75th Ranger Charlie Company Vietnam 1968-1969

by Pamela Comstock
(LaGrande, Oregon USA)

I am the wife of a VietNam Vet, and I am angry at this arrogant egotistical wannabe.

I emailed his web site and his lackeys emailed back (they call themselves "friends of Val") with a message of Mr. Kilmer having never said those things, etc. etc. My response to Kilmers web site was that he should sure the heck bring a class act. lawsuit against Esquire as Kilmer certainly has the money to do so.

Of course I never heard from them after my email, as we all know what was said during his interview and Esquire stands by it.

I emailed his website with the message of my husband being a special force veteran, who was not abused by his father, was not uneducated, played football in school, certainly was not a punk and wanted to enlist in the Army and go to Ranger school. He did enlist and made the grade for Ranger school, which I highly doubt Kilmer could have done.

My husband was in many combat situations, and I was lucky he came home. After coming home to a country who pretty much ignored our vets, he resumed a normal life, did not become a drunk, or a drug user. He and several other Rangers did manage to get together after about 30 years. All were married, had careers and were as normal as the next guy.

The one thing that they did have that could not be shared with anyone else was the experience they had in combat, and the ties that bound them together.

Kilmer would never have been allowed into their heads, and any combat vet knows what I mean. He does not have a clue what a combat vet went through, and to say a Vietnam Vet is a punk is vile. The definition of a punk is someone who is inexperienced, insignificant, and inferior. Mr. Kilmer is certainly a punk as he is definitely inferior to any combat vet I have ever known.

Mrs. David E. Comstock
LaGrande, Oregon

Ed. note: Thank you, Pamela, for posting, and for your husband's service. Please tell him "Welcome Home, and Thank You!" from grateful Americans.