SwiftVets.com

[SERVED_USMC]

I would like to thank Mr. O’neill and the other courageous men involved in this effort to tell the American people the truth.

Kerry has made a "Bring it on" challenge, over his service in Vietnam, to our president.

I have no issue with my friends who chose to serve in the reserves or the guard. I never saw President Bush make an issue of his service and if his father’s influence was used I’m sure he could have avoided military service completely.

At any rate, many Americans are complaining about the petty details the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth are pointing out about Kerry and suggesting the issue be dropped. In my opinion, they simply miss the point.

Once this issue is dropped the American people will be left to decide which candidate is honest and which one is a confirmed liar. How many times did Bill Clinton claim that all of his accusers were liars and get away with that defense!

This issue isn't about Vietnam, it's about truth, honor and integrity. I served in Vietnam and I never saw a Marine receive the silver or bronze star for pulling another Marine out of the water, carry a wounded Marine across a field or otherwise endanger his own life in combat. These were routine actions. I saw many Navy Corpsman perform acts of true valor and courage, however, in combat our first mission was to survive not write award submissions. From what I am hearing, I can't even believe that the Navy handed out awards and decorations like candy.

The Kerry defenders scream that there is no written documentation to prove what the other sailors are reporting and of course you wouldn't expect to see two opposing reports in the official Navy file. The only thing left is the memories and words of others in the unit, common sense and circumstantial evidence.

Since Kerry volunteered for Vietnam he would have us believe that his motivation was to take part in the Vietnam conflict because he agreed it was the right thing to do and as a Naval office he wanted to serve his country and lead his men. However, it seems ironic that as soon as he obtained 3 purple hearts, the "magic" number, he abandons Vietnam for the safety America.

I also think purple hearts are very significant in this issue. The truth may be that Kerry was mighty quick to pick up 3 hearts with very minor wounds, less serious than most carpenters experience routinely, and not one of which caused him to even be hospitalized. Then in "hero" fashion, he abandons his unit and his men and runs from the combat zone.

He runs right to a group, VVAW, bad mouthing his country and claiming that all who served committed atrocities. Yes bad thing happen during life and death engagements, but, it’s absolutely unfair to the memories of the men who died, were seriously injured and to their families to paint everyone with the same brush.

Does that sound like a “hero”? Four months? When other men spent 12 or 13 months in Vietnam, many military men even preformed two tours or more. Did the Navy insist that after the third scratch their officers had to run away and let the other sailors bear the burden?

It’s about credibility and Kerry has made sworn statements which have been proven to be lies and his minions brush this perjury off as trivial. Another case of perjury, which like Clinton, will not be pursued much less prosecuted like they did with Martha Stewart.

Maybe Stewart should be a career politician!

VietNam 69-70

[Paul]

Very Well Said.

A very pleasant surprise - I looked in out of curiousity about "Martha Stewart."

As to the question:

"Did the Navy insist that after the third scratch their officers had to run away and let the other sailors bear the burden?" {SERVED_USMC}

Then the answer appears to be no. The following is an account from an officer who served with the PBRs '67 to '68, but the policy looks to the same as that for the PCFs in '68/'69 when they began working on the rivers. It addresses precisely this question:

"“PBR enlisted were entitled to two war wounds before the end of their one-year tour. Officers had to get three Purple Hearts before they could go home early. I thought that policy was correct. The enlisted river rats had to endure a lot more time on the river than officers. . . Individuals still had the option of completing their tours no matter how many little stars were pinned to their Purple Hearts. Nobody wanted a whiner around if he claimed his tour was over because he had a couple of Band-Aid wounds. . . . [Lt] Ron Wolin got the second star on his [Purple Heart], and GM2 Briggs got his third award and a sure fire early ticket back to the states. Briggs again declined the option. He left Vietnam on time with three Purple Hearts, just as Ron Wolin did in August. Both were real stand-up guys.”

--Wynn Goldsmith, Lt, USN Ret, Papa Bravo Romeo, Ballantine, 2001, pp. 219-220 & 230

From other statements in Goldsmith's account, it doesn't sound as if it was even common for sailors to take advantage of the options.

So, even if there were no questions about Senator Kerry's awards (as at least the first award is, and sufficiently so for the campaign to have modified its claims), and even though the policy is valid, then for a naval officer to act on it on the basis of three superficial wound awards so as to avoid fulfilling the last 3/4 of the one year tour that he had volunteered to serve is not an impressive leadership trait.

And it's his demonstrated leadership in Vietnam that Senator Kerry has presented in the centerpiece of his campagin as demonstration of his leadership abilities and qualification to be President. It would seem to me that at best his record in this regard is mediocre and in no way deserving of the fan fare that he or his campaign is giving it.

Again, well said.
_________________
Paul