I have read in this forum and others various accounts of what happened. The Boston Globe and Brinkley have described what occurred, at least according to Kerry and the award citations. Personally, I don't care about the inconsistencies as long as the award nomination process was followed and properly vetted. Kerry was in harm's way and should not be attacked because he wasn't acting responsibly or whatever. His superiors are the ones who, I presume, nominated him for the award and approved it.
My beef with Kerry's war record is his failure to release his records, the questions surrounding his first PH and his request to curtail his assignment after a little over four months in-country. His throwing away of his medals and antiwar activities are far more fertile areas to attack politically. The RNC will not criticize Kerry's war record for obvious reasons.
Checking your link, I would assume you have some problems with Kerry's actions as a self-described devout Catholic.
So were his men. Some have suggested that policy was not to blindly land, because that was the standing order, but to use judgement and withdraw to the range limit of the weapon. Is it true that Zumwalt wondered if he should award - or court-martial - Kerry, on that basis? It IS very important! as are the rest of those inconsistencies. They're chilling, in fact. Was that guy really loaded up, or empty? Was he disabled and wounded, or 'didn't miss a step'? Those are very serious questions - very serious!
his request to curtail his assignment after a little over four months in-country.
You mentioned the Globe, and I mentioned at the time, from the Globe, that they found that the 'three-and-out' was not necessarily automatic procedure. It had been represented as such, by the rest, when this hit a few months ago.
But was it uncommon for a tour to last just a few months? in Vietnam? Maybe what was uncommon was the rapidity at which he collected these medals? Again, I'm asking.