John Kerry has three purple hearts, so what?

Are military medals worth the medal they're made of?

Published on August 19, 2004 By Spc Nobody Special In Politics

In an election year, when the entire future of the U.S. military is called into question, presidential candidates have become terribly enbroiled over the issue of their own military records. Because of this, John Kerry, the democratic candidate for president, has proudly promoted his service record, claiming to serve honorably and win several medals, including three purple hearts.

However, ignoring the accusations by his fellow veterans, and the statement of a medical officer saying that one his wounds was self-inflicted, what if they were completely and utterly earned. All that that means is that Kerry has thrice won the "enemy marksmanship award," and that he's bad at ducking. I want to know about his other awards, and did he earn them?

Military medals have degenerated greatly since the days of the first purple hearts. To win a purple heart in it's heyday, was roughly equivalent to having a medal of honor. It meant something. Nowadays anyone can get it. A cousin of mine in the air force was standing next to a diplomatic compound, and recieved a small cut on the back of the hand when a nearby building was blown up. No further combat. Guess which medal he proudly wears? Perhaps I could get a medal for getting randomly hit by a bolt of lightning on duty.

In this day and age, medals are given out freely. In grenada, medals greatly outnumbered the forces who fought there. There was an average of almost 40 medals per defeated enemy soldier. This is not to say that there are not people who fight bravely, making sacrifices, that earn the right to wear a badge of courage, something that says "I did something," but how more shameful is it to those people, when the same medal is given to others, not for something extraordinary, but as a pat on the back for a job well done. When I recieve an award like that, it's like I'm at an Army Special Olympics....that's ok...everyone's a winner.

Medals deserve significance, I've seen battalion coins given for saving a life, at the same formation that someone got a medal for performing well at the army ball. What kind of message is that? You can get a Good Conduct Medal by staying out of jail more than once every three years, and in the 2nd Infantry Division, you have to have recieve an award before you're allowed to leave.

I hold that it's ridiculous to make such an issue over whether or not someone is good at being shot. Our country's medals, and the soldiers that earn them, deserve significance. And I will wear as few of mine as I can get away with, until I do something truly special that deserves one.

Comments (Page 1)

ganderson

on Aug 19, 2004

First of all, to dispose of this quickly, the "fellow veterans" and "medical officer" you refer to are part of the "Swift Boat" ad, which you must know (or should) is a provable falsehood from beginning to end. You have to lie about Kerry's military record because you know if you stuck to the truth about it, you'd lose. Republicans have to denigrate and minimalize military experience this election, because their guy doesn't have any.

If Bush had gotten a purple heart in Vietnam, you guys would be wetting yourselves in every 60-second spot. But he didn't get a purple heart, did he? Say, where and when did Bush serve again...?

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 19, 2004

Excellent post. It kinda gets me when I see people getting purple hearts passed out with the mess kits, when my grandfather, a WWI vet, was left for dead at the second battle of the Marne, and received nothing but a campaign medal.

Texas Wahine

on Aug 19, 2004

SPC Nbs: Wow . . . this is a different type of post than what I am used to from you. I can't help but agree with you on this. There has been much complaint in the Army about the ease with which medals are awarded now. Very good article.

Deference

on Aug 19, 2004

However, ignoring the accusations by his fellow veterans, and the statement of a medical officer saying that one his wounds was self-inflicted, what if they were completely and utterly earned. All that that means is that Kerry has thrice won the "enemy marksmanship award," and that he's bad at ducking. I want to know about his other awards, and did he earn them?

I thought the following post had been prominently displayed enough so to dispel this lie, so I'll post it again in this forum for your viewing pleasure:

There is a media storm circling John Kerry and his service. Did he deserve his medals, did he serve honorably, and are the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (S.B.V.T.) living up to their name? The answer is as murky as the waters in the ‘Nam our Swiftboats (or Patrol Fast-Craft ) patrolled nearly thirty – five years ago. It can only be held as factual as the belief the individual perceives in each dirty whirlpool every one cycles through as their search for the truth leads them. This short essay only attempts to provide a more in-depth view than that which our bloated and careless media chooses to gloss over. The people deserve more than that which is offered to them by the AP, Fox, CBS, etc. That said, let us begin exploring the organization that is S.B.V.T. .
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was officially launched on May 04, 2004 (http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php).
“It's notable that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was formed not by a Swift Boat Veteran but by Merrie Spaeth, a Republican PR hack from Houston whose late husband ran for the office of Lieutenant Governer in Texas with George W. Bush…Suffice it to say that the money behind Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is the same money behind the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library Foundation (http://www.warblogging.com/).”

Their mission has been to call out Kerry on his faux paux’s regarding the Vietnam War and to rattle his purported account(s) on what actually occurred in those rainy days spent fighting the “man in the black pajamas”. They only want to set the record straight, they say, and allow the justice of dead men the glory they deserve, not to disgrace the men in uniform who did their duty. An excerpt of the letter the two – hundred and fifty men sent to Senator and presidential candidate John Kerry:

“It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us). Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war. “

From the founding members themselves we hear these quotes;

“We resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back from Vietnam in 1971 and repeated in the book "Tour of Duty." We think those cast an aspersion on all those living and dead, from our unit and other units in Vietnam. We think that he knew he was lying when he made the charges, and we think that they're unsupportable. We intend to bring the truth about that to the American people.

"We believe, based on our experience with him, that he is totally unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief."
John O'Neill, spokesman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

"During Lt.(jg) Kerry's tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families.

Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)

"Thirty-five years ago, many of us fell silent when we came back to the stain of sewage that Mr. Kerry had thrown on us, and all of our colleagues who served over there. I don't intend to be silent today or ever again. Our young men and women who are serving deserve no less."
Andrew Horne

"In my specific, personal experience in both coastal and river patrols over a 12-month period, I never once saw or heard anything remotely resembling the atrocities described by Senator Kerry. If I had, it would have been my obligation to report them in writing to a higher authority, and I would certainly have done that. If Senator Kerry actually witnessed or participated in these atrocities or, as he described them, 'war crimes,' he was obligated to report them. That he did not until later when it suited his political purposes strikes me as opportunism of the worst kind. That he would malign my service and that of his fellow sailors with no regard for the truth makes him totally unqualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief."
-- Jeffrey Wainscott

The founding members are listed here and on the S.B.V.T. web page as these individuals, all of which have given statements in similar regard:

Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, USN (Ret.) Chairman

Captain Charley Plumly, USN (Ret.)

William E. Franke

Alvin A. Horne

Bill Lannom

John O’ Neill ( the officer who took over John K. Command )

And Wymouth Symmes, Treasurer

Notice a trend in the statements above? Nowhere does any honourable or distinguished veteran actually say that John Kerry did any great legal wrong. Instead they seem disappointed that John K. did not support their position on the war in Vietnam. They all went home tired and wearied, spat upon and disrespected by civilians. They seem embittered by their fellow comrade who spoke out against a war that was unfavorable by the general public, feeling betrayed, most undoubtedly. It seems that sour grapes are the order of the day, no matter how justified their feelings.

Kerry went home to organize a group known as the “Vietnam Veterans Against the War” and testified to Congress that unspeakable atrocities occurred during the war such as raping, killing of livestock and civilians. We’ve had many years to disseminate whether or not that is true, and the general public seems to be informed of such things actually occurring. Whether or not those things did occur by the fellow men Kerry served with is questionable, however, and nothing came of his accusations. The Nixon administration did feel threatened, though, and brought out a gentleman named John O’ Neill ( not to be confused with Jhon P. O’ Neill, an FBI man who died in the 9 / 11 attacks ) who debated John Kerry in an episode of the 1971 episode of the Dick Cavett show. A Nixon aid ,Charles Colson, is quoted as saying,

"'Let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader,'” (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth)

Also,

"He was a thorn in our flesh. He was very articulate, a credible leader of the opposition. He forced us to create a counterfoil. We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group." [1]
(http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth)

Doesn’t sound very altruistic. Sounds like dirty politics, but par for the course with that particular administration. It would seem a legacy was being passed down, but what of Mr. O’ Neill, who is he?

His family legacy shows that O'Neill's grandfather taught at the Naval Academy; his father graduated in the early '30s, flew fighters, fought at Iwo Jima, and retired an admiral; O'Neill himself, who grew up in landlocked San Antonio, Texas, was in the Naval Academy Class of 1967 (two brothers also graduated, '57 and '59).

O’Neill spent some time on Swift Boats before taking over for Kerry, one of them was the Woodpecker. O’Neill states that the average length of duty on a Swift Boat was twelve months, but Kerry spent only four and twelve days, possibly because he requested the tour to be cut short. (http://www.nationalreview.com/rose/rose200404211228.asp)

O’Neill did well in the debate and caught Kerry’s inability to provide evidence or specific accounts of war crimes.

“What O'Neill found particularly unsettling was that here was "a guy who believed everything we did in Vietnam was a crime" but who was now "campaigning on his record and claiming to be a war hero." In short, "the only reason I'm getting involved now is because he's running for commander-in-chief of the United States."

So there it is: a regular American — O'Neill, father of two, likes hiking, playing golf, and taking an active part in his church — not content anymore to allow Kerry and his kind to keep hijacking the Vietnam War.” (http://www.nationalreview.com/rose/rose200404211228.asp)

Watching C-Span at anytime during these election days will garner people the chance to watch the actual debate. Part of the transcript is available at the S.B.V.T. webpage. But has Kerry actually lied? Has he not been deserving of his numerous medals, and has he done anything wrong beside speak out against the actions in Vietnam? Who is lying here or are is there anything besides conjecture, opinion, and politics as usual?

“The August 4 2004 editions of Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes and MSNBC's Scarborough Country dedicated coverage and airtime to the SBVT campaign. Misrepresentations and misinformation failed to be addressed. For example, claims that SBVT members served with John Kerry on his boat in Vietnam were supported by the Hannity & Colmes broadcast, which referred to the group as Kerry's "crewmates." Only one of the members of SWVT was actually a crewmate of Kerry. Other served on boats that ran missions with Kerry's boat. (The SBVT ad and official statements by the group correctly claim only that the speakers "served with" Kerry, not that they were on the same boat.) “
(http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth)

There has been quite a bit of dispute over Kerry’s medals and how he earned them, if he did, and to what degree. I’m thoroughly convinced that all of his medals, with the exception of one were awarded as they should be, those not in agreement should consult the following web page where I have acquired the following information regarding his first purple heart.

"...The following morning, John Kerry arrived at the office of Coastal Division 14 Commander Grant Hibbard to apply for a Purple Heart. Having already been informed by Schachte that Kerry's injury was self-inflicted rather than the result of hostile fire, Commander Hibbard told him to "forget it." Hibbard recently said of Kerry's minor scratch, "I’ve seen worse injuries from a rose thorn." Nevertheless, John Kerry managed to obtain his coveted Purple Heart for this incident nearly three months later after being transferred to Coastal Division 11.
...
Military regulations state that to qualify for a Purple Heart, an injury must come "from an outside force or agent," and treatment for the wound must "have been made a matter of official record." While John Kerry managed to satisfy the second criterion by insisting that an amused Dr. Letson provide an official Band-Aid, nicking himself with a fragment from his own poorly-aimed grenade fails to meet the first qualification."

FACT
(i) Kerry could NOT have gotten his Purple Heart without his Commander's recommendation. Indeed, regulations do not allow combatants to nominate themselves Purple Hearts or award it to themselves.
(ii) The severity of the injury is irrelevant to the award of a Purple Heart. The injury had to be sustained due to an outside force or in action against an enemy or hostile foreign force - or even from friendly fire. So SBV's claims are outrageous and without merit.”

http://www.eriposte.com/media/liars_inc/swiftboat.htm#1A

The bottom line on Kerry’s first purple heart is that, though his superior officers did believe him to be legitimately worthy of the merit, he probably should have passed in the first place. The rest of his medals are certainly worthy of the valour he expressed, so I will not bother illustrating them here. Furthermore, Doctor Louis Letson, who claims to have treated Kerry stated “I know John Kerry is lying about his first purple heart, because I treated him for that injury,” but “Letson was NOT the doctor who signed Kerry's sick call sheet and was not a Kerry crewmate. There is no proof he ever treated Kerry and he apparently started to recollect his memories of Vietnam just last year!”( http://www.eriposte.com/media/liars_inc/swiftboat.htm#1A)

So, there have been some falsehoods made by the SwiftVets. There have been questions about Kerry. Can we settle this somehow, or are we at an impasse? Sen. John (way too many Johns / Jhons this year! ) Mcain had these statements,

“It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me,"

“"dishonest and dishonorable" (in reference to the SwiftVet’s ad.)

"I wish they hadn't done it…I don't know if they knew all the facts… think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad."

"It reopens all the old wounds of the Vietnam War, which I spent the last 35 years trying to heal," he said.

"I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.”
This is powerful testimony from a Republican and a Veteran Prisoner of War. Be open minded, think about it, consider that the SwiftVets may be operating incorrectly. Kerry has obviously made his mistakes. He and other hundreds of thousands of Vietnam veterans have made sacrifices to secure our freedoms, but which ones will we choose, the freedom to be as ignorant as possible about the issues, or the freedoms to decide for ourselves what is correct? In some ways, freedom is an oxymoron, it creates more a burden than what it’s definition implies. I’ve barely scratched the surface on this topic, I hope that all of you will continue to dig and enrich yourselves, reveling in the breadth of knowledge at our disposal that no other country can claim.

In addition to this, I must say one last thing on Kerry. He had a college degree, he had family connections that would have possibly gained a deferment for him. Vietnam was so full of death people were burning draft cards and running to Canada, but Kerry volunteered. That takes guts and it takes even more steel to come back from that place and speak out about it when most vets were so beat down they drowned themselves in a bottle 59,000 comitted suicide. Most vets I know had such a bad experience they won't or can't talk about it. So, Kerry's got three purple hearts, yeah, medals are just medals, but Kerry isn't running on their market price, he's running on what's behind them. Oh yeah, I wish I was voting for a second term of McCain, just how did Bush make it over him anyway?!

chiprj

on Aug 19, 2004

Perhaps I could get a medal for getting randomly hit by a bolt of lightning on duty.

Maybe today, but not as recently as 1998. A buddy of mine was on a TLQ team and they got hit by lightening while setting it up at JRTC. Knocked a couple of them out. No medals for them (at least not for the lightening strike specifically)...

Seriously, though, good post, even though your nothing but a Bush-loving Republican lap dog... HAHAHA!!! Methinks ganderson didn't bother to read your entire post... Oh, well, he's got a trolling coming his way...

I, myself, have 8 AAM's, and am quick to tell anyone how I got them all - people always ask because the oak leaf clusters are a mix of silver and bronze and it looks odd. Some, I feel good about having actually earned, but honestly, a few, were earned for being the only person around competent enough to actually do my job. That's right, I was awarded medals for actually doing what was expected of me (when I was in the presence of people that couldn't but should have been able to do the same).

Spc Nobody Special

on Aug 19, 2004

ganda, close but no cigar, neither one of the candidate's records exactly inspires me and swells my unit's morale at the thought of them as commander in chief.

My point is: a. that it is ridiculous that whether a man was good at getting shot or just pretending to be good at getting shot might just make a vital difference in our national history and politics. And b. that the giving out of medals in the military is insanely frivolous and lacking in standards.

It's actually an issue that one man was an air force reservist that took off to work on someone's campaign, and the other managed to get shot three times, each one thirty years back? Please. Both campaigns seem to consist of craptastic mudslinging and asshattery. Where is the character, where are the issues? This year I'm writing in John McCain.

chiprj

on Aug 19, 2004

Holy crap, deference, how about a link instead of hijacking the comment space?

Sorry, SPC NBS, had to jump in there...

jotter

on Aug 19, 2004

Exaclty right!
Bush and Cheney both have gone to great lengths to avoid military service, while Kerry volunteered to fight for what he beleives in. I get that and so does everyone else! Lets move on, and focus on the issued at hand. Basing an entire campaign on military service is risky and eventually people will expect additional sound reasons to continue to support him. As of yet, I have not found any reasons why Kerry would be a better president the Bush.

greywar

on Aug 19, 2004

I agree wholeheartedly, this is 30 years old folks! who gives a shit?

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 19, 2004

Yeah, now let's hijack the thread and talk about the overdecorated Jessica Lynch. Maybe she'll run for pres one day (ducking and running for cover...lol)

Spc Nobody Special

on Aug 19, 2004

Blurp.....Bleah!!!!....loses his supper....

Lee1776

on Aug 19, 2004

If Bush had gotten a purple heart in Vietnam, you guys would be wetting yourselves in every 60-second spot. But he didn't get a purple heart, did he? Say, where and when did Bush serve again...?

Hay man, can you tell me how many medals George Bush Sr. or Robert Dole earned during WWII? No you can not. Neither of them had used what medals they earned as their sole reason for their qualifications for being president and they both ran again a non-military man.

I watched the National Convention and sorry to say but, the only thing I heard was "what a good father I am", "I will move Bush out", and "I got all these medals servicing in Vietnam". I never heard anything about his voting record for the last 19 years of his life or what any of his ideas on how to get us out of the "Four years of Hell" his wife said. He has ran almost all is campaign on his war record and when the four other commanders of the boats in his squadron come forward Kerry cries foul. He is the one that brought the subject up.

Personally I don't see Four years of hell. Life in America has not changed much in Four years and if you check all the economic indicators not one shows that we are worst off then when we came in at the start of the Clinton Depression. Check it out, all those Doom and Gloom thing Kerry has said is slanted to sound bad. "During the Bush administration X many jobs have been lost", ya the job where lost but many more have been made to replace them, in the end we have a lower unemployment them when Clinton left and below the average for the Clinton years. "We may be getting new jobs, but they are not the high paying jobs we need" The personal income index has shown that Americans earn more then they ever did in the past, with no inflation to make the income worth less. "Bush's drug program is preventing elderly from getting the drugs they need" before Bush instituted his plan there was no drug plan only Medicare that if the elderly wants to still use they may that option is still there. My favorite is "Veterans are not receiving the care they need" In the last four years Bush has raised Veteran health spending 40%, that's more then the four years of Carter and Clinton combined.

Sorry for running my mouth but that's my two cents

Lee1776

on Aug 19, 2004

If Bush had gotten a purple heart in Vietnam, you guys would be wetting yourselves in every 60-second spot. But he didn't get a purple heart, did he? Say, where and when did Bush serve again...?

Deference

on Aug 19, 2004

Holy crap, deference, how about a link instead of hijacking the comment space?

Sorry, SPC NBS, had to jump in there...

I apologize buddy, but I have posted my little rant in two other forums on this site and I'm still seeing this same issue pop up. SPC does have a different angle, but I must rebutt the similar incorrect content.
Personally I don't see Four years of hell. Life in America has not changed much in Four years
Your fourth amendment right is now moot and the government can go through your mail and check your library records and secretly arrest you and hold you indefinently, etcetera, etcetera... Sure, nothing's changed.

Lee1776

on Aug 19, 2004

Your fourth amendment right is now moot and the government can go through your mail and check your library records and secretly arrest you and hold you indefinently, etcetera, etcetera... Sure, nothing's changed

Sorry I missed that one Deference. Good point. But personally I think it's the new laws are still valid under the Fourth amendment. I just think that if I’m not doing anything illegal I don’t need to worry. But that’s my opinion and I see yours too.

Being held indefinitely has only applied to none US citizens. All the US citizens are receiving their trails. I don't think none US citizens should have the same rights as us, but I do believe they should have the rights of their country (still with in ours control). So nothing should change because all their countries can hold them, railroad trial and behead them.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!