Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« It Depends On What The Meaning Of "Win" Is | Main | Take Me Out To The Ball Game »

August 31, 2004

Comments

antimedia

This comment, "During that interview, Schachte did not challenge Kerry's Purple Heart." is so disingenuous it irks me. The reason Schachte didn't challenge the Purple Heart is because he wasn't yet aware of Tour of Duty and the pack of lies that it is. This is true of all the Swiftees. Over the years they have supported Kerry because he was a brother-in-arms, despite the fact that they personally disliked him. It wasn't until they had all read Tour of Duty and realized what a complete fraud Kerry was that they decided they could no longer remain silent.

Let's release ALL the military records - Schachte's, Zaladonis', Runyon's and MOST OF ALL Kerry's and see what the truth is. I suspect it won't be flattering to the Kerry crowd.

Cecil Turner

"Both Zaladonis and Runyon have said they couldn't say whether there was enemy fire because their vision was obscured by firing from their own boat." (They were shooting, but couldn't see the target area?)

Schachte: "We received no return fire of any kind nor were there any muzzle flashes from the beach." There you go--he actually answers the question. Note that he doesn't mention tracers or other goofy crap about obscuration.

At this point, there is one sensible story: Schachte's. Zaladonis and Runyon, besides being noncommital on the only point that matters, are not believable on it.

Snowy

>Over the years they have supported Kerry because he was a brother-in-arms, despite the fact that they personally disliked him. It wasn't until they had all read Tour of Duty and realized what a complete fraud Kerry was that they decided they could no longer remain silent.


I support the Swiftees 100%, but something doesn't add up for me. Maybe they hadn't read "Tour of Duty", but didn't they all know about his involvement with Winter Soldier and how Kerry had accused them all of being war criminals? So why did they support him despite that and are only calling him on it now? Can anyone explain this, please?

Snowy

OK, here's a little discrepancy that needs to be cleared up. I am sure I read in your earlier thread that Batman and Robin referred to the two BOATS on the mission. I could be wrong on that...I'll have to go back and check it out.

But in Corsi's and O'Neill's version, Batman and Robin refers personally to Schachte and Kerry:

"The truth is that at the time of this incident Kerry was an officer in command (OinC) under training, aboard the skimmer using the call sign 'Robin' on the operation, with now-Rear Admiral William Schachte using
the call sign 'Batman,' who was also on the skimmer," the authors write.

Snowy

Found it.

It's worth quoting the Globe story on this point:
Kerry experienced his first intense combat action on Dec. 2, 1968, when he "semi-volunteered for, was semi-drafted" for a risky covert mission in which he essentially was supposed to "flush out" the enemy, using a little Boston Whaler named "Batman." A larger backup craft was called "Robin."

OK, so who or what were Batman and Robin? The boats or Schachte and Kerry? I think it's important to get that cleared up.

Patrick R. Sullivan

It seems clear that Batman and Robin were people, not boats. Kerry recognized Schachte as "Batman" years later. I suppose Kerry could have been associating Schachte with the Boston Whaler of that name, but that would be bad for Kerry's story.

Snowy aka Sherlock Hemlock

I think whoever is most accurate about what "Batman" and "Robin" referred is most likely the one telling the truth. So -- would that be the sources for the Globe story or Schachte?

It would be good to ask Runyon and Zadonis: what did the Batman / Robin monikers refer to? And if Kerry and Schachte had monikers, did Runyon and Zadonis have them too? If so what were they? If not, why not?

Respectfully submitted,

Sherlock Hemlock

Snowy

>It seems clear that Batman and Robin were people, not boats.

Except that's not what The Globe story says. It clearly says Batman and Robin were the boats. So where did The Globe get that hare-brained idea?

Cecil Turner

Looks like they did use personal call signs (at least socially). But Kerry's was "Boston Strangler," and Schachte's was "Baccardi Charlie." Not sure there's much help here, nor that it's likely to be cleared up 35 years on.

Appalled  Moderate

Until you can prove otherwise, why not just assume that the official record is correct? I realize that's boring, and horribly old media, but it beats getting frustrated.

You can't prove a he said she said like this. Ask Kathleen Willey and Juanita Brodderick. Move on to the stuff you can prove.

Snowy

Kranish really goes into depth that Batman and Robin were BOATS. Like, "Robin had engine trouble". Where did he get that information? And who can substantiate that it is correct? If it can be substantiated, it means Schachte, O'Neill, Corsi et al have got it wrong. On the other hand if Kranish has got that detail all wrong, it's most likely the rest of the story, which I'm assuming someone had to tell him, is all wrong too. The devil is in the details.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1187580/posts
Heroism, and growing concern about war

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff, 6/16/2003

Kerry experienced his first intense combat action on Dec. 2, 1968, when he "semi-volunteered for, was semi-drafted" for a risky covert mission in which he essentially was supposed to "flush out" the enemy, using a little Boston Whaler named "Batman." A larger backup craft was called "Robin."

Unfortunately, Robin had engine trouble, and Batman's exit was delayed until the boats could depart in unison. The Batman crew encountered some Viet Cong, engaged in a firefight, and Kerry was slightly wounded on his arm, earning his first Purple Heart on his first day of serious action.

Forbes

No after action report--no hostilities--no engagement with the enemy--no medal for self-inflicted wound if there's no engagement with hostile forces.

The unit commander, Grant Hibbard, didn't approve the PH, so Kerry must've submitted the paper work when he was transfer from training at Coastal Division 14 to his assignment at Coastal Division 11.

Release the records, sign the 180.

antimedia

Snowy, as a Vietnam era vet (6 years in the Navy, but I did not serve in Vietnam) I can answer your question. We have lived with the shame of being baby killers and known that the public didn't want to hear any other story. It took the extraordinary circumstance of our main accuser running for the Presidency to convince us that speaking out was worth the effort, even though we knew the press would crucify us.

Appalled moderate - there are no records of this incident. That's the problem. If there had been enemy fire, an after action report would have been filed by LTJG Schachte.

There is something that can clear this up - Zaladonis' military records. I believe, based upon my extensive research, that he was not on the boat because he was stationed in An Thoi at the time of this incident. His records would clear this question up, and prove me right or wrong.

Having served in the Navy, I'll take the word of a highly respected officer who served as the JAG over an enlisted man who supports Kerry.

antimedia

Snowy, as a Vietnam era vet (6 years in the Navy, but I did not serve in Vietnam) I can answer your question. We have lived with the shame of being baby killers and known that the public didn't want to hear any other story. It took the extraordinary circumstance of our main accuser running for the Presidency to convince us that speaking out was worth the effort, even though we knew the press would crucify us.

Appalled moderate - there are no records of this incident. That's the problem. If there had been enemy fire, an after action report would have been filed by LTJG Schachte.

There is something that can clear this up - Zaladonis' military records. I believe, based upon my extensive research, that he was not on the boat because he was stationed in An Thoi at the time of this incident. His records would clear this question up, and prove me right or wrong.

Having served in the Navy, I'll take the word of a highly respected officer who served as the JAG over an enlisted man who supports Kerry.

Patrick R. Sullivan

I'm sure, now that our host is famous,

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/517dhjcp.asp

"The blog JustOneMinute was the first to find the 1986 'seared--seared' speech in which Kerry described his memory of being in Cambodia in December 1968."

he can use his power and influence to get to the bottom of all this.

Back to Batman and Robin; if they were nicknames for boats, that is bad news for Kerry. The Swift Boat towed the Boston Whaler, and the story identifies the boat with engine trouble (i.e. the tow boat) as Robin. Meaning that when Kerry years later calls Schachte Batman, he's identifying Schachte with the Boston Whaler.

Cecil Turner

Callsigns, who was on which boat, who cares? There's only one question that matters: was there incoming fire? Not one witness answers "yes." And the only witness who describes it in any detail provides an unequivocal "no."

"Earlier this year, during the preparation of the Globe's biography, the Kerry campaign was asked repeatedly whether Kerry believes he was hit by enemy fire or whether there was any hostile fire. The Kerry campaign refused to respond."

That sounds like another "no" to me.

Snowy

>There is something that can clear this up - Zaladonis' military records.

Which should available in part through an FOI request. OK, who's going to put in a request?

Snowy

Cecil
>Callsigns, who was on which boat, who cares?

Well...speaking as a strictly amateur girl detective (Batgirl?) I think it's very important because there are two different versions of what the callsigns referred to -- the O'Neill/Corsi version and the M. Kranish's/Kerry version. And whichever version has that important detail correct is probably the true story.

antimedia

Thanks for the explanation. I understand much better now.


Snowy

My last word on Batman and Robin. Sounding like a broken record.

If someone gets the extremely important detail such as the identity of Batman and Robin wrong, their memories must be pretty fuzzy to say the least. On the other hand, if someone gets it right, it's likely their memories about whether or not there was enemy fire would also be accurate.

So if "enemy fire" can't be definitively proven one way or another, perhaps determining who is right about the CONCRETE detail of who Batman and Robin were could shed a bit more light on who is telling the truth.

Snowy Drew

Cecil Turner

"Well...speaking as a strictly amateur girl detective (Batgirl?) I think it's very important because there are two different versions of what the callsigns . . . whichever version has that important detail correct is probably the true story."

If the debate is whether Kerry rated a purple heart, the only fact in question is whether or not there was enemy fire--the rest is window dressing. The callsign question would be a good indicator, but wouldn't automatically vet the testimony on the central event. And besides, it's unnecessary. As a veteran of a couple night firefights, I can assure you there is absolutely no way to miss muzzle flashes from incoming small arms fire at tactical ranges. Schachte addresses the issue directly--Runyon and Zaladonis by omission--but all agree: there was no enemy fire. The Kerry campaign tacitly admitted as much, and allowed the wound could have been unintentionally self-inflicted.

antimedia

The Navy, to the best of my knowledge and recollection, never used call signs for boats. They were always for people. Boat had names and hull numbers, but not call signs. Even planes didn't have call signs. The pilots and co-pilots did. (Remember Top Gun?)

Another fact that's significant to me is that Schachte was Batman and Kerry was Robin. Batman was the older, more experienced crime fighter. Robin was the boy wonder, in training. Get it? I imagine those call signs were chosen for that one mission. "OK, John, you'll be Robin. I'm Batman."

Kerry had a different call sign when he got his own boat. (I've forgotten what it was.) Kerry later adopted the call sign "Boston Strangler".

Now, based on my Navy experience, there is no way the command structure is ever going to let a LTJG go out on his first combat mission alone, with no supervision. No way. That fact alone mitigates against Kerry's version of the facts and strengthens RADM Schachte's version in my mind.

And to answer one other question, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that Runyon couldn't recall the call signs of Kerry and Schachte. In the Navy, enlisted men do not interact with officers to the extent that they "know" each other. They don't eat or sleep in the same quarters. They don't drink in the same bars. (Of course there are always exceptions to the rule.)

That's why Schachte clearly remembers Kerry but does not remember the name of the enlisted man on the mission. To Schachte, he was "an enlisted man". His purpose on this mission was to train Kerry. The enlisted man was just a necessary cog in the wheel, if you will. (And I was enlisted myself, so I'm speaking from experience, not trying to denigrate the service.) And that enlisted man was an engineman - someone who could handle the outboard motor. Both Runyon and Zaladonis were enginemen. Why would you need to enginemen on a 14 foot boat with an outboard motor? Why would you put an inexperienced engineman in the bow, manning an M-60, with a green officer?

One thing I've never forgotten from my Navy days (and I doubt any enlisted man ever does) is RHIP - Rank Has Its Privileges. The other is this - "The polite request of your commanding officer is tantamount to a direct command."

Sir, yes sir!

Greg F

"Another fact that's significant to me is that Schachte was Batman and Kerry was Robin. Batman was the older, more experienced crime fighter. Robin was the boy wonder, in training."

Batman was also a popular (and corny) TV series at the time. The distinction between teacher (Batman) and student (Robin) was unambiguous, there was no pretense of equality between the two characters. Logistically it would strike me as advantageous for the parade of trainees to share the same call sign, at least for the sake of any support personal. Perhaps antimedia could comment on this.

Kind of a side note, I was reading a news clip tonight that President Johnson sent a few hundred thousand TV sets to Vietnam. One of the most popular shows for the Vietnamese, after Mission Impossible, was Batman!

ParseThis

1. Kerry was in training for a Swift command, not for skimmer missions (which were Schachte exclusives, and sound like some form of punishment for missing meetings or whatever). The trainer/trainee relationship only implies that Schachte would accompany the mission.

2. The call signs were mission specific, not person specific. Kerry wouldn't have associated either call sign with Schachte, but would have associated 'Batman' (the skimmer) with the mission itself.

Schachte on how the call signs worked: "On the night of December 2-3, we conducted one of these operations, and Lt. (jg) Kerry accompanied me. Our call sign for that operation was 'Batman'."

The only thing that demands that Schachte be aboard the skimmer is an assertion that he was always aboard the skimmer. Never say never, I say. These skimmer missions don't sound too difficult, but maybe a bit more dangerous. Schachte may have decided to sit this one out. "Go for it, kid."

There are no solid premises that require Schachte be aboard the skimmer. Plus, the Corsi/O'Neill version is 'misstated'. Kerry could have recruited Runyon/Zaladonis to tell a fictional version. Schachte on the witness stand: "You can't handle the truth!"

3. Hibbard acquiesced to submitting medical records after receiving "some heat" from superiors (Kerry, no doubt, applied "some heat" to Saigon.) The PH was routinely awarded.

Appalled Moderate

Antimedia:

The problem, here, is that the Swifties are, as a group, so motivated against Kerry as a result of his anti-war leadership, that they have a powerful motivation to lie. So you have a situation where you can't prove the story, and there is a strong motivation on the part of the accuser to flat out fib, slant the story, spin the story. And the events in question happened 35 years ago. For somebody to remember exactly what happened back that long ago, and get all the salient facts right is asking a lot.

My inclination in these circumstances is not to believe an accuser. He might be lying for his perception of the greater good of the country. Or, more likely, he does not remember clearly, but thinks he does, and is letting his prejudices color his vision. (you know how things can get seared in the memory...)

There is a written record. It is contemporaneous. Unless you can find something other than the fallable memory of witnesses with axes to grind; or Kerry's people change the story, this story goes nowhere.

Patrick R. Sullivan

"Sir, yes sir!"

I thought it was, "Aye, aye, sir.", in the navy.

Other than that I agree with your analysis. Kerry didn't call Schachte, "Robin". If he had, that would associate Schachte with the PCF. He called him "Batman", which is the Boston Whaler. If the nicknames were for the boats.

As for who has a motivation to lie, clearly it's stronger for Kerry. It's hard to imagine why someone like John O'Neill would want to disturb his life, when he's just gotten out of the hospital, having donated a kidney to his wife, for the grief he's getting.

Not to mention the opportunity cost of several hundred dollars an hour in foregone legal billings. Similarly for Schachte; he's not going to be representing Democrat clients anytime soon.

Snowy

Michael Kranish must be a very bad journalist or have very unreliable sources in that in his article he called the Swiftboat "Robin" (even throwing in the detail of Robin's engine trouble) and called the whaler "Batman". I just find it bizarre that Kranish apparently got such an important detail so totally wrong.

I thought detectives always looked for small, inconsistent details to try to figure out the guilty party. I wonder if Roger Simon would think a clue like this is meaningful. :-)

Snowy Drew

TM

There is a written record. It is contemporaneous.

Not really, for the skimmer story - there was no after-action report, and we have seen no documents from anyone describing what happened. We do have the medical report from the next day showing Kerry got treated for a wound.

I would love to see Kerry's War Notes for his contemporaneous description of this.

Call signs here. PCFs don't seem to get call signs.

However, for purposes of these missions, I can see "Batman" operating mysteriously in the shadows, and "Robin" providing support.

Appalled Moderate

At the time, somebody in authority thought the wound qualified Kerry for a Purple Heart. Otherwise, he would not have received one.

At this this time, nobody can seem to give a clear story of the incident.

What are you going to believe: that folks closer to the time of the event erred in the award? Or that the memories of some folks serving with Kerry regarding an incident 35/6 years ago (which memories do not comport with others serving with Kerry) should trump all?

I don't see where this story can go. There is not enough here to overturn the findings of whoever awarded Kerry Purple Heart I.

Cecil Turner

If there was a huge discrepancy between stories on the issue of enemy fire, evaluating credibility would be critical. But there isn't. The Kerry supporters aren't saying: "Schachte wasn't there, and we saw lots of enemy fire." They're saying: "Schachte wasn't there, but we didn't see anything either." Nobody claims to've seen any enemy fire. Zaladonis and Runyon give a couple of weak excuses as to why they might not have (i.e., no tracers from small arms, vision obscured by firing from their own boat)--but there's no real dispute on the only point that matters.

As to the written record, there are only two pieces that would answer: an after action (or "spot") report, and the award recommendation. Neither have been released (there's no evidence the first even exists). Given the later diary entry saying they'd never been shot at, the Kerry campaign's refusal to claim there was enemy fire (and tacit admission the wound might have been unintentionally self-inflicted), it's perhaps forgivable to conclude the medal wasn't earned. And Kerry's refusal to release the records doesn't help his case.

Patrick R. Sullivan

"Michael Kranish must be a very bad journalist"

On the evidence of other incidents he's reported, that is the logical conclusion.

antimedia

Yes, it was "Aye, aye, sir" in the Navy. I guess I've been corrupted by one of my best friends who is a Marine. I've heard "Sir, yes sir" so many times, I've almost forgotten my Navy days. :-(

Appalled Moderate, as others have pointed out, there is no record of this incident. Since after action reports were required whenever there was hostile fire, how do you explain the absence of a report in this case?

Secondly, you make the point that "At the time, somebody in authority thought the wound qualified Kerry for a Purple Heart. Otherwise, he would not have received one."

That's simply not true. At the time, both his training officer (Schachte) and his commanding officer (Hibbard) refused his request for a Purple Heart based on the verbal reports of the mission. These were contemporaneous. Kerry received his Purple Heart 3 months later, and significantly (at least for me) it was the same day that he also got his Silver Star. (I imagine his CO saying, "Kerry, I'm putting you in for the Silver Star for this." and Kerry saying, to an officer who was unaware of the Dec 2 incident, "Sir, I never received a PH for the injury I sustained in December. Do you think you could take care of that as well?")

You see, in the Navy, an officer is considered a gentleman, and his word is his bond. No one would question an officer unless they knew for certain that what he or she said was false. And no one would ever suspect an officer of falsifying official records. That's just not what officers do. (Remember, I'm relating the Navy of the 60's and 70's. It may be different now, but I kind of doubt it.)

I realize for a non-military person a lot of this seems like he said/she said, but believe me, when you explain the details to vets, their eyebrows instantly rise and they mutter stuff under their breath. Not all of them, mind you, but many of them. Enough that I'm convinced this election is over.

Greg's point about the call signs is well taken. It could be that Schachte was always Batman and the OinC in training was always Robin.

Parse this says, "Kerry was in training for a Swift command, not for skimmer missions (which were Schachte exclusives, and sound like some form of punishment for missing meetings or whatever). The trainer/trainee relationship only implies that Schachte would accompany the mission."

Kerry was trained as a Swift boat commander at Coronado, before he ever sailed for Vietnam. If he wasn't ready to command a boat when he got to Vietnam, then his training in Coronado was deficient. What they couldn't train him for in Coronado was actual combat. The skimmer ops would have been perfect for that, but you sure wouldn't send a green officer out in a skimmer, with no trainer, and expect him to learn much. Who's going to teach him how to look for the enemy? Who's going to teach him how to lay down suppressing fire? The enlisted men? Not in the Navy I was in!

I hope this clarifies things some.

TM

At the time, somebody in authority thought the wound qualified Kerry for a Purple Heart.

I'll join the other rebuttals and ask, who in authority? The paperwork supporting that Purple Heart has not been released and the date of the award (Feb 28) is oddly late for a Dec 2 incident.

For instance, his Feb 20 incident resulted in a PH on March 5; the March 13 PH incident was awarded April 13. (IIRC from his website).

Troll

I got a question. In Milbank's article, which we are discussing, is the phrase "Schachte could not be reached for comment"? Schachte was never interviewed, his association extrapolated from documentation, so his motive was reached via hypothesis, unless Dana Milbank is a psychic.

Appalled Moderate

This story handles the first purple heart issues better than I am able:

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/539bussn.asp

I am sure vets have special knowledge I don't have on these issues. But, remember that you are trying to sell these allegations to a general public that is just as ignorant of this kind of thing as I am. And right now, the harder you push, the more you get is more he said/she said. In that situation, I will go with the determinations made contemporaneously, not the howls of eyewitnesses 35 years later. And so will most people.

The swifties do not have enough evidence for their claim that Kerry is lying. That leves them liable to a charge that their ads are a smear.

TM

Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard does a good job.

He does not address my point, however - the Purple Heart regs don't seem to require "enemy fire", they reuire "engaging the enemy". Obviously, if the enemy is *not* firing back, it is a bit subjective as to whether they were actually engaged, and here, the objections of Hibbard and Schachte (as ranking officers who might have an opinion on whether the enemy was engaged) to awarding a PH would be significant.

However, the point of "suppressing fire" is to suppress enemy fire, so, one might argue, Kerry was engaged in a good-faith combat exercise.

Well, that is the argument, anyway.

TM

And anothe thing! Does the Weekly Standard article delve into the mysterious timing of the award of the first Purple Heart? Maybe I missed it.

Appalled Moderate

Timing of the award is not addressed in the article. One can attribute all this to administrative delays as well.

I remember an old Willie & Joe (WWII era) cartoon with a caption: "No I don't want a purple heart. Just give me an asprin!" Which tells me that the perception for many years is that Purple Hearts have been handed out pretty easily over the years.

Seems like we're at the end of the trail on this charge.

ParseThis

Al Hunt, the liberal sympathizer who infiltrated the WSJ, claims to know that Ashley Thrift, Fritz Hollings' aide, was Schachte's friend in the Senate that day. I don't know when Schachte said this but if it's so, Hunt says Thrift said he wasn't there. Anyway, Thurlow looks like a stooge. Al French has admitted to being used to make claims in the ad he couldn't possibly know. What's the score now? 264 affidavits, 260 of which testify to the edited affidavits of four others? Whatever the case, more people have come out independently to disabuse the Swifts of their disgraceful envy and misplaced anger than there are primary affidavits, and half of those have been discredited and the other half are of dubious authorship. I'd say the Swifts are well on their way to dishonoring themselves.

I've seen people outraged that Kerry would beach his boat even though the shamelessly self-serving Capt. Hoffman liked it, and this innovative and effective tactic became regularly employed. I've seen people lend the weight of their personal contempt to say they would never want to serve with Kerry even though you have Michael Bernique impressed with Kerry's "fearlessness" and has said, "I don't recall anybody saying they didn't want to serve with him. I would not have worried about my back if John was with me." Then you have people like Beldar who waste inordinate effort trying to puff up the credibility of 'witnesses' despite the fallaciousness of this appeal. Even Schachte's purposely vague statements are mostly irrelevancies to make people think he must know what he's talking about. In and of themselves, these are stunningly weak arguments which is reflective the claims they are intended to support. I feel sad for these Swifts who'll have to answer to their grandchildren when asked, "Grandpa, were you in denial about what happened in Vietnam when you indignantly smeared John Kerry?"

TM

"No I don't want a purple heart. Just give me an asprin!" Which tells me that the perception for many years is that Purple Hearts have been handed out pretty easily over the years.

I saw that very story cited as evidence that, for many soldiers, one Purple Heart was enough, and that running up the score was not the "done" thing.

And for ParseThis: your premise seems to be that the truth of the Swift Boat clams actually matters. I think that superficial approach has been part of the reason the Kerry campaign's response has ben so weak.

Look, John Edwards said at the convention, if we want to know about Kerry's character, ask the guys who served with him. Well, if the guys who served with him are willing to lie, cheat, and steal to keep him out of the White House, that does tell me something, although maybe not quite what Edwards had in mind.

I don't know the answer to this, but for the Kerry side to keep saying these guys are dishonorable liars sort of misses the point - at some point, they need to address the question of why these vets loathe Kerry, when Edwards said they would vouch for him.

(And yes, I have heard the "Edwards meant the eight guys on Kerry's boat" argument. Please don't offer that one - no one who reads Tour of Duty could argue that Thurlow, to pick one officer out of a hat, did not serve with Kerry.)

TM

As part of our "No paperwork left behind" initiative, we note this:

Purple Hearts, lesser awards given for wounds received under fire, are even more subjective. Anyone can fill in the paperwork and forward it to a supervisor, who checks it and sends it up to an "approving authority." This may be a battalion commander, ship's commanding officer, or a medical officer in a combat hospital.

Army regulations specify that medals must not be given for such "wounds" as frostbite, battle fatigue, accidents or food poisoning (unless "caused by enemy agent"). Purple Heart citations "should be" supported by eyewitness statements.

We have not seen any of this paperwork on the first Purple Heart. Who approved it, and what did the eyewitnesses (if any) say?


Gary B.

The 1st purple heart was for Dec 2, 1968. But on Dec 11, Kerry wrote in his diary "we were feelin' cocky - because we hadn't been shot at yet"

And I've read on several sites that Kerry or his campaign have come out and admitted this too.

Kerry could sign the 180 form and then he could hold a pretend whitehouse press conference with a full real reporter audience who are rabbid and literally drooling questions out of their mouths.

He always says "when I'm president, I be the one you accountable and I'll be the one to accept responsibility. I won't pass the buck or allow some bottom of the food chain corporal or private take the fall for my administration."

And while that sounds soooooo admirable and presidential, truth is he's hiding behind his campaign staffs skirts. He travels with dozens of reporters but they don't get to ask him questions? Or they just don't want to? Either way, he's acting like one of the un-touchables. What gives Jahn Fanda Kerryon?

This is the time to act presidential. This is your big chance, the audition of a life time, for the exact role you've always dreamed of. And if you don't get your little Cinderella ass out here now, you're gonna miss out! No damn prince is gonna be huntin' your ass down to see if some glass slipper fits, cause you already stuffed you foot in your mouth with the shoe on.

ledger

ledger - best drugstore choose / sorry if i mistake this field

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame