--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 7/3/05 2:43:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > No, sorry, as I've told you twice now, the guy who > *claims* to have treated Kerry's wound on this > occasion was not the doctor who filled out and signed > the treatment report. There is no record of the guy > who makes this claim ever having treated Kerry. > > Also, the person who made the crack about the rose > bush was not the doctor who claims to have treated > him but rather Hibbard, his commanding officer at the > time; and that was his recollection 30 years later. > > However, Hibbard claimed the wound was in Kerry's > forearm, when it fact it was in his upper arm. Plus > which, it's hard to imagine that if a piece of shrapnel > had to be removed, as the treatment report states, that > the wound would be no worse than a scratch from a rose > bush. So Hibbard's testimony is suspect on this point; > and it even conflicts with the account of the guy who > > I think that may just prove my point. The doctor that actually removed the > shrapnel, he said the size of a paper staple, and placed a band aid over the > wound,no stitches, was definitely not the one that signed off on a medical > report that could be used for a purple heart.
You're still not getting it. *Even if* the doctor who actually treated Kerry was not the one who signed off on the medical report--which is exceedingly dubious--the wound would still have automatically qualified for a Purple Heart. The eye witness to the incident who > also accompanied Kerry to that doctor also stated the wound was caused when > Kerry decided to fire a mortar nearly point blank into a bunch of rocks > while "horsing" around. No, you've gotten things confused again. The "horsing around" claim was made by O'Neill in describing the incident in which Kerry blew up the rice. He was lying. Rice stacks were routinely blown up by U.S. troops to reduce the food supply of the Viet Cong. As to the first wound, again, the two eyewitnesses who were there *at the time*--the *only* two who were there at the time--say otherwise. They say there was no mortar-firing gun on the boat. They say Kerry was firing an M-16, but it jammed, and as he was reaching down to pick up another one, he got hit with the shrapnel. As I recall ,the doctor telling the story, Kerry was > persistent about the purple heart medal and some how got somebody else to sign > off two weeks later. I guess second opinions can pay off! No, that wasn't the doctor, that was Hibbard who made that claim. And remember, the doctor who supposedly treated the wound did not sign the treatment report. The treatment report said the shrapnel was removed and bacitracin ointment and a dressing were applied, so it wasn't a "second opinion," it was a report of how the wound was treated at the time. As for Hibbard, he > only strengthens the argument whether he remembered the wound as being in the > fore arm or the upper arm. That's irrelevant, it was the severity that was in > question not the location. And he was wrong about that too. Obviously the wound resulting from a piece of shrapnel being removed, even if it was small, is going to be more severe than a scratch from a rose bush. So his account *conflicts* with the treatment report. And this same Hibbard who was so dismissive of Kerry in 2003 had written a very positive report about him only two weeks after Kerry incurred the wound. The main point I have been trying to make all > along has been the severity of Kerry's purple heart wounds. They, at least two, > amounted to nothing but a few scratches and some rice imbedded under the skin > in his butt. And I only laugh at it because he was the one that made such a > big deal about them. Maybe the third one was a little more serious, sheesh I > hope so. Look, the point is that when a soldier is undertaking a dangerous assignment--and *nobody* denies Swift Boat duty was exceedingly dangerous--any wound incurred in that situation could be serious, if not fatal. That bit of shrapnel on a slightly different path could have gone into Kerry's eye, for example. Purple Hearts awarded in that context acknowledge that the soldier was risking serious injury or death just by *being* there, whether the specific wound was serious or not. For anybody to make light of such wounds is simply beneath contempt. Kerry's wounds may not have been serious, but they *could* have been. He was just very lucky. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
