From the article:
Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't under fire," he said. He speculated that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation.
Military people fill me in. Would he see the citation before hand? Who writes it?
Has anyone considered that Thurlow got his award because of the same report that Kerry filed to get his own? Actually, according to my husband who was in Vietnam, it was not uncommon for Officers to write up reports for each other and puff things up to get awards. Max Clelland's injury was apparently not combat related either. Kerry is probably not alone in getting awards that should not have been given if the truth had been known. But Kerry then used his awards to get out early and go home to slime the guys who were left behind. JMHO
Just as I thought...distortion.
Clymers
(thank you for highlighting, I was too lazy to go read the whole thing, figuring it was bs anyway)
How does Kerry's description of the level, rate and intensity of the hostile fire compare with this report? Is there a discrepancy there?