In 2004, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), a group consisting of 200-plus Vietnam veterans (some of whom served with Kerry), launched an attack on Kerry's war record, an attack that included TV and newspaper ads. Some of the SBVT attacks were unfair and/or inaccurate, but some of them, especially the attacks on two of Kerry's Purple Hearts, were valid.
By any reasonable, objective standard, two of Kerry's three Purple Hearts were clearly bogus and undeserved.
Kerry's first "wound" was a small cut that required no stitches and was merely cleaned and covered with a band-aid. The vast majority of soldiers serving in Vietnam would have never even bothered going to a medical aid station over such a minor cut, much less argued that they deserved a Purple Heart for it.
Kerry's other dubious "wound" consisted of a bruised arm and some tiny metal fragments and pieces of rice in his buttocks that came from the explosion of a hand grenade that he himself had thrown into a pile of rice.
In his important book War Stories: False Atrocity Tales, Swift Boaters, and Winter Soldiers―What Really Happened in Vietnam, Gary Kulik defends Kerry's three Purple Hearts. Kulik argues that "a wound is a wound, as long as it requires medical treatment," an absurd and insulting argument.
Kulik notes that Kerry received the third Purple Heart for his arm "wound," not for his self-inflicted buttocks wound. But Kulik should know that the medical report on the arm wound proves that it was merely a bruise. It was not even a small cut, just a bruise. Since when does a bruise justify a Purple Heart?
Only a dishonest, self-serving, medal-hunting fraud would have thought they deserved a Purple Heart for a bruised arm. Again, thousands of Vietnam veterans received such minor injuries and never even sought treatment for them, much less believed they deserved a Purple Heart for them.
Kulik makes some valid points about some of the attacks on Kerry's war record made by the SBVT, but he judges the SBVT much more harshly than he judges Kerry. Some of his arguments in defense of Kerry's conduct ignore or dismiss credible contrary evidence. Most of the veterans who served with Kerry and who commented on his conduct described him as a whining, dishonest, self-serving, and unreliable officer.
To his credit, Kulik does acknowledge that Kerry probably lied about being reluctant to leave Vietnam after his third Purple Heart and about not throwing away his medals. He also acknowledges that Kerry's definition of war crimes was erroneous.
And Kulik deserves great credit for raising serious doubts about the atrocity accounts reported by Kerry and other anti-war veterans in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and in the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam.
By any reasonable, objective standard, two of Kerry's three Purple Hearts were clearly bogus and undeserved.
Kerry's first "wound" was a small cut that required no stitches and was merely cleaned and covered with a band-aid. The vast majority of soldiers serving in Vietnam would have never even bothered going to a medical aid station over such a minor cut, much less argued that they deserved a Purple Heart for it.
Kerry's other dubious "wound" consisted of a bruised arm and some tiny metal fragments and pieces of rice in his buttocks that came from the explosion of a hand grenade that he himself had thrown into a pile of rice.
In his important book War Stories: False Atrocity Tales, Swift Boaters, and Winter Soldiers―What Really Happened in Vietnam, Gary Kulik defends Kerry's three Purple Hearts. Kulik argues that "a wound is a wound, as long as it requires medical treatment," an absurd and insulting argument.
Kulik notes that Kerry received the third Purple Heart for his arm "wound," not for his self-inflicted buttocks wound. But Kulik should know that the medical report on the arm wound proves that it was merely a bruise. It was not even a small cut, just a bruise. Since when does a bruise justify a Purple Heart?
Only a dishonest, self-serving, medal-hunting fraud would have thought they deserved a Purple Heart for a bruised arm. Again, thousands of Vietnam veterans received such minor injuries and never even sought treatment for them, much less believed they deserved a Purple Heart for them.
Kulik makes some valid points about some of the attacks on Kerry's war record made by the SBVT, but he judges the SBVT much more harshly than he judges Kerry. Some of his arguments in defense of Kerry's conduct ignore or dismiss credible contrary evidence. Most of the veterans who served with Kerry and who commented on his conduct described him as a whining, dishonest, self-serving, and unreliable officer.
To his credit, Kulik does acknowledge that Kerry probably lied about being reluctant to leave Vietnam after his third Purple Heart and about not throwing away his medals. He also acknowledges that Kerry's definition of war crimes was erroneous.
And Kulik deserves great credit for raising serious doubts about the atrocity accounts reported by Kerry and other anti-war veterans in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and in the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam.
