Did Kerry wound himself?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-05-05 01:22am

From Newsmax, take it as you will:

Tuesday, May. 04, 2004 11:20 PM EDT
Kerry's Vietnam Doc: Wound Accidentally Self-Inflicted

The Navy medic who treated Sen. John Kerry after he sustained his first battlefield wound in Vietnam said Tuesday that he thought that the injury had been inadvertently self-inflicted - raising new questions about why Kerry sought a Purple Heart after the incident.

Contacted by National Review Online, Dr. Louis Letson recalled that Kerry insisted during treatment that he was injured by enemy fire while his swift boat was patrolling the Mekong Delta on Dec. 2, 1968.

However, "some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore," the Navy doc told NRO.

Instead, his crewmen claimed that Kerry "had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on shore."

One crewman told Letson that he thought Kerry's injury "was caused by a fragment ricocheting from that mortar round when it struck the rocks."

Concluded Letson, "That seemed to fit the injury which I treated."

He described the top Democrat's wound as "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."

Letson recalled that he "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," Dr. Letson said.

Based on the bandaid wound that was likely a result of a mortar round he fired, Kerry sought and eventually received his first Purple Heart.

It sure is interesting, though.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-05-05 01:23am

I'm about 87 percent sure this is BS. I mean, I just don't see it being true.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-05-05 01:25am

If Fox Nesmax has anything to do with the 'fair and balanced' lying of Fox new channel, i think we can just about consider this to be utter bullshit.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-05-05 01:26am

Sorry, i mean the fair and balanced lying of Fox News channel.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-05-05 01:27am

The fact that they're selling "John Kerry flip-flops" on the same page should be enough to torpedo NewsHack's crediblity with a Mk. 48 ADCAP.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-05-05 01:28am

Iceberg wrote:The fact that they're selling "John Kerry flip-flops" on the same page should be enough to torpedo NewsHack's crediblity with a Mk. 48 ADCAP.

Yeah, that about sums it up.

BoyRocketeer · Post by **BoyRocketeer** » 2004-05-05 01:32am

that's totally bs, unless further proof is provided. I mean, at least he was enlisted to fight in vietnam unlike some shithead who was in the coast guard.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-05-05 01:38am

that's totally bs, unless further proof is provided. I mean, at least he was enlisted to fight in vietnam unlike some shithead who was in the coast guard.

If you're referring to Bush, he was actually in the National Guard.

And don't bash the Coast Guard.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-05-05 01:42am

Was accidentally wounding yourself with shrapnel from your own mortars a common source of injury in Nam? I have absolutely no experience of this kind of thing but this sounds like a rather desperate smear to me.

BoyRocketeer · Post by **BoyRocketeer** » 2004-05-05 01:43am

Joe wrote:
that's totally bs, unless further proof is provided. I mean, at least he was enlisted to fight in vietnam unlike some shithead who was in the coast guard.
If you're referring to Bush, he was actually in the National Guard.

And don't bash the Coast Guard.

hey, I got nothing against the coast guard, it's bush that's screwd up.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-05-05 01:44am

BoyRocketeer wrote:
Joe wrote:
that's totally bs, unless further proof is provided. I mean, at least he was enlisted to fight in vietnam unlike some shithead who was in the coast guard.
If you're referring to Bush, he was actually in the National Guard.

And don't bash the Coast Guard.
hey, I got nothing against the coast guard, it's bush that's screwd up.

Then get your facts straight. It really helps to actually be correct when you attack someone for something.

BoyRocketeer · Post by **BoyRocketeer** » 2004-05-05 01:47am

Rogue 9 wrote:
BoyRocketeer wrote:
Joe wrote: If you're referring to Bush, he was actually in the National Guard.

And don't bash the Coast Guard.
hey, I got nothing against the coast guard, it's bush that's screwd up.
Then get your facts straight. It really helps to actually be correct when you attack someone for something.

Yeah I should've checked, but I'm busy doing other stuff. I knew it was something guard.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2004-05-05 01:51am

Rogue 9 wrote:Then get your facts straight. It really helps to actually be correct when you attack someone for something.

Does the term "nitpick" mean anything to you?

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2004-05-05 01:53am

Plekhanov wrote:Was accidentally wounding yourself with shrapnel from your own mortars a common source of injury in Nam? I have absolutely no experience of this kind of thing but this sounds like a rather desperate smear to me.

It certainly sounds like it. A mortar, after all, is an indirect-fire weapon. In order to have it go off so close that you'd be wounded by shrapnel, you'd think they'd have to point it almost straight up.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-05-05 01:59am

Hmmm... I think that this bears further investigation, though it's probably not true.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-05-05 02:22am

Whether or not he wounded himself isn't the issue to me.

This is the issue:

He described the top Democrat's wound as "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."

Letson recalled that he "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," Dr. Letson said.

Christ, I've had larger splinters from metalworking go deeper than the wound described, and he had the brass to argue for a Purple Heart?

Of course, this is assuming the Doctor is relating the incident correctly.

Isn't this the wound that the Kerry campaign hasn't released all the documentation on?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-05-05 03:07am

If this is true, then this is just one more piece of dirt on Kerry's PHs. If not, then, well, just more mudslinging.

However, in order for this to be incorrect, they would have to be flat out lying. I'd like to see some cooroborating evidence, though.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-05-05 03:31am

The medical report should be available. Someone will dig it up.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-05-05 04:12am

Does the term "nitpick" mean anything to you?

The diffrence between the Coast guard and the national guard is a great one Mike, its the whole, one will never... EVER be depolyed to a combat zone by its very nature and the greatest foe you will ever fight is the legions of undead mexican drug smugglers(And maybe not even that)
To a service that normaly is moblized a few times a year to help out with disasters(Sandbags don't magicly pile themselves right before realy bad weather which also means you happen to be there for that realy bad weather) and also you stand the chance of serving in a combat zone or just about damn near anywhere else they need you

Gunshy · Post by **Gunshy** » 2004-05-05 04:33am

The Coast Guard does actually deploy to combat zones. In fact, just last month in Iraq, they suffered their first combat loss since Vietnam.

long link

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-05-05 04:39am

The Coast Guard does actually deploy to combat zones. In fact, just last month in Iraq, they suffered their first combat loss since Vietnam.

I retract my statment about Coast guard serving during war, little web digging turns up that the Coast guard has had people die in wars(1,986 since WWII the majority of 1,917 during WII)

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-05-05 06:54am

Mr Bean wrote:
The Coast Guard does actually deploy to combat zones. In fact, just last month in Iraq, they suffered their first combat loss since Vietnam.
I retract my statment about Coast guard serving during war, little web digging turns up that the Coast guard has had people die in wars(1,986 since WWII the majority of 1,917 during WII)

Still, the Coast Guard is the sum of its two former seperate parts, the Revenue Cutter Service and the US Life Saving Service. In all but the most dire times (WORLD wars) they are Lifeguards/Ocean Cops with 6 inch cannons. The National Guard is, by design, a combat force.... just one that isn't as often deployed as regualr infantry/air forces.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-05-05 08:16am

Gunshy wrote:The Coast Guard does actually deploy to combat zones. In fact, just last month in Iraq, they suffered their first combat loss since Vietnam.

long link

The reason why the US Navy has no 1st Fleet is because in times of war the Coast Guard is the 1st Fleet.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2004-05-05 09:43am

How can someone remember something that happened 36 years ago with such detail? Treating minor injuries like Kerry's one must have been common chore for a medic in Vietnam and this guy remembers even the measurements of the fragment he found in the wound. To me that sounds a little odd.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-05-05 10:00am

Iceberg wrote:
Gunshy wrote:The Coast Guard does actually deploy to combat zones. In fact, just last month in Iraq, they suffered their first combat loss since Vietnam.

long link
The reason why the US Navy has no 1st Fleet is because in times of war the Coast Guard is the 1st Fleet.

Coast Guard ships are not built for combat. Of the entire USCG Fleet, only the High Endurance and Medium Endurance Cutters can remotely be called Warships. The Big boys, the WHEC's are 378 ft long date back to the late 60's and is armed with a single 75MM gun, two 25 mm machine guns and a 20mm PHALANX. That would be hard pressed to fight off a WWII Frigate and that is the heaviest class of ship the Coast Guard has.... and there are only 12 of them.

Please, this in no way is an insult to the people of the USCG, They risk their lives saving the lives of others every day. I just take issue with them being considered a battle fleet.