August 18, 2004


Kerry war journal contradicts key claim?: At least 9 days after Purple Heart, wrote he had not 'been shot at yet' (Art Moore, 8/17/04,

A previously unnoticed passage in John Kerry's approved war biography, citing his own journals, appears to contradict the senator's claim he won his first Purple Heart as a result of an injury sustained under enemy fire.

Kerry, who served as commander of a Navy swift boat, has insisted he was wounded by enemy fire Dec. 2, 1968, when he and two other men took a smaller vessel, a Boston Whaler, on a patrol north of his base at Cam Ranh Bay.

But Douglas Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," for which Kerry supplied his journals and letters, indicates that as Kerry set out on a subsequent mission, he had not yet been under enemy fire.

While the date of the four-day excursion on PCF-44 [Patrol Craft Fast] is not specified, Brinkley notes it commenced when Kerry "had just turned 25, on Dec. 11, 1968," which was nine days after the incident in which he claimed he had been wounded by enemy fire.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 18, 2004 8:20 PM

Here Kerry is directly contradicting his claim regarding the 1st purple heart. If true it further backs up what the Swift Boat Veterans are saying. But I don't expect it to make it into the major media since they have avoided the story so far. And if it does start to bite look for the "move on, it was 30+ yrs ago" mantra from the Dems/media.

Posted by: AWW at August 18, 2004 10:25 PM

Compared to the Cambodia stuff, which he apparently just made up out of whole cloth, the Purple Heart stuff strikes me as pretty minor. (Although I love the theory that his unit saw the last PH as an easy way of getting rid of him.)

Posted by: David Cohen at August 18, 2004 10:42 PM

Of course it won't make the major media. The Post is busy tearing down the Kerry critics without really mentioning what they're critical about.

"Records Counter Kerry Critic
Fellow Vietnam skipper's citation refers to enemy fire that he disputes."

Posted by: jsmith at August 18, 2004 11:38 PM

If the Post could acquire Thurlow's records why haven't they, or any other newspapers, done so for Kerry's records?

For that matter, why not the SBVO themselves?

Posted by: genecis at August 19, 2004 12:18 PM

>Of course it won't make the major media.

doubleplusungood refs unpersons.
doubleplusungood refs unevents.

Posted by: Ken at August 19, 2004 12:48 PM

"I was shot at before I was not shot at."

The records we MOST need to see, are the Senate, CIA, and NSA records from 1987 to 1999, in which our government understandably top-secretly endeavored to not disclose Kerry's absence. The Senate handled the coverup rather well(Kerry was held hostage; he was far too valuable to even acknowledge that this had occurred - - WE would have sure 'lost it' knowing that such a loss was likely.)

p.s. : Check the Congressional Record - was he actually absent or present?

Posted by: LarryH at August 19, 2004 2:33 PM