At least that is what one of his crewmembers is saying.
Kerry ran from the enemy, claims former Vietnam crewman of Democrat candidate By Julian Coman in Washington
John Kerry, the Democratic challenger for the White House, is embroiled in fresh controversy over his much-vaunted Vietnam war record, after one of his crew members accused him of cowardice and making strategic mistakes in battle.
The testimony of Steven Gardner, a gunner's mate on the first patrol boat commanded by Mr Kerry in the Mekong delta, contradicts accounts of the senator's military career that depict him as a brave and aggressive lieutenant who won three Purple Hearts and which are a key element of his campaign against George Bush.
"He absolutely did not want to engage the enemy when I was with him," Mr Gardner said in an interview with the Boston Globe, which contacted him about the presidential candidate. "He wouldn't go in there and search. That is why I have a negative viewpoint of John Kerry.
"His initial patterns of behaviour when I met him and served under him were of somebody who ran from the enemy, rather than engaged it."
Mr Gardner has refused to join the tight-knit group of Vietnam veterans who are passionately supporters of their former comrade's White House bid.
His portrayal of a timid Lt Kerry is at odds with the accounts of other crew members, and Sen Kerry is said to be "angry" about the slur.
John Hurley, the national director of Vietnam Veterans for Kerry, told the Telegraph: "John was shocked by this. Gardner said that John used to take the boat four or five miles offshore 'every single night' so that it would be out of harm's way. John doesn't remember that and neither does the rest of the crew. They all think he's way off base."
In his Boston Globe interview, Mr Gardner also recalled an incident in 1968 in which he was slightly wounded, causing Sen Kerry to abort the boat's mission. "I said: 'Lt Kerry, I'm fine, nothing's wrong. I got a little flesh wound here.' But Kerry was already backing out of the canal, getting ready to run for it," he said.
Relations between the two men reached their low point after a Vietnamese boy was killed in an encounter with a fishing boat. The Kerry crew opened fire believing their craft was under attack. According to Mr Gardner, Lt Kerry blamed him for the tragedy.
"Kerry threatened me with a court-martial, screaming: 'What the hell do you think you're doing?' " said Mr Gardner. "Thankfully the whole crew verified there were weapons being shot at us. That was the end of it."
Sen Kerry described Mr Gardner's version of events as "made up".
"It's sad," he told his biographer, Douglas Brinkley, "but that's the way it goes in war, and especially in politics," a reference to Mr Gardner's apparently Republican sympathies.
"I've spent hours on the phone to him [Gardner]," said Mr Hurley. "But he won't back down on his story, even though the crew disagree with him."
Mr Brinkley, who interviewed Mr Gardner for an hour last week, said afterwards: "It essentially boils down to one word: politics. Gardner is sickened by the idea of Kerry as president."
An angry Mr Gardner, however, insisted: "I never made the first call to anyone. Until someone called me, I kept it all to myself."
Smells like BS. The man served under Kerry, and is going against eveyr other story about the man's time out there-how do we know he's not holding some kind of a grudge? Not to mention the way he conveniently paints himself as a gutsy "it's just a flesh-wound" type of guy in the process. There ar emany things to criticise Kerry about, but this seems stretched at best and totally fabricated at worst.
"You're A Big Hunk Of Hero Sandwich, And You Wanna Save The Girl!"
I dont know, I have seen Bronze Stars handed out for people keeping the water trucks filled. EVERYTHING can be spun one way or another.
Plus, why belive one guys version over another? If he was really out to get Kerry, wouldnt he have come forward during one of Kerry's 18 or so other presidential runs?
"If he was really out to get Kerry, wouldnt he have come forward during one of Kerry's 18 or so other presidential runs?"
That kinda works both ways, doncha think? Where was he for the whole of Kerry previous political career? Why has he decided to come forward, even if somebody else did make the first phone call? It's mighty easy to just say "no thanks, not interested".
And it doesn't seem like one guy's word versus another's. I'm not an expert on the subject, but that article and a coupla othrs I read seem to indicate that pretty much all of the rest of Kerry's crew support his version of events.
"You're A Big Hunk Of Hero Sandwich, And You Wanna Save The Girl!"
God, for a party that claims to love veterans, they sure have no problem trying their goddamn hardest to humiliate, disrespect, and paint as a traitor any veteran with a (D) next to their name. I thought the Republican Party had no shame after what they did to Max Cleland, but this whole "Kerry's really a cowardly traitor" thing just takes the cake. Notice the Democratic Party has always had a basic amount of respect for Colin Powell or John McCain or all the Republicans who've ran on their military record. This is really starting to disgust me. Most of the time I just think Politics are Politics, and it's all part of the game, but lately with this shit I've really been thinking the Republicans just have no regard for decency at all.
I wonder how much money George W. Bush gave Paris Hilton.
the only person who's done anything to harm max cleland was cleland himself. the fact that he wasn't injured during combat in vietnam is not a lie by the republicans, or even a little known story. cleland has freely admitted that himself.
he reached for an american grenade that he didn't know was live, and it blew up. being in the armed forces, being around weapons and equipment that can cause serious harm, is not an easy job. yet cleland has the gall to scoff at people who served in the national guard, when any guardsman ran the same kind of risk that he did of being injured in some sort of freak accident.
Originally posted by MoeGates Notice the Democratic Party has always had a basic amount of respect for Colin Powell or John McCain or all the Republicans who've ran on their military record. T
Ok so did I just imagine the Dems going after Bush's military record?
Originally posted by MoeGates Notice the Democratic Party has always had a basic amount of respect for Colin Powell or John McCain or all the Republicans who've ran on their military record. T
Ok so did I just imagine the Dems going after Bush's military record?
I think he meant "People WITH a military background."
The thing with GW was a supposed LACK of military background.
World of difference there.
"Are you kidding me? A soda with MY name on it? Now more than ever, SODAS RULE!" - Edge to Christian Smackdown Sept 7th 2000
Originally posted by MoeGatesGod, for a party that claims to love veterans, they sure have no problem trying their goddamn hardest to humiliate, disrespect, and paint as a traitor any veteran with a (D) next to their name. I thought the Republican Party had no shame after what they did to Max Cleland, but this whole "Kerry's really a cowardly traitor" thing just takes the cake. Notice the Democratic Party has always had a basic amount of respect for Colin Powell or John McCain or all the Republicans who've ran on their military record. This is really starting to disgust me. Most of the time I just think Politics are Politics, and it's all part of the game, but lately with this shit I've really been thinking the Republicans just have no regard for decency at all.
He said this stuff in an interview with the Boston Globe. Now, last I checked, the Globe was owned by the New York Times, who, unless things have changed in the past few hours, is not a Republican organ. And Moe, neither party has decency. But, find me more than 2 or 3 Presidential campaigns in the past 2 centuries that haven't been dirty?
Pondering whether the world is ready for the Red Sox Nation Lawrence Welk Workrate Report.
Aren't these stories great. All the dirt being dredged up on both major candidates. Is all this dirt important? Maybe. What it does do is keep us from really engaging in the discussion of issues. If any of this stuff had happened recently, I would be much more concerned, but over thirty years ago? Maybe I am naive, but IMO both Kerry and "W" may have grown and matured in thirty years. We all make mistakes.
Thread ahead: Kerry and other leaders Next thread: Spanish bombs may be Al-Qaeda's work Previous thread: Up to a Million Europeans Enslaved back in the day
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com A perspective on the conflict that I haven't seen anywhere. Salaam Pax is his handle. The link from Diane at the top of the page regards his authenticity.