|
Swift Change of Heart (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| devonian rabbit |
Bob Dole, who recently denigrated Kerry's purple hearts, wrote this about his own first purple heart:
"As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg—the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart." |
|
|
| occrider |
Sigh ... people need to learn how to read articles themselves rather than propogate erroneous claims from word of mouth. Both of you are getting your incidents mixed up. The Washington Post article referencing Kerry's self inflicted injury sustained from blowing up rice barrels with grenades occured on March 13, 1969.
| quote: |
In his book, Brinkley writes that a skipper who remains friendly to Kerry, Skip Barker, took part in the March 13 raid. But there is no documentary evidence of Barker's participation. Barker could not be reached for comment.
Brinkley, who is director of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies at the University of New Orleans, did not reply to messages left with his office, publisher and cell phone. The Kerry campaign has refused to make available Kerry's journals and other writings to The Post, saying the senator remains bound by an exclusivity agreement with Brinkley. A Kerry spokesman, Michael Meehan, said he did not know when Kerry wrote down his reminiscences.
As they were heading back to the boat, Kerry and Rassmann decided to blow up a five-ton rice bin to deny food to the Vietcong. In an interview last week, Rassmann recalled that they climbed on top of the huge pile and dug a hole in the rice. On the count of three, they tossed their grenades into the hole and ran.
Evidently, Kerry did not run fast enough. "He got some frags and pieces of rice in his rear end," Rassmann said with a laugh. "It was more embarrassing than painful." At the time, the incident did not seem significant, and Kerry did not mention it to anyone when he got back on the boat. An unsigned "personnel casualty report," however, erroneously implies that Kerry suffered "shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks" later in the day, following the mine explosion incident, when he also received "contusions to his right forearm."
Anti-Kerry veterans have accused Kerry of conflating the two injuries to strengthen his case for a Bronze Star and Purple Heart. Kerry's Bronze Star citation, however, refers only to his arm injury.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Aug21.html
|
The events leading to his injuries of his first purple heart on December 2 were a completely different set of circumstances:
| quote: |
The incident that led to Kerry's first Purple Heart was risky, and covert. He and his crew left the safe confines of the huge US base at Cam Ranh Bay, climbing aboard a "skimmer" boat -- a craft similar to a Boston Whaler -- to travel upriver in search of Viet Cong guerrillas. At a beach that was known as a crossing area for enemy contraband traffic, Kerry's crew spotted some people running from a sampan, a flat-bottomed boat, to a nearby shoreline, according to two men serving alongside Kerry that night, William Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon. When the Vietnamese refused to obey a call to stop, Kerry authorized firing to begin.
"I assume they fired back," Zaladonis recalled in an interview. But neither he nor Runyon saw the source of the shrapnel that lodged in Kerry's arm. '`We came across the bay onto the beach and I got [hit] in the arm, got shrapnel in the arm," Kerry told the Globe in a 2003 interview. Kerry has also said he didn't know where the shrapnel came from.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...r_purple_heart/
|
By the way, the medical records for those incidents have been released. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
I think something's being left out here but it is possible that my own facts are in error. If anyone could confirm the validity (or lack thereof), it was my understanding that...
- He was injured by a tiny piece of shrapnel from his own grenade, with no enemy fire (seems like everybody agrees on this one)
- The doctor removed it with a pair of tweezers and stuck a band-aid on it (again, seems like we all agree here)
- The same doctor refused to sign off on it as an injury which warranted a purple heart (this part I'm not sure about)
- According to the veterans, his commanding officer at the time also refused to sign off on it (this may also be false)
- Finally, he went to another commanding officer who had no knowledge of the incident, and who gave him the "benefit of the doubt", which is how he got the heart.
I'm not asserting this entire story to be true - I've heard it a few times but never seen any hard evidence for or against it.
However, if it is true, then it would appear that Kerry was really scrounging for that heart. One would have to surmise that he was either a cry baby or staged the whole thing on purpose.
I'm not as familiar with this topic as some people - any thoughts here? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| i just implied irony that he got bit when he decided to blow up five tons of rice and then writes up his own (third) purple heart like an afterthought. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I'm not asserting this entire story to be true - I've heard it a few times but never seen any hard evidence for or against it.
However, if it is true, then it would appear that Kerry was really scrounging for that heart. One would have to surmise that he was either a cry baby or staged the whole thing on purpose.
I'm not as familiar with this topic as some people - any thoughts here?[/COLOR][/FONT] |
there's room here to assert just about whatever you like within reason.
to this day in the military it is not uncommon to write up your own "bragsheet" with respect to awards, evals, fitreps ect. as an enlisted person. once submitted to the chain of command, it becomes the chain's responsibility to take out or insert pieces and parts of that bragsheet how they (your superiors) see fit. all of your own endorsements might make it, a small portion might make it with others added.
now with Kerry, a lieutenant, skipper of his own boat, he reserves the right to right-up any award he sees fit as an officer for him and his crew. and his endorsments may or may not be scutinised as carefully but his CO is obligated to follow the same procedures. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Sigh ... people need to learn how to read articles themselves rather than propogate erroneous claims from word of mouth. Both of you are getting your incidents mixed up. The Washington Post article referencing Kerry's self inflicted injury sustained from blowing up rice barrels with grenades occured on March 13, 1969.
By the way, the medical records for those incidents have been released. |
I'm sorry if it seems I've mixed these two up. To me it really does not matter which one is in question, only if it is deserved. Right now there is enough "word of mouth" from both sides to make a case either way, so I'm going to reserve judgement until I can make a more informed decision. That said, do you know where I might find the medical records for his injuries that led to medals? I'd be interested in reading them. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| An interesting thread, which hopefully doesn't mirror the real election debate in the US: Why is it so important how Kerry got his medal? Are there people voting on the basis of issues such as this? |
|
|
| Renegade |
A right-wing journalist down here in Melbourne recently wrote an article about John Kerry that was so riddled with innaccuracies that I was motivated to write him a long, long essay on exaclty where he went wrong (which he never responded to :() as well as a letter to the editor (which was eventually published).
The original article can be found here:
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/co...5E25717,00.html
As you can see he criticised the manner in which Kerry was awarded his medals towards the end of my article, so I set him straight:
(This is just a snippet from the "essay" I wrote to him.)
| quote: | It would be fairly difficult for Kerry to have won even one Purple Heart (let alone three) without having been directly injured by enemy combatants. If you feel that these criteria are too general, or that individuals shouldn't be awarded medals against these criteria, then it's the award you have a problem with, not John Kerry.
With regards to his first Purple Heart you stated:
"A former army doctor claims he treated Kerry for his first Purple Heart wound, which he describes as a self-inflicted scratch that he covered with a Band-aid."
Even though you failed to source this quote, a quick search reveals that it is attributed to either Grant Hibbard (a registered Republican) or Dr. Louis Letson, who actually did serve with Kerry in Vietnam. If he was the one that administered treatment to Kerry, though, then his recent statement is at odds with the medical report filed on December 3rd 1968 and revealed to Boston Globe reporters earlier this year:
"3 DEC 1968 U.S. NAVAL SUPPORT FACILITY CAM RANH BAY RVN FPO Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl. Bacitracin. Ret. to duty."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2...ple/index1.html
The facts are as follows:
Kerry's crew came under heavy fire on the night of December 2nd and Kerry ended up with a large piece of shrapnel in his arm that subsequently had to be removed. While he was fit to return to duty the next day, according to his biographer he did so impeded by a bandage and sling. Hardly what I'd call a "self-inflicted scratch" capable of being "covered with a band-aid" and certainly - under the criteria posted above - deserving of a purple heart.
With regards to the third Purple Heart he was awarded (does this mean you count the second one - another deep shrapnel wound sustained under enemy fire - as being legitimate?), you state:
"Crew who were there say the third Purple Heart -- which got him out of Vietnam -- was for a small bruise and a wound to Kerry's backside, hit when he dropped a grenade into a rice depot left behind by guerillas."
Kerry's third Purple Heart was actually awarded for an injury sustained on March 13th 1969, in Bay Hap river. Confirmation of this date can be found on Kerry's official Purple Heart citation found here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmils..._3_Citation.pdf
The Purple Heart in this case was awarded for a serious arm injury sustained in a mine explosion. Immediately after sustaining this injury, John Kerry lept from his boat and rescued a fellow soldier that had fallen overboard, earning him a bronze star in the process.
The incidents of that day are detailed in Kerry's Bronze Star citation, awarded by Admiral Zumwalt:
"Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as an Officer-in-Charge of Inshore Patrol Craft 94, one of five boats conducting a Sealords operation in the Bay Hap River. While exiting the river, a mine detonated under another Inshore Patrol Craft and almost simultaneously, another mine detonated wounding Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in the right arm. In addition, all units began receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry discovered he had a man overboard, he returned upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both banks. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain and with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return to and assist the other damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."
The original citation can be found here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmils...Bronze_Star.pdf
Is there any part of that testimony that you believe is unworthy of a Purple Heart medal? Hardly a "bruise in the backside" is it? |
And on the Swift Boat veterans:
| quote: | [T]he Swift Boat Veterans you cite do not count as legitimate character-witnesses. Only one of the men - Steven Gardner - actually served under Kerry. There is scant evidence to suggest that any of the other men actually spent significant periods of time - if any time at all - with Kerry. Firstly, their accounts of Kerry's character differ wildly from those who did serve under him and knew him well (which should tell you something - the opinions of these people are predominantly positive) secondly some of the men have only changed their opinions in recent times, since John Kerry's ascension to the Democratic nominee for president. Roy Hoffman, for instance - the chairman of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth body cited in your article - had this said about him recently in the Los Angeles Times:
"Other Swift boat officers — Republican sympathizers and veterans bitter over Kerry's post-Vietnam peace activism — pose a darker alternate history. Members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an anti-Kerry political committee, they are led by retired Rear Adm. Roy F. Hoffmann, a blunt-edged Navy career man who oversaw the hit-and-run river raids Kerry viewed as a costly waste of American lives.
[…]
Yet Hoffmann and Kerry had few direct dealings in Vietnam. A Los Angeles Times examination of Navy archives found that Hoffmann praised Kerry's performance in cabled messages after several river skirmishes. And while the Purple Heart account remains murky, its award was routine. Navy records show Swift boat crews were frequently raked with slight wounds of uncertain origin — injuries that often earned decorations."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...enter-elect2004
As stated in the article, most members of the SBVfT are either registered Republicans, bitter veterans or both - in any case not an impartial source, as evidenced by the fact that some (including Hoffman here) changed their tune on Kerry only after he won the Democratic nomination. |
I don't think there's any doubt that Kerry qualified for the criteria under which Purple Hearts were awarded. As occrider said, if you wish to question the logic by which Purple Hearts are awarded, then that's something you'd need to take up with the US military. With at least to of the Purple Hearts (I'm not clued in enough on the second one to comment) there appears to be strong evidence that they were awarded for fairly serious injuries (the third one was awarded for especially serious injuries) inflicted under heavy injury fire. Besides, even if you were somehow to successfully argue that he was deserving of none of his Purple Hearts, you still cannot discount the bravery with which his Bronze and Silver stars were awarded. The full military cititions (both of which contain detailed information on how they were won) can be found on his website.
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Why is it so important how Kerry got his medal? Are there people voting on the basis of issues such as this? |
I certainly hope not (most voters will have already made up their minds and it would take more than the Vietnam issue, I would think, to win over the swing voters), but it wouldn't suprise me altogether if - especially on a more "subconscious" level - it did affect people's judgement. But what I don't understand is:
1) Even if Kerry's war record can be discredited, why do these Republican-sympathisers automatically assume that people will vote for Bush instead?
2) Given Bush's rather "patchy" service record in Vietnam ( :stongue: ) why are Republicans trying to make an issue out of this? Surely if Vietnam does become a major election issue (here's hoping that it doesn't) surely that's going to end up working against Bush rather than for him?
I mean this just comes across as petty, lowest common-denominator politics to an impartial observer and both sides are stupid to get mired in it. I'm not saying that the political campaigns in Australia are any better at the moment (because they certainly aren't) but this whole issue is just incredibly boring and should not be a central election issue. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
An interesting thread, which hopefully doesn't mirror the real election debate in the US: Why is it so important how Kerry got his medal? Are there people voting on the basis of issues such as this? |
Well, it tells a lot about the person, don't you think?
Debating the 'issues' is as pointless if not more so, as we've learned that these politicans promise what they can not and simply do not deliver.
The issues are real pointless. Kerry complains about Bush's policy currently in Iraq.. as if when he takes office something will magically and dramatically change :rolleyes: |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
An interesting thread, which hopefully doesn't mirror the real election debate in the US: Why is it so important how Kerry got his medal? Are there people voting on the basis of issues such as this? |
Kerry's past does hold significance, because we have no way of knowing how he will act as president except by examining his past actions. Bush has four years of being in the White House for us to judge him by. Kerry has his senate experience and his time in and after Vietnam for us to predict how he may or may not act as president.
Kerry already enjoys the ability to spew forth a proposed action plan that has absolutely no base economically, which to me is one strike against him. As I have said before, he promises the expansion of many government programs, along with the establishment of new ones, while claiming he will reduce the deficit. I am at a loss as to how he proposes to do this with real-world economics. His senate record is a quasi strike two to me because although I do not fault him for all of his voting inconsistencies, the politique surrounding these changes of heart leave me with a bad taste in my mouth (see his Iraq voting record changes over the past 4 years and the political BS he cloaks it in). If it were to come out that he was undeserving of medals in Vietnam, especially due to gross embellishment or neglect, that would be a strike three in my books. He has used his service in Vietnam as a pillar in his election campaign and to learn that his tour of duty was used either consciously or subconsciously as a political vehicle would devalue Kerry's integrity further.
As I have said before, I see little difference between Kerry and Bush politically. The democrats and republicans prove more and more that they are branches of the same party. Therefore, when looking at the two men, I must weigh Bush's past four years and character against Kerry's character and pick the next president. I find it hard to pick Kerry when I do this. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by devonian rabbit
Bob Dole, who recently denigrated Kerry's purple hearts, wrote this about his own first purple heart:
"As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg—the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart." |
Dole better shut his pie hole in regards to this whole fiasco. His war record in it's own right is a little controversal as well:
http://www.tedellis.net/dole-article.htm
But what I really found interesting about Dole was his final quote here at the end of this Washington Post story. It demonstrated his TRUE rationale for stating those things about Kerry:
| quote: | Dole yesterday went back on CNN, where he had made his critical remarks the previous day, to say that he had received a call from Kerry. "I said, 'John, I didn't mean to offend you,' " Dole said. "But I said, 'You know, when you continue to attack George Bush . . . you know, George Bush is my guy.' . . . The final words were 'John, I wish you good luck up to a point.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Aug23.html |
Hmmm, methinks the old grumpy-ass Dole misses playin' politics a little bit here.
Here a couple more interesting stories:
1. The weekly Navy Task Force report, created by none other than Roy Hoffmann (the founder of Smear Boaters) supports Kerry's version of events on his Bronze Star:
http://ap.savannahnow.com/pstories/...5/2394884.shtml
2. Pretty good account of events in Cambodia with Kerry:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2105529/
3. O'Neill himself caught lying about his own trips into Cambodia (yeah, I know it's a real shocker how much this guy's lied so far):
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408250004
3. Bush's campaign's top outside lawyer advised Smear Boaters:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/25/p...=print&position
And has abruptly resigned as a result of his relations:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...boat/index.html
Gee, maybe Kerry's filing to the FEC wasn't so farfetched after all? First we have one volunteer advisor to Bush's campaign being let go on Monday because of his involvement with the Smear Boaters, now we have a paid lawyer today.
4. The eriposte blog has done an incredible job with each and every Smear Boat claim. You can read in exhaustive detail here:
http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/ |
|
|
|
|
