« Valor Defined | Main | Funny Stuff »
August 08, 2004
Louis Letson 1, DNC Lawyers 0
From The Kerry Spot:
“I am the doctor [who treated Kerry],” he said. “Let me explain that. My critics are pointing to the [signature on the medical record], J.C. Carreon. If they look it carefully a scribble after the words, saying, “HM1.” HM1 is a hospital man first class. [Note: the DNC letter sent to TV stations states "Further, the "doctor" who appears in the ad (Louis Letson) was not a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and was not the doctor who actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. In fact, another physician signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. "] Jesus C. Carreon was one of my medics at that naval base. He was a top-notch fella. Real prince of a fella.”
“Unfortunately, my friend Carreon died about 1992. He’s not around to back this up,” he said.
“Kerry might have thought my name was J.C. Carreon. I was the only medical officer at that base. September 68 to Sept. 1969. I can verify that with commanding officer.”
Seems both the DNC and the Kerry campaign may have been less than honest about several things. Their accusations regarding what the Swift Vets ad said were demonstrably false and intentionally misleading. They maintained "another physician" signed Kerry's Purple Heart sick call report, yet the report was signed by a corpsman (not a physician) and according to Dr. Letson, he was the only physician assigned to that base during the time period when Kerry was treated. And what's the deal with referring to Letson as the "doctor" - does the Kerry campaign intend to dispute that Letson has a medical license?
If credibility is at issue, we have two misstatements of material fact from DNC lawyers representing Senator Kerry's interests.
How hard is it to check out the facts?
- Cassandra
August 8, 2004 at 05:30 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452b19169e200d83420f78353ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Louis Letson 1, DNC Lawyers 0:
» What color is the sky in your epistemological sphere? from The H-Bomb
Normally Matthew Yglesias is more reasonable than this: Juan Non-Volokh operating in the other epistemic sphere expresses mock concern for the state of the Kerry campaign: "if the memos at the center of this week's revelations turn out to be [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 12, 2004 6:15:11 PM
Comments
It's only as hard FOR EVERYONE ELSE to be able check out facts as Kerry makes it by refusing the release of his records which SHOULD be a blaring alarm to average Joe and Josephine Q. Citizen ANYWAY...
Posted by: ♥+♪_CoLoRaDo KiT cAt_♪+♥ at Aug 8, 2004 9:56:46 PM
It does make you wonder whether the DNC actually looked into Kerry's record any more thoroughly than the average manager at a fast food franchise looks at the record of their counter help.
Or did they figure that sufficent handwaving and misdirection would obscure the issues involved?
J.
Posted by: JLawson at Aug 8, 2004 11:44:47 PM
Who knows... I imagine they were getting their information from the Kerry campaign - besides, only Bush's past is relevant.
If anyone (other than Kerry) brings up his past, it's 'beyond the pale' :)
Posted by: Cassandra at Aug 8, 2004 11:54:12 PM
Is the doctor implying that Kerry forged a medical document?
Imagine the outcry when his cocaine sniffing parties with the homosexual caban boys goes public!
Posted by: Papertiger at Aug 10, 2004 5:56:51 AM
I love this. The swift boat vets are getting a very rare chance at long overdue vindication.
You can tell that Kerrys testimony against them was a cross that they had to bare all their lives, but that they did it with grace and courage.
These guys didn't fold up the tent. You wouldn't see these guys hanging out down by the underground bookstore with an ammo can begging for money to "help out a vet".
They swallowed hard and went on with life. More then a few must have had to wipe some bandana headed, peace sign on a t-shirt wearing, tearing up their draft card, hippy spit off there face.
Not only did they go on with life, they prospered. Not by entitlement or heritage either. The good old fashioned American way. They earned it.
They served their country with honor, and had that honor stolen from them to cement Kerry's political ambitions.
Now after all these years these forgoten heros have returned to serve their country, the same country that turned its back on them, one more battle for the truth.
Is there a God? Does he love justice?
The answer is a ringing and eternal YES!
Posted by: Papertiger at Aug 10, 2004 6:14:47 AM
Papertiger:
What the heck was in your coffee this morning??? Whatever it was, please send me some - you're in rare form today... :)
Posted by: Cassandra at Aug 10, 2004 6:33:02 AM
Cass
It was iced tea , but thank you.
You hardly need any help from the looks of things. Nice place you have here.
Posted by: Papertiger at Aug 10, 2004 7:17:26 AM
So any purple harts during this Doctors tenure over there are invalide be cause a HM1 sign the roll call sheets?
Posted by: johnK at Aug 12, 2004 9:08:13 AM
Originally posted by JohnK (Albeit with many corrections. Hint: You'll come across as a least a little more intelligent if there aren't 5 errors in a single sentence post): So any purple hearts during this Doctor's tenure over there are invalid(e) be( )cause a HM1 signed the roll call sheets?
What the helk does that have to do with anything. No one has said that the purple heart in question was invalid because the paperwork was signed by the HM1. It's because the wound was self-inflicted. The Kerry camp is the one trying to discredit the doctor as not having treated Kerry because an underling took care of the paperwork (probably to free the doctor up to treat patients).
By your own arguement, is any doctor not a qualified doctor because an HM1 was signing the call sheets. Similarly, did all the doctors who had HM1s sign the call sheets never treat their patients?
Posted by: Masked Menace at Aug 12, 2004 10:47:09 AM
Imagine the hoots and crys if the demos were running a candidate who skipped out of the war by riding his papa's coat tails into the National Guard after scoring in the bottom 25% of Air National Guard applicants. And then went AWOL! We'd see www.airnationalguardvetsforjustice.org
Instead we get fly be photo-ops for "mission accomplished"!
You guys crack me up.
Posted by: just annoying at Aug 12, 2004 7:11:16 PM
Just Annoying: Got any proof, you know like facts that Bush was AWOL?
If you do, please bring them here. We'll let you know if you're right or not.
Posted by: Purple Raider at Aug 12, 2004 8:03:30 PM
just annoying:
Bush was rated in the top 10% of fighter pilots in his squadron. And he never went AWOL by any definition - if you knew anything at all about their military you'd know that.
Facts, buddy. Show the facts and we have a basis for conversation. And we're willing to discuss it rationally, but you have to lay some facts on the table.
Posted by: Cassandra at Aug 12, 2004 8:37:42 PM
Cassandra --
I have to credit you with a far more temperate and civil tone than I anticipated in response to my little troll.
You're right, he did, in fact, receive an EF (exceptionally fine) rating on his first 2 OER (officer evaluation reports) which would require that he be rated in the top 10% of officers of his grade. BUT this was merely an AVERAGE rating for his privileged group of the ANG (great to have those political connections, no?)
But of greater interest, where is his 3rd OER that would account for his May 72-73 performance. "Not Observed" despite the requirement that he maintain flight readiness.
It's a long story, but I think it's positively hilarious that you guys are willing to give a free pass to a guy that got into the ANG only by his privileged political position. On the other hand, you are willing to fully point to every bit of heresay evidence about Kerry.
I repeat my point, if the demos ran a candidate with Bush's credentials, you guys would be going nuts.
Posted by: just annoying at Aug 13, 2004 10:52:03 AM
just annoying:
We obviously disagree, but here are a few things to think about:
It's not hearsay evidence when you have vet after vet coming forward and swearing out affadavits to back it up. All I would ask is that you read Unfit for Command - judge for yourself. You don't have to agree with me. But you should check out the facts before making up your mind.
Why doesn't it bother you that Kerry only served 3 years of his 5 year commitment and left Vietnam only 1/3 of the way into his 12-month tour? These are documented facts, not hearsay. His dates of service back it up.
On Bush's Guard record, if he was required to maintain flight readiness, why was his transfer to a non-flying unit where he couldn't fly approved?
Also regarding drill in general: my husband just left a battalion-level command with the Reserves and so I do know a thing or two about drill. Bush's drill record has been grossly distorted. Another interesting sidelight is that Kerry was also required to drill under his terms of service for 2 years after leaving active duty (early, I might add). During that time, he was subject to the UCMJ, which prohibits officers from protesting or issuing statements critical of the command. Kerry did both these things. He didn't even obtain an honorable discharge until many years later (interesting but little-known fact).
Are you aware that Kerry left the Navy before his commitment to run for Congress? Have you checked that out?
Personally, I don't much care about drill records from 30 years ago for either candidate, knowing what I do about drill. And I have not seen evidence that Kerry completed his drill requirement as required under the terms of his contract.
I do care about lying about it today, and Kerry has done that - he just had to admit it again yesterday re: Cambodia. Of course, that gets no media attention.
Posted by: Cassandra at Aug 13, 2004 11:08:00 AM
So how come nobody talks about John Kerry's record in the Senate? He's been a Senator for 20 years, or approximately 60 times longer than he was in Viet Nam. Surely there must be something to say about his 20 years in the Senate. I'm sure he must have voted a least a couple of times before he decided to run for president. How come we don't hear about anything but his war stories?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
Posted by: spd rdr at Aug 13, 2004 11:56:51 AM
That's a lot! I'll try to get you a response tomorrow or Monday, but for now, a quickie response:
Categorically, EVERY living sailor that actually served under Kerry's command endorses him. Not one person who actually served ON his boats has disputed his account of events.
Bush 73 OER: "Not observed". Does not show for flight medical in May 72, prior to any xfer request or order.
I stand by my statement. If the demos were runing the very same Bush as a candidate, you guys would be ready to hang him.
Posted by: just annoying at Aug 13, 2004 12:32:10 PM
You're wrong: Steven Gardner served on Kerry's boat and under his command and he does NOT support Kerry. In fact, he's a member of the Swift Vets.
About half the living sailor who served with Kerry and support his candidacy dispute that his boat ever entered Cambodian waters.
"Not observed" just means no comment because you didn't directly observe the conduct being rated. It is not an adverse rating - it shows up on fitreps all the time.
In fact, it shows on Kerry's fitreps. And you didn't answer my question.
Posted by: Cassandra at Aug 13, 2004 12:40:16 PM
Steven Gardner -- my bad. I thought that I had read that he was actually on another boat, but apparently not so.
Ok, there is ONE who actually served on the same boat. And there are 13 that served on the same boat who say otherwise.
re: your questions -- i'll get to them, really. just quite busy, supposed to be doing my job, bringing home the bacon.
Posted by: just annoying at Aug 13, 2004 1:36:22 PM
Job? Huh? :)
Posted by: Cassandra at Aug 13, 2004 2:04:00 PM
The swift boats operated in groups to provide each other cover. One boat by itself would be a sitting duck. So whether someone served on the same boat as Kerry or on the boat next to his is irrelevant and nothing more than an attemp to divert attention from the facts.
My work day is over, but I am going to take my camcorder and go reinact my day.....should be riveting.
Posted by: Pile On® at Aug 13, 2004 2:15:34 PM
You rivet for a living?
Posted by: spd rdr at Aug 13, 2004 3:12:07 PM
There's a good reason for the sentiment behind: Figures don't lie, but liers do figure. You really can prove anything you want with statistics.
Just Annoying, I noticed that you have conveniently left off the scale for your bottom 25% of applicants and manufactured one for the 10% figure.
The military won't let just anyone fly a plane, therefore it is probably pretty safe to assume that if the military put the cut-off at the 25th percentile then this means they are still above average for the general population. I'm trying to remember the link that suggest it is actually way over average.
Second, you say that top 10% is average for his "privelege group". Which privelege group is that? Upper class whites, sons of former representative and future senators and presidents, pilots, who? In any case, it really is irrelevent. The dummest person in MENSA is still a genius, so saying Bush is only average compared to a high performing group doesn't make your point. No matter how high your score is I can always find a group where you are a poor performer. I'm not saying Bush is a genius, but he's no idiot either.
As for whether conservatives would be up in arms if the dems ran someone with Bush's service record: I doubt it would matter unless he made it his sole campaign issue the way Kerry has. The only reason Clinton's record came up is because he got out of Vietnam by fraudulent means. If Clinton had actually entered the reserves (twice) as he was supposed to or the ROTC as he said he would (but then never enrolled), it never would have been brought up, there would have been too many political casaulties on both sides of the aisle.
Posted by: Masked Menace - Your friendly neighborhood sadistics major at Aug 13, 2004 3:14:39 PM
"Riveting", Huh. Is that what the newly married are calling it these days?
Posted by: Masked Menace at Aug 13, 2004 3:16:08 PM
My work day Masked, my WORK day. I would never videotape my private life, now that I am married. (jk).
Does anyone actually rivet in America anymore? My home movie should be great, I will send you all a copy.....me at my desk figuring a price quote....me in the car talking on my cell phone....me inviting a customer out for a beer at my favorite hippie folkie country live music joint (great selection of beer on tap).
Posted by: Pile On® at Aug 13, 2004 3:23:20 PM
"Lieutenant Bush is an outstanding young pilot and officer and is a credit to his unit," Lt. Col. Bobby Hodges wrote on May 27, 1971. "This officer is rated in the upper 10 percent of his contemporaries." Another, written by Maj. William Harris on May 26, 1972, was just as glowing: "Lieutenant Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer."
Lt. Col. Campenelli:
Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt. Bush twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for a required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:
First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly — the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town
on civilian business; etc.
If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user.
Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado" to which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a specific unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I'm "being disciplined."
These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction or court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt. Bush's performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in The Washington Post in 2000.
Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt. Bush abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.
Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.
Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard, as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career affairs until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment. Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on the active list until they can return home.
The receiving unit often has little use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely option for a temporary hire.
Posted by: Cassandra at Aug 13, 2004 3:44:27 PM
