Posted on 08/08/2004 9:29:29 AM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
Col. Hackworth, Over the years, I have enjoyed very much your rather acerbic columns dedicated to rooting out corruption in the armed services.
I was in the USN more years ago than I like to remember. On my first (and only) real sea duty, I was assigned to the U.S.S. Proteus (AS-19). I had the privilege of serving under two Captains there and the difference between the two was like night and day. One was a real leader and the other was a 'perfumed prince'.
I cheered you on when you went after Admiral Boorda for wearing some awards he wasn't supposedly entitled to wear. When the admiral committed suicide, I thought that it was a shame, but that by killing himself, he was basically admitting that he didn't deserve those awards.
Now, I'm not so sure and I'll tell you why.
Recently, an organization styling itself "Vietnam Veterans for Truth" has come out and questioned the legitimacy of some of the awards that Mr. Kerry received in Vietnam.
In a June editorial in USA Today, you give it as your opinion that Mr. Kerry does indeed deserve his Purple Hearts. You state that it doesn't matter how bad the wound is, a wound is still a wound.
Sounds good, except that you never address the charges made by these vets that the wound was self-inflicted. You insinuate that Mr. Kerry was in combat and that there was incoming enemy fire, in spite of the swifty's assertions to the contrary. You also don't address the issue that his commanding officer refused to sign off on the Purple Heart.
Mr. Kerry didn't get this Purple Heart until three months later and without the proper paperwork filled out and without the knowledge or approval of those he served under during the time the Purple Heart incident occured.
You also state that none of those who are complaining actually served under Mr. Kerry in his boat. This is may true, but it is also true that the swiftys didn't generally operate alone, so there were other boats out there at the time Mr. Kerry came under fire. But you discount their testimony as to whether there was enemy fire or not without further investigation. How big of you.
You complain about the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, but totally ignore the assertions that Mr. Kerry shot a teenager who was running away from him in the back. And there are so many permutations to that story from Kerry supporters, that I don't know what to believe.
I won't even get to the many outrageous lies which have told by Mr. Kerry (such as the Vietnam Vets being murders and his spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia) over the years. But it seems to me, Hack, that it is your credibility on the line here.
You have pretty much implied that the Vietnam Vets for the Truth are liars. And you have done this without serious investigation into the charges.
Several years ago, I was lied to by a boss. It wasn't a mistake. It was an out and out lie. I knew it, my coworkers knew it, the boss knew it and the customers knew it. After a few days of agonizing soul-searching, I realized that, from then on, anything that my boss said had to be filtered. IOW, I had to assume he was lying until proven otherwise.
I have, as I stated previously, enjoyed your columns over the years very much. However, the truth is extremely important to me. I hate being lied to. Now I have to ask myself the question: "Just how accurate is Hack?" If you are avoiding the truth in this USA Today article, just how accurate are your past articles?
Credibility and honor are important attributes for anybody, not just military types. Now Mr. Hackworth, do you have credibility? Do you have honor? I honestly don't know.
Your editorial was written in June and much has happened since then. Perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify your position regarding the swifty's and Mr. Kerry.
Personally, I think that executing his form 180 would go a long ways toward clearing up this mess one way or another.
But, Mr Hackworth, are you going AWOL on this one, or are you going to ask the Kerry campaign to respond to these Vietnam Vets' specific charges without ad-hominem attacks?
Mr. Hackworth, your honor is on the line. Are you going to be credible, or crudible?
I will be interested to hear if you get a reply.
It's not. At least one did serve, at least briefly, but then Kerry himself only served briefly, not more than 2 1/2 months with crewmen on either of the two boats he commanded.
Hack is only concerned with malfeasance among those he considers "perfumned princes", and not among "real warriors". The distinction seems to be wether he agrees withe their politics or not. He also favors folks who wore green, especially Marine green (despite having worn Army green himself), over those who wore blue, either Navy or Air Force.
Hack is on a crusade to justify his quitting in the middle of the Viet Nam War.
Anybody remember how he was going around in '90 / '91 saying how Sadaam's elite Republican Guards were going to slaughter our green forces? He was an NPR fixture back then.
Please send letter(s) via US Mail:
Step 1) copy 'n paste your email into a WORD doc
Step 2) add appropriate snail mail letter formatting
Step 3) cc via snail mail Hack's publisher(s)
Step 4) cc via snail mail the press service that distributes Hack's columns
Step 5) cc via snail mail the webmaster(s) of Hack's website(s)
Step 6) place letters in envelopes, writing by hand the snail mail addresses
Step 7) apply 9/11 fire fighter "beer belly" (grin - his mother/wife probably still annoys hims about this - grin) flag raising stamp to each envelope
Step 8) send letters via US Mail
Followup two-weeks later asking for a status update ... again cc all the other parties.
Frumious Bandersnatch gets a reply from Hackworth
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.