fearlessly proclaiming the truth & the other truth! voice of the teknoshamanic institute
Published on August 22, 2004 By kingbee In Blogging

the following was published august 21, 2004 in the chicago tribune by a tribune reporter named william rood who happens to be one of the two surviving swift boat commanders (kerry is the other) who saw action at  dong cung on february 28, 1969.  his article (im posting it in it's entirety below) speaks for itself. 

the images ive provided are mr rood's citation for bravery for which he was awarded a bronze star   the after action report on which that citation and award were based  .

ANTI-KERRY VETS NOT THERE THAT DAY

By William B. Rood
Chicago Tribune
Published August 21, 2004

There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago—three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.

For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the focus of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of swift boat veterans and others contending that Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for other actions.

Many of us wanted to put it all behind us—the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service—even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work.

But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.

Even though Kerry's own crew members have backed him, the attacks have continued, and in recent days Kerry has called me and others who were with him in those days, asking that we go public with our accounts.

I can't pretend those calls had no effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this. What matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk publicly about it.

I was part of the operation that led to Kerry's Silver Star. I have no firsthand knowledge of the events that resulted in his winning the Purple Hearts or the Bronze Star.

But on Feb. 28, 1969, I was officer in charge of PCF-23, one of three swift boats—including Kerry's PCF-94 and Lt. j.g. Donald Droz's PCF-43—that carried Vietnamese regional and Popular Force troops and a Navy demolition team up the Dong Cung, a narrow tributary of the Bay Hap River, to conduct a sweep in the area.

The approach of the noisy 50-foot aluminum boats, each driven by two huge 12-cylinder diesels and loaded down with six crew members, troops and gear, was no secret.

Ambushes were a virtual certainty, and that day was no exception.

Instructions from Kerry

The difference was that Kerry, who had tactical command of that particular operation, had talked to Droz and me beforehand about not responding the way the boats usually did to an ambush.

We agreed that if we were not crippled by the initial volley and had a clear fix on the location of the ambush, we would turn directly into it, focusing the boats' twin .50-caliber machine guns on the attackers and beaching the boats. We told our crews about the plan.

The Viet Cong in the area had come to expect that the heavily loaded boats would lumber on past an ambush, firing at the entrenched attackers, beaching upstream and putting troops ashore to sweep back down on the ambush site. Often, they were long gone by the time the troops got there.

The first time we took fire—the usual rockets and automatic weapons—Kerry ordered a "turn 90" and the three boats roared in on the ambush. It worked. We routed the ambush, killing three of the attackers. The troops, led by an Army adviser, jumped off the boats and began a sweep, which killed another half dozen VC, wounded or captured others and found weapons, blast masks and other supplies used to stage ambushes.

Meanwhile, Kerry ordered our boat to head upstream with his, leaving Droz's boat at the first site.

It happened again, another ambush. And again, Kerry ordered the turn maneuver, and again it worked. As we headed for the riverbank, I remember seeing a loaded B-40 launcher pointed at the boats. It wasn't fired as two men jumped up from their spider holes.

We called Droz's boat up to assist us, and Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a hooch—a thatched hut—maybe 15 yards inland from the ambush site. Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ.

With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire nearby.

Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation.

John O'Neill, author of a highly critical account of Kerry's Vietnam service, describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore.

The man Kerry chased was not the "lone" attacker at that site, as O'Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well. It was not the work of just one attacker.

Our initial reports of the day's action caused an immediate response from our task force headquarters in Cam Ranh Bay.

Congratulatory message

Known over radio circuits by the call sign "Latch," then-Capt. and now retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the task force commander, fired off a message congratulating the three swift boats, saying at one point that the tactic of charging the ambushes was a "shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be the most efficacious method of dealing with small numbers of ambushers."

Hoffmann has become a leading critic of Kerry's and now says that what the boats did on that day demonstrated Kerry's inclination to be impulsive to a fault.

Our decision to use that tactic under the right circumstances was not impulsive but was the result of discussions well beforehand and a mutual agreement of all three boat officers.

It was also well within the aggressive tradition that was embraced by the late Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, then commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam. Months before that day in February, a fellow boat officer, Michael Bernique, was summoned to Saigon to explain to top Navy commanders why he had made an unauthorized run up the Giang Thanh River, which runs along the Vietnam-Cambodia border. Bernique, who speaks French fluently, had been told by a source in Ha Tien at the mouth of the river that a VC tax collector was operating upstream.

Ignoring the prohibition against it, Bernique and his crew went upstream and routed the VC, pursuing and killing several.

Instead of facing disciplinary action as he had expected, Bernique was given the Silver Star, and Zumwalt ordered other swifts, which had largely patrolled coastal waters, into the rivers.

The decision sent a clear message, underscored repeatedly by Hoffmann's congratulatory messages, that aggressive patrolling was expected and that well-timed, if unconventional, tactics like Bernique's were encouraged.

What we did on Feb. 28, 1969, was well in line with the tone set by our top commanders.

Zumwalt made that clear when he flew down to our base at An Thoi off the southern tip of Vietnam to pin the Silver Star on Kerry and assorted Bronze Stars and commendation medals on the rest of us.

Error in citation

My Bronze Star citation, signed by Zumwalt, praised the charge tactic we used that day, saying the VC were "caught completely off guard."

There's at least one mistake in that citation. It incorrectly identifies the river where the main action occurred, a reminder that such documents were often done in haste and sometimes authored for their signers by staffers. It's a cautionary note for those trying to piece it all together. There's no final authority on something that happened so long ago—not the documents and not even the strained recollections of those of us who were there.

But I know that what some people are saying now is wrong. While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they're saying impugns others who are not in the public eye.

Men like Larry Lee, who was on our bow with an M-60 machine gun as we charged the riverbank, Kenneth Martin, who was in the .50-caliber gun tub atop our boat, and Benjamin Cueva, our engineman, who was at our aft gun mount suppressing the fire from the opposite bank.

Wayne Langhoffer and the other crewmen on Droz's boat went through even worse on April 12, 1969, when they saw Droz killed in a brutal ambush that left PCF-43 an abandoned pile of wreckage on the banks of the Duong Keo River. That was just a few months after the birth of his only child, Tracy.

The survivors of all these events are scattered across the country now.

Jerry Leeds lives in a tiny Kansas town where he built and sold a successful printing business. He owns a beautiful home with a lawn that sweeps to the edge of a small lake, which he also owns. Every year, flights of purple martins return to the stately birdhouses on the tall poles in his back yard.

Cueva, recently retired, has raised three daughters and is beloved by his neighbors for all the years he spent keeping their cars running. Lee is a senior computer programmer in Kentucky, and Lamberson finished a second military career in the Army.

With the debate over that long-ago day in February, they're all living that war another time.


Comments (Page 3)
5 Pages1 2 3 4 5 
on Aug 23, 2004
Anne Alogy -
a President whose miltiary records are either non-existent, or muddled at best, and whose campaign staff is questioning the war hero's patriotism.

Not true, on either count. Bush's campaign staff have consistently and repeatedly praised Kerry's service, as has Bush himself. Stop perpetuating this fiction.

I think Rood sets the record straight on this particular episode and raises legitimate doubt about the others. Getting the facts out is never bad. People in a position to verify this stuff should keep after it. Of course, the flip side is that Kerry's folks need to acknowledge that the AWOL stuff is malarkey, as eyewitnesses have testified.

Oh, don't go there, Bush haters believe that the President has the power of Ming the Merciless. Everything broken is his fault, and he threatens everything else...Granted, when a Democrat is President they mourn the red tape that strips their beloved President of his power and prevents him from changing the world...

Sooo true, BakerStreet.

he became convinced that the war was wrong and like many Americans, put himself on the line AS A PATRIOT who wanted a misdirected policy and war to end. You do not have to agree with him, but he had the courage to both fight in the war and then to work to end it. Compare that to many others of his generation and he stands head and shoulders above them.

That's indeed the view most favorable to Kerry, but not one I share. An alternative view is that he was a shameless hustler who saw an opportunity, lied to embellish his claims, and played on the Viet Nam backlash to further his prospects for public office & personal gain. I would have no quibble at all with Kerry about his decision to be vocal in his opposition to the war if he hadn't made claims to witnessing things he simply could not have witnessed and could never substantiate specifically. The digging into the Swift Boat business may help confirm that, ironically. Don't misunderstand me, though. There can be no doubt that the types of things Kerry accused the military of did indeed happen, on what scale I don't know, but they happened to some extent. He just didn't have direct personal knowledge of it. He also claims to have personally participated in atrocities when there is no evidence that he did, or was ever in a position to do so. I'd like to see him step up and provide proof of that in the midst of the campaign - talk about a two-edged sword. So don't expect that to happen, he'll just stay focused on his claims of a right-wing Bush-backed smear.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Aug 23, 2004
Oh, don't go there, Bush haters believe that the President has the power of Ming the Merciless. Everything broken is his fault, and he threatens everything else...

Granted, when a Democrat is President they mourn the red tape that strips their beloved President of his power and prevents him from changing the world...


Didn't you know, Bakerstreet?
The republican presidents have all the power, the democratic presidents don't get any.

Seroiously, though. The whole 'Let's rate everyone's war record and see if it's good enough' tactic was begun in this campaign by the Democrats as a way to undermine Bush. Once that can of worms was opened, it was inevitable that Kerry would have to take his turn in the gauntlet.

And the downside is that it is both pointless, as far as who would make the best president, as well as, demeaning to everyone that had any role whatsoever in the Vietnam war. Regardless if someone was a grunt on the front line all the way back to a public sector factory worker making airplane parts for the military, they all served their country in some way. Setting a 'this is the point where your service was good enough' scenario as a political tool serves no one.

The most important thing that should be focused on is "Here's what my guy says he'll do, here's how he's voted in recent history, and that's why he's the best choice."
on Aug 23, 2004
Here, here, pictoratus.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Aug 24, 2004

An alternative view is that he was a shameless hustler who saw an opportunity, lied to embellish his claims, and played on the Viet Nam backlash to further his prospects for public office & personal gain

youre the 2nd person in several days to suggest this.  so in other words, a 23-year-old guy joins the military and upon completion of his first term of duty signs on for a second as the commander of a small boat operating on a jungle river with orders to draw fire from ambushers (and where the casualty rate was 75-80%), then returns home to publicly advocate a position that--at the time--was seen as guaranteeing hed never win an election and it's all part of some grand scheme designed to win the whitehouse some 40 years later?

wanna buy a bridge? excellent location. major east coast metropolis, lots of daily crossings

on Aug 24, 2004
kingbee: It sounds perfectly reasonable to me . . . next to beer and scoring chicks, the biggest concern amongst 23 year old military dudes is how to convey a presidential image . . .

(I apologize for jumping in the middle of your serious debate with a silly comment . . . can you forgive me?)
on Aug 24, 2004

if he hadn't made claims to witnessing things he simply could not have witnessed

youre clearly not familiar with his testimony (check the link 7 comments up from here) he didnt claim anything of the sort.

He also claims to have personally participated in atrocities when there is no evidence

nope.  he alleged that he and other soldiers were ordered to engage in activities that are forbidden by the geneva convention such as free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire & search and destroy missions. 

on Aug 24, 2004

The whole 'Let's rate everyone's war record and see if it's good enough' tactic was begun in this campaign

actually its been a staple of american presidential politics at least as far back as the end of world war 2.  it really took hold during the early 50s thanks to sen joe mccarthy. 

on Aug 24, 2004
actually its been a staple of american presidential politics at least as far back as the end of world war 2. it really took hold during the early 50s thanks to sen joe mccarthy.


kingbee, I didn't say the tactic was invented in this campaign. I'm sure you read the whole sentence stating the tactic in this campaign was begun by the Democrats as a way to undermine Bush.

Your attempt to discredit my point, if that's what it was, is a non-sequitur. I give you more credit than that. And, by the way, the technique is much older than McCarthy.
on Aug 24, 2004

can you forgive me?


how could i not?


as regards your comment, all i can say is...youth is sooo wasted on the young.

on Aug 24, 2004
hey are you still there ? I want to ask for your opinion on something.
on Aug 24, 2004

hey are you still there ?

im sorta here @ 420am gmt -9 (i think thats right during dst) or try here link

on Aug 24, 2004
"youre the 2nd person in several days to suggest this. so in other words, a 23-year-old guy joins the military and upon completion of his first term of duty signs on for a second as the commander of a small boat operating on a jungle river with orders to draw fire from ambushers (and where the casualty rate was 75-80%), then returns home to publicly advocate a position that--at the time--was seen as guaranteeing hed never win an election and it's all part of some grand scheme designed to win the whitehouse some 40 years later?"


This is also the guy that continually posed for photos, told people he was going to be the next John F. Kennedy, and immediately started involving himself in politics when he got back from Vietnam... again, some people would differ with your perspective, kingbee.
on Aug 24, 2004

, told people he was going to be the next John F. Kennedy


assuming he didnt get killed or lose a few limbs along the way.  one's chances of being elected dogcatcher--anywhere but in berkerley--after being involved in the antiwar movement in 1971 were slim and none.  if he was serious he surely took the difficult route.  i went to 2 different high schools  there was one " im gonna grow up to be jfk" guy in the first and three in the 2nd (much bigger school too--there shoulda been at least 10).

if hed been smart, he woulda taken video affadavits from all those swiftboat vets as insurance against their anticipated ad campaign LOL

on Aug 24, 2004
one's chances of being elected dogcatcher--anywhere but in berkerley--after being involved in the antiwar movement in 1971 were slim and none.

Didn't exactly work out that way, did it, Kingbee. Have you forgotten? Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.

Besides, you put a few extra words in my mouth here:
all part of some grand scheme designed to win the whitehouse some 40 years later?

Nothing in my comment about presidential ambitions at the time, just about working an angle.

Not sure how you can deny Kerry claiming to have personally participated. I'll try to track down the reference, but I recall seeing video of him doing exactly that; not just then but recently as a result of all the brouhaha. Your link is to the testimony before the Committee, hardly the only time Kerry made any public claims.

And thanks for the offer on the bridge. Nice touch.

Cheers,
Daiwa

on Aug 25, 2004

Didn't exactly work out that way, did it, Kingbee. Have you forgotten? Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.

everything is so much easier to forecast in hindsight. 

Nothing in my comment about presidential ambitions

you're correct; i shouldnt have expanded your hypothesis past 'public office and personal gain'.  my response is equally applicable either way. 

deny Kerry claiming to have personally participated

i didnt deny it; i merely explained what he meant.  it was nearly impossible for anyone engaging in combat to NOT violate the geneva accords.

5 Pages1 2 3 4 5