Posted on 02/22/2004 1:35:58 PM PST by KQQL
VIETNAM has been the defining issue for John Kerry. His status as a decorated war hero has helped to propel him to the front of the pack of Democrat candidates seeking to evict George W.Bush from the White House. Conservative critics believe he has been given a free ride for too long on his war record, however, and are planning a fightback.
Support for their case is expected to come from a book to be published next month by reporters from The Boston Globe in Kerry's home state of Massachusetts. The book, JF Kerry, the Complete Biography, will question the extent of his injuries in Vietnam and whether he was entitled to an early release from the war.
Vietnam, The Washington Post opined at the weekend, "is a double-edged issue" for the 60-year-old Democratic frontrunner. Kerry has not authorised the release of his war records - a strange omission, say his political foes, given the ferocity with which his supporters have demanded to see every last document of Bush's military service in the Texas Air National Guard.
"Vietnam is such a crucial part of his background and his campaign, you would think he would want people to see them," said Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, a conservative journal. "There is going to be pressure on him to release them."
Kerry, who is surrounded on the stump by the "band of brothers" who fought with him in the Mekong Delta, became a fierce public critic of the Vietnam War after he left the navy.
A faked photograph of Kerry sharing a microphone with Jane Fonda was a warning of how his opposition to the conflict would be used against him. There also has been much criticism of the way he threw away another man's medals rather than his own during a 1971 protest demonstration.
Kerry's conduct during the war, however, was until now thought to be sacrosanct. Unlike many of his generation, he volunteered for service in Vietnam. He went on to perform heroically as the skipper of a Swift boat patrolling Vietcong-infested waters, and won a Bronze Star and a Silver Star for bravery.
Kerry served only four months of a year-long tour of duty after he received three Purple Hearts for being wounded in action. The injuries were not serious; by his own account, one shrapnel wound laid him off for two days and the other two did not interrupt his duties.
Five of his friends died in action and his medals show that, at the very least, he had several brushes with death. The future senator then invoked what he insists was a "three and you're out" rule enabling a soldier with three Purple Hearts to be sent home.
He requested a transfer and was given a plum job as an admiral's aide in Brooklyn. He returned to the US a bitter opponent of the war and was released from the army early.
In response to an inquiry from The Sunday Times, Kerry's campaign staff gave the newspaper a copy of naval regulations stating that "all naval personnel" who are "wounded three times, regardless of the nature of the wound or the treatment required for each wound" may be reassigned.
A spokesman for the US Navy said, however, that such redeployment was not automatic: "It would depend a lot on the nature of the injuries."
Ted Sampley, who runs Vietnam Vets Against John Kerry, said if a soldier could be sent home for minor wounds, "there would have been a lot of people claiming scratches, getting their Purple Hearts and getting out of there".
Sampley believes that the well-connected Kerry - photographed with president John F.Kennedy as a young man - simply received favourable treatment. "How many other people were able to get out of Vietnam early and be reassigned to a cushy post?" he said.
I will continue to do all that I can to get the true Kerry message out if he becomes the candidate. He abused privelege and yet GW Bush gets accused of it.
Is this thread over yet?
And this:
On May 16, 1996, Adm. Jeremy Michael Boorda, the chief of naval operations, committed suicide. Newsweek had planned to confront Boorda that day with evidence that he had worn two valor medals that he had not earned. Hackworth had tipped Newsweek off to the story; Hackworth had been tipped off by Roger Charles, an old friend who writes for the National Security News Service. On the surface, Hackworth seemed the perfect person to expose Boorda's lie. Hackworth is, after all, "America's most decorated living soldier." Who better to judge Boorda's false claims of valor?And judge Hackworth did. Before Boorda's body was cold, Hackworth was thundering about military honor and the soldier's code. In Newsweek, he declared that "[t]here is no greater disgrace" than wearing unearned valor medals. In his newspaper column, he announced that Boorda's deception threatened the bedrock integrity of the armed forces:
And this:
Rules on "V" pins less clear in Vietnam eraBoorda might have been apprehensive because one of the Newsweek reporters working on the story was Retired Col. David Hackworth. Hackworth's exposé last year on Air Force Gen. Joseph Ashy resulted in a congressional investigation into an expensive military flight the general took with an aide and his cat.
But Ashy survived the probe, and many in the Navy believe that Boorda would have survived an investigation.
While rules governing the awarding of combat "Vs" are very clear now, they were not so clear when Boorda was a young lieutenant in Vietnam.
The rules in 1965 stated simply that "V" pins were authorized for "direct participation in combat operations." Also, Boorda's combat operations citations implied that he was qualified to wear the medals.
Retired Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, who was chief of naval operations during the Vietnam War, said he believed Boorda was "completely entitled" to wear the pins.
Zumwalt said on the CNN program "Larry King Live" that paperwork sometimes did not indicate the V, even though it was authorized. He said he routinely authorized the wearing of the combat "V" pin for Vietnam combat veterans.
"That was my intention as an operational commander, and I believe that is the judgment that should prevail," Zumwalt said. "It is a bureaucratic distinction to say, 'Well, it wasn't in the citation.'"
Boorda stopped wearing the combat "Vs" once they were questioned, but many think he could have successfully argued that wearing them was no mistake or, at worst, an innocent one.
From "The Arlington National Cemetery website" -
Updated Information: June 25, 1998Boorda's Disputed Awards Were Proper, Admiral Says Navy Secretary Amends File of Late CNO Thursday, June 25, 1998
Navy Secretary John H. Dalton placed in Boorda's file a recent letter from Elmo Zumwalt Jr., the chief of naval operations during the Vietnam War, that asserts it was "appropriate, justified and proper" for Boorda to attach the small bronze combat V's to the ribbons on his uniform.
After being advised in 1995 by the Navy's Office of Awards and Special Projects that he was not entitled to the decorations, Boorda had removed the V's from his uniform.
"Admiral Mike Boorda's citations for awards of the Navy Achievement Medal and Navy Commendation Medal plainly state they were awarded for service including 'combat operations' and 'while operating in combat missions,' " Dalton's memo said. "Further, Admiral E.R. Zumwalt, Jr. USN (Retired), who served both as commander, US Naval Forces, Vietnam, and Chief of Naval Operations, has said that Admiral Boorda was entitled to wear the combat distinguishing device. I am making this information a matter of official Navy record."
Navy Secretary John Dalton says only a Navy board can determine whether Admiral Jeremy "Mike'' Boorda, who committed suicide two years ago, had the right to wear decorations for valor from the Vietnam War.
The only official way of changing Boorda's record is for someone to request the Board of Corrections of the Naval Records to review the awards, he said. Typically, such a request is made by a family member, but he said no request has been made in Boorda's case.
Why has no one in the media ever asked him to? That's a rhetorical question, of course....
But don't you see a real inconsistency here? When it comes to John Kerry's medals and release, it was legitimate because the military allowed it, end of story. Yet the military can be second guessed by everybody on President Bush's honorable discharge? If you're going to take the line "what the military authority says, goes," then you have to apply the same rule to President Bush. Since the Kerry camp has demanded a "double check" on the military's decisions re. President Bush, why not the same for Senator Kerry? It seems to me that Senator Kerry and his minions have set the precedent for questioning military service, discharge, conduct of duty, etc. Why should his records be protected from the same scrutiny he demands of President Bush?
The point I was trying to make is that anyone can wear medals, but you really can't tell whether they are legit until you see the service record. Kerry refuses to release his military records. Why?
The point I was trying to make is that anyone can wear medals, but you really can't tell whether they are legit until you see the service record. Kerry refuses to release his military records. Why?
I understand your point and agree. I just think that the jury is out on Boorda and his honorable life and career are a poor analogy to hold up for comparison to a slimebucket like Kerry.
If the citation did not contain authorization to wear the "V" device, a person was not authorized to wear it. Boorda knew better, which is why he stopped wearing them once they were questioned.
Perhaps Zumwalt was trying to be kind but that is not what he said about citations.
"It is a bureaucratic distinction to say, 'Well, it wasn't in the citation.'"
I don't know for sure but it seems to me that there was good reason to believe that Boorda qualified for the pins by standards of the day.
"Admiral Mike Boorda's citations for awards of the Navy Achievement Medal and Navy Commendation Medal plainly state they were awarded for service including 'combat operations' and 'while operating in combat missions,' " Dalton's memo said.
All that is missing is paperwork that specifically says "you can wear the V pins." Given his record of service and the glowing testimony of Navy veterans (that I didn't post), from the lowest ranks to the highest, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt that he honestly thought he was correct in wearing the pins and the minute they came into question, rather than argue the point, he removed them. Sounds like the actions of an honorable man to me.
Troubled, no doubt. No one (in our culture) commits suicide unless deeply troubled. But severe depression often isn't rooted in the reality of a man's life so I can't automatically make the leap to say that his suicide indicates actual disgraces unknown. He lived a life of honor in a world defined by honor and he was about to be drug into the world of Clintonesque character assassination by Hackworth and Newsweek.
I only make an issue of this because it troubles me that men of honor can so easily be brought down by insinuation yet scum like Bill Clinton are defended to the bitter end. When men of honor and accomplishment are being brought down it is good to look closely and find out why. Between Boorda and Clinton I have no doubts who I would compare John Fonda Kerry to. Hackworth has some serious credibility problems too. If not in his service record then certainly in his post-service behavior.
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.