0
   

Kerry faces questions over Purple Heart

 
 
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 10:48 am
WASHINGTON -- John F. Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam, distinguished by Silver and Bronze stars and the close-range killing of an enemy fighter, is highlighted in his campaign ads and cheered on the trail. Even the campaign of President Bush, who did not see combat, hasn't tried to make an issue of his opponent's service record.

But as the presidential campaign heats up, some Vietnam veterans are using the Internet and talk radio to question the Democratic candidate's military record. They complain that Kerry's three Purple Hearts were for minor wounds and that he left Vietnam more than six months ahead of schedule under regulations permitting thrice-wounded soldiers to depart early.

A review by the Globe of Kerry's war record in preparation for a forthcoming book, "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography," found that the young Navy officer acted heroically under fire, in one case saving the life of an Army lieutenant. But the examination also found that Kerry's commanding officer at the time questioned Kerry's first Purple Heart, which he earned for a wound received just two weeks after arriving in Vietnam.

"He had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel," recalled Kerry's commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard. "People in the office were saying, `I don't think we got any fire,' and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm." Hibbard said he couldn't be certain whether Kerry actually came under fire on Dec. 2, 1968, the date in questionand that is why he said he asked Kerry questions about the matter.

But Kerry persisted and, to his own "chagrin," Hibbard said, he dropped the matter. "I do remember some questions, some correspondence about it," Hibbard said. "I finally said, `OK, if that's what happened . . . do whatever you want.' After that, I don't know what happened. Obviously, he got it, I don't know how."

Kerry declined to talk to the Globe about the issue during the preparation of the Kerry biography. But his press secretary, Michael Meehan, noted that the Navy concluded that Kerry deserved the Purple Heart.

During the Vietnam War, Purple Hearts were often granted for minor wounds. "There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts--from shrapnel, some of those might have been M-40 grenades," said George Elliott, who served as a commanding officer to Kerry during another point in his five-month combat tour in Vietnam. (Kerry earlier served a noncombat tour.) "The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes." Under Navy regulations, an enlistee or officer wounded three times was permitted to leave Vietnam early, as Kerry did. He received all three purple hearts for relatively minor injuries -- two did not cost him a day of service and one took him out for a day or two.

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.

Back at the base, Kerry told Hibbard he qualified for a Purple Heart, according to Hibbard. Thirty-six years later, Hibbard, reached at his retirement home in Florida, said he can still recall Kerry's wound, and that it resembled a scrape from a fingernail. "I've had thorns from a rose that were worse," said Hibbard, a registered Republican who said he was undecided on the 2004 presidential race.

The Globe asked Kerry's campaign whether the Massachusetts senator is certain he was under enemy fire and whether he recalled that a superior officer raised questions about the matter. The campaign did not respond directly to those questions. Instead, Meehan said in a prepared statement that Kerry "received the shrapnel wound early in the course of that combat engagement. " Meehan also provided a copy of a medical report showing treatment for a wound on Dec. 3, 1968. The Purple Heart regulation in effect at that time said that a wound must "require treatment by a medical officer."

Nearly three months later, a document was sent to Kerry informing him that he would receive a Purple Heart "for injuries received on 2 December 1968." The Naval Historical Center, which could not locate a copy of the original card for the incident, nonetheless confirmed that Kerry did receive the Purple Heart.

Kerry went on to earn another two Purple Hearts and he led more than two dozen missions in which he often faced enemy fire. He won the Silver Star for an action in which he killed an enemy soldier who carried a loaded rocket launcher that could have destroyed Kerry's six-man patrol boat, and he won a Bronze Star for rescuing an Army lieutenant who was thrown overboard and under fire.

One reason that Kerry has long divided Vietnam veterans is because of the way he led a group called Vietnam Veterans Against the War after he returned to the United States. While in Vietnam, Kerry began to question the policy of "free-fire zones," which permitted sailors to open fire on rivers where Vietnamese were violating nighttime curfews. He said in a 1971 appearance on "Meet the Press": "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed, in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones."

Thirty-three years later, that statement still rankles some veterans, apparently including those who have formed a group called Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry, which has a website devoted to what it calls Kerry's association with the "radical pro-communist" antiwar movement.

The statements of that group have been circulated widely over the Internet and picked up on conservative radio talk shows.

But some historians said Kerry is being unfairly criticized over his antiwar effort, which is best remembered for his Senate testimony in which he asked why soldiers should be asked to die for a mistake. "Thirty-three years later, his testimony has really proved to be prescient," said historian Stanley Karnow, author of "Vietnam: A History." "The war was a mistake. Nobody knew better that the war was a mistake than the poor grunts out there fighting it."

Indeed, some of Kerry's crewmates who were aghast that Kerry had led them into battle and then came home to protest the war now say Kerry was ahead of his time in seeing the mistaken policy. Crewmate James Wasser, who originally felt "betrayed" by Kerry's antiwar leadership, said, "Knowing what I know now, I would have totally agreed with him."

Link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,292 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 03:42 pm
Oh please, you never bothered to serve in war. You would rather gladly sit on a draft board and sent our own kids to die. You support Bush inspite of him using teh national guard to dodge Vietnam. and yet, you're now attacking Kerry for in your judgement not having been injured badly enough to earn his purple hearts.

Never mind his bravery during arguably the worst war in history.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 03:45 pm
This is like attacking Mom's apple pie, etc.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 03:46 pm
The topic here is a disgrace. Every time I think this kind of scandal mongering can't be overdone, I find myself wrong. But this takes the cake. At least for today.

I'm sure something even more repugnant will be invented or dredged up for tomorrow.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 03:52 pm
I think there may well be elements of truth to the story(along with hyperbole).

But then again, I don't think it should matter in the presidential election.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 04:07 pm
Interesting. When the Boston Globe questioned Bush's military service for years on end the left sucked up every word they had to say and couldn't wait to post the diatribe in threads. Now they do some digging into Kerry's claims and it's a disgrace?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 04:09 pm
From Snopes
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 04:10 pm
You never heard me say that about Kerry, then or now. I have said a few negatives aimed toward him, but I do that with all politicians, liberal or conservative.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 04:12 pm
fishin' wrote:
Interesting. When the Boston Globe questioned Bush's military service for years on end the left sucked up every word they had to say and couldn't wait to post the diatribe in threads. Now they do some digging into Kerry's claims and it's a disgrace?


Anyone who doesn't know the difference between someone who served in Vietnam and someone who put in his time (if that) on Guard duty in the U.S. mustn't have been alive back then. I assume that's the explanation for the above...
0 Replies
 
saintsfanbrian
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 04:18 pm
Centroles wrote:
Oh please, you never bothered to serve in war. You would rather gladly sit on a draft board and sent our own kids to die. You support Bush inspite of him using teh national guard to dodge Vietnam. and yet, you're now attacking Kerry for in your judgement not having been injured badly enough to earn his purple hearts.

Never mind his bravery during arguably the worst war in history.


Centroles - I did serve and I will say that Kerry didn't deserve the medals that he threw away. As for Nam being the worst war in history, well you are partially right except it wasn't a war it was a police action and the reason it went off so badly is that our boys weren't allowed to do what needed to be done in order to win. Don't go in to Cambodia. Don't shoot at women and children (thought the VC were dressing up as women and children.) War is hell. Anyone who thinks other wise has a couple of screws loose. As for anyone spending time in the Gaurd or otherwise. Atleast they signed up.

I do think that the president should have been on active duty in the military but hey there goes my conservative thinking again.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 04:25 pm
Apparantly these online urban legends have a tough time dying -- did anyone bother to follow hobitbob's link to Snopes debunking all this crap?
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 04:26 pm
fishin' wrote:
Interesting. When the Boston Globe questioned Bush's military service for years on end the left sucked up every word they had to say and couldn't wait to post the diatribe in threads. Now they do some digging into Kerry's claims and it's a disgrace?


You honestly can't differentiate between an honest concern over whether on not Bush ever showed up for his national guard duty and idiotic accusations that the injuries that Kerry sustained weren't serious enough and his bravery wasn't high enough for him to be awarded the purple hearts, silver and many many other awards in all those occasions eventhough the military clearly felt differently?

How could you not see how different the two situations are. One is an honest question over Bush's moral scruples.

Other is an idiotic assertion that hey maybe Kerry shouldn't have gotten as many awards as he was awarded because his injuries weren't serious enough. How exactly does this undermine Kerry's morality. Are you saying Kerry should've told the military, no I didn't lose an arm or anything so I refuse to accept the awards. Name one person who did that?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 04:28 pm
The Snopes link doesn't address much of it. I've read it several times before and just re-read it now.
0 Replies
 
saintsfanbrian
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 04:29 pm
No but he shouldn't have thrown them away when he came home and now be using them to get elected president. Either they mean something to you or they don't. You can't have it both ways.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 04:30 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
Anyone who doesn't know the difference between someone who served in Vietnam and someone who put in his time (if that) on Guard duty in the U.S. mustn't have been alive back then. I assume that's the explanation for the above...


Bullshit. Anyone that isn't willing to ask questions doesn't want to hear the answers.

Just because he was in Vietnam no one should questioned what he did there? Maybe we shouldn't have asked questions of Lt. Calley either eh?

The only thing that's a disgrace here is your hypocrisy.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 04:35 pm
Saints, people are well aware of that. Dislike him if you wish for it, but many respect him for it.

This isn't the issue this article is bringing up. It's attacking Kerry for soemthing he had no control over, whether he deserved to get the awards that he got.

Fishin, I reiterate...

You honestly can't differentiate between an honest concern over whether on not Bush ever showed up for his national guard duty and idiotic accusations that the injuries that Kerry sustained weren't serious enough and his bravery wasn't high enough for him to be awarded the purple hearts, silver and many many other awards in all those occasions eventhough the military clearly felt differently?

How could you not see how different the two situations are. One is an honest question over Bush's moral scruples.

Other is an idiotic assertion that hey maybe Kerry shouldn't have gotten as many awards as he was awarded because his injuries weren't serious enough. How exactly does this undermine Kerry's morality. Are you saying Kerry should've told the military, no I didn't lose an arm or anything so I refuse to accept the awards. Name one person who did that?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 04:40 pm
Snopes has not debunked the 'myth' that Kerry's wounds were minor and he did use them as an excuse to get out early. Like Craven, I don't think it should be an issue--it certainly shouldn't be THE issue--in this election.

Bush did indeed sign up and served--fighter pilot training is not exactly low risk duty--but can I say that since I've never flown a fighter plane? I've never been a plumber either, but I have a lot of opinions about plumbing in general.

If Bush's National Guard duty disqualifies him to be President, does Bill Clinton's band uniform qualify him? Can you see how silly this whole line of argument is?
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 04:40 pm
Centroles wrote:
You honestly can't differentiate between an honest concern over whether on not Bush ever showed up for his national guard duty and idiotic accusations that the injuries that Kerry sustained weren't serious enough and his bravery wasn't high enough for him to be awarded the purple hearts, silver and many many other awards in all those occasions eventhough the military clearly felt differently?


Can you honestly not fathom that some people might have equeally honest concerns over Kerry's claims? Have you not realized that the entire story on Bush's National Guard service were unfounded and proven so? Does that make the people who thought had questions about it were idiotic?

Quote:
How could you not see how different the two situations are. One is an honest question over Bush's moral scruples.

Other is an idiotic assertion that hey maybe Kerry shouldn't have gotten as many awards as he was awarded because his injuries weren't serious enough. How exactly does this undermine Kerry's morality.


How is it that two investigations by one newspaper fall along the lines of one being a "honest question" while the other is simply disregarded as "idiotic"? Oh! That's right. One of the stories was about Bush while the other is about Kerry. Yes.. We can't question anything Mr. Kerry says of did can we?

Quote:
Are you saying Kerry should've told the military, no I didn't lose an arm or anything so I refuse to accept the awards. Name one person who did that?


Have you found me saying that in ANY of my posts ANYWHERE on this board?
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 04:46 pm
I must have missed the news report putting to rest the questions concerning Bush's missing weeks in the Alabama Guard. Funny, because I was following that story pretty closely. As I recall, no one came forward who could recall knowing Bush there. But I guess some have had their doubts satisfied through other means. ESP?

Which is a bit different from those who have come forward to publicly thank Kerry for what he did to help them in Vietnam.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 04:46 pm
Exactly -- details are lost after that many years and trying to make an issue out of it is disingenuous -- just as disingenuous as making an issue out of the lack of details in Bush's supposed AWOL.

Plumbing and the operation of a fighter plane are technically as far apart as the Earth is from the Moon. I worked in engineering instrument panels for those planes so I am quite aware of their complexity. I might joke about being astounded that Bush could even get one in the air.

There isn't any reason to disqualify a person based on these meager facts unless it is mostly based on an emotional decision. Unfortunately, that is exactly how our leaders are picked and politicians are quite adept at using it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Kerry faces questions over Purple Heart
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 6.34 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 07:25:16