|
e-Mail Us
| |
 |
|
Vietnam War
Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient
Major
Patrick Henry Brady, US Army
|
| Below is the guest
op-ed he submitted to a veteran's
newsletter in Missouri. |
Guest
Op-Ed by Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady
16 Aug 04
America has no kings or
queens but we do have nobility – our nobility is called Veterans. That
nobility is responsible
for the bounty that is America but tragically their influence has faded in
recent years and the values they died for are under attack. But this
election year they are back in demand and some have said the veteran vote
could decide this election. It may have put Bush in the White House. With
this in mind, John Kerry is seldom seen with out his band of brothers and
constantly plays the ”hero” card as a cornerstone of his bid for
president, indeed, as the definition of who he is. Kerry defines
patriotism as “keeping faith with those who wear the uniform of this
country. He also brags that he “defended this country as a young man”.
If Missouri is the show me state, Veterans are the show me voters – we
are not much for words, deeds are our stock in trade. Lets look at
Kerry’s deeds.
Before Kerry played his “hero” card, he played the atrocity card. When
Kerry came back from Vietnam he joined with Jane Fonda and in 1971
denounced “those who wear the uniform” as terrorists-like rapists and
assassins who “cut off heads, taped wires … to human genitals and
turned up the power, cut off limbs, shot at civilians, razed villages,
shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks” … and said he
“committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others”. He
made these charges under oath. Kerry says today that he would have framed
some of what he said in 1971 differently. But he does not say he lied,
which he did, nor does he apologize. How can one properly frame the
denunciations of ones comrades in arms as modern day Genghis Khans?
The very day that Kerry was calling Vietnam veterans’ war criminals the
family of one of those “war criminals”, Michael Blanchfield, was
posthumously receiving the Medal of Honor for Michael who had thrown
himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades. How different from
Kerry was the way this man kept faith with those who wore the uniform with
him. How different from Kerry was the manner Michael defended his country.
He could have attacked the war without attacking the warrior. He could
have questioned policy without supporting the communists’ claim that our
soldiers were war criminals. He could have kept faith with those who wore
the uniform with him. But he did not and he should be held accountable.
By every measure, the Vietnam veteran has been an exceptional citizen; but
there is one disturbing statistic -- their suicide rate. In the first 5
years after discharge the rate was 1.7 times higher than non-veterans.
After 5 years it was less. This may have been due to the treatment the
Vietnam veteran received from the media – and the anti war movement led
by Kerry -- in the early years after the war. Living with the scars of war
is difficult, for some unbearable, but all veterans suffer. The Vietnam
veteran suffered physically as much, perhaps more than any veteran of the
past century, but no veteran has suffered the mental agony of that
veteran.
What Kerry/Fonda and the media elite did to the Vietnam veteran and his
family is deplorable. They opened a gash in his psyche and then rubbed
salt in it. Not just the living but also those who died and their families
who questioned if a loved one is a war criminal. And the POWs some who
believed the Kerry/Fonda cartel extended the war, increased their torture
and filled more body bags. Whether Kerry and Fonda have blood on their
hands is debatable but there is no doubt they have salt on them.
Kerry’s “hero” card is based on medals he received in Vietnam and is
much celebrated, and unchallenged, by the mainstream media. I know many
Medal of Honor recipients who have received less publicity for their medal
than Kerry has for his. But medals don't make a hero. It is how one uses
medals that make a hero. Every honest soldier knows that medals are a
function of circumstance, even happenstance, but most of all the support
of ones fellow warriors.
I was awarded the Medal of Honor; but my fellow soldiers who supported me
in the actions and took the time to write it up earned it. I wear it for
them, they own my medals. And every Medal of Honor recipient and hero I
know believes as I do. Medals should be a sign of patriotism, a symbol of
sacrifice, support and defense of a great nation. The highest form of
patriotism is service to our youth; heroes also wear their medal for them
to signal the importance of courage. Heroes do not use their medals for
personal political gain. As I said they are not theirs to use.
Senator Kerry threw his medals away (or ribbons, they are symbolically the
same), a political act very difficult for any veteran to understand. He
must have been proud of them for he wore them even on his fatigues, in
violation of all regulations. But they were not his. They belonged to
those who he served. By that act he symbolically denounced his fellow
veterans -- again. Does one keep faith with those who wear the uniform by
throwing away their medals?
But perhaps most telling of his leadership qualities is his use of his
Purple hearts to abandon his band of brothers, his command, on a
technicality. Kerry may be the only person in history who took advantage
of a Navy regulation that allowed him to leave his command after 4 months
for 3 purple hearts none of which ever caused him to miss a day of duty.
In my experience men fought to stay with their band of brothers,
especially commanders. All the commanders I know would get out of a
hospital bed to be with their men. Some one had to take his place; someone
probably less experienced who would have to learn the ropes. That put his
command more at risk than if he stayed. It is not hard to understand why
those who stayed in combat for the full year are upset with Kerry.
And veterans today would be upset with Kerry’s support of Flag Burning
his non-support of weapons systems and his 12 votes against military pay
raises. But his use of veterans and misuse of his medals should bring into
serious question his loyalty, integrity and character all of which equal
leadership. He is not fit for command.
|
| This page last updated on
Monday, March 21, 2011 03:54:26 PM
|
|
