Keen Focus on Lt. Kerry

ELKCHSR

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
13,765
Location
Montana
Top Stories - washingtonpost.com

Keen Focus on Lt. Kerry's Four Months Under Fire

By Lois Romano, Washington Post Staff Writer

As a senior at Yale, John F. Kerry harbored doubts about the war in Vietnam, and as a Navy veteran he became famous for opposing it. But in between, he fought aggressively during an extraordinary four-month tour in that country, earning some of the nation's highest commendations for valor -- and then he abruptly returned to the United States.

Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, was in the Navy from 1966 to 1970, leaving with the rank of lieutenant, a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts for wounds he received in combat. Most of the citations were awarded during his command of two "swift boats" on Vietnam's perilous coastal waterways.

Today, that record has become both an asset and an issue as he seeks the presidency. The senator from Massachusetts has used it to define his qualifications for the office, his experience in foreign policy, his leadership -- and, regarding the conflict in Iraq, his firsthand knowledge of war. But critics have cited it as evidence that he was opportunistic and have questioned whether he deserved one of his medals.

An examination of his record, supplemented by interviews with the candidate, his crewmates and some skeptics, found little to undermine Kerry's portrayal of his service.

But a group of Vietnam veterans, some of them partisans, portray him as an ambitious young officer who attempted to collect undeserved Purple Hearts for minor injuries and used those medals to cut short his tour. A military policy allowed those who received three Purple Hearts, regardless of the extent of their injuries, to leave Vietnam. Kerry could have requested to stay but did not.


A Web site -- web page -- is dedicated to raising questions about his record and reminding voters that he returned home to become a leader in the antiwar movement, which critics allege demoralized the very troops he fought beside.

The issue made its way into the presidential contest this week when the Kerry campaign, facing Republican pressure to provide a more detailed account of his combat experience, decided to make public all his military records, except for his full medical report. Those documents did not add materially to information that had already been given to some news organizations on request, including The Washington Post last year.

He also said he left early because he had turned on the war. One of his crewmates, Michael Medeiros, said Kerry ensured that his men were given a non-threatening assignment before he left Vietnam.

In combat, Stephen M. Gardner,one of the combatants on Kerry's boat recently told Brinkley: "Whenever a firefight started he always pulled up stakes and got the hell out of Dodge."

Two weeks into his new assignment, before he was even given his own crew, Kerry was wounded on a swift-boat mission on Dec. 2, 1968. For that, he received his first -- and most controversial -- Purple Heart.

Grant Hibbard, Kerry's commanding officer, questioned the injury after Kerry first put in for the medal. Now 69 and living in Florida, Hibbard recently told reporters for the Boston Globe and USA Today that Kerry had only "a scratch" on his forearm and that Hibbard had no evidence that Kerry was under enemy fire when he was injured. In an interview with The Post, Hibbard stood by his remarks but declined to elaborate on them.
 
I really don't care about the medals awarded to him because they give medals out all the time. For example I recieved my first Army Achievement Medal (AAM) for changing a flat tire on the Brigade Commander's Humvee during Reforger. So medals and awards are not an issue. What bothers me is that he claimed to have participated in war atrocities and yet did not report them or stop them. Tim Russert really shed some light on this issue of using Vietnam as a rallying point when he railed against the war once he return. That part really bothers me.

Nemont

[ 04-24-2004, 12:58: Message edited by: Nemont ]
 
And just where did you go Elkgunner? Which branch of service did you serve in?
hump.gif
 
He disappears every time the mere mention of service to country comes up... Just like a whisp of smoke... :D
 
I had the bad fortune of flying a P-3 Orion out across the New Mexico area from USAFA and tossed my cookies all over.... After that, I kinda decided I didn't want to fly planes for a living...
 
Too bad Elkgunner You seem to have the perfect air of attitude and arrogance to be a highly successful fighter jock!
hump.gif
 
HAHAHAHA!!! that was funny.... :D
Trying to pull ones head out of the clouds when it is stuffed so far up ones butt is a tough thing for any one to do...(snicker)...maybe it was the gas and not the air... ;)
:D :D :D
 
What was a P-3 Orian, a US Navy Submarine Survalence & Prosecution aircraft doing at the USAFA? The closest base for one of those things is Moffett Field in San Jose, California.
 
Originally posted by ElkGunner:
At least the man went to Viet Nam, instead of to Alabama.....
Dubya's not running for president on his National Guard experience. And there is no proof he didn't finish his service, nor is there any proof that he could not have been deployed. I am not sure where this mischaracterization fits in the grand scheme of things.

I personally think most voters yawn whenever Kerry's military record or Bush's National Guard service is mentioned.

"If George Bush wants to make national security an issue in this campaign, I have three words for him that I know he'll understand. Bring it on!"--John Kerry, New York Times, Feb. 1

"Call off the Republican attack dogs."--Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, responding to Dick Cheney's speech on John Kerry's defense record, Associated Press, April 26

Damn, he wants four years when he can't even handle three months.
 
I think most people figure Kerry paid his dues in Vietnam and earned the right to say whatever he felt about it when he got home. Plus, it's understandable if he wasn't thinking real clearly soon after returning. Those were real confusing and emotional times for many people.

I'm not too sure what dues Dubya paid, or even if he showed up and tried to pay. I kinda doubt he showed up because, if he could prove it like Kerry proved he had some medals, Dubya's crowd would be shouting from the rooftops they had proof he actually showed up. Can you imagine how hard they're lookin' for proof he showed up? :D :D
 
Kerry should then maybe apply lfor disability Ith since his confusionseems to be a lifelong thing! "I threw away my 7, 8, or 9 medals." I didn't have my medals, I threw my ribbons." I didn't vote for th.. well actually I did vote for it after I voted against it." Any man who would (1) turn his back on his comrades, (2) turn his back on his nation, (3) and turn his back on his faith, does not belong in the oval office.
 
Originally posted by feclnogn:


Like Paws said, this guy is the last guy we need to run this country right now.
Because Dubya is doing well in what area of running the country??? :( Let's see, the economy is still in the tank, 115 Americans have been killed in Iraq this month, 12 months after Dubya landed on the Lincoln to announce "Mission Accomplished" and the end of hostilities. Let's see, the Dams aren't breached on the Lower Snake. The grazing limitations of '95 are being rolled back. Powell and Cheney aren't talking...And Powell will soon be gone. :(

I'm just not seeing what Dubya has accomplished, other than returning us and our children, and grandchildren back to a Deficit. :rolleyes:
 
I watched Kerry throw his war decorations
By Thomas Oliphant | April 27, 2004

WASHINGTON
ON THE WAY to the fence where he threw some of his military decorations 33 years ago, I was 4 or 5 feet behind John Kerry.

As he neared the spot from which members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were parting with a few of the trappings of their difficult past to help them face their future more squarely, I watched Kerry reach with his right hand into the breast pocket of his fatigue shirt. The hand emerged with several of the ribbons that most of the vets had been wearing that unique week of protest, much as they are worn on a uniform blouse.

There couldn't have been all that many decorations in his hand -- six or seven -- because he made a closed fist around his collection with ease as he waited his turn. I recall him getting stopped by one or two wounded vets in wheelchairs, clearly worried that they wouldn't be able to get their stuff over the looming fence, who gave him a few more decorations. Kerry says he doesn't remember this.

It is true that Kerry was one of the veterans group's "leaders," but in this eclectic, aggressively individualistic collection of people who had been through a pointless war, there were no privileges of rank. Kerry was in the middle of a line of perhaps 1,000 guys -- only a third or even less of the total who had assembled on the Washington Mall that astonishing week.

At the spot where the men were symbolically letting go of their participation in the war, the authorities had erected a wood and wire fence that prevented them from getting close to the front of the US Capitol, and Kerry paused for several seconds. We had been talking for days -- about the war, politics, the veterans' demonstration -- but I could tell Kerry was upset to the point of anguish, and I decided to leave him be; his head was down as he approached the fence quietly.

In a voice I doubt I would have heard had I not been so close to him, Kerry said, as I recall vividly, "There is no violent reason for this; I'm doing this for peace and justice and to try to help this country wake up once and for all."

With that, he didn't really throw his handful toward the statue of John Marshall, America's first chief justice. Nor did he drop the decorations. He sort of lobbed them, and then walked off the stage.

Some people have written secondhand accounts of that day stating that Kerry at that moment also threw "medals" that had been given to him by a couple of vets who were not there. I remember Kerry doing that later in the day after the event had broken up. He was in the company, for part of that time, of a small group of Gold Star Mothers (who had lost sons in the war). In addition to the events involving the military decorations, the veterans also held a tree-planting ceremony near the Capitol and attended congressional hearings on civilian casualties of the conflict.

From what I could observe firsthand about Friday, April 23, 1971, Kerry did not make even the slightest effort to pretend that he was throwing all of his military decorations over that fence. He did what he did in plain view, and in my case in the view of someone close enough to kick him in the shins.

It was clear to me that Kerry had arrived here with only the ribbons he wore on his shirt -- which, by the way, were referred to as "medals" by the late Stuart Symington of Missouri, one of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee members present for his famous antiwar statement.

While the idea of turning back decorations had been talked about prior to that week, there was no clear plan when the veterans arrived. The night before, the men had had a long, loud argument about whether to throw their stuff or simply place it on a long table in front of the Capitol. I watched Kerry argue for the less dramatic approach and lose.

It was clear from our conversations back then and ever since that Kerry made no distinction among his various decorations, though others have. Some in the military don't either. I remember once asking my father (who was awarded a Bronze Star in the Pacific during World War II), what he called the ribbon and lapel ornament he received in addition to the star; he said they were all the Bronze Star.

I have always found the political junk served up by Kerry's detractors to be undignified as well as largely inaccurate.

I write now because the political junk is much higher profile now, though no less misleading -- and not, by the way, because in her fourth job in the public arena, my daughter just joined Kerry's staff. I just happened to be there that long-ago day. I saw what happened and heard what Kerry said and know what he meant. The truth happens to be with him.
 
the economy is still in the tank
Actually the economy is no longer tanking, unless of course your a democrat who needs failure to suceed.

115 Americans have been killed in Iraq this month, 12 months after Dubya landed on the Lincoln to announce "Mission Accomplished
Taken straight from the democratic play book. Dead american soldiers should not be a pawn to prove a point.

Let's see, the Dams aren't breached on the Lower Snake.
Nor were they under Clinton. Nor will they be under the next President. Right now there are more important events in relation to Elkgunners fishing on the snake river.

The grazing limitations of '95 are being rolled back
See above comment about more important things in this world. Cows on the forest are not a major deal right now.

Powell and Cheney aren't talking
You know this cuz you read it on the internet or in a book. Riiiiight.

At some point EG this country is going to realize we are at war. At some point you will realize that this war is just starting. Like Tom Petty says in his song, "Baby you ain't seen nothing yet"

Kerry is not lthe guy to lead this fight.
 
Tom Petty also talks about "Free Falling"......

Kinda like the country....

Fecl, so we are supposed to ignore this month's 115 fallen Americans? It is not a campaign issue to have a drug store Cowboy in the White HOuse, deciding to invade countries, with ZERO plans on what to do after the "hostilities have ended" and the "Misson Accomplished"? It is now 2 months away, and Paul Bremer is going to turn the keys over to who???

If there are more important issues facing this country, why is the Dubya crowd even addressing the Grazing Reforms, and rolling them back? Is it too important or not? You aren't making sense on that one....

Taken straight from the democratic play book. Dead american soldiers should not be a pawn to prove a point.
What about flag-draped coffins? Are they allowed in Campaign advertising???
 
Sure - show the flag-draped coffins, and ask the men in uniform escorting those coffins how they feel.

And let the President then show film clips of himself at "Ground Zero" and the Pentagon, giving honor and respect to the Fallen. Show him crying and praying about the lost.

If you are going to manipulate the images of the dead, then let both sides do so.
 
EG originally posted: At least the man went to Viet Nam, instead of to Alabama.....
ON THE RECORD

Lead, Don't Divide
"I am saddened that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign."

BY JOHN F. KERRY
Thursday, February 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

(Editor's note: Sen. Kerry delivered this speech on the Senate floor Feb. 27, 1992. The previous day, Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Vietnam veteran and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, spoke in Atlanta, where he criticized fellow candidate Bill Clinton for his lack of military service during Vietnam.)

Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. (and who is first brought Vietnam into this campaign?) By that I mean that yesterday, during this presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.

What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.

What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.

What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary.

The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.
We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. and which campaign first brought President Bush's service in the NG? Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?

Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.

But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard . To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.


I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.

We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country.

Mr. Kerry, who served as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam, is a Massachusetts senator and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Nemont
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,599
Messages
2,026,330
Members
36,240
Latest member
Mscarl (she/they)
Back
Top