« Good News for Iraqi Economy | Main | Around the Block »
April 15, 2004
Kerry Faces Purple Heart Questions
Long-simmering questions about John Kerry's Purple Heart decorations are coming under the public spotlight. A Boston Globe article details the controversy:
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."
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."
Although the Bush campaign has not questioned the Senator's service, some Vietnam veterans and groups like Vietnam Vets against John Kerry are asking why he was awarded a Purple Heart for what appears to be an extremely minor wound. The distinction is important because Kerry served only 4 months in combat, using his 3 Purple Hearts to obtain an early release from combat and a posting to an aide's job in Washington D.C., where he began protesting against the Vietnam War (an action which outraged many Vietnam vets).
- Cassandra
April 15, 2004 at 09:42 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452b19169e200d8345bdd7e69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Kerry Faces Purple Heart Questions:
Comments
Kerry [first] got a [first] purple heart [first]? I had no [first] idea. He should [first] make that a part [first] of his campaign [first].
Posted by: Pile On® at Apr 15, 2004 8:59:52 PM
Somebody has been reading my posts on other threads. Give me a *second,* and I might tell you who.
Posted by: KJ at Apr 15, 2004 10:19:36 PM
Can anyone tell me exactly how Mr. Kerry managed to receive four Purple Hearts? What was the nature of his wounds? And under what conditions did he receive said wounds?
Posted by: H. Wilson at Apr 20, 2004 9:07:21 AM
He only got 3 (that I'm aware of) in the 4 months he was in 'Nam. Since Kerry won't release his military records, no one knows the exact nature of his wounds except for what others have recalled looking back.
He gave an interview with the Boston Globe a while back - that's where most of the info comes from that you see floating around.
It is on the record that none of the wounds were serious - the worst of them had him on 2 days light duty.
If he decides to release his medical records, there may be more info - right now it's just he said, she said combined with Kerry's own statements.
Posted by: Cassandra at Apr 20, 2004 12:42:49 PM
As an Ex-Marine that seved in Vietnam twice; John Kerry makes me sick!
The real heros of that war are the names on the wall.
John Kerry is the Jessica Lynch of the Vietnam War!
Posted by: Chuck Henry at Jul 30, 2004 11:37:34 PM
Chuck, I just wish the media would cover more of his background. If they devoted half the resources to his background that they do to Bush's, he wouldn't stand a chance of being elected.
I don't think anyone in politics is squeaky-clean, but it really frosts me when there is so much information available on Kerry and the media just gives him a pass day after day.
Posted by: Cassandra at Jul 31, 2004 6:59:17 AM
As a WWII vet, POW and receiver of the purple heart I feel that I have the right to say a thing or two abut John Kerry and the current issues surrounding the question of his service.
Given our current choice between Kerry and Bush I see no contest, Kerry is the only legitimate one of the two. Though his service record may be in question at least he HAS a service record which is a lot more then Bush can say. Bush is the product of privilege that was built on the backs of people like me. He is a person that feels that, due to his birth, is above me. His grandfather sold goods to the Nazi's to make the fortune that kept him (W) out of harms way.
Kerry on the other hand, who also came from privilege, volunteered to serve with men like me. This is enough to tip the balance, but I could include the benefits that I depend on, for serving this country, that Bush attempted to take from me. He is a hateful pitiful excuse for a man and you must be a fool not to see it [Chuck].
Posted by: Mario at Aug 12, 2004 1:47:35 PM
Mario:
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and I thank you for your service.
Kerry, however, did not volunteer to serve - he sought a draft deferment in Paris and only when that was denied did he go Navy. My father, father-in-law, and husband are career military and would make a different choice from yours.
I think if you checked into the vets benefits issue a bit more, you might be surprised at what you find. However, we all have to decide what is important to us. I don't believe Kerry is fit to be CinC based on what I have learned about him. It is a character issue, and I disagree vehemently with his positions on the use of force and putting our troops under UN control.
You also might want to check into Bush's service record - he did volunteer to go to Vietnam via the Palace Alert program and his unit did send people to 'Nam. That is a fact that does not get reported in the media, but it's out there if you take the time to check into it (as I did).
Posted by: Cassandra at Aug 12, 2004 2:00:45 PM
Besides, many politicians made "decisions" about Nam. I don't blame people who took legal "ways out." I don't know how I would have felt about Nam had I been an adult at the time, but I know that I would have been troubled by the political limitations that seemed to hamper military effectiveness. What I am saying is, I'm not going to bust on people who didn't volunteer, or on those that used legal loopholes to lessen the risk or avoid service altogether (like Bush). The only Presidential candidate that seems to have taken an illegal cowardly way out was Clinton, but most of Kerry's admirers, who bash Bush's record, also said it was unfair to criticize Clinton and supported him over two real WWII war heros, Bush I and Dole.
Sorry Mario.
Posted by: KJ at Aug 12, 2004 2:09:44 PM
Cassandra,
Well I had my son do a little research (I have him do it since I'm not comfortable with the internet) and he found this interview with G.W.Bush from the Washington post where he says that he wasn't in the "Palace Alert":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bushtext072899.htm
Like I said Cassandra, at least Kerry has a record to be questioned. And if you go to the Kerry website, there are photo copies of his military record on there showing that he requested to be put on a river boat.
Simple question:
Where was Kerry during the war? Vietnam
Where was Bush during the war? Texas
It's not hard to get to the front if you want to be there. I think it's pretty clear who deserves our respect.
Also, I did a lot of checking into the V.A. benefit issue, in fact a nice Lt. from the Navy spoke at my V.A. group and spelled it out quite clearly how I would have lost benefits if the plan had been approved. Also my Republican Congressman spoke at our group and confirmed what the Lt. said. It was with his help that I got to keep those benefits. So don't try to fool me by trying to put the blame where it doesn't belong.
KJ,
I agree with you, but I don't know why you apologized to me. There is too much importance place on a candidates military experience. FDR didn't have any and he was the best President of the 20th century, Reagan didn't either. I think what has happened is that since the Republican's have played the veterans card so often that now that it's coming back to haunt them the Dem's are taking full advantage of it.
Posted by: Mario at Aug 12, 2004 4:41:19 PM
Mario: I live in DC and cancelled my subscription to the Post out of irritation at their biased reporting.
The WSJ and Wash Times are biased too - they just admit it. But they also report stories that the Post refuses to because it interferes with their political agenda. I also make no bones about the fact that I'm a conservative, but if I report anything and it turns out to be false, I also admit it. So far none of this has been disproven.
One veteran and POW's views on Kerry:
http://joatmoaf.typepad.com/i_love_jet_noise/2004/02/some_veterans_v.html
Validity of "war history" on Kerry's web site - he's been caught already rewriting history:
http://joatmoaf.typepad.com/i_love_jet_noise/2004/08/kerry_caught_ly.html
Breaking news story on Kerry making up war history:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128744,00.html
Spinsanity on Kerry's "volunteering":
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2004_08_01_archive.html#109167970892274992
In his speech to the Democratic convention, vice presidential nominee Senator John Edwards, D-NC, was the latest figure to distort John Kerry's service record in Vietnam:
When John Kerry graduated college, he volunteered for military service. He volunteered to go to Vietnam and to captain a swift boat, one of the most dangerous duties you could have. And as a result he was wounded and honored for his valor.
Like many others who have made the same claim, Edwards' implication is misleading. As Chris Suellentrop pointed out on Slate, Kerry volunteered for swift boat duty before it became so dangerous. Here's how the Boston Globe recounted the story in its multi-part series on Kerry:
Kerry initially hoped to continue his service at a relatively safe distance from most fighting, securing an assignment as "swift boat" skipper. While the 50-foot swift boats cruised the Vietnamese coast a little closer to the action than the Gridley had come, they were still considered relatively safe.
"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."
But two weeks after he arrived in Vietnam, the swift boat mission changed -- and Kerry went from having one of the safest assignments in the escalating conflict to one of the most dangerous. Under the newly launched Operation SEALORD, swift boats were charged with patrolling the narrow waterways of the Mekong Delta to draw fire and smoke out the enemy. Cruising inlets and coves and canals, swift boats were especially vulnerable targets.
On Bush and the Palace Alert: here are just two of many sources I have found. You cite one?
http://joatmoaf.typepad.com/i_love_jet_noise/2004/02/band_of_brother.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37162
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm
If you want more, let me know. There's plenty more where that came from.
I have spent months on this, not hours. I am satisfied, everyone I know in my husband's last two commands has been satisfied.
You, as I said before, may differ. That is your right. All I ask is that you check out the facts.
And try reading Unfit for Command - it is backed by sworn affidavits from veterans like yourself. The Swift boat vets are 200 strong, but the Kerry campaign says they are all liars. Hard to believe that 200 men have been mass-hynotized into lying.
All I ask is that you keep an open mind - the conclusion you come to is your own affair.
You might also want to check out POW/MIA Families against John Kerry
http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com/
and
www.wintersoldier.com
Posted by: Cassandra at Aug 12, 2004 5:15:40 PM
Mario,
And look out for the barrels. That Donkey Kong character is sneaky.
Posted by: Hummer at Aug 12, 2004 5:44:12 PM
Cassandra,
Let's try to slim this down. Do you think it would be clear to say that what you're really getting at is that John Kerry is really an American hating coward that through happen stance found himself in a situation that helped a political career and that he then just took full advantage of? From what I've read from all the rhetoric that you use I think that that is what you're really getting at. Am I close? Please advise
Posted by: Mario at Aug 12, 2004 5:55:06 PM
Cassandra isn't using rhetoric she is using facts. I am sure you would like her to say that Kerry is an American hating coward, it is my impression that those inclined to the left like it when they can sum things up neatly by name calling. It doesn't require any thought or mental examination. That is not Cassandra's style.
Posted by: Pile On at Aug 12, 2004 6:02:43 PM
Pile on,
Using the word "rhetoric" does not imply lying, or ulterior motives. It mean "argument" or how one argues. It doesn't have a negative connotation unless you don't know what the word means.
Posted by: Mario at Aug 12, 2004 6:09:19 PM
Mario,
Sir, I respect your opinion as a vet of WWII, as I have known quite a few men such as yourself.
But I would ask for a few qualifiers to the statements that you made.
1) Prescott Bush (GWB's grandad) was indeed an officer of a bank that did business with German industrialists during the rise of the 3rd Reich (Thyssen, to be exact) which helped finance war production, ultimately.
Thyssen was an early supporter of Hitler, but broke with him after "Krystalnacht" when the open persecution of Jews began in 1937 (I think). Thyssen was then hounded by the Nazi's, and was lucky to escape from Germany with his life. This was the end of Prescot Bush's peripheral involvement with Germany (several years before the war).
2)Joe Kennedy Sr., FDR's ambassador to GB during the Blitz, 1940 (WWII), was an open supporter of the US making a separate peace with Germany, undercutting the British position. It got so bad in London that the British Gov. demanded that FDR replace Joe Sr (which he did).
I certainly don't blame all of Joe Sr's descendants for his political position, and tragically he lost his eldest son to the war, and almost his second son, too. And all his descendents have profited from his accumulation of wealth, too.
Prescot Bush may or may not have known better in 1937, but Joe Kennedy should have known better by 1940.
3)The central issue isn't what happened 60 years ago, and whether the sins of the father (or grandfather) are visited on the son(s). The central issue is
1) Who is to be trusted?
2) Who is putting forth the right policies for the present and future.
We can all take partisan, individual opinions about the (2) item, but I don't think that GWB has told a pack of lies about his Nat'l. Guard service.
I'm not bothered by Kerry's amount of service, or whether or not he protested the war after he came home. He did his duty, and he has his right to his own opinion.
But I am bothered by his dis-ingenuous stories about his wartime experiences, and what seems to be, in some cases, flat-out lies about it. He has made his service a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, so it deserves scrutiny.
Posted by: Don Brouhaha at Aug 12, 2004 6:13:46 PM
I can't top this:
From Craig henry via Vodkapundit (CLICK)
"Kerry's use of his war record has been masterful and it continues to help him with critical swing voters and the press. His focus on his biography was never intended to win the veteran vote. Rather, it works to reassure moderate voters about his stance on national defense. He also used it to neutralize questions about his record in Congress and to frame stories for the press.
Did Kerry vote against key weapon programs? How dare you question the patriotism of a man with three Purple Hearts. Is he too willing to defer to France and the United Nations? How dare you doubt the loyalty of a man with a Silver Star. Faced with this, does the press write about the voting record or about the "hard ball tactics" of the GOP?
Kerry didn't just use his Vietnam experience to enhance his stature as a man or leader. His campaign used it to shut down debate on his Senate record. They made the biography the issue."
Do you every feel like you've been cheated, Mario?
Posted by: spd rdr at Aug 12, 2004 6:20:16 PM
Um... no Mario rhetoric doesn't mean argument it mean the art of speaking or writing effectively. One of the definitions also implies insincerity, and that is what I inferred from your implication.
Posted by: Pile On at Aug 12, 2004 6:20:36 PM
Mario do you agree with Kerry that many of the Vietnam vets (Kerry included) are war criminals that committed atrocities? He testified to that before a senate hearing.
The North Vietnamese used that to justify not treating our prisoners as prisoners of war entitled to Geneva convention protection but as war criminals due no protection.
Posted by: Pile On at Aug 12, 2004 6:29:00 PM
Re: John Kerry is really an American hating coward that through happen stance found himself in a situation that helped a political career and that he then just took full advantage of?
1. America hating? No, I disagree with Sen. Kerry's positions on the use of force and America's role in the international community. This doesn't mean he hates America, or I love it more than he does. It means we disagree.
He takes more of the European internationalist view of America's role in world politics, and I will never buy into that. As long as we provide the lion's share of troops and money to the UN, for instance, I disagree that we should subordinate our national interests to those of the UN. And indeed France and Germany, although they talk a big game, in practice don't do so either.
2. Coward? Have I called him a coward?
I will say this: for a uniformed Naval officer to get himself sent home early only 1/3 of the way into a combat tour, when he has not suffered a single wound severe enough to require more than 2 days light duty, does not reflect well on the Officer Corps or the traditions of the Naval Service. When he left early, someone (like you perhaps) had to take his place.
Right now in Iraq there are Marines who are hitchhiking back to their commands as soon as they're ambulatory so they don't let their buddies down. There are Marines and soldiers fighting while wounded - real wounds that require medical care, not bandaids.
I have drawn no conclusions about Sen. Kerry. I believe the facts speak for themselves. He is misrepresenting the nature, duration, and character of his service and that is wrong. The average American does not realize that his 3 Purple Hearts were all for band-aid type wounds.
The average American doesn't know that Kerry's CO turned his 1st application for a PH down because he thought it was unwarranted. Kerry went behind his back and resubmitted it. I personally don't think much of people putting themselves in for awards. My husband doesn't do it, my father and father-in-law didn't do it.
3. Do I think Kerry is something of an opportunist?
Frankly, yes I do. This opinion is based on the early out from 'Nam and getting himself assigned to a cushy admiral's billet in DC. And on his protesting the war IN DEFIANCE OF UCMJ while accepting the pay of his country in a Reserve status.
I think it was base of him to accuse his fellow soldiers of war crimes during Winter Soldier. If he was misled then, he has had 30 years to take those awful words back. That he has not done so speaks volumes.
Posted by: Cassandra at Aug 12, 2004 6:53:38 PM
Mario has left the building.
Posted by: spd rdr at Aug 12, 2004 7:35:04 PM
What a bru ha ha I seemed to have started. I can't begin to get to all the comments today, I have a little league game to get to. I will continue tomorrow.
Don,
I am no supporter of the Kennedy's either. JFK, RFK, and Ted, no matter how good their outward intentions were, or seemed, and even though I agreed with many points that they made, were just as bad in my view as the Bush family. I think you people may be too young, or maybe I'm too old. But these families, the Kennedy's, Bush's, Dupont's, Vanderbilt's, Ford's and many others we're trying to set up a cast system. Sure they weren't going to call it that but that's what it was. Many sent their kids to Europe to marry nobility to introduce true blue blood into their family, they truly saw themselves as Americas royalty and the working class as their surfs. It was shameless.
I see the same thing today, only it's worse for you young people. Back then we had unions to stand up to these megalomaniacs and force them to pay decent wages, in factories that were safe, we had FDR to make sure that we had a little something when we were too old to work. But I'm veering from the subject. The Kennedy boys definitely benefited from Joe's dealings with Germany.
So no, GWB shouldn't be made to pay for Prescott's dealings, but remember that you're dealing with a family that believes they're better then you. Am I jumping to conclusions? Is that baseless? Am I sounding crotchity? I really don't think so, all of these families care about their own "kind" first.
Posted by: Mario at Aug 12, 2004 7:57:37 PM
Mario, take care and no hurry.
We're not going anywhere :) Enjoy your little league game.
Posted by: Cassandra at Aug 12, 2004 8:01:47 PM
Yeah, well, Mario, the question stands: do you feel that you might be being cheated. Has Kerry been honest with you, and with the nation. Hey, if its the truth, let it ring! RIGHT? If not, hang the liars.
Posted by: spd rdr at Aug 12, 2004 8:22:32 PM
Mario, are you unaware of John Kerry's middle name - Forbes?
His family was very chummy with the Kennedy family.
The family one comes from is simply not a reason to be for or against their candidacy.
Their character under pressure, though - that is something that concerns me. Kerry seems to have a penchant for lying - and his lies do only one thing - make him look better than he is, or could even dream of being.
As to a candidate proving their leadership skills in war ... General Grant was a great general - he made a terrible president.
Poor Mario, you have been sucked in by a liar who is not even as accomplished a liar as Bill Clinto.
Posted by: Beth Donovan at Aug 27, 2004 11:07:37 AM
