn't that cause anyone to panic? I
think he ran in blind fear.

When the bullet knocked him down, wouldn't his best chance have been
to fire? As he didn't fire, I think he'd lost his presence of mind
and was not calculating a better firing spot farther away. Kerry's
latest explanation is that the Vietcong was still running when Kerry
fired.


Here's something from rush.limbaugh:


2. The .50 cal gunner may have fired 50 rounds or so, but he didn't
touch the VC.

How was it ascertained that all the bullets missed?

4. Beaching the boat was "dumb, dumb, dumb"? Actually, quite the
opposite. If he
didn't beach the boat, that VC with the B-40 would have had a clear
shot.

If the VC had popped up a couple of seconds sooner, would it have been
disastrous for the boat? What about those other VC? Couldn't they
have done great harm?

If the boat had continued on its way, would the VC have had a good
enough view and a long enough effective range to try again?

5. The VC had another round, ready to go, by the way. He was in NO WAY
empty-handed and/or without a weapon.

I think he may have dropped it when wounded, but I think Kerry would
have been right to shoot him as he ran whether or not he was armed.

Kerry's medals said he was highly honorable. When he seemed to say
most of us were not honorable, his silver star gave him credibility.
That's why I wonder what deed it represents.

Somewhere you said the gunner fired at a Bush. Could it have been W?
Bush said he volunteered for Vietnam. Maybe he was a witness. Could
the President of the United States be called to testify on Kerry's
behalf?

Homer

"Homer Brewer" wrote in message
news:b7e8940b.0402132116.3ca9c181@posting.google.c om...

Somewhere you said the gunner fired at a Bush. Could it have been W?
> Bush said he volunteered for Vietnam. Maybe he was a witness. Could
> the President of the United States be called to testify on Kerry's
> behalf?
>
> Homer

That's just what Dubya needs. Testifying and being cross-examined.

Chas Hurst

"Chas Hurst" wrote:
>
>"Homer Brewer" wrote in message
>news:b7e8940b.0402132116.3ca9c181@posting.google.c om...
>
>Somewhere you said the gunner fired at a Bush. Could it have been W?
>> Bush said he volunteered for Vietnam. Maybe he was a witness. Could
>> the President of the United States be called to testify on Kerry's
>> behalf?
>>
>> Homer
>
>That's just what Dubya needs. Testifying and being cross-examined.
>
>Chas Hurst

And I'm STILL laughing at Homer's ending . . . . .and then Chas.

Doug