America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 20 years ago by Buckwheat. 30 replies replies.
Kerry Purple Heart Doc Speaks Out
RDC Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 01-21-2000
Posts: 5,874
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200405041626.asp

Kerry Purple Heart Doc Speaks Out
The medical description of his first wound.

By Byron York

Some critics of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry have questioned the circumstances surrounding the first of three Purple Hearts Kerry won in Vietnam. Those critics, among them some of Kerry's fellow veterans, have suggested that a wound suffered by Kerry in December 1968 may have made him technically eligible for a Purple Heart but was not severe enough to warrant serious consideration, even for a decoration that was handed out by the thousands. Whatever the case, Kerry was awarded the Purple Heart, and, along with two others he won later, it allowed him to request to leave Vietnam before his tour of duty was finished.

Kerry was treated for the wound at a medical facility in Cam Ranh Bay. The doctor who treated Kerry, Louis Letson, is today a retired general practitioner in Alabama. Letson says he remembers his brief encounter with Kerry 35 years ago because "some of his crewmen related that Lt. Kerry had told them that he would be the next JFK from Massachusetts." Letson says that last year, as the Democratic campaign began to heat up, he told friends that he remembered treating one of the candidates many years ago. In response to their questions, Letson says, he wrote down his recollections of the time. (Letson says he has had no contacts with anyone from the Bush campaign or the Republican party.) What follows is Letson's memory, as he wrote it.

I have a very clear memory of an incident which occurred while I was the Medical Officer at Naval Support Facility, Cam Ranh Bay.
John Kerry was a (jg), the OinC or skipper of a Swift boat, newly arrived in Vietnam. On the night of December 2, he was on patrol north of Cam Ranh, up near Nha Trang area. The next day he came to sick bay, the medical facility, for treatment of a wound that had occurred that night.

The story he told was different from what his crewmen had to say about that night. According to Kerry, they had been engaged in a fire fight, receiving small arms fire from on shore. He said that his injury resulted from this enemy action.

Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on shore. The crewman thought that the injury was caused by a fragment ricocheting from that mortar round when it struck the rocks.

That seemed to fit the injury which I treated.

What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle.

I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound.

The wound was covered with a bandaid.

Not [sic] other injuries were reported and I do not recall that there was any reported damage to the boat.
Sonny_LSU Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 11-21-2002
Posts: 1,835
Last time I looked Mr. Bush didn't even get a band aid......WAIT! THAT'S RIGHT! He was sacrificing himself for his country by getting drunk and high with his buddies while Mr. Kerry was fighting in Vietnam.

Simple, Kerry bled Bush DID NOT!
EI Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 06-29-2002
Posts: 5,069
Your something else Sonny
bassdude Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2004
Posts: 8,871
Sonny, you gotta put your hatred of Bush aside for just a minute and take off the blinders. Are you actually supporting Kerry?

Do you really want another sham artist in charge? Wasn't slick Willy enough?
SteveS Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,751
Ironic, isn't it? ... those who're touting Kerry's having been in 'Nam and decrying Bush having been in the Nat'l Guard were conspicuously absent in their comments about Clinton having not only NOT been in 'Nam and NOT in the Nat'l Guard (or any other branch of the military) but regarding his having lead anti-American rallies in Moscow, Russia at the height of the war in 'Nam ...

But, I suppose that such inconsistancy is the truest form of support for Kerry, to my knowledge, the most inconsistant candidate for public office the country has ever seen ...
uncleb Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 11-13-2002
Posts: 1,326
What I find ironic is how the below sentence can be switched around just a bit and still be right on for both candidates.

"Sonny, you gotta put your hatred of Bush aside for just a minute and take off the blinders. Are you actually supporting Kerry?"

"Bassdude, you gotta put your hatred of Kerry aside for just a minute and take off the blinders. Are you actually supporting Bush?"

xibbumbero Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2002
Posts: 12,535
You be right UncleB,LOL. X
Homebrew Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
Right on uncleb,
Later
Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)
dbguru Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Nicely put UncleB!!

This thread is nothing but a smear campaign. To claim these cut and pastes from the right wing propaganda machine as having any significant factual substance to them is an excercise in selective memory. The issue of Kerry's first purple heart has already made the rounds in mainstream media with the Republican assertions and allegations proving to be wrong and they ended up getting a bloody nose for it. This kind of crap only brings up the question of what was Bush doing during this time and we can only imagine given his DWI record. People are waking up to the tactic.

What about Rumsfeld's absolute lie done yesterday on the prison guard investigations. And if you don't know about that one..... you really have your head in the sand... If you think this crap from 30 years ago really means anything compared to the issues of today.... Hmmmmmmm Think about the integrity of those who start threads like this...

Also I really appreciate that thread about name calling!!! Especially when that is directed at a BOTL contributing on this board... It is uncalled for.
Steve*R Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 07-23-2001
Posts: 1,858
I really have no idea whether Kerry's wound, in question, was severe enough to merit a Purple Heart. However, I cannot imagine that Dr. Letson, who treated Kerry at Cam Ranh Bay, actually remembers Kerry and the severity of the wound, some thirty-five years later.

I actually took an in-country R & R at Cam Ranh Bay in 1968, and the number of Americans at that installation was enormous. The hospital unit must have treated thousands of casualties. For a doctor to have remembered an incident with such specificity as to the size of the metal fragment is highly specious.

It's been 35 years for me too, so, perhaps, someone can refresh my memory...Didn't the attending physician have to sign-off on the Purple Heart application? For those unfamiliar...during the Vietnam War, being awarded a Purple Heart for battlefield injury was not automatic. The medal had to applied for...usually by the individual who was wounded, or posthumously by his C.O. but I thought that the attending physician had to sign off on the application.
bassdude Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2004
Posts: 8,871
What I find ironic is how the below sentence can be switched around just a bit and still be right on for both candidates.

"Sonny, you gotta put your hatred of Bush aside for just a minute and take off the blinders. Are you actually supporting Kerry?"

"Bassdude, you gotta put your hatred of Kerry aside for just a minute and take off the blinders. Are you actually supporting Bush?"

I do not hate Kerry and I am not a Republican - and yes while I do not agree with everything Bush has done yes I would vote for him over Kerry in a New York second.

How bout you? Do you want a leader who can not make a decision and has no balls? One that has a wife who donates money to groups that support Anti US organizations not to mention all their over seas factories. How bout they move those stateside hire US workers and export their goods?

Any answers to these? And please explain how in any way that my comments are ironinc.

ironic

adj 1: humorously sarcastic or mocking; "dry humor"; "an ironic remark often conveys an intended meaning obliquely"; "an ironic novel"; "an ironical smile"; "with a wry Scottish wit" [syn: dry, ironical, wry] 2: characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is; "madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker"; "it was ironical that the well-planned scheme failed so completely" [syn: ironical]


Robby Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Grasshoppers support Kerry, Ants support Bush, sorry if that's name calling! It's pretty simple...
bassdude Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2004
Posts: 8,871
Look at the states Bush carried vs the states Gore carried.

Bush carried the farming states and the states with more rural land. Gore carried heavily populated states with huge inner city populations. That ought to tell you a lot about what these parties care about.

This two party system was never meant to be and should be ended immediately. I could not care less which party you are but you must have some morals, be a decision maker and surround yourself with the most knowledgeable people available. I vote for the one who is closest to my view point PERIOD.

I was in the militray under Clinton God forbid we ever get another leader like that. Sorry if I offended you libbies with the word God but our nation was founded on belief in God.

One nation under God and in God we trust.
uncleb Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 11-13-2002
Posts: 1,326
Bassdude,

The reason I find it ironic is because I feel BOTH candidates are losers and should not be allowed nor deserve the priveledge of representing our counrty as President of the United States.

I will not vote for either of them in this next election. Yes one of them will win but it will be without my vote.

BTW- Another statement I find ironic "Do you want a leader who can not make a decision and has no balls?" I believe this statement also applies to both candidates. I beleive most if not all of Bush's decisions are made for him by his cronies (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc) and obviously Kerry can't stick with a decision.
bassdude Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2004
Posts: 8,871
uncleb - understood. I just can't understand the support of Kerry and no one posts anything substantial about him. I have not seen anyone even the poster who works on his campaign show us anything at all.

Where is the economic plan?
Where is the foreign policy?
Put our troops under UN control - dude get real.
I see nothing on how Kerry relates to the farming community or us rural folks.

I guess what bugs me the most are all the flip flops and what Clinton did to the military. Not to mention what Kerry did to the Nam vets while in the Senate. DB I am sure you can find all you want on these facts.

I hear people say he relates to the middle class. How, he has no clue even what cars his immediate family owns. I believe he has no real policy on anything. To him this is another status symbol he just needs to have.
Robby Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Doesn't matter, don't cloud the issue with facts, you'll confuse the neo-libs... They'll vote for him because "it feels good..."
smelly4tay Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 11-15-2003
Posts: 2,775
Go Grasshoppers!!!!!!!!!!
bigbike Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2003
Posts: 145
I agree with ya Sonny.
Cavallo Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
i'm with uncleb on this one, too. i cannot in good conscious vote for either of these candidates, so i'll not be voting for either of them.

at some point we have to say with a mighty voice, "NOT GOOD ENOUGH!" and no, i won't be voting for nader either.

we can do better.
we have better.
we need better.

politics have provided us with divisive figureheads. bush is the king of corporate america.
kerry is the king of not-being-bush.
nader... oy. the court jester perhaps.

we need to stop electing politicians and start looking for a PRESIDENT. we need to boot out the figureheads and find a LEADER. we need to remember who "we the people" are and what unites us. while kerry seems to be trying hard to be everything to every single one of "we the people" (with all our inherent clashes and contradictions), i believe that it IS possible for us to find a candidate who MOST of us -- democrat or republican -- can support without feeling like taking a shower afterwards.

for a life-long democrat, it's funny, but the last 2 candidates i thought might possible fit the bill were republicans. first, mccain. more distantly (but at least he actually ran), bob dole.

as scary as this election is, though, i think 2008 might be even more frightening -- cheney vs. rodham-clinton.

just when i think we can't stoop any lower -- either on the elephant or donkey side -- i think of 2008 and just shudder.
uncleb Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 11-13-2002
Posts: 1,326
I have made my decsision.

I wikll be voting for..............CAVALLO!!!

He has what america is looking for. Integrity, backbone, honesty, intelligence and most of all...... LOT'S OF CIGARS!!!!

You've got my vote Cavallo. please use it wisely.

In all seriousness, i agree wholeheartedly that it is time to quit electing politicians and time to elect a new leader. Unfortunately it won't happen this time around.

I will write in someone's name and just have to decide who that is.

B
Robby Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Pat Paulson
uncleb Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 11-13-2002
Posts: 1,326
Very Interesting.
Buckwheat Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
A little off topic.

Bassdude,

"Sorry if I offended you libbies with the word God but our nation was founded on belief in God. One nation under God and in God we trust."

Please enlighten us as to specifically where in the Constitution of the United States of America it states or mentions anything about God. “Religion” is the first use of the any word even related to God and it appears in the First Amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

I believe what you intended to say was that the US was founded on the belief of the free exercise of religion. The separation of church and state is for the protection of both the state and religion. Just look at the Islamic fundamentalist based governments in the Middle East to see what happens when a political system is based on religion.

Just a FYI, “One Nation, Under God” and “In God We Trust”, weren’t added to the Pledge of Allegiance and the US currency, respectively, until the 1950’s.

All that being said, I do believe in God and I am a registered republican. I don’t like GW and I didn’t vote for him. I DID vote for McCain (as a write-in). I do think that concentrating too much on either candidate’s war record is misguided. I think that GW is not the best choice of candidates for the Republican Party. Unfortunately, we are stuck with him. I hope that in the future my party (and the Democratic Party) will put better candidates up than "W" and Kerry.
infiniterapture Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2003
Posts: 146
I'm sorry, but you're misinformed buckwheat.

http://www.collectornetwork.com/item_full_pic?id=408272

http://www.collectornetwork.com/item_full_pic?id=461748

I'm seeing In God We Trust on those and i'd say those were made before 1950 *edjamacated guess of course*


Also people could read the Declaration of Independence, plenty of references abound in there as go our God given rights and God. Seperation of church and state was made to not exclude or persecute people of different religions or beliefs, not to exclude God from our lives. This nation was founded by believers in the "Good Lord" and historical documents prove it so. The fathers of our great country just wanted to make sure this would be a place were all religions (or lack thereof) could live happily. But yeah i definitely believe in seperation of church and state, let just not spread misinformation. =D
infiniterapture Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2003
Posts: 146
Oh and if people read my post and say "he's saying the exact same thing buckwheat is saying", I am. I'm just correcting him on the In God We Trust thing and throwing in my two cents (no pun intended bahaha)
Buckwheat Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
infiniterapture

Yes, there are some coins, etc... produced prior to the '50's that have "In God We Trust" on them. Here is the info from the U.S. Mint:

The first U.S. coin to bear the motto “In God We Trust” was the two-cent coin minted between 1864 and 1873.

Legislation approved July 11, 1955, made the inscription of “In God We Trust” mandatory on all coins and paper currency of the United States. Legislation approved July 30, 1956, made “In God We Trust” the national motto of the United States.

Source: U.S. Mint Website: http://www.usmint.gov/faqs/index.cfm?action=FAQSearchResult

I agree that there were founding fathers who believed that we should have an official state religion. Thankfully, they did not present a persuasive enough of an argument to have their cause adopted into the Constitution.

I don't have a problem with the words. I do have a problem with people that say we are only a Christian country. I also have a problem with people that say God is on our side, etc, etc, etc…. I think you know what I mean and you probably agree.

As far as the U.S. Constitution & Declaration of Independence are concerned. The two documents are different things. The DOI was a document officially declaring our independence from England. The Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) is the basis of our government. If you read the Constitution from stem to stern you will see that there is no mention of God, Lord, etc… in the document. Actually, most of the Constitution has to do with the procedures of government. The BOR what we really are thinking about when we talk about these issues. The ordering of the BOR is significant. The first “Right” is the, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Right. The drafters considered this to be the most important Right. A good source of information on what our founding fathers intended our system of government to look like is the Federalist Papers.

Sorry for rambling…I just like the Law and our system of government. I guess that is why I became an Electrical Engineer ;-}
Robby Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Buckwheat, who says we are only a Christian country? Did someone say that? Did I miss something here?
Buckwheat Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
Robby, far too many... it really wasn't a comment directed at anyone in particular on this forum.
grond Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 06-07-2003
Posts: 738
I'm a tad confused as well. Our country was founded on standard Judeo/Christian principles. Our country is based on those principles. Our republic is based on those principles. Our judicial system is based on those principles. Those very principles insure that everyone has a right to their own beliefs.

Secondly, the U. S. Constitution does not mention "separation of church and state". It simply states as you have pointed out, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

The big difference in the Judeo/Christian doctrine and that of so many of the other world religions is this:
Other world religions now advocate superceding governmental power and influence. This is most evident in the Muslim Republic nations where no other religion is allowed. It also is prevalent in Communist China where no religion at all is allowed and to a lesser degree in India where Christians are routinely persecuted by Hindus. And... there are also the Croat Christians who continue to resent and persecute the Serbian Muslims. When they do these things, they are at odds with what our core beliefs are all about.

I can't imagine living anywhere else. Freedom in this land is so wonderful. Think about it. We have such diverse and different political opinions and yet, we still respect each other's "right" to have that very same political opinion.

I love you guys!! (wipes tears from eyes).
Robby Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
grond, you're not getting my Bud Lite.
Buckwheat Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
History and political philosophy are a rich are rewarding topic of discussion. I enjoy the lively and informative debate of ideas discussed on this forum. While I always attempt to support my statements with facts (as much as I am capable of with a few beers in me), I often fall short. Please do not assume that because I fail to provide thorough supporting documentation of my statements that they are inaccurate. I would like to turn this post back over to its attended topic. Sorry for the hijack…
Users browsing this topic
Guest