Kerry Purple Heart Doc Speaks Out
The medical description of his first wound.

By Byron York

Some critics of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry have questioned the circumstances surrounding the first of three Purple Hearts Kerry won in Vietnam. Those critics, among them some of Kerry's fellow veterans, have suggested that a wound suffered by Kerry in December 1968 may have made him technically eligible for a Purple Heart but was not severe enough to warrant serious consideration, even for a decoration that was handed out by the thousands. Whatever the case, Kerry was awarded the Purple Heart, and, along with two others he won later, it allowed him to request to leave Vietnam before his tour of duty was finished.

Kerry was treated for the wound at a medical facility in Cam Ranh Bay. The doctor who treated Kerry, Louis Letson, is today a retired general practitioner in Alabama. Letson says he remembers his brief encounter with Kerry 35 years ago because "some of his crewmen related that Lt. Kerry had told them that he would be the next JFK from Massachusetts." Letson says that last year, as the Democratic campaign began to heat up, he told friends that he remembered treating one of the candidates many years ago. In response to their questions, Letson says, he wrote down his recollections of the time. (Letson says he has had no contacts with anyone from the Bush campaign or the Republican party.) What follows is Letson's memory, as he wrote it.

I have a very clear memory of an incident which occurred while I was the Medical Officer at Naval Support Facility, Cam Ranh Bay.
John Kerry was a (jg), the OinC or skipper of a Swift boat, newly arrived in Vietnam. On the night of December 2, he was on patrol north of Cam Ranh, up near Nha Trang area. The next day he came to sick bay, the medical facility, for treatment of a wound that had occurred that night.

The story he told was different from what his crewmen had to say about that night. According to Kerry, they had been engaged in a fire fight, receiving small arms fire from on shore. He said that his injury resulted from this enemy action.

Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on shore. The crewman thought that the injury was caused by a fragment ricocheting from that mortar round when it struck the rocks.

That seemed to fit the injury which I treated.

What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle.

I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound.

The wound was covered with a bandaid.

Not [sic] other injuries were reported and I do not recall that there was any reported damage to the boat.

This is from NRO.

I have read about four or five interviews from people with Kerry when this happened and everyone of them said basically the same thing. His CO said that he saw no wound and wouldnt have endorsed the award.
As a Vet who has been awarded a purple heart this make sme very angry, congress didnt want to award the Heart to those killed in Beirut but yet Kerry contorted the guidelines so he could be as he called himself the next JFK.

wow...

He was awarded this, and just get over it. Stop bickering over how many he did get or not. You Republicans always attack him for going, and at least getting some medals and ribbons...but then you have a President who was in the army, and joined the Nation Guard, right before Vietnam. So no matter how you look at it, Kerry beats Bush hands down. You should be more frustrated with Bush then Kerry. So spend your time posting this articles and not ones against Kerry.

Bush AWOL
Kerry Went--Kerry could have gotten 1 and that still is more then Bush. Kerry could have gotten none, and he would have still done more then Bush, because he WENT.

Some advice: GET OVER IT.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
wow...

He was awarded this, and just get over it. Stop bickering over how many he did get or not. You Republicans always attack him for going, and at least getting some medals and ribbons...but then you have a President who was in the army, and joined the Nation Guard, right before Vietnam. So no matter how you look at it, Kerry beats Bush hands down. You should be more frustrated with Bush then Kerry. So spend your time posting this articles and not ones against Kerry.

Bush AWOL
Kerry Went--Kerry could have gotten 1 and that still is more then Bush. Kerry could have gotten none, and he would have still done more then Bush, because he WENT.

Some advice: GET OVER IT.


I am not a die hard Bush supporter either but Kerry's contortion of the award guidelines is morally wrong for a man who calls himself the champion for veterans. He parades out a crew member of his whom he saved and says look at me I am a true warrior. But let him get hit with a splinter and he wants a purple heart.

I am sure that many reservist would take offense with saying that joining the national guard wasnt the same as serving your country.

I would suggest that you walk that mile in my shoes before you tell me to get over being offended by this. Pick up a rifle put on your Kevlar and get out there and do your part for the freedom of this nation.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran


I would suggest that you walk that mile in my shoes before you tell me to get over being offended by this. Pick up a rifle put on your Kevlar and get out there and do your part for the freedom of this nation.

I suggest the same to Bush...
:p

Bush didnt tell me to get over it. You must think that I label myself as a Bush supporter.

I have looked at both and decided that Bush is better than Kerry, I probably would have voted for Edwards or Clark but you guys didnt vote for them. Dems fault that I am voting for Bush.

BTW I am an Independent

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Bush didnt tell me to get over it. You must think that I label myself as a Bush supporter.

I have looked at both and decided that Bush is better than Kerry, I probably would have voted for Edwards or Clark but you guys didnt vote for them. Dems fault that I am voting for Bush.

BTW I am an Independent

You honestly think Bush is better then Kerry? WOW

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
You honestly think Bush is better then Kerry? WOW

What scares me is that 4 years ago he wasnt good enough for the Democrats but now he is. So he has changed for the better? or is that you will vote for whomever the party tells you to.

Ummm, I'm 15. Can't vote yet. But, trust me...4 years ago I don't think he was running or trying to become President (if you are talking about Kerry)

Well I hope Bush wins second term.(fact)Bush is Bush.......
His father was strong/Perfesional....Bush knows exactly were
to step.Lol besides anything less than the Bush is just a rut.
Just something else for America to trip on.

I really don't care what Kerry did 30 years ago. Bush was snorting cocaine at the time - doesn't really matter now.

Originally posted by DrewM
I really don't care what Kerry did 30 years ago. Bush was snorting cocaine at the time - doesn't really matter now.
Yep and he did finally come clean. I am sure that most people 30 plus years ago tried some form of drugs, either weed or coke and even acid. I am 45 and I know I did. And most people I know did as well.

I am not talking about doing drugs, I am talking about the perversion of a medal award to further his future career. Alot of men and women have died and been awarded the Purple Heart, I saw many friends of mine in pieces in Beirut. It was hard to get the heart awarded to them.

I know Bush was UA from his unit and that should have been punished as well. But if I had to choose on that basis alone it would be Bush.

I am not a card carrying Republican, used to be, but decided that the party had gone into an area I was not comfortable. But the Dems were in the same area just on the opposite side. So I became an Indie.

So of the comments I see from people literally amaze me.

I will speak of this only one time here.

You guys remember my web site about being an Independent candidate for President. You also remember I never mentioned military service. I do not think this is a reason to elect a president.
I think how you can serve the American people is important.

I flew Hueys in Nam.
I have sat in a slick and caught round after round in the craft while picking up wounded and worn out soldiers. Men just trying to get home alive. Only pulling pitch when everyone I could hold was aboard. I have raked the forests and villages with mini guns from my gunship to save soldiers on the ground.
I have been afraid. I have had my tail rotor shot off and autorotated to a rought landing that destroyed my chopper. Barely escaping in time.
Never would I use this to further a political movement.
I lived, many died. I was nothing but a kid doing his job. Just lucky to come home. I despise any that uses military service to make other people think they were something special. The special ones are those that did not get to come home.

Dan thatnk you for your service and Welcome home.
I would agree with you but if the candidate is using it to further his career then it becomes relevant.

Again thanks Dan for your time in Vietnam.

If he did not get that one medal, would you recognize his other awards?

If anyone is given an award for something they might not deserve, it would be the fault of the person presenting the medal. If Kerry stated that he had 2 purple hearts, when he actually had 3, there would be mudslinging about that too.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Dan thatnk you for your service and Welcome home.
I would agree with you but if the candidate is using it to further his career then it becomes relevant.

Again thanks Dan for your time in Vietnam.

Politicians have always used their military service as a campaign issue. Bush tried to use his but it didn't serve him so well. He apparently was trying to further his political carreer while he served. I don't care if a man has served or not when it comes time to run for office. It is not a prerequisite to holding public office so I don't consider it a big issue. Most men don't like to talk about their service during wartime, since I would imagine the unpleasant memories outnumber the pleasant ones.

I think it's a bit ridiculous to look at the awards Kerry won, 3 Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star, suggest that there is a question about the first Purple Heart he was awarded and therefore he isn't fit to hold office. I don't know why he was awarded the medal, and I don't care. He was awarded the medal, he didn't award it to himself. The bottom line is that if military service is the deciding factor in who should be the next president, Kerry has Bush beat hands down.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I think it's a bit ridiculous to look at the awards Kerry won, 3 Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star, suggest that there is a question about the first Purple Heart he was awarded and therefore he isn't fit to hold office.

I have to agree. If true, all it really proves is that he may be a bit of a weenie. But still a weenie that fought in Vietnam, which is more than I can say for myself.

No matter what, he did more then Bush. It's just that simple.

Originally posted by Vilepagan


I think it's a bit ridiculous to look at the awards Kerry won, 3 Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star, suggest that there is a question about the first Purple Heart he was awarded and therefore he isn't fit to hold office. I don't know why he was awarded the medal, and I don't care. He was awarded the medal, he didn't award it to himself. The bottom line is that if military service is the deciding factor in who should be the next president, Kerry has Bush beat hands down.

I agree military service should not be a deciding factor. But I have seen it made one by both parties in numerous campaigns. I feel that the issues here is the comment he made back when he asked to be awarded the purple heart. He said he was going to be the next JFK, and that shows that he served only to further his career. Now as for Bush his being UA(awol) that should also be considered, but I know what Bush is about and I am ok with most of his presidency so far. But I don't know how Kerry is going to react to the actions in Iraq and that could be a real problem. If Kerry decides to pull out of Iraq too early and they do not succeed in their freedom then that will be the new terrorist cry to kill Americans.
I would have supported Edwards and maybe Clark if nominated but I have heard Kerry speak and he is very good at double speak and another one in now is not what we need.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Yep and he did finally come clean. I am sure that most people 30 plus years ago tried some form of drugs, either weed or coke and even acid. I am 45 and I know I did. And most people I know did as well.

I am not talking about doing drugs, I am talking about the perversion of a medal award to further his future career. Alot of men and women have died and been awarded the Purple Heart, I saw many friends of mine in pieces in Beirut. It was hard to get the heart awarded to them.

Well, first off, Bush never "came clean". He refused to answer the question, saying it wasn't "appropriate", but then strangely was willing to make some evasions about how he could pass the FBI background checks dealing with what he did after 1980... Sort of like saying, "It's not appropriate for me to answer questions about whether or not I strangled my wife.. But I didn't do it after last February"

Bush's hypocrisy on the drug issue is compounded by the fact that he went on to become governor of a state with some of the most draconian drug laws in the country, where folks were regularly sent away for 5, 10 year mandatoy minimum sentences for doing the same thing he (allegedly, although the dissembling sure makes it sound like he did) did when he was a "reckless youth"... (although Bush's reckless youth seemed to last until age 40) while he was in charge.. Actually, in the case of the Tulia arrests, folks in Texas were sent to prison for years with harsh drug sentences even when their only crime was being black. Think any of those people will be able to go on to become president? Not bloody likely.

As far as Kerry "perverting an award to further his political career"- as someone else duly noted, the military awarded him the medal.. if anyone did the perverting, it was them. Beyond that, if Kerry had been so calculating about his political futures, he probably would have come home and coasted on his status as a war hero- he certainly wouldn't have become a very public anti-war advocate. In the political reality of the early 1970s, that was not a terribly politically calculating thing to do.

I would guess that he came home, saw the country didnt back its troops and jumped dead on that band wagon. He rode the passions of others until he was well known enough and then as all politicians do jumped ship and became the Veterans Advocate. Even though his protesting the war had hurt those coming home.
What all of you are failing to see is that neither Bush nor Kerry were honorable in their service.

Still, i must inquire: WHO THE FUCK CARES???

Originally posted by Evil Homer
Still, i must inquire: WHO THE FUCK CARES???
That is the opinion that lets morons take office. Look at Jeb Bush, people in Florida said who cares and wham there is Jeb.

The Republicans care, because it makes Kerry look good, and anything that is good for Kerry, they will try to rip down, and make it seem "bad", even though it really isn't.

Originally posted by Overdose
The Republicans care, because it makes Kerry look good, and anything that is good for Kerry, they will try to rip down, and make it seem "bad", even though it really isn't.
Kerry and Bush not having served honorably helps Kerry?
Explain, please.

BV, if you don't think Kerry served honorably (regardless of his actions he did at home) you are just pointless, and honestly, a republican in the closet.

He saved a man out of the water, and he got metals and purple hearts to prove he served honorably. President Bush was enlisted, but then he “magically” disappeared and didn’t go.

The Right Wing can disgrace and disrespect what Kerry earned all they want. The sad thing is, you accuse Kerry of being disrespectful to the troops when he got home, but then you do the same to his service.

Kerry was in Vietnam, and the Veterans who attack him, for the most part, are Republican’s who say “none of the accusations Kerry made after Vietnam were true” I admit as does Kerry that not everything he said was true, but the majority was.

The reason the other soldiers wouldn’t admit it, is because it would save them from having a bad reputation and they were most likely were for the war.

BV, I suggest you look up some history on Vietnam and learn that the massacres really did happen.

I should look up the history of Vietnam? I was alive during the war, I know what was done. Kerry came home and jumped ship to further his career. He spoke bad about the veterans who had served just as honorably as he did, he said he was disgraced by his country and he was in a group that planned assasinations. SO I would say he was JUST as dishonorable as Bush.
Kerry wasnt drafted, he volunteered. He said it was so that he would be another JFK. He planned his service to fit his future, he didnt do it to serve his country he did it to serve himself.
By the way I have never said that My Lai never happened, I never said we didnt commit attrocities, what I said was that Kerry said he took part in these actions and the blamed others when he came home. He was an officer and in charge of his unit. He speaks of a time he and his crew attacked and killed civilians on a boat, he was in charge, if anyone should be courts martial for that it would be him.
If he was an E-3 then maybe he could have blamed others for it, but like Abu Ghraib the blame goes to the officers in charge as well as those who were involved.

You are beyond believable, and you sound just as right-wing as the next Republican. First of all, he spoke badly about the troops, because a lot of what we did in Vietnam was horrible, and it was a disgrace. I don’t think he was going to come home, and say “Yes the troops were fine, they did a wonderful job” when in reality they did horrible events. He was frustrated because many of the “troops” in Vietnam were committing acts that in return ruined his reputation. So of course he is going to say something, about it. He volunteered to serve his nation, and you can say he wanted to become another “JFK”, but you have no actual proof, and that is just about as lunatic as what Rush Limbaugh would say.

And yes he did commit acts that were not correct, but he only did them because that was what he was assigned to do. Just please, stop trying to make Kerry look bad for going, and Bush look good for staying, it get so annoying.

No proof, he said it or so the guy he saved said he said it... You know the one that was on the stage with him during the Primaries.
As for doing the right thing, I dont think that being a member of a group who plots the overthrow of our government is doing the right thing. I didnt agree with the way things were done in Beirut, and of course I didnt throw away my medals nor did I insult the troops who served with me.
But Kerry was in charge of his boat and thus responsible for all actions committed by his crew. So pointing a finger at them is pointing a finger at himself. SO his call for some to be charged with crimes then I guess he should have been as well.

And when did he exactly say it, because I honestly never heard about that…

Go ahead and believe the Right Wing lies, that Kerry was “trying to overthrow our Government” how idiotic is that?

You didn’t throw away your medals, and that’s your choice, you weren’t as ashamed of your serving as Kerry was.

Did people burn villages and crate mass murderers in Beirut? Because if that is the case, I would have been ashamed and thrown away my medals. As for insulting the troops, that was wrong, and he even admitted it was wrong.
Wow, can you say, that’s something we’ll never hear out of President Bush’s mouth.

No, actually, he was told to order his troops to do that…but yes, he was the leader of his own troop, and in return saved a man out of the water, while they were under fire.

Yes he said that, I cant remember when but I believe it was in Iowa.
NO we didnt burn villages nor did we murder people other than terrorist. But what Kerry did was wrong, as an officer he had the obligation to refuse the order but I know that is not always easy, but the right thing rarely is.
I didnt say he plotted to overthrow the government that the group he was in did.

But let me say this, he came back and attacked those that followed his orders not the ones who gave him the orders. SO if that is a sample his judgement making abilities then I will stick with the known instead of taking a chance on the unknown.

Again, he was told to tell his troops to commit these acts, and that is exactly what happened. Which is exactly why he came home and spoke out against the war, because of orders like that.

And again, he already said he was wrong to say those things about the troops, so that is pointless to argue now, for he can admit he is wrong (UNLIKE BUSH)

But he didnt follow the proper channels, so I guess saying your sorry is ok for killing innocent people. So if Reagan apologized or Bush then it would be ok?

Reagan didn’t “have” to, neither did Bush. Kerry was told he had to, because it was his job as officer to respect the officials who were above him. Which is why he came back to fight the war, because of orders like that.

During Abu Ghraib it was argued that the officers should be the ones to hang because they let it happen. Kerry didnt have to, look at the trial summary of Lt Calley and see what was said about Cpt Medina and My Lai.
Kerry was just as responsible for the deaths of those innocents as Reagan or Bush or Calley etc.

Kerry was told to tell his troops to commit these acts, no one told Reagan or Bush to do what they did.

How do you know? Maybe they were told that the communist were killing people and that supplying the rebels with money and weapons would save lives.
Also Kerry actually had blood on his hands, Reagan didnt. You will never be able to accept that Kerry is a typical politician will you? He is not a God, he is nothing more than a man who wants to be President so bad that he was willing to kill for it.

How do you know? We can only assume, and you will assume badly of Kerry, because you don’t support him, and I will assume good, because I do support him, so drop it.

Reagan did, because he funded the slaughter of over 300,000 people in South America. Kerry had blood on his hands, only because he was forced to. Reagan has blood on his hands, because of a decision he made, that was completely up to him.

your wrong on the numbers for Reagan. I did my homework.
But I will not drop it, I will tell everyone I can that I think Kerry is a government sactioned murderer who should be in prison instead of running for President.

My numbers are correct on Reagan.
As for the Kerry issue, you won’t change your opinion and I won’t change mine.

It is no crazier than you calling Reagan a murderer or Bush one as well. Kerry actually pulled the trigger on innocent people, he burned homes of children, he talked about using a zippo to light huts.
So if you think this is crazy then I guess you are spouting crazy rhetoric as well.

I never denied Kerry killed innocent victims. When did I? You are laughable BV. But it was not Kerry’s choice, he was told to, by the officials above him. Reagan had the choice to not fund and support the deaths of thousands.

Originally posted by Overdose
I never denied Kerry killed innocent victims. When did I? You are laughable BV. But it was not Kerry’s choice, he was told to, by the officials above him. Reagan had the choice to not fund and support the deaths of thousands.
He was an officer, he is guilty of action unbecoming an officer and a gentleman at the very least. But you can say all you want to about it being ok to kill if you are ordered to or if you believe that the war is just......... Just doenst make sense to say one is wrong and the other ok....
By the way I am going to get the news story from the WP that gives the numbers killed in SA and LA while Reagan was in office.
You are wrong

here ya go.... a small excerpt I will find the link and post it later


An estimated 300,000 people died in Central America's civil wars, about half during Reagan's two terms in office.

BV, you are not going to change my mind on the Kerry thing, and I’m not going to change yours, so fucking drop it already, and stop trying to beat the “dead horse”.

As for the killings, yes only half may have been committed during his two terms, but the funding and support he gave them, still lead to the total killing of the 300,000 people murdered. If he had not given the money and support during his two terms, that 300,000 would have never happened.

So since I’m that immature, I’ll just say, you’re wrong.

Originally posted by Overdose
BV, you are not going to change my mind on the Kerry thing, and I’m not going to change yours, so fucking drop it already, and stop trying to beat the “dead horse”.

As for the killings, yes only half may have been committed during his two terms, but the funding and support he gave them, still lead to the total killing of the 300,000 people murdered. If he had not given the money and support during his two terms, that 300,000 would have never happened.

So since I’m that immature, I’ll just say, you’re wrong.
Again most were killed PRIOR TO Reagan taking office, in the 36 years preceding Reagans terms 200000 were killed in Guatemala.
OOOpppsss

By the way here is a quote of Kerry saying he was sorry.....


After running that clip, Russert said to Kerry: "You committed atrocities." Kerry said that the word "atrocities" is "a bad word" and "inappropriate." Asked about using the phrase, "war criminals," Kerry replied that the words "were honest but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top." He said he regretted them.


Not apologizing for the killing of a baby but for calling them attrocities.

Again most were killed during and after he was in office, because of his funding.

And the Kerry quote is nothing, it does not change the fact, that a true war crime would be if he was not ordered to do it, and he did it anyway, which was not the case.

Once again you are wrong on the facts of the Reagan numbers, most were killed prior to his taking office.
200000 killed before he took office out of 300000 that is not most.
Accept the fact you made a mistake, something you said you admired in Kerry.

So the Nazis who killed the Jews were not guilty of war crimes? They were ordered to do it!

Didn’t make a mistake on Kerry or Reagan. Just because you say something, does not mean it is fact, and I’m wrong. You can think what you want, and I can think what I want. Just because you think something does not mean what I believe is now “wrong”. I’ll agree to disagree on the Reagan and Kerry issues.

PS: The majority of the killings happened because of the funding of the “freedom fighters” do some more research.

Originally posted by Overdose
Didn’t make a mistake on Kerry or Reagan. Just because you say something, does not mean it is fact, and I’m wrong. You can think what you want, and I can think what I want. Just because you think something does not mean what I believe is now “wrong”. I’ll agree to disagree on the Reagan and Kerry issues.

PS: The majority of the killings happened because of the funding of the “freedom fighters” do some more research.
Show me your research, I got mine from the home of Bob Woodward, The Washington Post.
I am not quoting a lib or conservative rag but a paper that even Moore quoted... A liberal paper.

lalala try CIA reports. And look in the Reagan thread some more...they are listed.

uhhohh BV posting Right-Wing propaganda...stickers….hmmmm

Originally posted by Overdose
lalala try CIA reports. And look in the Reagan thread some more...they are listed.

uhhohh BV posting Right-Wing propaganda...stickers….hmmmm
Let me see the facts you are quoting. Then you can prove me wrong......... unless..................

Again, look in the Reagan thread.

Originally posted by Overdose
Again, look in the Reagan thread.
In the Reagan thread are nothing more than copies of articles, you said you were quoting CIA reports but I have not seen them yet.

Keep ignoring the facts.

Originally posted by Overdose
Keep ignoring the facts.
Show me the facts. Cant be convinced if you dont show me the facts.
I am waiting for the CIA report you mentioned, I would put credence in that, I would put credence in a WP or NYT.

It’s extremely ironic, how I have posted links that explain exactly what the reports say. Oh and it’s also funny how when I’ve asked for links in the past, you go, I’m not your baby sitter, go look for them yourself…so take your own advice, and do just that.

Originally posted by Overdose
It’s extremely ironic, how I have posted links that explain exactly what the reports say. Oh and it’s also funny how when I’ve asked for links in the past, you go, I’m not your baby sitter, go look for them yourself…so take your own advice, and do just that.
Uh I said that once after I posted links everytime. I didnt say I have CIA reports to back me up, you did, so where are they?

They are in a link I've already given. I'm not your "Baby Sitter, go find it yourself”

Originally posted by Overdose
They are in a link I've already given. I'm not your "Baby Sitter, go find it yourself”
I did, and there is no CIA report in any of the links you posted.
I have asked you many times to prove me wrong, show me the CIA report, have said many times that it is not in the links but you just repeat the same thing all over again.



If you cant run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

:D

You seem to not understand, that your looking skills are limited. Keep looking.

Originally posted by Overdose
You seem to not understand, that your looking skills are limited. Keep looking.
It is not there, no where in any of your posts is an official CIA report, or even a quote by a CIA official.
Maybe your skills are lacking...


:lolhit:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/052699a3.html

Are you dumb, or just blind? That article, has sources to the CIA all throughout…I suggest you look harder next time, maybe your age is interfering with your ability to look thoroughly.

Originally posted by Overdose
http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/052699a3.html

Are you dumb, or just blind? That article, has sources to the CIA all throughout…I suggest you look harder next time, maybe your age is interfering with your ability to look thoroughly.
Where is the official document? I can write an article quoting an undisclosed source. Never have to prove my story.
I provide you with at the least a credible news source.
You dont want to insult my age.

Keep ignoring the facts, I’m done arguing you with the Reagan scandal, where he killed over 300,000 people with his funding and support. You will not change my position on this issue, just because you refuse to thoroughly understand the truth behind the matter.

“or even a quote by a CIA official”

Actually they did quote the CIA, so maybe you are wrong…wow? Someone cannot thoroughly look at the evidence that is presented.

Originally posted by Overdose
“or even a quote by a CIA official”

Actually they did quote the CIA, so maybe you are wrong…wow? Someone cannot thoroughly look at the evidence that is presented.
The only two mentions of the CIA in the article you linked...

The major American newspapers did cover the findings. The New York Times made it the lead story. The Washington Post played it inside on page A19. Both cited the troubling role of the CIA and other U.S. government agencies in the Guatemalan tragedy. But no U.S. official was held accountable by name.

On March 1, 1999, a strange Washington Post editorial addressed the findings, but did not confront them. One of its principal points seemed to be that President Carter's military aid cut-off to Guatemala was to blame.

The editorial argued that the arms embargo removed "what minimal restraint even a feeble American presence supplied." The editorial made no reference to the 1980s and added only a mild criticism of "the CIA [because it] still bars the public from the full documentation."

Dont see any official being quoted or a report being cited.
Or even the mention of 300000 people being killed.

According to these “secret” cables, the CIA was confirming Guatemalan government massacres in 1981-82 even as Reagan was moving to loosen the military aid ban.

In April 1981, a secret CIA cable described a massacre at Cocob, near Nebaj in the Ixil Indian territory. On April 17, 1981, government troops attacked the area believed to support leftist guerrillas, the cable said.

According to a CIA source, "the social population appeared to fully support the guerrillas" and "the soldiers were forced to fire at anything that moved." The CIA cable added that "the Guatemalan authorities admitted that 'many civilians' were killed in Cocob, many of whom undoubtedly were non-combatants."

Despite the CIA account and other similar reports, Reagan permitted Guatemala's army to buy $3.2 million in military trucks and jeeps in June 1981. To permit the sale, Reagan removed the vehicles from a list of military equipment that was covered by the human rights embargo.

One CIA report in February 1982 described an army sweep through the so-called Ixil Triangle in central El Quiche province.

The CIA report explained the army's modus operandi: "When an army patrol meets resistance and takes fire from a town or village, it is assumed that the entire town is hostile and it is subsequently destroyed."

In February 1983, however, a secret CIA cable noted a rise in "suspect right-wing violence" with kidnappings of students and teachers. Bodies of victims were appearing in ditches and gullies.

CIA sources traced these political murders to Rios Montt's order to the “Archivos” in October to "apprehend, hold, interrogate and dispose of suspected guerrillas as they saw fit."


Privately, Reagan had a far more accurate understanding of the true nature of the contras. At one point in the contra war, Reagan turned to CIA official Duane Clarridge and demanded that the contras be used to destroy some Soviet-supplied helicopters that had arrived in Nicaragua.

The report added that the "government of the United States, through various agencies including the CIA, provided direct and indirect support for some [of these] state operations." The report concluded that the U.S. government also gave money and training to a Guatemalan military that committed "acts of genocide" against the Mayans.

Originally posted by Overdose
According to these “secret” cables, the CIA was confirming Guatemalan government massacres in 1981-82 even as Reagan was moving to loosen the military aid ban.

In April 1981, a secret CIA cable described a massacre at Cocob, near Nebaj in the Ixil Indian territory. On April 17, 1981, government troops attacked the area believed to support leftist guerrillas, the cable said.

According to a CIA source, "the social population appeared to fully support the guerrillas" and "the soldiers were forced to fire at anything that moved." The CIA cable added that "the Guatemalan authorities admitted that 'many civilians' were killed in Cocob, many of whom undoubtedly were non-combatants."

Despite the CIA account and other similar reports, Reagan permitted Guatemala's army to buy $3.2 million in military trucks and jeeps in June 1981. To permit the sale, Reagan removed the vehicles from a list of military equipment that was covered by the human rights embargo.

One CIA report in February 1982 described an army sweep through the so-called Ixil Triangle in central El Quiche province.

The CIA report explained the army's modus operandi: "When an army patrol meets resistance and takes fire from a town or village, it is assumed that the entire town is hostile and it is subsequently destroyed."

In February 1983, however, a secret CIA cable noted a rise in "suspect right-wing violence" with kidnappings of students and teachers. Bodies of victims were appearing in ditches and gullies.

CIA sources traced these political murders to Rios Montt's order to the “Archivos” in October to "apprehend, hold, interrogate and dispose of suspected guerrillas as they saw fit."


Privately, Reagan had a far more accurate understanding of the true nature of the contras. At one point in the contra war, Reagan turned to CIA official Duane Clarridge and demanded that the contras be used to destroy some Soviet-supplied helicopters that had arrived in Nicaragua.

The report added that the "government of the United States, through various agencies including the CIA, provided direct and indirect support for some [of these] state operations." The report concluded that the U.S. government also gave money and training to a Guatemalan military that committed "acts of genocide" against the Mayans.
Well that isnt the article you linked and it doesnt confirm the only point I have argued with you on, The numbers....
You are wrong on the numbers, that was what I called you on.

Look at the links I gave in that thread again...they make my numbers seem relevant.

Here is another link you MISSED when you were SEARCHING in the REAGAN thread. So, maybe you are blind?

http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/052699a1.html

May 26, 1999
Reagan & Guatemala’s Death Files

By Robert Parry

Ronald Reagan's election in November 1980 set off celebrations in the well-to-do communities of Central America.

After four years of Jimmy Carter's human rights nagging, the region's anticommunist hard-liners were thrilled that they had someone in the White House who understood their problems.

The oligarchs and the generals had good reason for the optimism. For years, Reagan had been a staunch defender of right-wing regimes that engaged in bloody counterinsurgency campaigns against leftist enemies.

In the late 1970s, when Carter's human rights coordinator, Pat Derian, criticized the Argentine military for its "dirty war" -- tens of thousands of "disappearances," tortures and murders -- then-political commentator Reagan joshed that she should "walk a mile in the moccasins” of the Argentine generals before criticizing them. [For details, see Martin Edwin Andersen's Dossier Secreto.]

Despite his aw shucks style, Reagan found virtually every anticommunist action justified, no matter how brutal. From his eight years in the White House, there is no historical indication that he was troubled by the bloodbath and even genocide that occurred in Central America during his presidency, while he was shipping hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the implicated forces.

The death toll was staggering -- an estimated 70,000 or more political killings in El Salvador, possibly 20,000 slain from the contra war in Nicaragua, about 200 political "disappearances" in Honduras and some 100,000 people eliminated during a resurgence of political violence in Guatemala.

The one consistent element in these slaughters was the overarching Cold War rationalization, emanating in large part from Ronald Reagan's White House.

Yet, as the world community moves to punish war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, no substantive discussion has occurred in the United States about facing up to this horrendous record of the 1980s.

Rather than a debate about Reagan as a potential war criminal, the ailing ex-president is honored as a conservative icon with his name attached to Washington National Airport and with an active legislative push to have his face carved into Mount Rushmore.

When the national news media does briefly acknowledge the barbarities of the 1980s in Central America, it is in the context of one-day stories about the little countries bravely facing up to their violent pasts.

At times, the CIA is fingered abstractly as a bad supporting actor in the violent dramas. But never does the national press lay blame on individual American officials.

The grisly reality of Central America was most recently revisited on Feb. 25 when a Guatemalan truth commission issued a report on the staggering human rights crimes that occurred during a 34-year civil war.

The Historical Clarification Commission, an independent human rights body, estimated that the conflict claimed the lives of some 200,000 people with the most savage bloodletting occurring in the 1980s.

Based on a review of about 20 percent of the dead, the panel blamed the army for 93 percent of the killings and leftist guerrillas for three percent. Four percent were listed as unresolved.

The report documented that in the 1980s, the army committed SPAMSPAMSPAM massacres against Mayan villages. "The massacres that eliminated entire Mayan villages … are neither perfidious allegations nor figments of the imagination, but an authentic chapter in Guatemala's history," the commission concluded.

The army "completely exterminated Mayan communities, destroyed their livestock and crops," the report said. In the north, the report termed the slaughter a "genocide." [WP, Feb. 26, 1999]

Besides carrying out murder and “disappearances,” the army routinely engaged in torture and rape. "The rape of women, during torture or before being murdered, was a common practice" by the military and paramilitary forces, the report found.

The report added that the "government of the United States, through various agencies including the CIA, provided direct and indirect support for some [of these] state operations." The report concluded that the U.S. government also gave money and training to a Guatemalan military that committed "acts of genocide" against the Mayans.

"Believing that the ends justified everything, the military and the state security forces blindly pursued the anticommunist struggle, without respect for any legal principles or the most elemental ethical and religious values, and in this way, completely lost any semblance of human morals," said the commission chairman, Christian Tomuschat, a German jurist.

"Within the framework of the counterinsurgency operations carried out between 1981 and 1983, in certain regions of the country agents of the Guatemalan state committed acts of genocide against groups of the Mayan people,” he added. [NYT, Feb. 26, 1999]

The report did not single out culpable individuals either in Guatemala or the United States. But the American official most directly responsible for renewing U.S. military aid to Guatemala and encouraging its government during the 1980s was President Reagan.

Actually it supports the WP article I posted yesterday.


In the late 1970s, when Carter's human rights coordinator, Pat Derian, criticized the Argentine military for its "dirty war" -- tens of thousands of "disappearances," tortures and murders --


before Reagan as I said last night.


The Historical Clarification Commission, an independent human rights body, estimated that the conflict claimed the lives of some 200,000 people with the most savage bloodletting occurring in the 1980s.
Not all as I said last night as well.
It appears that you were mislead on the numbers you quoted.

It still quoted CIA reports, which you said it didn’t.

It still supports that he did fund, and help kill at LEAST 200,000 people in South America.

Anything more?

Originally posted by Overdose
It still quoted CIA reports, which you said it didn’t.

It still supports that he did fund, and help kill at LEAST 200,000 people in South America.

Anything more?
No it says that he was in office when 150000 people were killed in these areas. By the way that wasnt the same article you posted, go look I just did.

I posted three articles in the Reagan thread. I asked you to go look at all of them, and I just posted one of the three articles in this thread.

Check again.

Originally posted by Overdose
http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/052699a3.html

Are you dumb, or just blind? That article, has sources to the CIA all throughout…I suggest you look harder next time, maybe your age is interfering with your ability to look thoroughly.
right here you called me dumb or blind saying that this article was full of CIA sources, and then even attacked my age, but when I looked in the article, none.....
Maybe it is you who is blind.

Look again... the one you quoted ends in a1 not a3 ooppsss....

BV, I told you to look at the Reagan thread. I posted three links/articles that cited to the CIA reports. You are blind if you do not see the CIA reports, in those articles I posted. Simple as that.

Good Lord, every single thread has you two going at it. Keep this up and Drew will have to buy another server. ;)

When I thought OD posted his own thoughts I debated him, now I am done unless he really gets my dander up.
:D

Sorry, I can't help myself, I'm a robot...I never share my own opinion.

Originally posted by Overdose
Sorry, I can't help myself, I'm a robot...I never share my own opinion. :hahanot:

lalalalalalala

Originally posted by Overdose
lalalalalalala
Shaboop shaboop hey hey na na doronron

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Shaboop shaboop hey hey na na doronron
Nah nah nah nah...nah nah nah nah...hey hey hey...good bye...