Pittsburg Post-Gazette:
Kerry recently recalled suffering a paper cut while reading Stars and Stripes in a Kwan Gai latrine. Paperwork for his 4th Purple Heart is forthcoming. . .
Now for the real story -
"According to Kerry, his first taste of combat came on his first mission, on the night of Dec. 2, 1968. He was with two sailors in a Boston whaler on a night patrol. They saw sampans, presumably crewed by Viet Cong, unloading on a peninsula. They opened fire, and the Vietnamese ran for cover. In the 'engagement,' Kerry suffered a scratch on his arm from a piece of metal.
Kerry's account to his biographer, Douglas Brinkley, gives the impression that he was in command of the whaler. This was not so. Lt. William Schachte, later an admiral, was the officer in charge. Shachte said the Vietnamese never fired on the boat, and the sailors who were with Schachte and Kerry said they couldn't remember any return fire.
Shachte said Kerry's scratch was self-inflicted. He had fired an M-79 grenade launcher too close to the shore. It struck a rock, and a fragment of metal ricocheted and struck Kerry. Louis Letson, the doctor who treated Kerry (he put a Band-Aid on the cut) said the metal fragment looked like a piece from an M-79 grenade.
The Kerry campaign has charged that Letson didn't treat Kerry, because the log recording his treatment was signed by J.C. Carreon. But Letson was the only physician assigned to Cam Ranh Bay at the time. If you've ever been to a doctor's office, you may have noticed that the doctors themselves rarely do the paperwork. Carreon (who died in 1992) was Letson's corpsman."
Self-inflicted wound, treated with a band-aid. 4 months in country, and leaves at the suggestion of his own unit.
Loser.

2 comments:
I really think this whole records thing has been blown completely out of proportion.
Does it really matter that Bush basically hung out in the air national guard?
No.
Does it matter that Kerry did a full 4 months out of a year or more tour?
No.
Does it matter that Bush is doing something about terrorism today?
Yes.
Does it matter that Kerry may actually be endangering the lives of U.S. servicement by stating his plans to pull troops out of Iraq?
Yes.
These are the real issues. The others are just eternally debatable drivel. Entertaining drivel, but drivel nonetheless.
BTW: I stole a copy of your code for Fark. The stuff I had wasn't working. I'll give you a link in return.
In my opinion, the important thing is not each candidate's war record, but their honesty. If someone lies about something like war records or military decorations does that really make them fit for office? If a candidate cannot seem to make up his mind on an issue, or keeps changing what he says to suit what the audience wants to hear, is this someone who deserves to hold office? Is this someone who is running because he wants to help make this country a better, brighter, safer place? Or someone who wants to add one more title to his resume?
Post a Comment