"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

Show your evidence that Kerry didnt earn his third purple
heart, received in his second tour of duty.


I didn't say it was his third purple heart, I said he used an unearned
purple heart to get out of Vietnam after serving just a third of his tour.
I believe the award in question was the first one.

Ok, thanks.


The following letter appeared in the USA Today "Letters" section on June
25th last, page 8A:


I have questions about some parts of the story below. They may have
reasonable answers, but we won't find out unless the questions are
asked.



Criticism of Kerry's Purple Heart is just

Retired U.S. army colonel David Hackworth defends presidential
candidate John Kerry's Purple Hearts. He correctly notes that they are
awarded for a wound that necessitates treatment by a medical officer and
that is received in action with an enemy ('The meaning of a Purple Heart,"
The Forum, June 16).

I was the commanding officer to whom Kerry reported his injury on Dec.
3, 1968. I had confirmed that there was no hostile fire that night and that
Kerry had simply wounded himself with an M-79 grenade round he fired too
close. He wanted a Purple Heart, and I refused. Louis Letson, the base
physician, saw Kerry and used tweezers to remove the tiny piece of
shrapnel - about 1 centi*meter in length and 2 millimeters in di*ameter.
Letson also confirmed that the scratch was inflicted with our M-79.

If there was no enemy fire, or at least enemies present, why was the
M-79 grenade fired?


We admire Col. Hackworth, but he, above all people, knows why it is
unac*ceptable to nominate yourself for an award.

If so, why was the nomination accepted?

It compromises the basic
military principle that we survive together. To promote yourself is to
denigrate your team. I hope Col. Hackworth will rethink his characterization
of Kerry's swift-boat comrades as "grousers" passing on "secondhand bilge."
In our case, this is firsthand knowledge, and our integrity is unquestioned.


For Mr Hibbard to have first hand knowedge of the incident he would have
had to witness it himself. He doesn't ocme out and say one way or the
other but it seems that his account is based on what he heard from others,
including Kerry, making it second hand, not firsthand.

Kerry orchestrated his way out of Viet*nam and then testified, under
oath, be*fore Congress that we, his comrades, had committed horrible war
crimes. This tes*timony was a lie and slandered honor*able men. We, who were
actually there, believe he is unfit to command our sons and daughters.


Mr Hibbard does not quote from Kerry's testimony. Therefor I cannot
be sure as to exactly what testimony he refers. But if he referes to
the testimony at the link I posted eslwhere in this thread then clearly
Mr Hibbard misconstrues Kerry's testimony to the extent that Hubbard's
statement is a lie and slanders an honorable man.


Grant Hibbard, retired commander US. Navy, Gulf Breeze, Fla.
Louis Letson, M.D. Retired lieutenant commander Medical Corps, US. Navy
Reserve Scottsboro, Ala.

Louis Letson, M.D. Retired lieutenant commander Medical Corps, US. Navy
Reserve Scottsboro, Ala.


Did you see this in USA TOday, or did you get it from somewhere else?



ALso,

Show your evidence that Bush didn't get out of Vietnam.


Evidence that Bush didn't get out of Vietnam? What the hell are you talking
about? Bush did not serve in Vietnam.

Oh, so Bush did get out of serving in Vietnam. Smart move, IMHO.




Show why any of that is more important than what both men have
done since.


I can't. I don't believe it is more important than what both men have done
since.

Me neither.

But Kerry and the Democratic Party apparently do believe it is more
important than what they have done since. Since Kerry became the
frontrunner for their nomination Vietnam has been the key issue in their
campaign to defeat Bush.

I have seen only a handful of ads for Kerry and do not recall them
even mentioning his service in Vietnam.

You can check out his website he
http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html

I see no mention of his military service at all on the frontpage and
only two sentences devoted to it in his biography.

Ofhand, I'd have to say that your statement "Vietnam has been the
key issue in their campaign to defeat Bush." is completely unfounded.
AFACT, Iraq has been the key issue in their campagn to defeat Bush.

--

FF