Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

The Post's hostile fire

Washington Times Editorial:

...

The authors of "Unfit to Command" say, however, that the Kerry version is "another gross exaggeration of what actually happened and, in several ways, a fraud perpetrated upon the Navy and the nation." To corroborate their version, the authors cite Larry Thurlow, commander of PCF 51 that day, who also received a Bronze Star for bravery. Mr. Thurlow signed an affadavit last month that Mr. Kerry was "not under fire" when he rescued Mr. Rassmann. According to Mr. Thurlow, other than the detonated mine, the five-boat team did not come under enemy fire. Furthermore, Mr. Kerry's arm wound was a bruise that didn't require medical attention, and that the bleeding from his side came from an wound in an episode earlier in the day in which a grenade Mr. Kerry had thrown exploded, leaving shrapnel in his buttocks.
But, as The Washington Post reported yesterday, Mr. Thurlow's own Bronze Star Navy citation describes "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units." The Post story does not address several crucial facts. First, it seems likely that one after-action report was used for both Navy citations and inevitably would describe the same version of events. No one can now say who wrote this after-action report. In a statement yesterday, Mr. Thurlow said, "I am convinced that the language used in my citation ... was language taken directly from John Kerry's report."
Two other crewmen, Dan Odell and Dick Pease, both cited by the authors, agree with Mr. Thurlow's version of events.
Mr. Brinkley also describes an incident that day when a grenade explosion wounded Mr. Kerry, though he treats it as superficial. This means Mr. Kerry received two shrapnel wounds, the other one occuring on the boat and earning the young lieutenant his third Purple Heart. The authors raise an interesting point: "Unless one believes in the amazing coincidence that Kerry got two wounds in the same place on the same day and from the same type of incident, then Kerry's wound of March 13, 1969 was not the result of hostile fire at all."
We are pleased that The Post has finally joined the debate swirling around Mr. Kerry's Vietnam experience. The Post and other "major" news organizations would be more helpful to their readers, and to the debate, however, if they join the investigation and address the entire story — and not simply one part of it which they wish to debunk.