Posted on 06/04/2004 1:25:52 AM PDT by kattracks
Dear Senator Kerry,
Since it has become clear that you will probably be the Democratic nominee for President, I have spent a great deal of time researching your war record and your record as a professional politician. The reason is simple, you aspire to be the Commander in Chief who would lead my sons and their fellow soldiers in time of war. I simply wanted to know if you possess the necessary qualifications to be trusted in that regard.
You see, I belong to a family of proud U.S. veterans. I was a Captain in the Army Reserve, my father was a decorated Lieutenant in World War II; and I have four sons who have either served, or are currently serving in the military.
The oldest is an Army Lieutenant still on active duty in Afghanistan, after already being honored for his service in Iraq.
The youngest is an E-4 with the military police. His National Guard unit just finished their second tour of active duty, including six months in Guantanamo Bay. My two other sons have served in the national guard and the Navy.
In looking at your record I found myself comparing it not only to that of my father and my sons, but to the people they served with. My father served with the 87th Chemical Mortar Battalion in Europe. They landed on Utah Beach and fought for 317 straight days, including the Cherbourg Peninsula, Aachen, the Hurtgen Forest, and the Battle of the Bulge.
You earned a Silver Star in Vietnam for chasing down and finishing off a wounded and retreating enemy soldier. (A violation of the Geneva Convention)
My father won a Bronze Star for single handedly charging and knocking out a German machine gun nest that had his men pinned down.
You received three purple hearts for what appears to be three minor scratches. In fact, you only missed a combined total of two days of duty for these wounds.
The men of my father's unit, the 87th, had to be admonished by their commanding officer because it had been brought to his attention that some men were covering up wounds and refusing medical attention for fear of being evacuated and permanently separated from their organization...
It was also a common occurrence for seriously wounded soldiers to go AWOL from hospitals in order to rejoin their units.
You, however, used your three purple hearts to leave Vietnam early.
My oldest boy came home from Iraq with numerous commendations and then proceeded to volunteer to go to Afghanistan, and from there back to Iraq again. My sons and father have never had anything but the highest regard and respect for their fellow soldiers.
Yet, you came home to publicly charge your fellow fighting men with being war criminals and to urge their defeat by the enemy. You even wrote a book that had a cover which mocked the heroism of the U.S. Marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima.
Our current crop of soldiers has a philosophy that no one gets left behind; and they have practiced that from Somalia to the battlefields of the Middle East.
Yet, as chairman of a Senate committee looking into allegations that many of your fellow servicemen had been left behind as prisoners in Vietnam, you chose to defend the brutal Vietnamese regime.
You even went so far as to refer to the families of the POWs and MIAs as Professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists, and dime-store Rambos.
As a Senator you voted against the 1991 Gulf War, and have repeatedly voted against funds to supply our troops with the best equipment, and against money to improve our intelligence capability.
I find this particularly ironic since as a Presidential candidate you are highly critical of our pre-war intelligence in Iraq. However, you did vote to authorize the President to go to war, but have since proceeded to do everything you can to undermine the efforts of our government and our troops to win. Is this what our fighting men and women can expect of you if you are their Commander in Chief? Will you gladly send them to war, only to then aid the enemy byundermining the morale of our troops and cutting off the weapons they need to win?
Our country is at war Senator, and as has been the case in every war since the American Revolution, a member of my family is serving their country during the war. Now you want me to trust you to lead my sons in this fight.
Sorry, Senator, but when I compare your record to those who have fought and died for this nation, and are currently fighting and dying, the answer is not just no, but Hell No!
Sincerely,
Michael Connelly
February 14, 2004
Dallas, Texas
Thank you for the beautiful letter.
God Bless you and your family. You must be a proud man.
I know I am a proud American for having folks like you serve in our U. S. Military.
ping
bttt
Too bad this will never be seen by Kerry.
BRAVO FOR A EXCELLENT POST.
if michael donnely is not a freeper,please invite him to join us.him and his family can share my foxhole anywhere and anytime.
This letter should be mailed to every household in the nation. To think that someone could earn a Purple Heart for a couple of scratches is beyond the comprehension of most people. Also, many young folks do not recall how Jane Fonda and John Kerry hurt this nation after Vietnam. They literally were cheerleaders for the enemy and today many on the left are continuing that practice.
Salute!
PiNg
BUMP
The Snopes site is still investigating the veracity of this...
BTTT.
Hoax or not it points out a lot of interesting facts.
BTTT
Excellent letter. It should be read on all the news broadcasts, and printed in all the newspapers. But, sadly, it won't be.
Well, the Unit History of the 87th Mortar Battalion Website at:
http://www.4point2.org/hist-87.htm
does list a 1st Lt. Roy Connelly as having been awarded a Bronze Star. This doesn't prove the letter is authentic since someone could have researched this. Does anyone know how to get in touch with Michael Connelly for validation?
Great letter! Thanks for posting it.
Either way, you could definitely replace "Michael Connelly" with Soldier X's name and the same sentiment will be expressed.
Furthermore, it will be interesting to see how the left-favoring snopes.com handles the CONTENT of this story, not just its origin, which is what I believe they will solely focus on.
As snopes does on many occasions with political stories, it will play with the levels of authenticity to suit its left leanings.
They will label something FALSE, but the FALSE deterination isn't always based on the both levels. They will label something FALSE if the origin is false, but the content is TRUE. This is quite dishonest and certainly wouldn't be a singular circumstance where this parsing tactic has been employed by Snopes. Conversely, they make a determination that something is TRUE, just because they verify the "accuser" as real, while the contents are wholly false.
Or, the one that really gets me is when they determine the status as "Varied". This leaves the impression that the story The stark example example of this was with The George W. Bush "Resume" (the resume/leftist screed where Bush is vilified for every bad thing that has happened within 5000 miles of whereever he was at the time). Snopes determined the status a "Varied" and then says this...
"The George W. Bush "résumé," one of the most forwarded items of 2003, is a mixed bag of entries of varying degrees of truthfulness, many of them quite complex and/or subjective in nature. We haven't had the time to properly delve into the multiplicity of claims contained in it yet.
However, because so many of our readers have asked us about this e-mail, we list here a couple of links to other sources which attempt to document (or refute) the items listed in the "résumé." (Please note we have in no way vetted the analysis or conclusions offered therein; we offer these links solely on a "let the reader beware" basis.)http://www.crossbearer.com/opinion/resume.html
http://idontfeelsogood.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_idontfeelsogood_archive.html"
Did you get that? They "don't have the time", "so many have 'asked about this email', here's a couple of links that "attempt to document (or refute)" and "we have in no way vetted the analyis or conclusion".
First of all, they weren't asked about the email and then added the links. Many FREEPERs, myself included, had to badger (and I mean badger...as in "Call to Action"-type tactics) snopes to even post the Crossbearer link, which, by the way, methodically refutes nearly EVERY single point made in "The Resume". And Snopes posted the Crossbearer link, but didn't "vet" it? More like, they didn't read it. If they would have read a single word of Crossbearer's commentary and research, they would have concluded (rightfully) that "The Resume" was nothing but lies.
But, they didn't. They left the status as "varied", as to imply some legitimacy. This is how snopes parses things.
Back to how snopes might treat this letter.
The contents of this letter are WHOLLY true: Kerry's wounds were "scratches"; Kerry did use the 3-Purple hearts rule for early exit; and Kerry did call his "fellow" vets war criminals, rapists, torturers, and murderers consistent with "Ghangis Khan" (though he said it like the aloof, elitist, pr*ck that he is as "Jen-jis"). Snopes is very likely to label this story is FALSE because it wasn't written by Michael Connelly, or Michael Connelly may have been a pseudonym (perhaps to protect his sons from retaliation of some sort), or some other lame excuse to deny the content.
Hey, snopes is an interesting web site. And, it is a great tool to debunk the "Nigerian bank scam", "I woke up in a tub of ice with a note that said, 'I took your liver out, call 911 if you want to live'", "the lottery winner that actually was run over by a truck hours after winning", and other hoaxes and urban legends.
However, it does a horrible (and incredibly unbiased) job at dealing with the stories that are political in nature.
A (quite) healthy dose of skepticism should be employed with reading anything relating to politics on snopes.
Here is an interesting comparison of two items snopes has.
| Item 1 - The Resume | Item 2 - W's Poem | |
| Link | Link | |
| Basic Claim | W is an idiot | W is an idiot who doesn't speak well |
| Total Word Count to refute or confirm: | 111 | 3,048 |
| Sources Cited: | 2 | 17 (mostly NYT, WP, Boston Globe) |
| Use of Sources | Scant reference, implied incredulity | Laced throughout the 3,048 words |
| General Tone | Dismissive | Ridiculing |
| Status | Varied | True |
There are other things that snopes has done to confirm that Bush is a stand-up guy, but each of those are UNDENIABLE and otherwise documented-elsewhere stories.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.