Byron York at National Review has given us a first hand account of Kerry’s medical condition after his first wound in Vietnam, as told by Louis Letson, the man who treated him. This is Letson’s memory of what happened:
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.
Hey, you know, I didn’t make Vietnam an issue in this campaign, John Kerry did.
Matt, Byron York can’t give a first hand account, he was not there.
read what i wrote: “a first hand account of Kerry’s medical condition after his first wound in Vietnam, as told by Louis Letson”
Byron York is in fact the one who gave us Letson’s first hand account.
I read it. Your use of words is improper. It is not York who gives us a first hand account. He is relaying someone else’s account and thus, he isn’t giving us anything first hand. If you have ever done any research, you should know the difference between a primary and secondary source. The distinction is the same here.
Huge Erection is making too much of a deal here. The words are Letson’s and are therefore a first hand account. True, this would be hearsay in a court of law, but it doesn’t make it non-factual. Is Letson, or anyone else, alleging that this doesn’t represent a first hand account? No. Nuff said.
hilarious! what a bunch of lies. But we know how the bush camp lies to get their lies through. Not this time mr torturers.
Hugh can’t argue any else, so he goes after semantics.
This is not an issue. Bottome line, Kerry went to Vietnam when he didn’t have to. Bush supported the war but didn’t feel HE had to go. BTW, this blog seems awfully silent on the torture photos. Hell, if all you know is this blog, the war isn’t even happening anymore.
lol jay! *claps for the truth*
I have always thought that there was something phoney about John Kerry’s military experience. This just confirms it. Oh, and Hugh and Todd and Jay are obviously going through Dean withdrawals.
The only reason I would vote for Kerry is for his environmental record. Only recently has Bush even tried to make his environmental record look good. It’s too late though. Everybody already knows he cares more about corporate America than the land we all live on. I digress though. Kerry is a goon. Do I want him instead of Bush? Of course I do. Am I willing to sell out my political views for an “anybody but Bush” mentality? Nah. I hate this two party system too much. It’s just funny how B4B and this blog switched to hating on Kerry more than hating on Dean. It’s not that they have really valid arguments. It’s just that they hate anybody who they think will challenge Bush and pick at every meaningless detail until it’s a festering mess of distorted fact. You can’t say different of Democrats though, don’t get me wrong. Angry Dean never stood a chance though, but who would have thought we’d have Kerry as a front runner? Sheesh. What a goon. Somebody smack a Democrat for voting for this moron.
Dumbfuck, there is still two other purple hearts not to mention his silver star.
Look at http://www.crushkerry.com/video/Torture.wmv
It shows what Kerry said about his service in Vietnam.
Wait, who is “mr torturers”?
Sorry for another post – I just want to comment on Adam’s entry (one of the few worth commenting on). He makes a good point about Bush supporters going after anyone they think will challenge Bush. This seems to be the same mentality as “Anyone but Bush” but in reverse… interesting.
I’m starting to really hate politics in general.
Anyhow, can you tell who I’m voting for? If not, is that a good thing or a bad thing? If so, then the same question.
Food for thought at least
Adam, What is Kerry’s environmental record?
Seriously, I haven’t heard a thing except the “Bush is going to destroy the planet if reelected” type rhetoric.
On the Issues.org lists these things from Kerry’s voting record:
* No nuclear waste dump in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. (Feb 13)
* Raise CAFE standard to 36 mpg by 2015. (Jan 25)
* Ban MBTE and sue companies who make it. (Jan 22)
* 20% renewable energy by 2020. (Nov 2003)
* ANWR won’t provide any oil for 20 years. (Sep 2003)
* Invent our way out of oil dependency-don’t drill our way out. (Sep 2003)
* Invest in advancing secure forms of energy instead of oil. (Jun 2003)
* Led effort to try to raise fuel efficiency standards. (May 2003)
* Create new energy sources to end Mideast dependency. (May 2002)
* Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
* Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
* Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
* Voted NO on replacing CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
* Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
* Voted YES on keeping CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
* Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
* Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
* Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
* Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
* Fact Check: Contaminated home uses city water, not bottled. (Dec 2003)
* Make environmental justice an EPA priority. (Oct 2003)
* Safeguard the environment and grow the economy. (Jun 2003)
* Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
* Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
* Voted NO on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
* Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997)
* Voted YES on continuing desert protection in California. (Oct 1994)
* Voted YES on requiring EPA risk assessments. (May 1994)
* Reduce liability for hazardous waste cleanup. (May 2001)
The League of Conservation Voters gives Kerry an A for lifetime score on his voting. He scores higher than anybody else. Bush got an F. If anybody has any issues with these sources tell me and I’ll re-examine my thinking on this subject. Until then I say Kerry’s environmental record speaks for itself.
the Americans are the Mr. Torturers you stupid hick.
I was curious because I wasn’t sure if you were addressing Bush or the abusive soldiers – by saying “the Americans” I hope you mean the soldiers!
Are you the same guy who whined so much about getting knocked around a bit by a couple thugs? And you’re judging Kerry’s wounds, incurred in wartime, based upon a “he told me” account? Is there ANY intellectual honesty on the right?
Huh?
I never “whined so much about getting knocked around a bit by a couple thugs” – yes, i thought it was sad they felt they had to resort to violence when people who disagreed with them showed up.. but that’s hardly the issue here.
Doonesbury@Slate – His teeth were there: Was he?: “Granted, this has been tried before. In 2000, concerned veterans in both Texas and Alabama offered cash rewards to lure former guardmates of Mr. Bush into stepping forward, to no avail. The problem, in our view, was that these enticements weren’t serious enough, that the sums offered were insulting. In contrast, we at the DTH&WP respect how inconvenient it can be to subject yourself to worldwide media scrutiny in general, and Fox News in particular, and are thus prepared to sweeten previous offers by a factor of five. That’s right, we’re offering $10,000 cash! Yours to either spend or invest in job creation. All you have to do is definitively prove that George W. Bush fulfilled his duty to country.”
I don’t give a damn about Kerry’s service any more than I care about Bush’s service – the fact that he was absent for months at a time but made it up and was off with an honorable discharge. Honestly, can we just say that they both honorably served their country and be done with it? Because both sides are fishing so tenaciously at these 30 year old stories shows what little they have going for them. What I really care about is when a politician has a history of going back on his words/votes consistently – I care infinitely more for something infinitely more useful then these Vietnam fingerpointing stories.
And why the **** are we still talking about the Vietnam war? This I will never understand, only THREE YEARS AGO did the biggest terrorist attack on U.S. soil occur (the last was the British burning the White House in the War of 1812!!!). This launched us on a campaign on a “War against terrorism”, and criticize its name or its concept all you want, but after all, do you expect zero reaction to terrorism after this attack?
Try talking about Afghanistan or Iraq rather than Vietnam (or either candidate’s participation) – both things we can still affect the outcome of! And since this is election year, we should expect some sort of banal comments thrown all over the place about the candidates themselves, but when examining their ability to preside over the country and its policies (maybe when focusing on Bush’s policies concerning war and peace) we should take into account Afghanistan and Iraq instead of Vietnam. And I know both sides have taken more than their share of comments regarding Afghanistan and Iraq, but give it a rest about Vietnam!
And rethink the title of the entry (I’m not sure if you wrote it Ed, but rethink it anyhow): “His teeth were there: was he?”. If it’s intended as a jest, then it falls short – and if it’s intended as a serious posit – then it falls off completely.