Where is Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona)? When will he
stand up on the floor of the US Senate and denounce
the Bush cabal's shameless attacks on the highly
distinguished and decorated military record of Sen.
John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta)? The "vast reich wing
conspiracy" is behaving like a rapid dog cornered by
animal control officers...red state Rapidlican Rep. Sam Johnson called JFK "Hanoi John" on the floor of the House...they are lashing out in all directions now...The dregs of the US Senate, including Trent Lott (R-KKK), Saxby Chambliss (R-GoForgia) and Norm Coleman (R-SmallPlanesota) are trying to derail, distract and discredit the 9/11 Commission (established through legistaltion co-authored by McCain) by calling for Jamie Gorelick (D-DoJ) to be forced to testify and/or resign...And it is only April...What do you stand for Sen. McCain? Where is your backbone now? Remember Carolina in 2000? John Kerry is your friend, and a fellow hero. They are attacking him now. The 9/11 Commission is your creation. They are trying to destroy it. In Carolina, in 2000, it was your wife they attacked? How long? How long?
Thomas Lang, Columbia School of Journalism: How many ways can the press distort the picture painted by John Kerry's military service records? Yesterday, we hoped we had nipped this one in the bud with our report on the press's consistent failure to track down just what the U.S. Navy's policy was for awarding Purple Hearts and for reassigning troopers in Vietnam who received
three Purple Hearts. Alas, today, the Washington
Times' fatally-wounded coverage of Kerry's
newly-released service records makes yesterday's
various media bloopers look like journalism at its
finest...In short, little in Hurt's rambling,
accusatory article is remotely on the mark, other than
his description of the discrepancy between Kerry's
Personnel Casualty Report from March 13, 1969 and the
Bronze Star citation issued for Kerry's actions that
day. Even for a reporter in a hurry, it almost takes
an extra effort to get this many things wrong-- but
Hurt seems to have pulled it off.
Cleanse the Whitehouse of the Chickenhawk Coup, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)
http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000456.asp
Fact Check
April 22, 2004
Hurt In The Fog of War
By Thomas Lang
How many ways can the press distort the picture
painted by John Kerry's military service records?
Yesterday, we hoped we had nipped this one in the bud
with our report on the press's consistent failure to
track down just what the U.S. Navy's policy was for
awarding Purple Hearts and for reassigning troopers in
Vietnam who received three Purple Hearts.
Alas, today, the Washington Times' fatally-wounded
coverage of Kerry's newly-released service records
makes yesterday's various media bloopers look like
journalism at its finest.
In the fourth paragraph of Charles Hurt's Times
report, we get our first hint of who Hurt is going to
rely on to build a case that Kerry's military record
is somehow flawed. Hurt quotes one Mel Howell, a
retired Navy officer who flew helicopters in Vietnam,
but who apparently never served with Kerry, as saying,
"Most of us came away with all kinds of scratches like
the ones Kerry got but never accepted Purple Hearts
for them."
As Lt. Mike Kafka, a U.S. Navy spokesman, told us
yesterday, in line with official U.S. Navy
documentation, wounded combatants neither nominate nor
award themselves Purple Hearts. The Purple Heart is
awarded only after a commander determines that a
soldier or sailor has incurred a wound inflicted by
the enemy and forwards a recommendation to his
superiors.
One paragraph later, Hurt errs more explicitly,
writing that it was the award of his third Purple
Heart on March 13, 1969, "that let Mr. Kerry request a
transfer out of Vietnam and into a desk job eight
months before his tour expired." Again, as we noted
yesterday, Navy regulations at the time specified that
any trooper wounded three times be reassigned outside
of Vietnam (soldiers, including Kerry, did get to
request specific new assignments). Such a reassignment
could be stopped only by a soldier's request.
Next, Hurt turns to one Charles Kaufman, who Hurt
describes as a retired Air Force captain now living in
Germany "whose job once was to submit military award
requests" to analyze a discrepancy in Kerry's war
records. (The Personnel Casualty Report (PDF) on Kerry
from March 13, 1969 does not correspond in every
particular with the injuries described in a Bronze
Star citation (PDF) that Kerry was awarded for action
that day.) Nowhere does Hurt note that Kaufman served
in the Air Force, while Kerry served in the U.S. Navy.
Nor did they ever serve together. He does note,
however, that Kaufman declares of Kerry's wounds, "I
don't want to say it's a lie, but it isn't true," and
"his Bronze Star medal citation appears to be based on
an injury he did not receive."
According to Lt. Kafka, the U.S. Navy spokesman, the
Bronze Star is awarded for bravery, independent of any
wounds a soldier may or may not suffer in battle.
Hurt then moves on to veterans who "say [Kerry's]
record is too good to be true." One veteran, Ray
Waller, is identified as "a combat medic in the
Marines" who "was responsible for determining whether
injuries warranted Purple Hearts." Waller tells Hurt
he doesn't "remember anybody getting three Purple
Hearts and leaving [Vietnam], even within six or eight
months" of service. He adds, "if they did, it was
very, very rare."
However, as noted above, Navy medics neither award
Purple Hearts nor recommend others for a Purple Heart.
Commanders do that based on, as US Navy guidelines put
it, confirmation of medical treatment by "the doctor
that provides medical care."
The expansive Waller goes on to tell Hurt that he had
"never heard of" a shrapnel injury so minor that it
did not require a tetanus shot and time off which had
led to a Purple Heart. As Lt. Kafka notes, however,
the written "Purple Heart Criteria for the U.S. Navy"
does not list either a tetanus shot or time off due to
injury as a requirement for receiving a Purple Heart.
Finally -- having apparently run out of sources who
weren't there, or were there at a different time, or
were in another branch of service -- Hurt winds up his
piece by launching a trial balloon of speculation
attributed to no one at all:
One possible reason why Mr. Kerry racked up so many
battle awards in such a short period of time might be
the command structure. Because awards are generally
recommended by superiors, Mr. Kerry's bosses would
have relied on accounts of the action from Mr. Kerry
and his underling crew mates.
And because injuries warranting Purple Hearts are
verified by medics -- or corpsmen -- it would have
been a soldier inferior to Mr. Kerry who was in charge
of determining the seriousness of his injuries.
Got that? It was up to corpsmen reporting to Kerry to
determine if the boss deserved a medal. In a way,
that's true, in that a wounded officer is going to be
treated by a medic. But no one thinks that calls into
question every Purple Heart ever awarded to such
officers.
In short, little in Hurt's rambling, accusatory
article is remotely on the mark, other than his
description of the discrepancy between Kerry's
Personnel Casualty Report from March 13, 1969 and the
Bronze Star citation issued for Kerry's actions that
day. Even for a reporter in a hurry, it almost takes
an extra effort to get this many things wrong-- but
Hurt seems to have pulled it off.
If Campaign Desk ever gets around to awarding its own
commendations, Hurt is a prime candidate for our
tinfoil star.
Posted 04/22/04 at 05:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------