Printable

Articles Below (Scroll Down) . . . . . . . . .

John Kerry: Fake Warrior

John Kerry, Criminal

John Kerry, Anti-American Hero

John Kerry, Patriot?

The 34-Year Old Typo

John Kerry's Puzzling Silver Star Citations

John Kerry's Mysterious Combat "V"

John Kerry's Legal Terrorism

John Kerry is Not a Traitor

 

John Kerry: Fake Warrior

 [Author’s note: This article, as well as those that appear below about Kerry’s medals, was written before he received his party’s nomination for president, and before publication of Unfit for Command, a book which thoroughly discredited the senator’s claimed entitlement to all of his medals.]

 

Senator John Forbes Kerry, Navy veteran and candidate for the democrat party nomination for President of the United States, has for years played the “war hero” card.

 

As the story goes, for his heroic service in wartime Vietnam Kerry was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three purple hearts.

 

However, for all those years, and especially now, questions have been raised and doubts have surfaced about the legitimacy of some of those awards.  Few people know the truth, preeminently Senator Kerry—but he’s not talking. 

 

This is not to say—and I am certainly not saying!—that Kerry did not deserve his medals.  I am saying that because of Kerry’s character, associations, conduct and silence, there is a legitimate question as to whether he is the Vietnam War hero he claims to be—a question only Kerry can answer.  Thus far, it has gone unanswered.

 

A Silver Star is awarded for “gallantry,” for conduct not warranting the next highest award, a Navy Cross—nor the highest, the Medal of Honor.  A Bronze Star, next on the list just under the Silver Star can be awarded for either “heroic or meritorious achievement or service.”  (A Bronze Star with an accompanying “V” [for valor] is awarded for heroism, while one without can be for running a great mess hall.)  The Purple Heart requires “a wound . . . which . . . must have required treatment by a medical officer.”

 

None of these awards are easy to come by—particularly the Silver Star—so let’s focus on that one.

 

Why have questions been raised about Senator Kerry’s Silver Star?

 

First, because he, himself, not only is a liar, but because one of his worst lies involved the Vietnam War. 

 

At pages 135-136 of Stolen Valor (Burkett and Whitley, Verity Press, 1998), the authors reveal that in April 1971, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) held a demonstration in Washington, D.C. called Dewey Canyon III.  Kerry was an organizer and leader.  According to Burkett and Whitley, “Kerry flung a handful of medals—he had received the Silver Star, a Bronze Star Medal, and three purple hearts—over the fence [of the Capitol]. * * * But years later, after his election to the Senate, Kerry’s medals turned up on the wall of his Capitol Hill office.  When a reporter noticed them, Kerry admitted that the medals he had thrown that day were not his.”  (Burkett and Whitley source this statement with: “Phil Duncan, editor, ‘Congressional Quarterly’s Politics in America,’ 102d Congress, 1992, p. 678”).  If Kerry lied, for political purposes, about eschewing his medals, it raises the distinct possibility that he (or someone on his behalf) lied either about his receiving them or about exactly what he received them for.

 

Second, Kerry was a founder of VVAW.  His organization had its hand in at least two contrived events of consummately false anti-American, pro-Communist propaganda. 

 

The first, early in 1971 was known as the “Winter Soldier Investigation.”  Featuring the likes of Hanoi Jane Fonda, her lover Donald Sutherland, activist Dick Gregory, and other assorted luminaries of the left, the “investigation” paraded alleged Vietnam veterans who told atrocity stories that had been literally lifted from Hollywood movies and the screeds of Communist propagandists.  Most of those who “testified” were Fake Warriors, their “testimony” consisting largely of lies about the war and about their roles, if any, in it.

 

The second event was Dewey Canyon III, referred to above.  There, reflecting the contrary-to-fact movie stereotype of the physically and mentally damaged Vietnam vet, the demonstrators put on what Burkett and Whitley correctly characterized as “political theater.”  Again, many participants were Fake Warriors, whose sole purpose was to discredit the United States and elevate the Vietnamese Communist cause to indigenous “nobility.”  Kerry’s central role in founding the organization that engineered these two palpably phony events, and his participation in and association with those who had provably lied about the Vietnam war and their alleged military service in it, casts doubt about any other claims he has made about his own military service.

 

Third, there is some dispute about the event which was the basis for Kerry’s Silver Star.

One published account reports that his river patrol boat came under fire from the bank and returned fire.  As the craft approached the shore, a wounded Viet Cong was observed running away.  Kerry is supposed to have chased him, and both disappeared from sight.  Shots were heard.  Kerry jumped aboard and claimed that there had been a firefight.  Result: one Silver Star.

 

If this published report is true, there were no witnesses to the action—yet two witnesses are required for a Silver Star recommendation.  As Burkett and Whitley have written: “Silver Stars are awarded only for actions in combat; most of those who receive a Silver Star suffer wounds in the process.  Receiving a Silver Star requires witnesses and significant substantiation of valor.”  The authors of Stolen Valor continue:

 

How a soldier, sailor, or Marine receives a valorous medal essentially hasn’t changed since the Civil War.  One way is from the bottom up.  For example, a soldier is with a platoon in the field [or on a river boat].  The North Vietnamese [or Viet Cong] start pouring over his platoon’s perimeter [or firing from the shore].  He’s screaming orders, dragging wounded, saving people [chasing a wounded VC into the jungle]—being your basic hero.

 

The next day, and “after-action” report by his commander will describe the soldier’s bravery.  The other men who saw the events will be motivated to nominate the hero for recognition.  The recommendation goes up the chain of command and is either approved or denied.

 

The “top-down” process occurs when higher-ups—the company or battalion commander nominate him.  Aware that something heroic

has happened, his superiors interview witnesses and nominate the

soldier, sailor, or airman for a medal.  The system is open to a certain

amount of back scratching.  Say a platoon [or river boat] fights a battle.  People fight; some die.  The platoon leader [or boat commander] wants a Silver Star, and he lets the platoon sergeant [or seaman] know that the way the sergeant [or seaman] can earn his own Bronze Star Medal is to authenticate his superior’s heroism.  Except for outright fabrication, this is usually not an official cause of concern.  Whatever the medal, there has to be a recommendation by the command authority and supporting evidence.  The higher the decoration [the Silver Star is the third highest], the more stringent the requirements for supporting documentation.  (Emphasis added.)

 

When awards like the Silver Star are ordered (there is an actual “order” issued), a “citation” is also issued describing the conduct that is the basis for the medal.  This completes the paper trail

 

To sum up: As to Senator Kerry’s conduct, there should be reports of the engagement; there should be chain-of-command recommendation; there should be an order directing the award of the medal; and there should be a citation describing his “gallantry.”

 

Where are these crucial, corroborating documents?  Why has Kerry not released them?  And while we’re asking questions in this, an election year, it would be interesting to know whether anyone else on that river boat was awarded a medal—and, if so, who recommended it.

 

Let me restate the obvious: He who would be President of the United States is morally required—in fealty to those who hold Medals of Honor, service Crosses, Silver Stars, Bronze Stars for valor, and Purple Hearts—to put on the table the documentation that supports his claim to be a war hero.

 

If he is one, no one will applaud louder than I.  If he is not, all Americans—regardless of party—deserve to know the truth.  One way to learn the truth is for every one of us with a conscience to demand that truth from Senator John Forbes Kerry.—and right now!

 

 

John Kerry: Criminal (Erika Holzer, co-author)

For years it was said that Jane Fonda committed treason when she went to Vietnam in July 1972. In the late 1990s, with increasingly widespread use of the Internet, the charge became a staple of discussion by conservatives and veterans. However, their belief in Fonda’s criminality was not substantiated. We undertook to do just that, and laid out the definitive case against her in our 2002 book, “Aid and Comfort”: Jane Fonda In North Vietnam. A current parallel has arisen in connection with the presidential candidacy of John Kerry. For the past several weeks, the Internet has been ablaze with charges—as yet unexplained, let alone legally substantiated— that by traveling to Paris for meetings with the North Vietnamese communists and their Viet Cong allies in 1970, Kerry violated American criminal statutes. Indeed, one well-intentioned group, Patriot Petitions, has disseminated a petition to President of the Senate Richard Cheney, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and Attorney General John Ashcroft, seeking Kerry’s prosecution. Just as Fonda’s critics turned out to have been correct about their gut feelings regarding her treasonable actions in North Vietnam, so, too, Kerry’s critics—who feel strongly that his trip violated the law, without quite knowing why—are correct. The explanation of Kerry’s criminal behavior in Paris is some thirty-four years overdue. Our major premise—the legal one—is that one federal statute makes it a crime for American citizens to have “intercourse” with the “enemy,” while another federal statute similarly prohibits “intercourse” with “any foreign government.” Our minor premise—the factual one—is that John Kerry confessed to engaging in exactly that proscribed conduct. Therefore, John Kerry is a criminal. Kerry’s criminality has deep historical roots. Americans acted similarly even before the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, Article 28 of the American Articles of War of 1775 provided: “Whosoever belonging to the continental army, shall be convicted of holding correspondence with, or giving intelligence to, the enemy, shall suffer such punishment as by a general court-martial shall be ordered.” The essence of this non-intercourse colonial statute has appeared in each subsequent military code since 1775. Its modern embodiment is Title 10, Section 904 of the United States Code [Uniform Code of Military Justice], which provides: Any person who . . . without proper authority, knowingly . . . communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct. The meaning of this section—apart from the definition of “enemy,” which in the early 1970s certainly included the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese (see Title 18, United States Code, Section 11)—has been interpreted in four appellate cases. Edward S. Dickenson was a turncoat American POW who collaborated with the Chinese Communists in a prison camp during the Korean War. Upon his repatriation he was charged with violating Section 904’s predecessor. The court’s most important ruling was that at the time Dickenson committed the acts charged, even though his enlistment had expired (due to incarceration in the POW camp), he remained subject to military jurisdiction. This ruling was reinforced when Dickenson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which noted that the defendant “had neither been discharged . . . nor had his military status been severed . . . . He was a soldier, subject to the rules, discipline and jurisdiction of the Army and squarely within the provisions of Article 2 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice . . . which provides as subject: ‘All persons belonging to a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their term of enlistment . . . .’” (Emphasis added). Claude J. Batchelor (see Why Not Call It Treason?) was another Korean War collaborator. Upon his repatriation he, too, was charged with violating Section 904’s predecessor. One of Batchelor’s defenses was that he had no criminal intent. The United States Court of Military Appeals rejected that argument, holding that intent was not necessary for commission of the crime (unlike treason cases, where intent is an essential element). A third Korean War collaborator was William H. Olson. In affirming his conviction, the Court of Military Appeals said this: “[I]f the accused was the instrument used by the enemy to spread propaganda against his own country, and he did so voluntarily, he has thereby aided the enemy’s cause within the meaning of the statute.” (Emphasis added). The court then quoted the 1949 Manual for Courts-Martial for the proposition that “non-intercourse” has been the consistent interpretation of Section 904 and its predecessors: Correspondence does not necessarily import a mutual exchange of communication. The law requires absolute non-intercourse, and any unauthorized communication, no matter what may be its tenor or intent, is here denounced. The prohibition lies against any method of communication whatsoever, and the offense is complete the moment the communication issues from the accused, whether it reaches its destination or not. As to whether the charges of collaboration leveled against Olson were within the statute’s proscription, the court noted that “[I]t is certain that communications, collaboration, and intercourse with the enemy which results in a program of psychological warfare inimical to this country is within [the statute’s] fair meaning.” The fourth case, United States v. Johnson, arose during the Vietnam War. According to the United States Court of Military Appeals: While on duty with the Marine Corps in Vietnam, the accused proceeded to Bangkok, Thailand, on authorized rest and recreation leave. When he did not return at its expiration, he was listed as being absent without leave. He was apprehended [and] returned him to Saigon. * * * In his statement, the accused described in detail his whereabouts during his unauthorized absence and acknowledged that he intended to travel across Thailand and Laos and into Vietnam with the intent to contact the Viet Cong or North Vietnamese regulars and talk with them "of certain moral responsibilities: (1) Duties to God; (2) duties to fellow man. In other words, I feel that it is the responsibility of all men to go out and make peace regardless of what sacrifices they may have to make and it is for this reason that I decided to go out and attempt to meet with the enemy and teach him something of Christianity and of moral responsibilities. * * * [Later, Johnson expressed to a government agent] his desire once more to contact the North Vietnamese in his crusade for peace and morality among the enemy. He was apprehended before he could begin his mission. Charged with several crimes, including an attempt to violate Section 904— remember, Johnson never even reached the Vietnamese communists—his conviction was reversed by the Court of Military Appeals strictly on Miranda-like “failure to advise” grounds. The opinion, however, is clear that one can be charged with even an attempt to violate Section 904 without ever having consummated the crime. The second federal statute for consideration is Title 18, United States Code, Section 953, known as the Logan Act: Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Section 953 was at the core of Agee v. Muskie, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1980. Rogue CIA employee Philip Agee (represented by Melvin L. Wulf, late head of the ACLU) successfully challenged a State Department regulation allowing for revocation of an American citizen’s passport because he had not yet been charged with a crime. However, certain aspects of the Agee case speak loudly about John Kerry’s criminal behavior. Agee, at that time the most outspoken and vicious opponent of CIA clandestine activities, proposed to the Iranian militants that they offer a deal to our government: return of the embassy hostages in exchange for all CIA files on its Iran operations since 1950. On that basis, the government prepared a draft indictment which appears as an appendix to the court’s opinion. The Grand Jury charges: From on or about the 4th day of November 1979 until on or about the 24th day of December, 1979, (an Iranian), and (an Iranian), and a large group of other Iranians whose names are to the Grand Jury unknown, hereinafter referred to as "Iranian Terrorists", constituted a "foreign government" as defined by 18 U.S.C. s 11, in that they were a faction and body of insurgents within Iran, a country recognized by the United States and with which country the United States was at peace; that during the aforesaid period Philip Agee, herein charged as the defendant, a citizen of the United States, then in the vicinity of Hamburg, Germany, did, without authority of the United States, directly and indirectly carry on correspondence and intercourse with the aforesaid body of insurgents constituting a foreign government and with officers and agents thereof, with intent to influence the measures and conduct of said foreign government and of the officers and agents thereof in relation to disputes and controversies between said foreign government and the United States, and to defeat the measures of the United States in such disputes and controversies, in that within a few weeks before the 23rd day of December 1979, the said Philip Agee did communicate, correspond, and have intercourse with the aforementioned Iranian Terrorists by counseling, and suggesting to them, in relation to their dispute and controversy with the United States that they could prevail in their unlawful demands on the United States by forcing the United States contrary to the authority thereof, by extortion, to deliver into the possession of the aforesaid Iranian Terrorists constituting said foreign government, certain United States property, to wit, all records of the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States (CIA) on CIA intelligence operations in Iran for the past 30 years, in return for the release by said Iranian Terrorists of upwards of 50 citizens of the United States who were duly accredited to the official staff of the United States Embassy in Tehran, Iran, and who were then being threatened with execution and being unlawfully held and confined within the United States Embassy at Tehran, Iran by force by said foreign government as hostages in its dispute and controversy with the United States; all in violation of 18 U.S.C. ss 953. Given Title 10, Section 904 and Title 18, Section 953, there is no doubt whatsoever that intercourse with the enemy and intercourse with a foreign government with intent to “defeat the measures of” the United States constitute federal crimes. There is also no doubt that under Dickenson, Batchelor, Olson and Johnson, respectively, reservists are subject to Section 904, criminal intent is not necessary for conviction, providing propaganda to the enemy can constitute commission of the crime, and even an unsuccessful attempt is punishable. By logical extension, the same is true under Section 953 of the Logan Act, as the draft indictment of Philip Agee makes eminently clear. Our major premise having been established, this leaves only our minor premise to be examined. It has long been well known that in the early 1970s, the North Vietnamese and their southern Viet Cong allies maintained representatives in Paris, and that various American citizens—among them Jane Fonda—made pilgrimages to meet with them, absorb the current party line, and spread their communist propaganda. In 1970, John Kerry was one of those pilgrims. When he went to Paris, he was a citizen of the United States. He was still a member of the United States Navy. And clearly he lacked any authority from the government to act on its behalf. We do not have to speculate about Kerry’s activities in Paris because he openly admitted what he did there. During the question and answer period following his April 22, 1971 televised testimony before the Armed Services Committee of the United States Senate, Kerry said: I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned. Even today, knowing what we know about the Vietnamese communists and about John Kerry, it is difficult to grasp the enormity of what he was confessing to. As an American citizen and a member of the United States Navy—while his former comrades and countless others were fighting and dying in Vietnam at the hands of Viet Cong guerillas and North Vietnamese regulars—Kerry consorted with the Viet Cong representative and discussed (“talked with,” he euphemized) her “plan.” That obscene plan included a trade: the return of our POWs for a withdrawal of American forces. As John O’Neill expressed in his important bestselling book Unfit For Command, “. . . America could have its POWs back only if we agreed that we lost, then surrendered, and then set a date to leave.” Kerry’s wartime trip to Paris was confirmed about six months ago by a campaign spokesman, who tossed it off as a mere “fact-finding” excursion. Yet Kerry was apparently so impressed with the “facts” he found in company with the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese that a few months after his return from Paris he had the effrontery to urge the President of the United States to accept his communist hosts’ plan for “peace” in Vietnam. In sum, John Kerry—an American citizen and a naval officer, with no authority granted by his government—made arrangements while in the United States to meet with America’s enemies. He then traveled across the Atlantic, conferred with the communists in Paris, absorbed their terms for “peace” in Vietnam, returned to the United States to publicly endorse monstrous plans that trafficked in the lives of our POWs, and by so doing “defeat[ed] the measures of the United States.” In this, John Kerry shares the unpatriotic company of Dickensen, Batchelor, Olson, Johnson, Agee and Hanoi Jane Fonda—all violators of federal “intercourse with the enemy” laws. All criminals.

 

John Kerry: Anti-American Hero

(Erika Holzer, co-author) In the run-up to his nomination as the Democratic Party’s candidate for the presidency, John Kerry has been justly criticized for his phony Vietnam war record, his blatant anti-war activities back home, and his opposition to virtually every proposal to strengthen America militarily. Now that he has become the nominee, even more facts will emerge about Kerry’s self-promoted medals and alleged heroism, his malicious slander of other veterans, his common cause with traitors like Jane Fonda, and a Senate voting record designed to weaken our defenses and render us vulnerable to our enemies. Eventually, Kerry will stand exposed to his fellow Americans as the lightweight, opportunistic, unprincipled fraud that he is—a man who has the effrontery to blow his Vietnam service out of all decent proportion. While voters are in the process of deciding whether or not Kerry is fit to be their Commander-in-Chief, they would do well to ponder a little-known but important fact. Presidential nominee John F. Kerry is currently being lionized at one of the Vietnamese Communists’ most popular museums in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon). The War Remnants Museum is the successor to Hanoi’s notorious “War Crimes Museum” which, during the Vietnam War, displayed ordnance and artifacts allegedly used by American forces against the Communists, as well as photographic exhibits of wartime casualties, some real, some faked. The museum was then—and remains—devoted to blatant anti-American propaganda. According to the Yahoo website’s largely uncritical depiction of this museum’s currently “haunting and sickening” photographic exhibit, the presentation “highlights the suffering of the Vietnamese people at the hands of the French and American forces up to 1975.” (Yahoo’s travel editor, at least, owns up to the fact that “this is not a politically balanced exhibition.”) In our book “Aid and Comfort”: Jane Fonda in North Vietnam, we wrote about the grisly pictures in the War Crimes Museum attributed to American “air pirates” bent on allegedly terrorizing “the peace-loving citizens of Vietnam”—and about how Jane Fonda, “on virtually her first day in [war-time] Hanoi . . . was taken to the North Vietnam Communists’ ‘War Crimes’ museum’.” Later during her tour, Fonda was to enthuse that every American should visit the museum. Not many Americans had the opportunity. Some had no choice. Certainly not Everett Alvarez, Jr., who spent nearly nine agonizing years as a POW, and who, as we wrote in “Aid and Comfort,” was taken in early 1970 to the War Crimes Museum where “he saw his own helmet and uniform and photographs and equipment of other captured pilots.” We submit that today John Kerry has a choice of a somewhat different nature. An exhibit in the re-named War Remnants Museum—an institution with the identical goals of its predecessor—is devoted to those anti-war activists whose conduct contributed significantly to helping the North Vietnamese Communists win the Vietnam War. Included in the exhibit—a significant propaganda coup—is a photograph taken in July 1993. It shows presidential nominee John F. Kerry meeting with the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam. In plain English that even the vacillating Kerry would be hard put to spin, this exhibit in “liberated” Saigon’s foremost propaganda museum is devoted to American traitors. And there hangs a photograph of a potential President of the United States, who carries a lot of antiwar baggage, meeting with the leader of a totalitarian regime that took nearly sixty thousand American lives. The continued existence of Kerry’s photograph on the walls of the War Remnants Museum is an affront to many Americans—especially our POWs, who were bombarded with ongoing and relentless propaganda that was its own form of torture. While there is no way for Kerry to force his Vietnamese fans to remove the photograph, he should, for once in his life, take the moral high ground. Paraphrasing President Ronald Reagan, he should say, plainly and forcefully, “Mr. General Secretary, take down that picture!”

 

John Kerry: "Patriot"

(Erika Holzer, co-author) The people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. Matthew 15:8 The American phrase “lip service” is derived from this Biblical quotation. It connotes insincerity, or “expressed with the lips, but not acted upon or believed.” Although the current democrat presidential campaign has been rife with lip service on countless subjects, among the most objectionable—often reverentially uttered, mantra-like, not just by democrats, but by reporters, TV talking heads, and, regrettably, even prominent Republicans—is that John Kerry is a “patriot.” Even the slightest doubt expressed about Kerry’s patriotism will evoke vigorous denial that runs the gamut from raised eyebrows to utter disdain to uncontrollable wrath. As we saw when Kerry appeared at a late-night Ohio rally following the close of the Republican Convention, he is stung even by a non-attack: “They have attacked my patriotism!” Kerry bellowed. Alas, they had not. It is one thing for President Bush and Vice President Cheney to remain above the fray on this issue. But former prisoner of war John McCain knows better, the savvy former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, should know better, and democrat Senator Zell Miller, in a fiery oration denouncing Kerry’s senatorial voting record, at least implied that he knew better. Before independent-minded members of either party, let alone the sought-after bloc of “undecideds,” make up their minds about John Kerry’s alleged patriotism, let them first ponder this definition: A “patriot” is “a person who loves and loyally or zealously supports his own country.” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language). Then let them test that definition, as we have, against some damning facts. A patriot does not flee when comrades are in danger, no matter what the perceived threat. A patriot does not fake or exaggerate minor wounds in order to garner medals. A patriot does not “somehow” obtain three different citations for a single medal, the latter two sanitizing the first. A patriot does not bail out from a one-year combat assignment after only four months, by taking advantage of a loophole in an obscure regulation, leaving his men to face the enemy. A patriot does not appear before a committee of the United States Senate looking like a cartoon version of a Vietnam veteran, wearing ribbons on unkempt fatigues. A patriot does not give ghost-written testimony to that senate committee, attacking his country. A patriot does not take an oath before that senate committee, and then proceed to lie through his teeth. A patriot does not use his televised testimony before that senate committee to accuse American troops—including those still in the field. A patriot does not hand our communist enemies such anti-American propaganda, which can be—and was—then used as a tool in the torture of American prisoners of war. A patriot does not falsely accuse himself of committing war crimes in order to make a political-theater statement against the Vietnam War. A patriot does not associate with potential murderers, conspiring to assassinate American political leaders. A patriot does not make common cause with traitors like Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden and Ramsey Clark, and other America-haters who give aid and comfort to our nation’s enemies. A patriot does not march around the Capitol of the United States of America carrying an upside down American flag. A patriot does not, during wartime, organize and participate in a sham investigation of American “war crimes” (Winter Soldier Investigation)— paid for by Fonda and designed to spout communist propaganda and undermine and embarrass our military. A patriot does not organize and participate in anti-war protests, nor march under the communist Vietnamese flag, and defile military medals by throwing them away—especially while Americans are in combat. A patriot does not act as spokesman for an organization that is a front for the very enemy that the United States of America is fighting. A patriot does not associate with an organization (Vietnam Veterans Against The War) admittedly in bed with the Communist Party of the United States. A patriot does not write a book with a cover that desecrates the American flag, and contents that disparage his country. A patriot does not, while still a member of the United States Navy, fraternize in Paris with communist enemies whose troops, at that very moment, are killing Americans and torturing American prisoners of war. A patriot does not urge acceptance of the Vietnamese communists’ proposal to end the war—on their terms, not ours. A patriot does not vote against virtually every piece of national security and related legislation—laws that would make our country stronger and safer. A patriot does not refuse to appropriate funds to support American forces, fighting for their country in Iraq. A patriot does not attempt to suppress a book critical of his military service by putting pressure on its publisher and on booksellers. A patriot does not unleash his lawyers on TV station managers, threatening them with legal and administrative action should they air advertisements critical of his military service. A patriot does not allow colleagues and supporters to call the President of the United States a liar, and much worse—particularly in time of war. A patriot does not denigrate legitimate draft deferments once granted the Vice President of the United States, who later served in Congress, then as Chief-of-Staff to a President, and later as Secretary of Defense during wartime. A patriot does not silently accept his photograph being displayed in the Vietnam communists’ “War Crimes Museum,” along with others who helped the Vietnamese communists win the war. A patriot is not willing to surrender American sovereignty to the United Nations under the guise of “multilateralism.” A patriot does not refuse to make all of his military records public, especially in the face of a loud public clamor. A patriot does not allow his Silver Star medal to be falsely embellished with a Combat “V” that is unauthorized and possibly illegal. A patriot does not denigrate America’s National Guard and Reserve forces, who throughout this Nation’s history have performed with distinction in our defense. A patriot does not promise a more “sensitive” War on Terrorism, no matter how “politically correct” that notion may be. A patriot does not wrap himself in the American flag for political advantage, after spending a mere three months in a combat zone. When one adds up these facts, one has every right to conclude, as we have, that John Kerry has never been, and is not now, a patriot—and more: that to say otherwise, is merely to pay lip service.   The 34-Year Old Typo   (Erika Holzer, co-author) When Erika Holzer and I wrote "John Kerry's Mysterious Combat "V," published at www.frontpagemag.com on August 20th, we said the following (set off by the asterisks): The presence of the combat “V” with Kerry’s Silver Star on his DD 214 raises two extremely disquieting questions. How did the unauthorized “V” get there, and why has Kerry allowed it to remain? The first question should not be taken lightly because we are talking about possible federal crimes. We are talking about the possibility of a forged official document. We are talking, as well, about Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, which states: “[W]hoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States, knowingly and willfully . . . makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.” Was the combat “V” added by a sloppy clerk or a yeoman’s typo thirty years ago? Was someone pressured or persuaded to add it? If Kerry had nothing to do with the gratuitously added combat “V,” why didn’t he have his DD 214 corrected when he was separated from the Navy? Which gives rise to the second disturbing question: If Kerry was not a party to the unauthorized “V,” why, for all these years, has he allowed his DD 214 to remain uncorrected and to repose on his website? In light of the recent Swift Boat revelations and the cloud they have cast over Kerry’s awards, one plausible answer is that this is yet another example of Kerry’s multiple, and increasingly transparent, lies about his alleged heroics in Vietnam. Let’s hope it won’t take a controversial TV spot to spark a mainstream media investigation of how candidate Kerry received an unearned “V” for valor. Well, it almost did. Depite substantial efforts by the folks at FrontPageMagazine, our requests to this list to get the word out, and the considerable forwarding done by this list's recipients, it has been very difficult to crack through the mainstream media's indifference and even its dishonesty. That said, however, I have just come to my computer from watching Fox News, which reported the story I sent to you earlier today: the Navy is now investigating Kerry's medals, including his Silver Star's Combat "V" (and, probably, the puzzling three citations). The Kerry campaign's response to the Navy's investigation has put their candidate in a box: predictably,"it's a typo," they say. Oddly, a "typo" exaggerating the record of a man now known for his exaggerations (e.g., Cambodia, wounds, rescues, Purple Hearts)! But assuming arguendo (as we lawyers say, "for the sake of argument") that it really was a typo, Kerry is now impaled on one horn of his inescapable dilemma. As we wrote in the article quoted above, "If Kerry was not a party to the unauthorized “V,” why, for all these years, has he allowed his DD 214 to remain uncorrected and to repose on his website?" Why, indeed? And when a few years ago Kerry corrected his DD 214 with a DD 215, to add even more questionable medals, did he not correct the false Combat "V" on his Silver Star? Well, perhaps he was distracted. And maybe he was distracted back in 1970 WHEN HE SIGNED HIS DD 214, AND DISTRACTED AGAIN RECENTLY WHEN HE PUT HIS DD 214 ON HIS WEBSITE WITH THE UNAUTHORIZED, ILLEGAL, FAKE, AND PERHAPS EVEN CRIMINAL, COMBAT "V." Please get the word out. And stay tuned. This is the beginning of the beginning.   John Kerry's Puzzling Silver Star Citations Erika Holzer, co-author   Introduction Having sowed the wind by carefully crafting his tour of duty in Vietnam as a campaign gimmick, John Kerry is now reaping the whirlwind. He has seen virtually everything about his four months in country challenged with provable eyewitness accounts backed by sworn affidavits: the “wounds” which never required hospitalization or lost time, for which he finagled three Purple Hearts; his Bronze Star with a combat “V” for “heroically” rescuing a special forces soldier who was about to be pulled from the water by a nearby Swift boat, the man in danger, perhaps, of drowning but not under hostile fire; his “gallantry” for back-shooting an enemy soldier, for which he was awarded the Nation’s third-highest decoration, the Silver Star. Now, on the heels of yet another revelation—that Kerry’s DD 214 (“Report of Transfer or Separation”), displayed on his website, shows his Silver Star embellished with an unauthorized “V” for valor—which makes it facially false and at variance with official government records (see our article, John Kerry’s Mysterious Combat “V” at www.frontpagemag.com, Thursday, August 20, 2004)—it has come to light that his Silver Star award is fraught with other peculiarities. In the United States military, the process of awarding a medal begins with preparation of a form prescribed by official regulations. The current Navy form (OPNAV 1650/3, “Personal Award Recommendation”), substantively identical to the one in use during John Kerry’s time in Vietnam thirty years ago, provides that when an award is recommended, attached to that recommendation is a “proposed citation.” A citation, in essence, is a narrative description of the “service” that the recipient performed to warrant the award. In other words, the citation explains why the award was made and in what way it was earned. (The regulations pertaining to Personal Award Recommendations also recommend that combat awards be supported by at least two witnesses.) Here’s where it gets puzzling. Lieutenant John Kerry’s award for the Silver Star has—not one citation, but three—an unheard of number for a single award. Understandably, as we shall see, only Kerry’s most recent citation—nearly two decades older than the first and signed by a Secretary of the Navy who was years away from that office when Lieutenant Kerry, now Senator Kerry, originally obtained the award—appears on his website. (Not one of the three citations, incidentally, refer to the combat “V” that appears on Kerry’s website’s DD 214.) Citation 1 By now, a key incident for which Kerry obtained the Silver Star is well known: He shot a fleeing enemy soldier in the back, presumably acting, in the words of the statute, with “gallantry.” We have reproduced in its entirety that portion of the citation which is significantly different from Citations 2 and 3. COMMANDER UNITED STATES NAVAL FORCES VIETNAM The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the Silver Star Medal to JOHN FORBES KERRY LIEUTENANT JUNIOR GRADE UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE for service as set forth in the following: CITATION " * * * . . . Patrol Craft Fast 23 and 94 moved upstream to investigate an area from which gunshots were coming. Arriving at the area, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY's craft received a B-40 rocket close aboard. Once again Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY ordered his units to charge the enemy positions and summoned Patrol Craft Fast 43 to the area to provide additional firepower. Patrol Craft Fast 94 then beached in the center of the enemy positions and an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hootch and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber. Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY then led an assault party and conducted a sweep of the area while the Patrol Craft Fast continued to provide fire support. After the enemy had been completely routed, all personnel returned to the Patrol Craft Fast to withdraw from the area.” * * * (Emphasis added). For the President /s/ E R Zumwalt E.R. ZUMWALT, Jr. Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy Commander U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam Citation 2 (Asterisks refer to eliminated repetitive material) COMMANDER IN CHIEF UNITED STATES PACIFIC FLEET The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the Silver Star Medal to Lieutenant (junior grade) John Forbes KERRY United States Naval Reserve for service as set forth in the following: CITATION * * * On a request from U.S. Army advisors on shore, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY ordered PCF’s 94 and 23 further up river to suppress enemy sniper fire. After proceeding approximately eight hundred yards, the boats were again taken under fire from a heavily foliated area and a B-40 rocket exploded close aboard PCF 94. With utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his own boat only ten feet from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy. Upon sweeping the area, an immediate search uncovered an enemy rest and supply area which was destroyed.” * * * (Emphasis added). For the President, /s/ John J Hyland JOHN J. HYLAND Admiral, U.S. Navy Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet Citation 3 THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY Washington The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the SILVER STAR MEDAL to LIEUTENANT (JUNIOR GRADE) JOHN F. KERRY UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE For service as set forth in the following CITATION: * * * After proceeding approximately eight hundred yards, the boats were again taken under fire from a heavily foliated area and a B-40 rocket exploded close aboard PCF 94: with utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy. Upon sweeping the area an immediate search uncovered an enemy rest and supply area which was destroyed. * * * (Emphasis added). For the President, /s/ John Lehman Secretary of the Navy All three citations are undated. Citation alterations According to Citation 1—apparently prepared soon after the February 28, 1969 episode it describes and laced with the accolades “expertly,” “without hesitation,” “devotion to duty,” “courage under fire” and “outstanding leadership”—three PCFs came under fire, returned it, and embarked indigenous troops onto the shore. Kerry’s boat and another then moved upstream, where “Kerry’s craft received a B-40 rocket close aboard” (i.e., it missed). He beached the boat and “an enemy soldier sprang up from his position . . . and fled” (i.e., turned and ran). Kerry “pursued the man behind a hootch and killed him” (i.e., Kerry chased a man running away, lugging a rocket launcher), and apparently shot him in the back—although we can’t know because there was no witness, let alone the recommended two. (Incidentally, no one else in that episode was awarded a Silver Star). Although Citation 2 also is undated, we can still ascertain when it was issued. Kerry’s first citation was for action on February 28, 1969, so Citation 2 had to be issued some time after that, but probably not immediately. Citation 2 was signed by Admiral John J. Hyland, as Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, who no longer served in that capacity after December 5, 1970. Thus, Kerry’s second citation had to have been issued some time between February 29, 1969 (following Citation 1) and December 5, 1970 (when Hyland was no longer CINCPAC). Significantly, Kerry left Vietnam in “early 1969” (his website’s timeline) and was separated from service on March 1, 1970. This means that it is likely Citation 2 was issued some time in the almost two years after his departure from Vietnam but before late 1970—when he was back in the United States. Describing the February 28, 1969 incident, Citation 2—considerably shorter than Citation 1, but including the accolades “utter disregard for his own safety,” “daring and courageous” and “extraordinary daring and personal courage”—presents a very different picture because of a significant omission. This time, it seems, Kerry “led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy. Upon sweeping the area, an immediate search uncovered an enemy rest and supply area which was destroyed.” Vanished is the enemy soldier of Citation 1, springing up from ten feet away, carrying a rocket launcher, turning, running behind a hut, and being back-shot by Kerry. Indeed, in Citation 2’s version, there were no enemy soldiers jumping out of spider holes. Most important, gone is any implication that the current presidential candidate shot an unarmed enemy soldier in the back. Citation 2 raises two important and intriguing questions. First, why would Kerry bother to have a second citation issued? The obvious answer is that he wanted to expunge from the record that he had shot a fleeing enemy soldier in the back. Another possible explanation, speculative though plausible, is found in the relative ranks held by Admirals Zumwalt and Hyland at that time. Zumwalt had “only” three stars, Hyland four. The politically ambitious Kerry, in a ploy (see below) that he may have repeated later in his career, could well have sought to upgrade his citation from three stars to four (especially since, at that time, it was questionable whether a three-star admiral had the authority to issue a Silver Star). The other important and intriguing question is how a lieutenant (junior grade), far down on the totem pole and then separated from service, could have induced an active duty four-star admiral, not only to reissue a citation for the Nation’s third-highest award, but to rewrite it by sanitizing Kerry’s killing of a fleeing enemy soldier. Unfortunately, Admiral Hyland is dead, so we can’t ask him. But there is someone else we can ask: the senior senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy. Why Kennedy? Because at the time the sanitized Citation 2 was issued, Kerry and Kennedy were pals. For example, there is a photograph of the two taking a stroll together on April 21, 1971, not long after Citation 2 was issued. The photo’s caption reads: “Senator Ted Kennedy and John Kerry discuss the Supreme Court injunction against Vietnam veterans sleeping on the Mall and whether the vets ought to risk violating it. Washington, D.C., April 21, 1971.” (The photo is at www.vietnamwar.com/JohnKerrySilverStar.htm). Citation 3, like Citations 1 and 2, is undated. But, again, we can narrow the time frame, since it was signed by John Lehman as Secretary of the Navy. Lehman served from February1981 to April 1987—long after Kerry left Vietnam, long after he was separated from service, and during Kerry’s tenure as a United States Senator. While it is not difficult to understand why Kerry apparently sought and obtained a sanitized second version of his Silver Star citation, at first glance it is not so easy to surmise why Kerry went after yet a third citation, this time from Lehman (especially because the third citation is word-for-word, in every important respect, the same as the second). One theory dovetails with what may well have motivated him, at least in part, to prefer Hyland’s imprimatur over Zumwald’s. Kerry, now a senator, may have been trying to upgrade his award, issued by a couple of “mere” admirals, to one issued by the Secretary of the Navy. Correction of military records Whatever the reason—and only Kerry and the Navy Department, and perhaps Kennedy, know the truth—Hyland’s Citation 2 and Lehman’s Citation 3 would have had to satisfy the requirement of Title 10, Section 1552, of the United States Code, subsection (a) (1), which provides that “The Secretary of a military department may correct any military record of the Secretary’s department when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice.” Subsection (b) provides that “No correction may be made . . . unless the claimant . . . files a request for the correction within three years after he discovers the error or injustice. However, a board . . . may excuse a failure to file within three years after discovery if it finds it to be in the interest of justice.”(Emphasis added). This means that in order to obtain Citation 2, Kerry would have had to prove that there was an “error” in Citation 1 and/or that the existence of that citation somehow constituted an “injustice.” Was the error in Citation 1 that he had shot the enemy soldier in the back, or that it was somehow an injustice to Kerry for the citation to say so? As to obtaining Citation 3, there are two problems for Kerry. First, since it is virtually identical with Citation 2, there could be no error or injustice. Second, even if arguably there were, since the three-year statute of limitations had passed by the time Lehman was in office, in order for Kerry to obtain the correction, he would have had to prove that correcting Citation 2 was “in the interest of justice.” An Army officer formerly in the Pentagon’s “awards and decorations” hierarchy for many years, explains the amendment process for military citations this way: In the Army, and up until the 1980's, decorations for valor and heroism as well as service and achievement were published on general orders by the commander vested with the approval authority to act in finality on a recommendation. * * * The general orders contained a citation (reason) for the award. The recipient of the decoration also received a certificate which contained the citation or a certificate and a separate citation. The wording of the citation whether it was on the certificate or a separate document was lifted or copied from the general order. The approved method of changing or correcting a general order once it had been issued was in the form of an amendment and there was a prescribed format for issuing an amendment on a later general order. The method voiding a previously issued general order was through a revocation and it too had a prescribed format. Most amendments were issued to correct personal data or dates on the original general order, but seldom were amendments issued to correct the citation or reason for the award. If the citation or reason for the decoration as it appeared in the original general order required a change or correction, it was accomplished through the issuance of an amendment. In this unlikely event (amendment of the citation/reason), a new certificate containing the corrected citation or a separate document containing the corrected citation/reason would be issued to the recipient. Amendatory general orders were almost always issued by the headquarters who issued the original general orders, however, amendments could also be issued by a higher headquarters; most often by Headquarters Department of the Army. This was especially true of revocations. It is difficult to comprehend the basis for administratively amending a citation other than for correcting misspellings or transpositions of service numbers or erroneous grades, but it could be done. But the citation/reason and its factual content formed the basis for approval of that level of decoration. Changing or correcting the factual content infers that the level of recognition might have been in error, necessitates a review and calls into question the original decision, so that is why changing or correcting a citation/reason is almost never done. (Emphasis added). Questions for John Kerry John Kerry is a lawyer, so he should be familiar with an important and useful discovery tool: written interrogatories. Here are some for him: Citation 1 Who was asked to prepare the “Personal Award Recommendation,” who prepared it, when was it prepared, to whom and when was it submitted, and will candidate Kerry either make the document available or authorize its release? Who was asked to prepare the citation, who prepared it, when was it prepared, and to whom and when was it submitted? Is the version reproduced above the only version? If not, provide all details of prior versions. Will candidate Kerry either make all versions of Citation 1, and its accompanying orders, available, or authorize their release? Citation 2 Was there contact between Kennedy (or members of his staff, or others) with Admiral Hyland (or members of his staff, or others) concerning the citation prior to the latter’s issuance of it? If there was, provide details of all such contacts. Who was asked to prepare the citation, who prepared it, when was it prepared, and to whom and when was it submitted? Is the version reproduced above the only version? If not, provide all details of prior versions. Will candidate Kerry either make all versions of Citation 2, and its accompanying orders, available, or authorize their release? When Kerry applied for the corrected citation, what error or errors did he claim existed in Citation 1, and what injustice did he cite? Citation 3 Was there contact between Kerry (or members of his staff, or others) with then-Secretary of the Navy John Lehman (or members of his staff, or others) concerning the citation prior to the latter’s issuance of it? If there was, provide details of all such contacts. Was there contact between Kennedy (or members of his staff, or others) with then-Secretary of the Navy John Lehman (or members of his staff, or others) concerning the citation prior to the latter’s issuance of it? If there was, provide details of all such contacts. Who was asked to prepare the citation, who prepared it, when was it prepared, and to whom and when was it submitted? Is the version reproduced above the only version? If not, provide all details of prior versions. Will candidate Kerry either make all versions of Citation 3, and its accompanying orders, available, or authorize their release? When Kerry applied for the corrected citation, what error or errors did he claim existed in Citation 3 and what injustice did he cite? When Kerry applied for the corrected citation, in order to surmount the three-year statute of limitations, what evidence did he produce to prove correction was in the interest of justice? Did Lehman sign Citation 3 himself, or does the document contain a machine signature? Miscellaneous Did any other crewmen on Kerry’s boat at the time of the Silver Star incident receive any award(s) for that engagement? If any did, set forth the recipient’s name(s), the award(s), the conduct justifying the award(s), who was asked to prepare the “Personal Award Recommendation(s),” who prepared it, when was it prepared, to whom and when was it submitted, and will such recipient(s) either make the document(s) available or authorize its release? If any other crewmen on Kerry’s boat at the time of the Silver Star incident received any award(s) for that engagement, who was asked to prepare the citation(s), who prepared it, when was it prepared, and to whom and when was it submitted? Will such recipient(s) either make the document(s) available or authorize its release? Will Kerry request Tommy Belodeau, Mike Medeiros, Del Sandusky, Fred Short and Gene Thorson to reveal, regarding their own awards for the Silver Star incident, the conduct justifying the award(s), who was asked to prepare the “Personal Award Recommendation(s),” who prepared it, when was it prepared, to whom and when was it submitted, and ask such recipient(s) either to make the document(s) available or authorize its release? Will Kerry request Tommy Belodeau, Mike Medeiros, Del Sandusky, Fred Short and Gene Thorson to reveal, regarding their own awards for the Silver Star incident, who was asked to prepare the citation(s), who prepared it, when was it prepared, and to whom and when was it submitted, and ask such recipient(s) either to make the document(s) available or authorize its release? Will Kerry authorize former Navy Secretary John Lehman to disclose fully the facts and circumstances surrounding his participation in the granting of Citation 3? In obtaining Citations 2 and 3, did Kerry in any manner utilize Department of the Navy procedures for the correction of records? If so, provide all details and copies of all documents submitted. As to the documents, set forth who prepared them, when they were prepared, and when and to whom they were submitted. * * * Not one of these questions is beyond the ability of John Kerry to answer. But their existence places him on the horns of a dilemma. If he stalls, or obfuscates, or refuses to answer, continuing a pattern he has employed about some of his more important records, the only reasonable conclusion is that he has something to hide. If he does answer, it is difficult to believe, given what is already known, that he will answer fully and truthfully. Either way, John Kerry may soon learn that three citations for a single Silver Star is two too many.   John Kerry's Mysterious Combat "V" (Erika Holzer, co-author) As the authors of Fake Warriors: Identifying, Exposing and Punishing Those Who Falsify Their Military Service, we receive scores of emails on our website either asking questions about the Fake Warrior phenomenon (which has reached epidemic proportions), or reporting sightings which sometimes lead to exposure and even fines or jail terms. One Vietnam vet with nearly forty years of military service who retired as a major, spurred on by the revelations in our book, and, in his words. “having seen hundreds of DD 214s” (a veteran’s Record of Transfer or Separation), recently decided to take a close look at John Kerry’s DD 214, which is posted on his website. What the major called to our attention, which we have since verified, raises some extremely troubling questions about John Kerry’s Silver Star. Keep in mind that the Silver Star is the third-highest medal our Nation can bestow (after only the Medal of Honor and the three service “Crosses”). Kerry's DD 214 lists a Silver Star with a combat “V” (for valor). As the major correctly observes, the “V” is never awarded with the Silver Star. But the actual wording on Kerry’s DD 214 (see www.johnkerry.com) is: “SILVER STAR WITH COMBAT ‘V’.” There is an abundance of anecdotal evidence that a combat “V” (called a “Combat Distinguishing Device”) is simply not awarded with a Silver Star. For example, a former Vietnam War POW told us that he has “three SSs, and there was no V for any of them.” Countless other Silver Star recipients all say the same thing. Why? Because, among other reasons, it would be redundant to award a Silver Star for “gallantry” (the statutory term) and then embellish it with a “V” for valor. Most conclusive, however, is that the law is very clear about the award of Combat Distinguishing Devices. According to the Navy Awards Manual: Bronze "V" (Combat Distinguishing Device). Prior to . . . 1974, the "V" was authorized for wear on the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Navy Commendation Medal and Navy Achievement Medal. Between . . .1974 and . . . 1991, the "V" was authorized for wear on the Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal and Navy Commendation Medal. [In] . . . 1991, the "V" was authorized for wear on the Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal. In all cases, the Combat Distinguishing Device may only be worn if specifically authorized in the citation. See also http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Valor_device. Because the “V” is authorized for only the ten awards cited above, but not for the Silver Star, Kerry’s Silver Star citation (the “explanation” of why the award was made) does not even mention the “V” for valor (see www.johnkerry.com). The presence of the combat “V” with Kerry’s Silver Star on his DD 214 raises two extremely disquieting questions. How did the unauthorized “V” get there, and why has Kerry allowed it to remain? The first question should not be taken lightly because we are talking about possible federal crimes. We are talking about the possibility of a forged official document. We are talking, as well, about Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, which states: “[W]hoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States, knowingly and willfully . . . makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.” Was the combat “V” added by a sloppy clerk or a yeoman’s typo thirty years ago? Was someone pressured or persuaded to add it? If Kerry had nothing to do with the gratuitously added combat “V,” why didn’t he have his DD 214 corrected when he was separated from the Navy? Which gives rise to the second disturbing question: If Kerry was not a party to the unauthorized “V,” why, for all these years, has he allowed his DD 214 to remain uncorrected and to repose on his website? In light of the recent Swift Boat revelations and the cloud they have cast over Kerry’s awards, one plausible answer is that this is yet another example of Kerry’s multiple, and increasingly transparent, lies about his alleged heroics in Vietnam. Let’s hope it won’t take a controversial TV spot to spark a mainstream media investigation of how candidate Kerry received an unearned “V” for valor. .     John Kerry's Legal Terrorism   (Erika Holzer, co-author) Presidential nominee John Kerry is working overtime to blunt growing criticism of his Vietnam service and simultaneously reassure uncommitted voters that his acts of alleged heroism as a Swift boat officer—over 30 years ago—far outweigh his antiwar history. He has made his medals—a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts—a central focus of his candidacy. He has made a colossal mistake. No surprise, then, that Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, an organization unaffiliated with any political party—whose members were no strangers to Lieutenant Kerry 30 years ago—last week began airing a dramatic, highly effective TV spot that flatly disputes Kerry’s claims, and, worse for Kerry, his integrity. Predictably, Kerry’s lawyers responded with a venomous and distorted account of the TV spot and the veterans who had organized it. Marc Elias, Esq., General Counsel for the Kerry-Edwards campaign, joined by Joseph Sandler, General Counsel for the Democratic National Committee, faxed to TV station managers the kind of intimidating message that gives lawyers a bad name. The three-page letter is a not-so-thinly veiled threat with only one possible goal: to scare the stations into dropping the ad. How? By misstating provable facts that back up the ad’s claims, and by shamelessly misrepresenting the law. How, specifically? On the legal side of the ledger, by trotting out the standard bogeymen for TV stations: false and misleading advertising, frowned on by the FTC; the specter of libel suits; dark hints of serious damages unless, “in the public interest,” station managers refuse to run the ad. On the factual side, one assertion by Kerry’s lawyers is that Swift Boat Veterans For Truth is a “sham” organization. Why? Because its hard-hitting controversial ad was “spearheaded” by a “Texas corporate media consultant” and “financed largely” by a Houston homebuilder. Since when does the support of a businessman who believes the claims of a large number of Navy Vietnam veterans make the entire organization, ipso facto, a “sham”—i.e., a fake? Only the naïve would regard this contentless assertion as having any substance and not recognize it for what it is: an ad hominem attack. As to Navy physician Louis Letson (whom Elias and Sandler attempt to demean by putting Dr. Letson’s title in quotation marks), Kerry’s lawyers descend to a level that is truly shocking. They assert that Dr. Letson was “pretending to be the doctor who treated Kerry for one of his injuries,” and “not the doctor who actually signed Senator Kerry’s sick call sheet.” They assert that it was someone else who “actually signed” the sheet. They assert that “Letson is not listed on any document” as having treated Kerry after December 2, 1968. Fact (based on a notarized statement of Louis Letson): The injury Dr. Letson treated Kerry for occurred when Kerry and two others (a fellow lieutenant and a crewman), seeing movement from an unknown source, opened fire. Kerry’s rifle jammed, and in the absence of return fire, he resumed firing with a grenade launcher, spraying his own boat and causing a tiny piece of shrapnel to be embedded in his arm. The lieutenant and crewman, parties to the incident, accompanied Kerry to sick call, where they disputed Kerry’s claim that he’d been wounded by hostile fire and provided an account of the actual episode to Dr. Letson—after which Letson removed the tiny fragment with tweezers and covered Kerry’s scratch with a band aid. The lieutenant-witness is alive and available to testify, in detail, as to what happened. As for the maligned Dr. Louis Letson, he is entitled to say, as he did in the Swift Boat TV ad: “I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury.” Fact (based on a sworn affidavit by Grant Hibbard): Next morning Kerry showed up at Division Commander Grant Hibbard’s office. Hibbard had already investigated the incident and spoken to the lieutenant-witness. Characterizing Kerry’s purported injury as a “rose thorn” scratch insufficient to justify a Purple Heart—awarded for hostile-fire wounds requiring medical attention, and excluding wounds that are accidental and self-inflicted [except non-negligent ones sustained in battle]—Commander Hibbard summarily turned down Kerry’s request for a Purple Heart and dismissed him. Commander Hibbard, who participated in the Swift Boat TV ad, is willing to testify, in detail, as to what happened. Fact (based on rotation records and Kerry’s website): Some three months after everyone who was personally familiar with Kerry’s bogus claim to a Purple Heart had left Vietnam, Kerry persisted in the claim for his “rose-thorn” injury, managing to convince an officer that he had earned the Purple Heart. Yet that officer had no personal information about the incident, no connection to Kerry’s small naval unit, and no knowledge that Hibbard had rejected Kerry’s earlier request for the medal. Whenever Kerry has been pressed to produce evidence justifying this first Purple Heart, he cites Dr. Letson’s tweezers treatment—on the basis of which Commander Hibbard denied the medal. As to the Purple Heart that was awarded, there is not a shred of documentary evidence to justify it. Some lawyers, when confronted with too much damning evidence, fall back on the old shotgun approach. With Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, Elias and Sandler are facing off against an organization with a membership of over 250 [and growing daily since the ad ran], led by a retired rear admiral and comprised of vice admirals, commanders and hundreds of seamen. A large majority of men who served on Swift boats in Kerry’s naval unit have joined the organization. Kerry’s lawyers sought to poke holes in this formidable opponent’s accusations (thus deflecting attention from the holes in their own) by giving a false impression of the organization’s numbers. After calling the Swift Boat ad “an inflammatory, outrageous lie”—and making much of the fact that only “twelve men ‘appear’ to make statements about Senator Kerry’s service in Vietnam”—the lawyers make it seem as if the ad were the work of a disgruntled few. And they don’t just avoid talking numbers; they choose not to mention the background and credentials of some of the seemingly disgruntled malcontents who “appear” to have served with Lieutenant John Kerry. Were Elias and Sandler seriously accusing Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, who heads Swift Boat Veterans For Truth—and who was Commander of all Swift boats in Vietnam during the period of Kerry’s abbreviated tour of duty (late November ’68 to mid-March ’69)—of telling an “outrageous lie” when he accuses Kerry in the ad of “not being honest”? Possibly the most effective technique employed by Kerry’s lawyers—a straw man they constructed in a transparent effort to mislead station managers and, in the process, an uninformed public—is about how Swift boats in Vietnam operated: Anyone who technically wasn’t a crewmate of Kerry’s and didn’t serve on either of his two Swift boats is—without more—an unreliable eyewitness to anything Kerry did or said. But there is more---and from a very knowledgeable source. John O’Neill, partner in a Houston law firm and a founding member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, anticipating the controversy the TV spot would generate and the need for documentation, sent a letter to station managers on August 2 (three days before the team of Elias and Sandler shifted into gear). The letter itself, eight pages long, is buttressed with 27 exhibits—roughly 100 pages of what O’Neill correctly labeled “factual support for the advertisement.” What O’Neill explains about how the Swift boats actually operated should put to rest, for all but those who have a political ax to grind, any doubt about eyewitness reliability being tainted by non-crewmates. Kerry’s four-month tour of duty was with Coastal Division 11, a small naval unit of roughly a hundred sailors and fifteen to sixteen boats, where Kerry spent most of his time. These boats operated in even smaller groups of two to six and, quoting O’Neill: “Each of these boat officers operated directly with John Kerry on numerous occasions.” Four of these same officers are featured in the Swift boat ad, and have backed up their eyewitness accounts of Kerry’s lies with affidavits. A retired enlisted man served on one of the boats operating in close proximity to Kerry’s—a few yards away, to be precise—lending credence (again, backed up by affidavit) that “John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. I know, I was there, I saw what happened.” As to others in the ad—the captain who was Kerry’s direct commander in Coastal Division 11, another captain who was his administrative commander, and, as mentioned above, the rear admiral in command of all Swift boats during Kerry’s tour, O’Neill writes: “Each of these commanders interacted on numerous occasions with Kerry” (as Kerry’s authorized campaign biography readily acknowledges). Swift Boat Veterans For Truth is comprised of men who honorably served their country, many of them awarded medals that Kerry never earned. What these veterans have earned is the right to go public with provable facts without suffering the indignity of being labeled liars and shuffled aside in favor of the Kerry campaign’s revolving group of eight veterans from Coastal Division 11—none of whom, according to O’Neill, served with Kerry as much as two months. As for the charge that running the TV spot is a dirty campaign tactic instead of what it is—a matter of conscience—and that coming forward 30 years after the events in question suggests bad motives, the proper response to such a charge is quid pro quo. Kerry’s concocted stories fall within the same time frame. How could men who know otherwise—who knew him then—remain silent? It was not until halfway through their letter that the lawyers accused the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth of libel. By leveling that very serious charge, they purported to know something about libel law—especially about several legal principles that negate any legitimate libel claim by Kerry. First, any statement made in the TV spot that is an “opinion”—e.g., Kerry’s “account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day” [Chenoweth]; Kerry “lacks the capacity to lead” [Lonsdale]; Kerry “betrayed all his shipmates . . . . “ [Hibbard]—cannot constitute libel. Only the false statement of facts are capable of being libelous. Second, many of the factual statements are utterly benign, and thus could never be actionable. For example, “I served with John Kerry” [French, Elder, Hildreth]. That leaves factual statements like Hibbard’s: Kerry “lied before the Senate.” In libel law, truth is an absolute defense. If, for example, it is true that Kerry “lied before the Senate,” that Kerry “has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam” [Elliott], that Kerry “is lying about his record” [French], and that Kerry “lied to get his Bronze Star” [O’Dell], Kerry has no case for libel. Third, even without the absolute defense of truth, Kerry, as a public official, has a constitutionally required burden of proof in a libel case to produce evidence showing that the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth witnesses either knew their statements were false, or recklessly disregarded knowledge of falsity. Kerry’s lawyers must realize their client can never satisfy this burden of proof. For these reasons, and others, the democrat lawyers’ threatening letter to TV station managers was an unconscionable attempt to protect their candidate from the damning truths spoken by Vietnam veterans who have earned the right to exercise their First Amendment freedom of speech. To their credit, TV stations in some marketplaces have refused to surrender to the bullying tactics of Kerry’s lawyers. This presents the democrat party and the Kerry campaign with two choices: put up or shut up. They can slink off the field for having threatened TV stations with a baseless libel lawsuit, or, despite how they eventually hedge their threat, they can actually sue those TV stations that aren’t intimidated. The latter course would be utter disaster—and Kerry’s lawyers have to know this. Kerry would no longer be able to hide behind spin masters. He would have to file a written complaint. Sworn depositions (including Kerry’s) would have to be taken. He would have to respond to requests for factual admissions. He would have to answer written interrogatories. He would have to produce documents. There would have to be a trial. That means sworn testimony, cross examination, documentary evidence—all in front of a jury, reporters, perhaps even TV cameras. Once all that happened, America would know who told the truth—and who lied.   John Kerry Is Not A Traitor   Not surprisingly, John Kerry’s emergence as the democrat frontrunner has caused an explosion of anti-Kerry sentiment on the Internet.  Indeed, the Internet is ablaze with true and untrue Kerry stories, much deserved condemnation of the Senator, and even loud allegations that he has committed “treason.”  As a lawyer and law professor thoroughly familiar with the crime of treason, I can say unhesitatingly that this latter charge, as much as it might be psychologically satisfying to make, is unsupportable legally.  It is also dangerous tactically.   In the book “Aid and Comfort”: Jane Fonda in North Vietnam (co-authored with my wife, Erika Holzer; see www.hanoijane.net) we made a point about Fonda that is now doubly applicable to Kerry.  We wrote that untrue stories (like the urban legend that Fonda ratted on American POWs in Hanoi) enable the targets of those tall tales to discredit true stories:  “Since the untrue story is untrue, all else must be untrue.”      Equally, to accuse Kerry of treason enables him to accuse his critics of shooting from the hip and not knowing what they’re talking about—even as to charges that are true.   An excellent example of this phenomenon—being distracted from making legitimate attacks by shooting at straw men—was when Representatives Jim McDermott (D-Wash), Mike Thompson (D-Cal), and David Bonior (D-Mich) made a pilgrimage to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq just before the coalition’s invasion.  There, they toured, posed for pictures, and schmoozed with Iraqi officials.  And while in Iraq, McDermott made critical comments about the United States and said he’d trust Saddam Hussein before he’d trust his own President, George W. Bush.   Understandably, a firestorm erupted—especially on the political right.  Predictably, there were calls to charge the three Baghdad Boys with treason—erroneously analogizing their conduct to Jane Fonda’s during the Vietnam War.  However, for the very reasons we concluded in “Aid and Comfort” that Fonda was indictable and convictable for treason, the Baghdad Boys were not.    Nor is John Forbes Kerry.   There are three crimes expressly mentioned in the Constitution, only one of which is actually defined. Article I, Section 8, gives Congress power to punish counterfeiting, and to define and punish piracy; neither is actually defined.  However, Article III, Section 3, provides that: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.  No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”   As we explained in “Aid and Comfort,” the Supreme Court of the United States, has interpreted the treason section of the Constitution to require four elements for indictment and conviction: (1) an intent to betray the United States, (2) an overt act, (3) proved by two witnesses, (4) providing aid and comfort.”    In Jane Fonda’s case, she traveled to North Viet Nam during hostilities, made broadcasts (tapes of which were relentlessly played to our POWs), held press conferences, provided photo ops for the Communists, attacked the United States and its leaders, exploited American prisoners of war, fraternized with North Vietnamese military and civilian leaders—and was thanked for her efforts by grateful, top level Communist leaders.  This is why in “Aid and Comfort” we concluded that, given the law of treason, and given Fonda’s conduct, there was more than sufficient evidence to support an indictment and a conviction for treason.   It was understandable that people equated what the three Congressmen did in Iraq with what Jane Fonda did in North Vietnam.  The parallels were there—but only up to a point.  Fonda traveled to North Vietnam at a time when the United States was actively engaged in hostilities with that country: a large-scale air, ground, and sea conflict.  McDermott, Thompson, and Bonior traveled to Iraq at a time when the United States was actively engaged in hostilities with Iraq: an air campaign in the “no-fly” zones.  In both situations, one could find the requisite overt acts