Skip to comments.The incredible shrinking medals of Lt. John Kerry
Posted on 05/09/2004 8:22:24 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
I once was impressed by John Kerry's war record, but no more. For one thing, I'm puzzled he served in Vietnam just four months. Did he fight simply to decorate his resume?
By most accounts, he already was planning to be the next president from Massachusetts with the initials JFK. So why would he join a war that he opposed, unless it was to earn political credibility?
Then there's his first Purple Heart, the one he earned on Dec. 2, 1968, near Cam Ranh Bay. The more you learn about it, the more you snicker.
According to a report by Byron York at the National Review, the doctor who treated Kerry Louis Letson is now living in Alabama and has written down his recollections of the event.
Kerry sought medical care for an arm wound, attributing it to a firefight. Letson writes: "What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 centimeter in length and was about 2 or 3 millimeters in diameter."
So, "I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound."
Letson concluded: "The wound was covered with a Band-Aid."
A Purple Heart for a Band-Aid? Sounds like a Purple Hoax to me.
Actually, Kerry's request for a medal makes sense when you remember why he was in country in the first place. Might he have seen the scratch as possibly his one and only chance to collect a medal? How could he pass it up?
Ah, you say, but what about his Bronze Star and Silver Star? Fair question. Here is what I have learned:
Kerry earned his Bronze Star on March 13, 1969, when a mine detonated near his boat in the Bay Hap River.
A Green Beret fell overboard. Amid fire from both banks, Kerry turned his boat around, reached the soldier and pulled him to safety.
He earned his Silver Star on Feb. 28, 1969, when the Viet Cong fired a B-40 rocket at his boat. Kerry's bow gunner knocked down the enemy with fire from his twin .50-caliber machine guns.
But the man got back up and started running away. Kerry jumped out of his boat, chased him down and finished him off.
I won't quibble. I've never been to war. If the Navy brass says Kerry deserved these two stars, I'll take their word.
Unfortunately, Kerry's bravery ended when he returned to the States. To me, two disreputable moments stand out.
The first was on April 23, 1971, when Kerry and 800 other veterans tossed their medals over a fence in front of the Capitol.
Now when a veteran makes such a gesture, you have to give him tremendous credit for conviction. But Kerry did not throw away his medals; he just pretended. Pretended!
The medals he threw belonged to other men. His own were in safekeeping in New York. He has them today, framed handsomely.
This is not bravery. This is cheap theater opportunistic, hypocritical and deceitful.
The second disreputable moment came the same week, when Kerry spoke before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
According to Kerry, our soldiers "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."
The matter of Lt. William Calley notwithstanding, few believed many of our soldiers were heinous criminals.
On "The Dick Cavett Show" on June 30, 1971, a fellow veteran, John O'Neill, wondered how Kerry had seen so many atrocities in just four months. O'Neill served 18 months and saw zero atrocities.
Kerry now seems to realize how inflated and harmful were his accusations. On "Meet the Press" some weeks ago, he conceded his use of the word "atrocities" was inappropriate.
"I mean, if you wanted to ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure," Kerry said. "I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger. It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive."
So, adding it all up, here's what Kerry's count looks like to me:
He got two real Purple Hearts, but they're negated by his fake Purple Heart.
He got a Bronze Star, but it's negated by his fake medal toss.
He got a Silver Star, but it's negated by his fake atrocity tale.
Sorry, Lieutenant. Your story is over. Pack it up and go home. We already have the leader we need in the White House.
George Bush never won any medals, and he never was the target of an enemy bullet. But he has something more important going for him: He never slandered our soldiers. He honors them. So for me, this makes him the only decent choice for commander in chief in November.
Michael Bowers is a copy editor and page designer for The Star. His column appears every other Sunday. He can be reached by e-mail at email@example.com.
This writer certainly has a way with words! Good opinion piece. Will it get very wide distribution in the Chicago area?
And does he note in the commercial that these are not 'actual footage,' or is there ground to be gained pointing out that these are staged shots being passed off as real?
"The metal fragment measured about 1 centimeter in length and was about 2 or 3 millimeters in diameter." "
Reference.....for the metric impaired.
One inch is equal to 2.54cm....So Mr. Ketchup's "frag"ment was less than 1/2 inch in length..and about the width of the space betweenthe two periods at the end of this sentence..
So basically about half a tooth pick....
Ding, ding, ding...we have a winner!
"But the man got back up and started running away. Kerry jumped out of his boat, chased him down and finished him off."
I'm sure all sort of people get up after being hit with a .50 caliber machinegun. The idiot comedy that is Kerry's war record continues.
What should also be noted is who stopped further killing. It was other Americans whom landed in choppers and drew arms on Calley's troops. Calley was an aberration. The Americans that stopped the killing are the norm.
Hoover: In charge of US famine relief in Europe after World War I
FDR: Assistant Sec'y of the Navy, World War I
Truman: Army Captain, World War I
Ike: Well we know about him
Kennedy: PT 109 etc.
Johnson: Served in WWII
Carter: WWII era West Point grad, Navy officer
Reagan: Served during WWII
Bush I: Pilot, WWII
So when Kerry decided to run for president (as Gore did) when he was 11 years old, he knew that miltary service, especially in a shooting war, was a prerequiste. Getting a few medals, even better. IMO, that's the only reason he went to Vietnam.
Each of these egregiously unseemly posts and the editorial piece does more harm than good to the purpose for which it is offered. The Navy 0-3 was wounded and conducted himself with the courage expected of an officer leading other men into battle. Condemnation 34 years later of what was acknowledged at the time of the event as courageous leadership and bravery is a tacit admission that there is a lack of real issues on which to challenge the candidate. It also raises the spectre that these posters will stop at nothing in their fervent attempt to do the obvious.
This seems to be a natural conclusion, one that many people are coming to simultaneously.
Spoken like a real 0-6 REMF, squid... or a lawyer.
From an E-5 jarhead that's a compliment...ROFL.
Why don't you just go on and sue Walmart and tell yourself that you're doing "some good" for the little guy, like your hero John "Effin'" Kerry. Anybody in his unit was safe, medal hounds look for the requirements to be fulfilled and look for safe opportunities to meet them... and then rush for after-action reports to verify their bravery.
Kinda interesting that he went outside chain of command to get his Purple Heart.... How would you handle someone in your outfit that went over your head to get his Purple Heart. I mean, you were an O-6 and had a command of ????? sailors and Marines under you..
I'm sure itwas no big deal for a junior officer to go over you to your unit commander or to operations chief to get a medal.
That's the difference between a warrior and a wanna be.
You are in error. Kerry was a Navy 0-2 until two days before he left active duty:
Early April, 1969 LTJG (0-2) Kerry departs Vietnam
April 11, 1969 Kerry reports for duty at the Military Sea Transportation Service, U.S. Atlantic Fleet in Brooklyn, NY.
January 1, 1970 Kerry promoted to (full) Lieutenant (0-3).
January 3, 1970 Kerrys date of separation from active duty
if you want to see someone that didn't run back to his CO that day for a good report but waited over 30 years till someone ELSE!!!! remembered he should have recieved a medal read this.... too see a "real" hero.
Kerry's interview with Dick Cavett made me want to puke. "Effin" snotty nosed, holier than thou puke..
He's also AWOL from his duties as a Senator...which sadly, is probably a good thing. But it shouldn't be a positive to NOT be voting. That's the way of it when you're the most liberal Senator in the entire Senate.
Purple Heart ... just like Kerry's
another Purple Heart ..... just like Kerry.. He got hit by metal, got treated and came back to his unit.
Wow!! you're right, John Kerry is an "Effin" hero.
Almost Clintonian in that he believes he can spin lies any way he wants to without getting caught.
Does anybody know whether Kerry was ever actually promoted to Lt.("O3"), or is this all just more Kerry-style military puffery???
bout those John-Kerry-Does-Vietnam reinactment pictures...
No one seems to be focusing on the level of psychopathy that would be necessary for someone--and especially someone with supposedly so much disgust for the event--to have done this. Even if we discount Kerry's cynical, sick, self-serving motive, the John-Kerry-Does-Vietnam reinactment pictures are, by definition, sick.
That the man watches them ad nauseam, that he whips them out for guests at the slightest provocation, (like unfailingly soporific vacation slides), only confirm the diagnosis.
And no one seems to be focusing on the rank dishonesty of John Kerry to use his fake "reality TV" pictures in any John Kerry sales pitch.
Of this you can be certain: Bush v. Kerry is not their premiere showing. John-Kerry-Does-Vietnam reinactment pictures doubtless had top billing in prior Kerry races.
John Kerry is not honest. John Kerry is not well.
John Kerry lacks the moral authority to be president. Especially now, with the prisoner-abuse scandal.
America cannot afford to elect a president who is a self-professed war criminal.
by Mia T, 5.07.04
ohn Kerry, self-professed war criminal, needed the Iraqi prisoner "abuse" scandal about as much as bill clinton, documented rapist, needed the Saddam rape rooms or the marauding Milosevic rapist-guerrillas. For this reason, Kerry did not respond for a full week to this latest leftist-fulminated Bush-bashing brouhaha, and when Kerry did finally respond, the focus of his condemnation was process, not content, his pulled punches notwithstanding. Makes sense. War criminals, by definition, lack the requisite moral authority to address such war-related -- ah -- issues. By contrast, the response from Kerry's leftist colleagues has been so disproportionate -- and so predictable -- that it approaches farce of farce, even if we discount demonstrated Democrat willingness to trade American blood and national security for reacquired power. The Democrats, apparently not adherents of Aesop, have "cried Bush" far too many times to be to be anything but preposterous. (Thank you, Howard Dean.) Are the reflexively self-serving, America-hating, power-hungry Dems simply clueless actors? Or are they part of a larger orchestrated effort to muddy up Kerry's Vietnam-atrocities swamp?
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
missus clinton's REAL virtual office update
ohn Kerry, self-professed war criminal, needed the Iraqi prisoner "abuse" scandal about as much as bill clinton, documented rapist, needed the Saddam rape rooms or the marauding Milosevic rapist-guerrillas.
For this reason, Kerry did not respond for a full week to this latest leftist-fulminated Bush-bashing brouhaha, and when Kerry did finally respond, the focus of his condemnation was process, not content, his pulled punches notwithstanding.
Makes sense. War criminals, by definition, lack the requisite moral authority to address such war-related -- ah -- issues.
By contrast, the response from Kerry's leftist colleagues has been so disproportionate -- and so predictable -- that it approaches farce of farce, even if we discount demonstrated Democrat willingness to trade American blood and national security for reacquired power.
The Democrats, apparently not adherents of Aesop, have "cried Bush" far too many times to be to be anything but preposterous. (Thank you, Howard Dean.)
Are the reflexively self-serving, America-hating, power-hungry Dems simply clueless actors? Or are they part of a larger orchestrated effort to muddy up Kerry's Vietnam-atrocities swamp?