Precious Facts about Kerry's Record

Opinion Editorials.com ^ | 8/22/04 | Bob Redman

[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.

[gobucks]

The Bronze star was awared that many years after the fact??

I knew he was going to lose (The Couric/Russert soft pedal on the MTP interview of Bush last spring was the final straw - I knew the Big Media was soft pedaling on purpose then) ... but sheesh.

This fact, along with all the others, begs the question: why did the democrats pick someone, with such incredibly easy to find information about how rotten he is, to be the nominee?

Oh, I keep forgetting. Hillary, 2008. Thanks for the reminder Christie.

[jmax]

And, what's in it for the 9 veterans who served with, and support kerry? Probably the typical Democrat patronage payoff of a soft job with a gold badge ..... assigned to a do-nothing job with the U.S. Marshalls Service. The Dem's are good at getting their friends those prestineous government jobs with all the perks, but no responsibilities. This is not saying the the USMS is a do-nothing Agency, just that there is a lot of "fluff" built in just for payoffs like this.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Mommy Heinz!
Help!
Look! What the Harvard Crimson wrote about me in 1970

Published on Wednesday, February 18, 1970
John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress
By SAMUEL Z. GOLDHABER
Crimson Staff Writer

"...One time Kerry was ordered to destroy a Viet Cong village
but disobeyed orders and suggested that the Navy Command
simply send in a Psychological Warfare team to be
friend the villagers with food, hospital supplies,
and better educational facilities."


Now my shipmates on the
USS GRIDLEY CG-21
are attacking me.

Click Here Mommy
and see what
the USS GRIDLEY crew say.

They say I told lies in Tour of Duty
GRIDLEY CREW ARE LIKE
SWIFT BOAT VETS MEANIES!

Mommy : Can I please sell MY real book?
The New Soldier,
By John Kerry
and Vietnam Veterans Against the War


Mommy : Please don't be mad
about my hero Al Hubbard.

Head of Kerry's Vietnam Vets Against the War was Vietnam Vet phony
"Many of the stories were later shown to be fictional. Other so-called Vietnam veterans, such as the executive secretary of VVAW, Al Hubbard, a self-styled poet ("See what you've become, Amerika," ends one of his Vietnam odes),
turned out to have no record of service in Vietnam."


OOPS! I POOPED in my diaper again.

Mommy : Don't take my allowance away.
Mommy : Why does McCain
still campaign with Bush?
Mommy : Why doesn't Al Gore defend me?
He is a Vietnam Vet.

Mommy : OOPS I Pooped again.

Mommy : Why did Hillary
"leak" FBI Files on me?
I even used her famous slogan?

"Kerry entered and abandoned Vietnamese village and slaughtered domestic animals
owned by the civilians and burned down their homes with his Zippo lighter."



It only takes one idiot to raze a village!
(My original response!)

Mommy : Where is Ted Kennedy?

[christie]

Oh, I keep forgetting. Hillary, 2008.

Bingo

[zip]

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

Maybe 5 to 10 percent of those reading the citation realized that this was awarded more that a decade after the event. (maybe that many, but I doubt it). If only we had a fair media. sigh

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

"self-inflicted implies intentional."

Not at all.

What I meant to say was that Kerry supporters have expressed outrage over the term, "self-inflicted", rather than discussing the nuances.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

We've seen how far he can throw a baseball. How far could he throw a grenade in Dec. 1968?

Not only that, but how fast did he run after he threw the grenades?

Not faster than exploding rice!

[Maria S]

"He just needs to show everyone the scars."


Except the butt-shot scar.

[Pearls Before Swine]

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.

Valorous? Unh, unh.

[G.Mason]

"What I meant to say was that Kerry supporters have expressed outrage over the term, "self-inflicted", rather than discussing the nuances."

I went back and re-read some of the responses and I see where the point was made that "self-inflicted" was not to mean doing it to yourself on purpose, but that it was not done by hostile fire.

I tend to agree with that, and you stated "Was the shrapnel American made or Russian made?", which is basically is the same thing.

I'm afraid I ignored your above remark. Not intentional. ;)

[G.Mason]

"Valorous? Unh, unh."

LOL

It seems even Kerry's going back to pick up Rassmann was a joke. It seems he bugged out upon hearing/seeing the mine go off under PCF 3. After several hundred yards, and realizing there was no enemy fire, Kerry turned around, went back to the scene, and got to Rassmann just a few yards ahead of another PCF.

[Bob]

self-inflicted implies intentional.

To some people perhaps. It actually means exactly what it says - inflicted by one's own actions (rather than enemy action).

An injury has to have resulted from enemy action, direct or indirect, for a Purple Heart to be awarded. (I believe that there's also a provision covering accidental injury while undergoing enemy action but, once again, enemy action has to have occurred.)

[Bob]

Lurch's Bronze Star is obviously the result of a post-war lobbying campaign by ... someone who wanted him to have another medal. It is better for someone if this isn't too obvious.

Wrong. His Bronze Star was awarded shortly after the incident.

The unusual aspect of the story is that the citation was re-issued by Lehman's office years later rather than being replaced with a certified copy as would normally be done.

[Bob]

The bottom line of the rule is reassignment. In fact, as I understand the current state of the record, Kerry was not reassigned at all but instead he was discharged.

No, he was re-assigned as an admiral's aide in New York in March 1969. His status changed from "active duty" to "inactive reserve" in January 1970.

[Capricam]

Hmmm......""someone"". I wonder.....could that someone have the initials of HRC perhaps?

"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."

[VadeRetro]

Wrong. His Bronze Star was awarded shortly after the incident.

Well, I can't guess right ALL the time! ;)

[Bob]

Wrong. His Bronze Star was awarded shortly after the incident.

Well, I can't guess right ALL the time! ;)

That response of mine did sound a bit harsh, didn't it? Sorry about that, I didn't mean it to.

[phroebe]

He just needs to show everyone the scars.

Come to think of it, we seldom, if ever, see any photos of the guy wearing a short sleeved shirt! Could it be that, in contrast to his refusal to disclose his military records indicating he is hiding something, his refusal of his "right to bare arms" might indicate that he is hiding.... NOTHING, as in "no scars" to be found? Just a thought!

(click pic for link) "John Kerry: Traitor" on back

[VadeRetro]

That response of mine did sound a bit harsh, didn't it?

How DARE you be accurate when I'm wrong?

[dvwjr]

Originally posted by Viet-Boat-Rider:

"A Tour in the Nam was 12 months, one year, 365 days, one circle around the sun. Guys would count down the days until their time was up. It was a big deal. When you only had a few weeks to go until your year was up, you were "SHORT", going home soon."

That's interesting, a "Tour" in Vietnam is only 365 days. My late Father was a fighter pilot in VF-96, an F-4B Fighter squadron in Carrier Air Wing 9. CVW-9 was deployed aboard the USS Ranger (CVA-61) from August 5th, 1964 to June 1965 on combat missions over both South and North Vietnam. Then CVW-9 had a "rest period" of four months before they were redeployed back to Vietnam as the air group aboard the USS Enterprise (CVAN-65) from October 26th, 1965 to June 21st, 1966 conducting combat air operations over North and South Vietnam.

Now when I do the math, it is clear that both of his combat deployments with VF-96 were only 10 and 9 months respectively, so with the help of your unquestionable expertise and knowledge that a "tour" must be 12 full months exactly, I am now able to state without any fear of contradiction, to use your words "that he didn't serve a Tour, let alone TWO Tours" of Vietnam.

Or did he?

dvwjr