September 15, 2004
CAN HE MOVE ON?:
NEW KERRY MEDAL FLAP (Deborah Orin, September 15, 2004, NY Post)
A newly surfaced document from John Kerry's Navy record says he shot a lone, wounded enemy who was running away in the incident that led to his Silver Star, his highest military decoration.Members of the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth say the report vindicates their claim that Kerry didn't show the kind of valor that merits a Silver Star. The after-action report was obtained from the Navy archives by syndicated TV commentator Mark Hyman of "The Point." A Navy official confirmed its authenticity.
Nothing wrong with the shooting, but it's perhaps not medal-worthy. Here's a good test for the Kerry campaign though--can they just ignore this evidence and let the story die or do they argue Vietnam some more? Posted by Orrin Judd at September 15, 2004 10:23 AM
Leaving aside Kansas City and Paris, we also haven't heard much about Lt(JG) Kerry's attack on a sampan, after which he discovered that he'd attacked a family and killed a child. In the after-action report, that became a squad of VC.
Posted by: David Cohen at September 15, 2004 11:01 AMOJ's right - this is another test for Kerry. With about 50 days to go he can't afford to stay embroiled in Vietnam. However, his temperment and the DNC's decision to go after Bush over TANG suggest that they will continue to keep Vietnam alive in the campaign.
Posted by: AWW at September 15, 2004 11:09 AMIt is ironic that you have to defend Kerry for shooting the guy in the back.
I'm sure lots of the Pro-Kerry, Anti-War types think that's the actual charge against him, the essence of the slur. I guess they think war is conducted by some Hollywood cowboy High-Noon honor system & honorable U.S. soldiers just don't shoot their enemies in the back, even if their enemies just ambushed them & are fleeing with their weapons.
Posted by: Twn at September 15, 2004 11:36 AMTwn, just so, it was a good shoot, and it would have been less honorable to let the guy get away.
However, not a heroic action, unless the Navy considers getting off the boat the essence of bravery.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 15, 2004 11:45 AMTwn:
The cars on the Highway of Death in Gulf One weren't headed towards Kuwait. They're only atrocities in unpopular wars.
Posted by: oj at September 15, 2004 11:51 AMKerry's got almost nothing to do with it.
His surrogates are out of control, and so he won't be able to stop them arguing about Vietnam if he tried.
Posted by: H.D. Miller at September 15, 2004 12:01 PMThe Democratic Party will be arguing about Vietnam until most everyone born before 1968 is dead.
Remember, the moonbat portion of the Democratic Party is probably 10%-12%, maybe even 15%. For the Republicans, the appropriate figure (the rabid Clinton-haters) is (was) probably 5%, tops.
The Democrats cannot run the moonbats out of the party, and they can't embrace them, either. What to do?
Some tough choices for HRC as 2008 approaches, especially because another large terror attack probably removes half of the moonbats from voting for anyone who supports an active "fight" against terror.
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 15, 2004 2:01 PMRe: "highway of death" and Kerry's kill
Spot-on OJ. Those guys were still active combatants and they werent surrendering even if they were buggin out of Kuwait. The war was still on and they could have been fleeing back to shore up Baghdad's defenses for all anyone knew.
Ditto the guy Kerry shot. He wasn't surrendering either. As you said, it's not a bad act, just not real medal worthy. After all, no one gave those A-10 drivers from GW1 the Silver Star for shooting up all those trucks and buses did they?