Posted on 08/22/2004 6:50:24 AM PDT by kattracks
It appears that there are two groups with diametrically opposed positions concerning the record of Kerry's military service in Vietnam. On the one hand there are 9 veterans who served with him on the two Swift boats (each with a crew of 4 men plus a Vietnamese interpreter) which he commanded over a 4 month period. The nine praise him unstintingly.On the other hand, there are more than 250 other veterans who either commanded him or served on the other boats of his squadron of 5 boats. They do not praise him, but rather assert that Kerry embellished and even fabricated parts of his record. The differences in the two groups' stories appear to be irreconcilable.
Much of the controversy concerns the gravity of the wounds for which Kerry received 3 Purple Hearts. Especially the first one has been subject to criticism, because it is reported to have required no hospitalization, indeed was treated by application of a band-aid.
This is the position taken by the one group which calls itself Swift Veterans for Truth (www.swiftvets.com). The allegation about the band-aid and other potentially damaging allegations are contained in the new book "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," by John E. O'Neill and Jerry Corsi.
The other group is called the Band of Brothers. Their accounts of Kerry’s coolness and bravery under fire are remarkably consistent.
In such a situation, I find that the best thing to do is to establish just one fact upon which both sides can agree, and proceed from that fact to build up a probable description of what actually happened.
We can thank the New York Times for providing us with such a fact.
In an op-ed in the NYT of 20 Aug., Kate Zernike and Jim Rutenberg examine the "Unfit for Command" book. They point out that a few of the 60 veterans, who now denounce Kerry and have put their views in sworn affidavits, spoke differently about Kerry a year ago. They also point out that Dr. Louis Letson, who swears he treated Kerry for his first wound for which he received a Purple Heart, did not sign the medical record, but rather some orderly did.
This may be correct, but that still leaves more than 50 other signers of affidavits and more than 150 other veterans who are cited in the book.
Nevertheless, Zernike and Rutenberg, perhaps inadvertently, have made a contribution toward helping us to begin to evaluate the accuracy of the Swifties’ charges against Kerry. I quote from the editorial:
"In the television commercial, Dr. Louis Letson looks into the camera and declares, 'I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury.' Dr. Letson does not dispute the wound - a piece of shrapnel above Mr. Kerry's left elbow - but he and others in the group argue that it was minor and self-inflicted."
There we have it. The wound was made by a piece of shrapnel which lodged above Kerry's left elbow.
This is significant because an assertion in an NYT editorial is as good as an announcement coming directly from the Kerry campaign. So far, Kerry's campaign website leaves us completely in the dark about such details.
You can confirm this for yourself by going to that website and clicking through to the file "Official naval records" (http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/militaryrecords_1.pdf). You will see that the file begins with a copy of the official notification to Kerry of 28 Feb. 1969 that he had received the award of a Purple Heart. I quote:
"On the behalf of the Chief of Naval Personnel, the commander U.S. Naval Support Activity, Saigon hereby awards you the Purple Heart for injuries received on 2 Dec. 1968."
There is no information in this notification concerning the nature or gravity of the wound, nor do the other documents contained this file provide details about this or the other two injuries. But now, thanks to the NYT, we know almost for certain at least how and where on his body Kerry suffered the first of the wounds.
There are several things Kerry could do to allay any suspicions about his record. He could show us the scar left behind on his arm above the elbow which a major wound would have left. Better still, he could release his complete military medical records.
While we wait for him to do that, we could probably agree on two more facts which result from a perusal of the last of the service record documents shown on Kerry's website. The incrovertible facts are that the date of the correspondance is missing, and that it is signed by Secretary of the Navy John Lehman.
The document refers to an incident which took place on 13 March 1969 in which Kerry allegedly brought the boat he commanded back into enemy fire in order to personally pull one of his crewman out of the water. For this deed Kerry was awarded a Bronze Star. Because the letterhead of this document is not shown, we cannot precisely ascertain the date this award was conferred upon him.
However, we can roughly determine the period. John Lehman served as Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan from 1981 to 1987. Kerry was thus awarded his Bronze Star years after the fact when he was either a public prosecutor (1976-1982), Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts (1983-1985) or a U.S. Senator (1985 until present).
Belated awards of medals for bravery in combat to politicians are always suspect, but Kerry could help us out here too by providing us with more information. The date of the document would perhaps demonstrate that he was only a relatively unknown prosecutor when he received the medal, and not a Lieutenant Governor or U.S. Senator.
Really, all of this is too easy. The omission of the letterhead seems amateurish at first glance, but only at first glance. At second glance it could seem that someone with his and/or her sights set on the election in 2008 has arranged for us to discover discrepancies in Kerry's record which will contribute to his loss, just as Gore was meant to barely lose in 2000.
The real question is – Does Kerry know what is going on? If he does, he has missed his calling. He could have changed the world, or played at it, by becoming a star in Hollow Wood.
---------------
Bob Redman operates the website "Don't Move On" at www.dontmoveon.org.
Want to join in the fun? Click the logo to donate to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth!
self-inflicted implies intentional.
Many people have auto accidents that are self-inflicted but are they intentional....no of course not.
Was the shrapnel American made or Russian made?
That is the question.
Bump!
Can we hear the bleatings of the sacrificial lamb?
Prairie
Right.
And there is mounting evidence that 2 of his 3 Purple Hearts were fraudulently claimed by Kerry.
It's important that this issue stay before the voters.
On boy, this is rich. A little red meat for the political junkies.
Use a bib.
Not necessarily. It could simply imply "clumsy dork." I'm not the only person to ever hit my thumb with a hammer, or drop something on my foot--although I've ever gotten a medal for it.
I haven't been following the swift boat story that closely because nothing in that story -- one side or the other -- could convince me to vote for Kerry. But of the little bit I have read or heard, this is the first I've learned that Kerry was awarded the bronze star at least 12 years after the fact. Although the delay, by itself, does not diminish the value of the award, it certainly raises questions when the recipient is a career politician who apparently used Viet Namn as a photo op. If that had been President Bush, you can bet that the NY Slimes would demand the release of his records.
So he doesn't need to release all his records after all. He just needs to show everyone the scars.
"Especially the first one has been subject to criticism, because it is reported to have required no hospitalization, indeed was treated by application of a band-aid."
Well, actually, by this standard, the second and third ones are also suspect since they did not require hospitalization either. Three purple hearts and no hospitalization?
"self-inflicted implies intentional."
Correction, 'self-inflicted' includes intentional but it also includes accidental. Kins of like stubbing your toe. While it is almost always 'self-inflicted', it is rarely 'intentional'.
the Kerry Krew, by concentrating on who pulled Rasmussen out of the river, who was where when, who shot whom, and who wrote what 35 years ago, the Kerry Kamp is sowing confusion and creating a damn effective smokescreen. If they show minor details in the book to be, if not wrong, at least subject to various interpretations, they discredit the whole story. Meantime, Ketchup Boy skartes by on some really damning and completely incontrovertible actions.
re: self-inflicted implies intentional
I agree! There are lots of words and phrases that sound like one thing but have a definite meaning in medicine, law, etc. Like the term 'dull normal' or the word insult when talking about a heart attack. Self-inflicted means one thing to the casual observer but something entirely different to a military person.
Does this mean that Kerry will bare his bottom to show us his rice wound?
Anyone heard from Hillary lately?
"I am not so sure that we're getting anywhere beating this controversy back and forth. I keep looking for the tactic that would be behind Kerry's keeping his record in the forefront. I'm just skeptical enough to think that rather than being in full retreat and near implosion the Kerry campaign people are using this, which they know full well can't really be solved to everyone's satisfaction, to keep attention from something that would stick. I wonder if that something isn't his anit-war activities."
Then rest easy, the new ads that will begin showing on Monday go to the heart of his anti-war activities.
The reason Kerry emphasized his war record was to 'innoculate' himself against charges that his anti-war activities were un-patriotic. IOW, he was trying to have it both ways. To his leftist base, he could appear anti-war without paying the price for this record.
If he does, I'm sure the likes of Barney Frank and Jim McGreevy will be in the front row of observers.
Not at all.
Supposedly Lt. (JG) Kerry fired a grenade too close to shore whereby a small piece ["The metal fragment measured about one centimeter in length, and was about two or three milimeters in diameter"] of the grenade (possibly) struck him in the arm.
Stupidity? Maybe. On purpose? Doubtful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
