Posted on 02/20/2004 1:08:02 AM PST by Main Street
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. It calls into serious question John Kerry's military actions in Vietnam. We present it to give our readers another perspective to the media's one-sided "war hero" adulation, and to open his actions to the light of public discourse. -- The Editors.
"I was in the Delta shortly after John Kerry left. I know that area well. I know the operations he was involved in well. I know the tactics and the doctrine used, and I know the equipment. Although I was attached to CTF-116 (PBRs) I spent a fair amount of time with CTF-115 (swift boats), Kerry's command.
Here are my problems and suspicions:
(1) Kerry was in-country less than four months and collected a Bronze Star, a Silver Star, and three Purple Hearts. I never heard of anybody with any outfit I worked with (including SEAL One, the Sea Wolves, Riverines and the River Patrol Force) collecting that much hardware that fast, and for such pedestrian actions. The Swifts did a commendable job, but that duty wasn't the worst you could draw. They operated only along the coast and in the major rivers (Bassac and Mekong). The rough stuff in the hot areas was mainly handled by the smaller, faster PBRs.
(2) He collected three Purple Hearts but has no limp. All his injuries were so minor that he lost no time from duty. Amazing luck. Or he was putting himself in for medals every time he bumped his head on the wheel house hatch? Combat on the boats were almost always at close range. You didn't have minor wounds, at least not often. Not three times in a row. Then he used the three Purple Hearts to request a trip home eight months before the end of his tour. Fishy.
(3) The details of the event for which he was given the Silver Star make no sense at all. Supposedly, a B-40 was fired at the boat and missed. Charlie jumps up with the launcher in his hand, the bow gunner knocks him down with the twin .50, Kerry beaches the boat, jumps off, shoots Charlie, and retreives the launcher. If true, he did everything wrong.
(a) Standard procedure when you took rocket fire was to put your stern to the action and go balls to the wall. A B-40 has the ballistic integrity of a frisbie after about 25 yards, so you put 50 yards or so between you and the beach and begin raking it with your .50's.
(b) Did you ever see anybody get knocked down with a .50 caliber round and get up? The guy was dead or dying. The rocket launcher was empty. There was no reason to go after him (except if you knew he was no danger to you just flopping around in the dust during his last few seconds on earth, and you wanted some derring-do in your after-action report). And we didn't shoot wounded people. We had rules against that, too.
(c) Kerry got off the boat. This was a major breach of standing procedures. Nobody on a boat crew ever got off a boat in a hot area. EVER! The reason was simple: If you had somebody on the beach, your boat was defenseless. It coudn't run and it couldn' t return fire. It was stupid and it put his crew in danger. He should have been relieved and reprimanded. I never heard of any boat crewman ever leaving a boat during or after a firefight.
Something is fishy.
Here we have a JFK wannabe (the guy Halsey wanted to court martial for carelessly losing his boat and getting a couple people killed by running across the bow of a Japanese destroyer) who is hardly in Vietnam long enough to get good tan, collects medals faster than Audie Murphy in a job where lots of medals weren't common, gets sent home eight months early and requests separation from active duty a few months after that so he can run for Congress. In that election, he finds out war heroes don't sell well in Massachsetts in 1970, so he reinvents himself as Jane Fonda, throws his ribbons in the dirt with the cameras running to jump start his political career, gets Stillborn Pell to invite him to address Congress and has Bobby Kennedy's speechwriter to do the heavy lifting. A few years later he winds up in the Senate himself, where he votes against every major defense bill and says the CIA is irrelevant after the Berlin Wall came down. He votes against the Gulf War (a big political mistake since that turned out well), then decides not to make the same mistake twice so votes for invading Iraq -- but that didn't fare as well with the Democrats, so he now says he really didn't mean for Bush to go to war when he voted to allow him to go to war.
I'm real glad you or I never had this guy covering our flanks in Vietnam. I sure don't want him as Commander-in-Chief. I hope that somebody from CTF-115 shows up with some facts challenging Kerry's Vietnam record. I know in my gut it's wildy inflated."
So, the guy has 3 PHs, 1 BS w/V, 1 SS. He was in country 4 months. Folks are suggesting this is fishy. My take is that Combat Kerry is "fishy", but trying to dissect his awards and decorations from VN is counter productive, here's why:
The 3 PHs, as Combat Kerry readily admits were each minor "wounds". They may very well have been scratches that did not even require stitches. It does not matter, PHs were handed out like aspirin in some units. 3 minor "wounds" in 4 months is no big deal. Any time someone in my platoon was treated by our medic (who was assigned to the platoon and went on missions w/us) they were eligible for a PH. They did not have to take it, they could ask doc not to submit the paperwork. But, if they wanted, they could get one. Scraping your arm diving for cover and you qualified, same as if you took a punji stake in the leg. Combat Kerry seems to have never passed an opportunity to collect a PH. A PH is only indicative of a combat wound, it does not, by itself, represent an award for valor or heroism. As someone said here on a different thread "if it bleeds, it is a PH".
The BSM w/V, This was awarded to Combat Kerry in the well publicized event where he pulled the SF guy out of the drink under enemy fire. Nothing "fishy" about this event or this award.
The SS,This award was made to Combat Kerry for the event where he beached his boat and went ashore and administered a "coup de grace" to an enemy combatant. There are some questions being raised about whether Combat Kerry acted properly and the condition of and threat posed by the combatant. There are also questions being asked about what Admiral Zumwalt may have said about Combat Kerry's behavior based on a third party's claimed quote by Admiral Zumwalt many years ago. But, the major questions associated with this event have been addressed and answered compellingly by the witnesses and individuals involved. In 1996 as part of Combat Kerry's response to a newspaper article that raised these very same questions, Combat gathered all the players and they all vouched for Combat Kerry and they all supported the specific details of the event and the award. Admiral Zumwalt was there (he is the officer who approved the SS) and he is quoted as having said he wanted to put Combat Kerry in for an even higher award, but it would have taken too long to get approved. The gunner Mr. Belodeau was there and supported Combat Kerry and even went so far as to say that previous articles had misquoted him regarding the condition of the enemy combatant. Nothing "fishy" about this award unless it can be proven that Combat, his drew, his commanding officer and Admiral Zumwalt were all in on it.
So, forget the PHs for the moment. What we really have is two separate events that have been well publicized and the witnesses and participants ALL are on the record supporting the details as reported. Two events in 4 months. I was a grunt in VN, so I don't know from Navy Swift boats, but 4 months is a long time and 2 events in 4 months is not a lot.
Regarding Combat Kerry's SS, it may be that lesser individuals (not politically connected) would have been reprimanded for beaching their boat. Combat Kerry may have been a "hot potatoe" to the Navy, because of his known connections. But it doesn't matter, the decision was made by the Navy commanders to award him the SS. Since all questions regarding this issue have been addressed and answered by the very people who witnessed the event and approved the award, there is nothing left to question on this award. Remember, these folks chose to come to Combat Kerry's side and stand shoulder to shoulder almost 30 years after this happened.
I don't think it is realistic to expect any vet organization to attack Combat Kerry on his awards. To do so would require an attack on each and every vet who participated in or witnessed these events. That ain't gonna happen, nor should it.
As frustrating as it may be, I think we should leave this alone.
If there is a point to be made with the Purple Hearts, it's the fact that he used these "minor wounds" to flee from his obligated sworn duty and leave his "band of brothers" behind to seek a safer and cushier job in Washington. Not very becoming of a "War Hero" running for election as President of the United States on just such a label. It's one thing to say you served, "...it was hell, my buddies were dying all around me and everyone would have jumped at any chance to go home"... THAT I can understand, but to be labeled a War HERO? Nah, words mean something.
That appears to be the case, but those are not official records.
If so, how much more danger did Kerry face in his 4-month deplyment than the President faced in his time in the air?
Even if one could come up with an acceptable way to measure "danger" it doesn't matter. Trying in any way to "compare" W's service to JFK's service is what the libs want you to do. There is no argument. They both served honorably. Period. JFK went to VN, W was in the TXANG.
I fear the President's honorable service has been tarnished by the incessant bleating of the media. With nothing more than an unfounded allegation from the head of the DNC, they turned it into the lead story for weeks on end. The only evidence produced supported the President's position.
Even if they don't issue their paychecks, it's pretty obvious they were doing the DNC's bidding here as if they were on the DNC payroll.
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.