or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Kerry gets purple heart without shots
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kerry gets purple heart without shots

post #1 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Did Kerry Admit To Falsifying His First Purple-Heart Report?

CQ Reader Amelia picked up this intriguing report on World Net Daily, which may not be the most reliable resource on the Internet. However, this should be rather easily cross-checked, and would be if the mainstream media would ever get off its duff and started doing its job. According to Art Moore, Kerry's account of taking incoming fire as the reason for his first Purple Heart injury is disputed by his own journal:

A previously unnoticed passage in John Kerry's approved war biography, citing his own journals, appears to contradict the senator's claim he won his first Purple Heart as a result of an injury sustained under enemy fire. Kerry, who served as commander of a Navy swift boat, has insisted he was wounded by enemy fire Dec. 2, 1968, when he and two other men took a smaller vessel, a Boston Whaler, on a patrol north of his base at Cam Ranh Bay.

But Douglas Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," for which Kerry supplied his journals and letters, indicates that as Kerry set out on a subsequent mission, he had not yet been under enemy fire.

While the date of the four-day excursion on PCF-44 [Patrol Craft Fast] is not specified, Brinkley notes it commenced when Kerry "had just turned 25, on Dec. 11, 1968," which was nine days after the incident in which he claimed he had been wounded by enemy fire.

This is what Kerry's journal said at the time, according to Moore, and apparently Brinkley:

"They pulled away from the pier at Cat Lo with spirits high, feeling satisfied with the way things were going for them. They had no lust for battle, but they also were were not afraid. Kerry wrote in his notebook, 'A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky.'"

If this is true -- and Brinkley wrote the book using Kerry's journal as a prime resourse -- it absolutely destroys his first Purple Heart claim. It shows that Kerry set out to get as many PH awards as quickly as possible, probably in order to build a political resume as a war hero. It also demonstrates that Kerry felt free to lie about his actions for the sake of self-promotion.

If it's true, it's devastating, and also devastatingly stupid, removing yet another supposed qualification for the presidency for Kerry. If it's true.

UPDATE: It appears to be true. This passage sets up the Kerry journal entry:

"On the bright side, the four-day cruise proved that Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry -- who had just turned 25 on December 11, 1968 -- was a fine leader of his men."

That would be about nine days after his supposed combat injury on 2 December. Moore was right; the passage that Brinkley quotes from Kerry's journal directly refutes his Purple Heart story.

Compare that to the timeline at the John Kerry website:

December 2, 1968: Kerry experiences first intense combat; receives first combat related injury.

December 6, 1968: Kerry moved to Coastal Division 11 at An Thoi on Phu Quoc Island

December 13, 1968: Kerry moved to Coastal Division 13, Cam Ranh Bay

So now Kerry not only won commendations at a rate which threatened to outstrip Audie Murphy (literally) but also managed to win a combat award a week before he saw combat. Now we can understand the reluctance of his superiors to award the first Purple Heart; even John Kerry admitted in his own writing that he didn't deserve it. It takes a gross stupidity or an unbelievable egomania for Kerry to think that no one would cross-reference dates between his journal and the service record he had posted on his site in order to boost his credentials for the presidency! Not to mention a fecklessness bordering on incompetence for his biographer, Douglas Brinkley, who at last report was busy trying to rescue the Cambodian Christmas myth for the New Yorker.

Do the lies ever end for Kerry?

Captain's Quarters

Seems that bloggers come in all persuasions.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2 of 102
I think we covered this issue in your first lame Purple Heart thread. The responses there apply here just as well.
post #3 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I think we covered this issue in your first lame Purple Heart thread. The responses there apply here just as well.

Actually that covered the nature of the boo-boo. The responses there are quite enjoyable to look at since all it is are a bunch of people say "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Address the timeline Shawn. How can Kerry have gotten a purple heart for enemy fire when his own book, journals, and sources indicate he hadn't been fired on yet?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #4 of 102
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Captain's Quarters

Seems that bloggers come in all persuasions.

Nick


Nice rag!

It kind of reminds me of " The Star " or " The Enquirer ".

" KERRY REALLY BORN WITH DEVIL'S TAIL! ( and he grew his purple heart! ) "

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #5 of 102
Before I address the timeline trump I want to get something straight.

"Are you taking a third part interpretation of a documented event as the truth over the word of the entire swift boat?"

This BLOG is a thrid part interpretation because an author(second party) read Kerry's(first party) notes about this situation. The third party makes no reference to page number so finding it becomes difficult thus so does verifying the context.

"Are you taking a third part interpretation of a documented event as the truth over the word of the entire swift boat?"

Here, I'm gonna blog something said by Bush and start using that as the truth. something like "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." I'm gonna blow this out of proportion showning that Bush is evil and antiAmerican not just stupid. OK? After I blog this will it be as credible as the source you started this thread with?

"Are you taking a third part interpretation of a documented event as the truth over the word of the entire swift boat?"
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #6 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Before I address the timeline trump I want to get something straight.

"Are you taking a third part interpretation of a documented event as the truth over the word of the entire swift boat?"

Actually Kerry wasn't on his swift boat.

Quote:
Kerry, who served as commander of a Navy swift boat, has insisted he was wounded by enemy fire Dec. 2, 1968, when he and two other men took a smaller vessel, a Boston Whaler, on a patrol north of his base at Cam Ranh Bay.

And this is what they had to say according to the doctor who treated Kerry.

Quote:
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.

So I'm not questioning the entire swift boat as you say. I'm not even questioning the two men that went on patrol with Kerry or the doctor who treated him. At worst I'm questioning John Kerry and the authorized book of his actions written from his own journals.

But even then, I'm allowed to be skeptical on this matter. It is Kerry's own recollections that don't add up.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #7 of 102
Pathetic! unbelievably pathetic . . .

purely lame and absolutely . . . . pathetic

what losers

what lame, pathetic, losers.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #8 of 102
With or without Purple Hearts, can anyone really get on Kerry's case about serving in the military when his direct competitor joined the Air National Guard? (I don't care if Bush did or did not complete his service for that role, and I don't want to digress into that debate.) I really don't care if Kerry got the Medal of Honor for his actions or if he was banging chicks in Saigon and smoking Cubans the whole time. What's the point of this argument when we've already elected presidents who have either avoided going to Vietnam or avoided the military altogether? I'm talking about both Clinton and Bush 2 (consider Gore for that matter). This guy obviously did more than any of them with regard to service, so where's the fuss? Unless you think just being in the military is some kind of offense, where's the problem?
post #9 of 102
Let me resume :

at my right on the ring : The current world leader champion who did a cool and discontinued service in the national guard

at my left : the challenger, who win a purple heart after a nice heroic ricochet


A triple Hourra for the Americans heroes, who will incarnate the nation



Good publicity for the rest of the world
post #10 of 102
Here's an article by the author of Kerry's biography about the first purple heart.

Basically, he says that Kerry is not sure if he got it from enemy fire. They came upon a group of smugglers, fired on them, and Kerry got some shrapnel in the arm. He's not sure where it came from, but it doesn't matter, he still deserved the purple heart because he was injured in the course of combat. There are medical records that prove he got shrapnel taken from his arm.

So that could account for the discrepancy - they hadn't encountered any real enemy fire yet, but they had fired on some smugglers and Kerry was wounded during the firing, and that technically qualified him for a purple heart.
post #11 of 102
The thing about this line of reasoning is that it obliges it practitioners to bash the Navy and thousands of men and women who have received the Purple Heart.

The Purple Heart is awarded for being wounded in combat, period. It doesn't stipulate that the wound be a particular severity or be received by enemy fire. The decision to award is based on the medical report.

So to "go there", you have to be prepared to argue that: the Navy hands these things out willy-nilly, which is a slam on the Navy; and that all the other service people who received their Purple Hearts under similar circumstances don't really deserve them and have no "bragging rights" in re how they served their country.

So how about it, Nick? You want to take point on this, and start showing up at veteran's doors and telling them that they're full of shit and should be ashamed of themselves, because by your (safely unshot at) lights, their wounds were not sufficiently severe or received under daunting enough circumstances?

Please take a video camera, because there is nothing I like better than seeing an arm chair "patriot" get his ass kicked.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #12 of 102
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
The thing about this line of reasoning is that it obliges it practitioners to bash the Navy and thousands of men and women who have received the Purple Heart.

The Purple Heart is awarded for being wounded in combat, period. It doesn't stipulate that the wound be a particular severity or be received by enemy fire. The decision to award is based on the medical report.

So to "go there", you have to be prepared to argue that: the Navy hands these things out willy-nilly, which is a slam on the Navy; and that all the other service people who received their Purple Hearts under similar circumstances don't really deserve them and have no "bragging rights" in re how they served their country.

So how about it, Nick? You want to take point on this, and start showing up at veteran's doors and telling them that they're full of shit and should be ashamed of themselves, because by your (safely unshot at) lights, their wounds were not sufficiently severe or received under daunting enough circumstances?

What Addabox says. I can't believe these guy's are attempting to navigate this briar patch.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #13 of 102
Kerry is a punk. That hippie doesn't even walk with a limp, no way he was ever shot. A true patroit concerned about homeland security during that era would have joined the National Guard and then risked his life verifying that Alabama was free of VietCong instead of going on river boat cruises in Asia.

Kerry goes to Vietnam and the place is now swarming with commies.
Bush goes to Alabama and the place is now swarming with god fearing capitalist Americans. Is this end result a coincidence? I don't think so.
post #14 of 102
Kerry was a hero and the men who were with him know it. he has the medals from nam while George was missing from the national guard just as records of him are missing from this time. I suggest Republican zealots try to show what George has done in his 4 years rather then useless lies and mud slinging. oops i forgot he hasnt done squat except got us in deeper debt,helped corporations screw the common man more and a false war with many of our sons and daughters killed while Bin Laden roams the earth.no wonder you guys have to go back to the 70s.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #15 of 102
Nick, did you volunteer to serve in gulf war I?

No, I didn't think so.

So STFU!
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #16 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BuonRotto
With or without Purple Hearts, can anyone really get on Kerry's case about serving in the military when his direct competitor joined the Air National Guard? (I don't care if Bush did or did not complete his service for that role, and I don't want to digress into that debate.) I really don't care if Kerry got the Medal of Honor for his actions or if he was banging chicks in Saigon and smoking Cubans the whole time. What's the point of this argument when we've already elected presidents who have either avoided going to Vietnam or avoided the military altogether? I'm talking about both Clinton and Bush 2 (consider Gore for that matter). This guy obviously did more than any of them with regard to service, so where's the fuss? Unless you think just being in the military is some kind of offense, where's the problem?

Let me change the context for you Buon and perhaps it will make the reasoning of people like myself more clear to you.

Suppose I went and volunteered to help out and live in an inner city situation for a year. After four months, I use an obscure clause to leave. Upon arriving back to suburbia I begin to air all the dirty laundry of inner city folks. I declare them to be terrible in a multitude of ways, but use my "cred" of having been there for four months to shield me from any criticism.

Better still, while not allowing anyone to criticize me for a lack of "street cred", I can go on the offensive claiming that others who have put forward programs to help the inner city have done a terrible job and that I know this in part, because of my four months of "inner-city living." I also declare myself to be wiser and more capable of doing a better job because of this experience.

In this instance, it would be very easy to understand the reasoning for those questioning the person who claims full credibility above all others for four months of "experience."

Yet people fly totally off the handle for the questioning of Kerry and his motives for leaving early while claiming war hero status. Don't forget he also claimed the right to criticize all those running and still fighting the war upon his return. Some of these vets who are countering Kerry's claims have been doing so since before Bush was even in the National Guard, so obviously it isn't just a partisan issue.

So to put it politely, when someone claims the same status as those who stayed, claims to be better than them and capable of criticizing them for their "attrocities", claims to be wise enough to vote for action, but wouldn't have taken the same action (so he is better than Dean and Bush) and will take even better action in the future based off his "experience in war" it is a claim worth some skepticism.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #17 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
The thing about this line of reasoning is that it obliges it practitioners to bash the Navy and thousands of men and women who have received the Purple Heart.

Why? Do we all practice some sort of slippery-slope logic where because one guy does something wrong, it suddenly applies to everyone? Couldn't we say, just question anyone else who was in the same type of combat who used the three and out clause for injuries that didn't require a single day of hospitalization? Of course that would require that we find someone else who did this, which there doesn't appear to be.

Quote:
The Purple Heart is awarded for being wounded in combat, period. It doesn't stipulate that the wound be a particular severity or be received by enemy fire. The decision to award is based on the medical report.

True and Kerry wasn't awarded his first purple heart. He repeatedly petitioned to have it declared a purple heart because it didn't merit it from the medical records, he petitioned and had it denied, and then petitioned again.

Doesn't sound quite like the path you advocated and being above criticism.

Quote:
So to "go there", you have to be prepared to argue that: the Navy hands these things out willy-nilly, which is a slam on the Navy; and that all the other service people who received their Purple Hearts under similar circumstances don't really deserve them and have no "bragging rights" in re how they served their country.

No, all we have to believe is that someone who is well-off, has access to people, and is intelligent could work a system to their advantage. With any other claim of along those lines you would believe it could happen in a second. Additionally, believing that one person can work or abuse a system doesn't mean we hate the system or the people in it.

Quote:
So how about it, Nick? You want to take point on this, and start showing up at veteran's doors and telling them that they're full of shit and should be ashamed of themselves, because by your (safely unshot at) lights, their wounds were not sufficiently severe or received under daunting enough circumstances?

Please take a video camera, because there is nothing I like better than seeing an arm chair "patriot" get his ass kicked.

I'll be happy to do that to any veteran who claims wisdom above all other veterans so he can criticize them; claims all wisdom above all candidates in his own party based off that experience, and lastly wants my vote so he can become the most powerful leader in the free world.

Something tells me the list would be pretty short.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #18 of 102
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Let me change the context for you Buon and perhaps it will make the reasoning of people like myself more clear to you.

Suppose I went and volunteered to help out and live in an inner city situation for a year. After four months, I use an obscure clause to leave. Upon arriving back to suburbia I begin to air all the dirty laundry of inner city folks. I declare them to be terrible in a multitude of ways, but use my "cred" of having been there for four months to shield me from any criticism.

Better still, while not allowing anyone to criticize me for a lack of "street cred", I can go on the offensive claiming that others who have put forward programs to help the inner city have done a terrible job and that I know this in part, because of my four months of "inner-city living." I also declare myself to be wiser and more capable of doing a better job because of this experience.

In this instance, it would be very easy to understand the reasoning for those questioning the person who claims full credibility above all others for four months of "experience."

Yet people fly totally off the handle for the questioning of Kerry and his motives for leaving early while claiming war hero status. Don't forget he also claimed the right to criticize all those running and still fighting the war upon his return. Some of these vets who are countering Kerry's claims have been doing so since before Bush was even in the National Guard, so obviously it isn't just a partisan issue.

So to put it politely, when someone claims the same status as those who stayed, claims to be better than them and capable of criticizing them for their "attrocities", claims to be wise enough to vote for action, but wouldn't have taken the same action (so he is better than Dean and Bush) and will take even better action in the future based off his "experience in war" it is a claim worth some skepticism.

Nick

Uh oh, we've moved on to the "four months" thing, since I guess the Purple Hearts thing doesn't work that well.

Please take note: Kerry signed up for two tours of duty. He began training on 8/22/66, and received his commission 4 months later. For the next 6 months, he received additional training. He then served 4 months on the USS Gridley, working in direct support of the war and at times in the Gulf of Tomkin.

He then requested swift boat duty, received another 4 months training, did about four and a half months active duty on what was considered to be one of the most hazardous assignments in country.

After leaving Vietnam, he did another 9 months of duty back in the USA before requesting a discharge.

All in all close to three years duty in the Navy, four months of which were spent on a swift boat.

As far as "not being a partisan issue", come on. The vets that are after
Kerry now are the vets that were after Kerry then: the gung ho "my-country-right-or-wrong-but-my-country" types that think any criticism of American policy is treason. You know, like now. The reactionaries that can't see past the "hanoi john" bullshit.

And you can stop pretending that Kerry was slandering the troops; it's clear from his speeches at the time that he held the people who were prosecuting the war responsible for putting the troops into an impossible position.

This shit is really low, there seems to be a gathering consensus that most people are fairly grossed out by the whole thing. I'm surprised you've decided to hitch your wagon to this one.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #19 of 102
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
True and Kerry wasn't awarded his first purple heart. He repeatedly petitioned to have it declared a purple heart because it didn't merit it from the medical records, he petitioned and had it denied, and then petitioned again.

What do you mean he wasn't awarded it. Yes he was. And do you have any proof it was denied twice before being accepted? It doesn't say that in the Brinkley article I linked, which is a three-page article about that purple heart.
post #20 of 102
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
What do you mean he wasn't awarded it. Yes he was. And do you have any proof it was denied twice before being accepted? It doesn't say that in the Brinkley article I linked, which is a three-page article about that purple heart.

Again-- this goes back to the unanswered question posed in the first nonsense thread about Kerry's Purple Hearts: Show how under military guidelines Kerry did not deserve his Purple Hearts. Nick, if you cannot answer that, then you have absolutely nothing to argue.
post #21 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Again-- this goes back to the unanswered question posed in the first nonsense thread about Kerry's Purple Hearts: Show how under military guidelines Kerry did not deserve his Purple Hearts. Nick, if you cannot answer that, then you have absolutely nothing to argue.

Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

a) Frostbite or trench foot injuries.

b) Heat stroke.

c) Food poisoning not caused by enemy agents.

d) Chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy.

e) Battle fatigue.

f) Disease not directly caused by enemy agents.

g) Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.

Kerry did not engage the enemy. He was not under enemy fire. He engaged some smugglers. The wound was a scratch. Kerry had the "shrapnel" to attempt to show it was not a scratch. The shrapnel was from a grenade he launched too close to his own boat.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #22 of 102
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

a) Frostbite or trench foot injuries.

b) Heat stroke.

c) Food poisoning not caused by enemy agents.

d) Chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy.

e) Battle fatigue.

f) Disease not directly caused by enemy agents.

g) Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.

Kerry did not engage the enemy. He was not under enemy fire. He engaged some smugglers. The wound was a scratch. Kerry had the "shrapnel" to attempt to show it was not a scratch. The shrapnel was from a grenade he launched too close to his own boat.

Nick

Ohhh. So wrong. He engaged the enemy--smuglers. He received a wound. Doesn't matter if the shrapnel came from his grenade or theirs. You obvoulsy looked up the requirements so I'm sure you saw that part didn't you? Yeah thought so.

PS. Nick you are calling the two gentlement who when on that patrol liars. They attest to the incident. You are calling the swift boat crew liars because they vouch for Kerry. Quit dancing around the issue. They are all lying or your wrong. This is one of the few times in life where a dichotomy does exist. They are not telling the truth about this our your wrong. Now who should I believe? Kerry's crew or some crackpot third party account? Choice is easy.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #23 of 102
Just imagine if it was democratic president or candidate who was an ex-coke addict, an ex alcoholic, had a 4 count criminal record, lied about his military service, went AWOL for a year, and joined the "Champagne" unit of the National Guard to avoid active service in Vietnam, like any chickenhawk deserving of the title. No, this is the record of a conservative republican, so covering that ground is verboten.

Strange how nobody questions the Vietnam records of Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, Saxby Chambliss, Dennis Hastert, Trent Lott, Don Nickles, Dan Quayle, Marc Racicot, Roy Blunt, Ken Adelman, Bill Bennett, Frank Gaffney, Bill Kristol, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz etc etc (the list is endless)....because all these hypocritesavoided, or evaded the call to serve their country in a time of war.

Nice.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #24 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
What do you mean he wasn't awarded it. Yes he was. And do you have any proof it was denied twice before being accepted? It doesn't say that in the Brinkley article I linked, which is a three-page article about that purple heart.

I cannot find the exact article and the several I have found, both pro and anti-Kerry do not give a very detailed explanation of the process. The article I had read that explained what happened summarized it as follows:

1) Kerry made verbal request that was denied.
2) Kerry made written request that was denied.
3) Kerry made written request to a different officer who moved the process along.

Many of the articles make mention of at least the verbal request. Several made mention of the third part where another commanding officer had moved the request along and then it came across Hibbard's (sp?) desk already approved and he didn't care to turn it back or fight it. I've not found another article this time that clearly articulates what happens. However several mention that the purple heart didn't go through until three months later. The documentation surrounding it has not been released because Kerry will not allow the release of it. I'd even be willing to concede that perhaps the two requests of Hibbard could be reporting variances that give the impression of two requests from Hibbard. (at least until I find that source again)

This is a pretty decent article that appears to give many sides of this and other Kerry issues.

Kerry Vietnam

Tell me what you think.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #25 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Ohhh. So wrong. He engaged the enemy--smuglers. He received a wound. Doesn't matter if the shrapnel came from his grenade or theirs. You obvoulsy looked up the requirements so I'm sure you saw that part didn't you? Yeah thought so.

PS. Nick you are calling the two gentlement who when on that patrol liars. They attest to the incident. You are calling the swift boat crew liars because they vouch for Kerry. Quit dancing around the issue. They are all lying or your wrong. This is one of the few times in life where a dichotomy does exist. They are not telling the truth about this our your wrong. Now who should I believe? Kerry's crew or some crackpot third party account? Choice is easy.

faust. Try to make sense and do more than spill venom. Otherwise I'll just ignore you.

There are no combat reports filed for this incident since there was no clearly defined enemy fire. The smugglers were not the enemy. They were described as smugglers due to the fact that they were moving materials at night. Some accounts that have loads of spin describe a scenario where they are considered an "enemy" if they were out after a certain hour. Eitherway there were no reports filed for combat during that night for Kerry or any other person involved in that incident.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #26 of 102
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

a) Frostbite or trench foot injuries.

b) Heat stroke.

c) Food poisoning not caused by enemy agents.

d) Chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy.

e) Battle fatigue.

f) Disease not directly caused by enemy agents.

g) Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.

Kerry did not engage the enemy. He was not under enemy fire. He engaged some smugglers. The wound was a scratch. Kerry had the "shrapnel" to attempt to show it was not a scratch. The shrapnel was from a grenade he launched too close to his own boat.

Nick

The list flies from the ass of Nick, people.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #27 of 102
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
faust. Try to make sense and do more than spill venom. Otherwise I'll just ignore you.

There are no combat reports filed for this incident since there was no clearly defined enemy fire. The smugglers were not the enemy. They were described as smugglers due to the fact that they were moving materials at night. Some accounts that have loads of spin describe a scenario where they are considered an "enemy" if they were out after a certain hour. Eitherway there were no reports filed for combat during that night for Kerry or any other person involved in that incident.

Nick

Yes they were the enemy. If a soldier in Iraq engages a nare-do-well he/she is engaging the enemy. Same here. Kerry engaged a nare-do-well (smugglers) in a combat zone thus it was a combat situation.

As far as a report in this situation---it's not needed. Kerry's crew vouches for him on this occasion and other occasions. Ignore me if you want but the fact of the matter is these guys are vouching for him. Either they are lying or you are wrong.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #28 of 102
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
This is a pretty decent article that appears to give many sides of this and other Kerry issues.

Kerry Vietnam

Tell me what you think.

That's an excerpt from the anti-Kerry book. The problem I have is that it's a completely unfalsifiable charge because it was supposedly just a verbal exchange. It may be true. It may be a lie. Who knows? But one always has to wonder about an unverifiable allegation made in the heat of the political season.

The other question I have about most of these charges is: So what? What if absolutely everything that's said here is true? What if he did request to get a Purple Heart and it was denied at first and the wound wasn't very serious and it was caused by his own grenade and there was no enemy fire?
post #29 of 102
a couple things to clear up about purple hearts.

1. they are unique in that individuals are not recommended for them.

2. It requires that a commanding officer sign off on it.

In other words, trumpt, your arguments are totally and completely irrelevant because you were not there and a commanding officer signed off on it (likely Hibbard) so he meets all of the criteria. What you are arguing about, be it accurate or inaccurate, doesn't matter because the commanding officer already made the decision, as was his to make. End of story.
post #30 of 102
1) Any attempt to smear any decorated veteran's war record for political gain is disgusting and the practitioners of such a tactic ought to be ashamed of themselves.

2) If you're a Bush-supporter (or a Kerry-hater) Isn't it kind of stupid (not you, Nick, although I think you should be ashamed of yourself for this and I frankly expected more from you) to make a big deal out of one of FOUR medals?

3) As for the 4 months thing. I really wish that someone would point out that Bush, Sr.'s tour of duty was 5 months.

Nonetheless, this is disgusting and shameful behavior.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #31 of 102
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm not even questioning the two men that went on patrol with Kerry or the doctor who treated him.

That's wonderful, because guess what, nick. At least one of those two is a big kerry supporter:

Grant Hibbard, a commander when Mr. Kerry reported his first injury in Vietnam, said the wound was most likely self-inflicted and the report at the time indicated there was no enemy fire.

Veterans who were on the boat with Mr. Kerry give a different version. Pat Runyon said the crew was patrolling north of Cam Ranh Bay the night of Dec. 2, 1968, when Mr. Kerry and fellow crewman Bill Zaledonis spotted Viet Cong guerrillas massed on a beach and began firing.

He said Mr. Kerry was subsequently treated for a wound to the arm, which led to his first Purple Heart.

Mr. Runyon said he recounted the episode for the private investigator because he gave the impression he was working for an independent or pro-Kerry veterans group. But Mr. Ruynon said he was distressed when the investigator sent him an inaccurate synopsis of their conversation suggesting that the wound was probably caused by a flare.

"I have no problems with the truth as long as they put it out the way it happened," he said. "But I told him I didn't want him to use it, didn't like it and felt he'd missed the whole feeling of the mission."

-----------

During the bus tour interview, Kerry made his comments on how veterans would react to criticism such as Hughes' after being told that fellow Navy veteran Patrick Runyon of Eaton had been offended by it. Runyon served with Kerry on one of the missions in which Kerry was wounded and received a Purple Heart.

"What they (critics) are saying is unfair. Like I've always said, the man did his own duty, earned the right to protest. Whether he threw his medals or his ribbons, it's the same thing. It was just the act of a young guy._._. most of us who came back were angry with what was going on over there," Runyon said.
post #32 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
That's an excerpt from the anti-Kerry book. The problem I have is that it's a completely unfalsifiable charge because it was supposedly just a verbal exchange. It may be true. It may be a lie. Who knows? But one always has to wonder about an unverifiable allegation made in the heat of the political season.

The other question I have about most of these charges is: So what? What if absolutely everything that's said here is true? What if he did request to get a Purple Heart and it was denied at first and the wound wasn't very serious and it was caused by his own grenade and there was no enemy fire?

Actually it cites several sources which is why I posted it.

As for the verbal exchange, as it does appear that Kerry did have to request it in writing from someone other than his commanding officer. Now if it were a lie, it would be easy enough to disprove. Kerry is the one who holds the key to that lock. He could simply release the records associated with it. He has chosen not to do so.

The heat of the political season? This is not even the final stretch of the campaign. I could very much see your point if this were say the womanizing charges dropped on Ar-nald or the drunk driving with Bush, all conveniently dropped the weekend before the vote with no time to rebutt. If anything it lends credibility to the critics since they are doing this while Kerry has plenty of time to reply and get his version out there.

Finally for the so what... Well when you claim credibility on an issue because of an experience, you better not be shown to have lied about that experience. If you said to me, Nick, I know what it's like to worry about medical care because my mom died of cancer and we were worried about the state confiscating her possessions, only it turns out your mom didn't die of cancer, it was your friend's mom, and she had coverage, was well-off, etc. It just takes an issue you were trying to use to build trust with, and creates the exact opposite.

Now be honest here. BRussell, you can't have agreed with Kerry's vote for force, and even less so with his admission that he would have still have agreed to the resolution without any proof of WOMD's. The reality is that Kerry is trying to look macho and tough because of a fear that he won't address terrorism well compared to Bush. But when you claim to be tough on terrorism because you were tough in Vietnam, it falls apart when you were basically faking your own purple heart. That's not tough, it is dishonest and cowardly, which is exactly the fear regarding Kerry and dealing with terrorism. Also to use such actions to get out of Vietnam when others stayed, and later to go back and criticize them claiming more wisdom than the folks still there is, again the height of arrogance and hypocrisy.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #33 of 102
Hey, there's more:
Quote:
Kerrys accuser remembered it wrong. But so what? The Globe didnt tell you

NOT TOO SWIFT: Ironically, they call themselves Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but some dont seem to be all that swiftand they dont really seem all that truthful. Yesterday, they met in DC to swear that John Kerry simply isnt fit to be president. But heres how one angry swift boat vet described something he found ironic:
ELLIOTT: The second irony is, in 1971...he claimed that the 500,000 men in Vietnam in combat were all villains. There were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared running for president.
That is, of course, a buffoons account of what Kerry actually said way back then. But thats what former lieutenant commander George Elliott had to say at yesterdays session. Get ready to hear much more of this sort of thing as these men-who-are-angry-but-not-all-that-swift continue to vent against Kerry. (Elliott publicly praised Kerry in 1996 when Kerry was running for the Senate.)

And be careful when you read Wilgorens account in todays New York Times. Today, she sets aside her principal worryWho makes Kerrys peanut butter sandwiches?to zero in on another key question: How did Kerry get that wound back in December 1968? Today, we look at the way this foolish story has been covered by the press in the past few weeks (see below). But yesterday, the vets brought forward a brand new accuser. Here is Wilgorens account:
WILGOREN (pgh 2): The group cited a document from a doctor who said that in December 1968 he treated the wound for which Mr. Kerry received the first of his three Purple Hearts and that it probably resulted from an accident, not hostile fire.

(3) 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, wrote the doctor, Louis Letson of Scottsboro, Ala., a member of the group. 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.
Lets face itWilgoren aint real swift herself. Within two sentences, she took Letson from a plural accusation (some of his crew) to a singular version (the crewman) without even seeming to notice. Is crewman a typo? We dont know. But we also dont know who those crew members arethe ones who were confiding in Letson. Only two crewmen accompanied Kerry on the mission in question, according to an April 22 Boston Globe report by Kerry biographer Michael Kranish. And on April 14, Kranish quoted one of the men. He described what happened that night:
KRANISH (4/14/04): At a beach that was known as a crossing area for enemy contraband traffic, Kerrys crew spotted some people running from a sampan, a flat-bottomed boat, to a nearby shoreline, according to two men serving alongside Kerry that night, William Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon. When the Vietnamese refused to obey a call to stop, Kerry authorized firing to begin.
I assume they fired back, Zaladonis recalled in an interview. But neither he nor Runyon saw the source of the shrapnel that lodged in Kerrys arm.

Does Letsons account make sense? Zaladonis assumes that the ship received fire. So who exactly are some of the crewthe people who confided in Letson 36 years ago? We dont know who those crewmen could be. But so what? The exciting new charge was quickly typed and distributed to New York Times readers.

No, Letsons story may not make sense, if Wilgoren is quoting correctly. But a lot of weak stories about Kerrys service have been bruited around in the past few weeksand scribes have swiftly passed them on, without comment, to readers. In fact, were getting close to a War Against John as scribes type these shaky accounts. Angry veterans claim ancient memories of Kerrys troubling conductand liberal scribes have been eager to help them, even when the tales are flatly inaccurate. Today, we consider the way one tale has been told as we review the unfolding campaign coverage. And we continue to ask an obvious question: How long will we, the American people, put up with the kind of reporting that has made such a joke of our discourse? Four years ago, the press corps two-year War Against Gore put the Republican, Bush, in the White House. The coverage is drifting that way once again. How long do we plan to accept it?

The shape of Campaign 04 (part 2)

ANYTHING GOES: On Fox News Watch, five pundits agreedthe press corps was hammering Kerry (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/4/04). And conservative Jim Pinkerton made one thing clearit wasnt Rushs fault:
PINKERTON: Hold onlets go back to the people pounding on Kerry. Its the Boston Globe. Its the New York Times. These arethis isnt Rush Limbaugh doing it.
It was two liberal papers, the Globe and the Times, who were beating on Kerry, he said. And no one disputed Pinkertons statement. Indeed, Cal Thomas said it was amazing to see liberal papers trashing Kerry. Well, so much for liberal bias in the media, panelist Jane Hall said.

But no oneno oneshould be surprised if the Globe and the Times are beating up Kerry. During Campaign 2000, the two papers endlessly battered Gore, often engaging in journalistic malpracticein conduct that should have gotten folks fired. Meanwhile, Times reporter Frank Bruni pandered to Bush as few major journalists ever have done. Many pundits express surprise when the Globe and the Times go after Dem Hopefuls. But the Globe and the Times both savaged Gore all through the wars of Campaign 2000. Todays question: How are the two liberal dailies performing as Campaign 04 takes its shape?

To answer that question, lets turn to Michael Kranish, reporting on Kerry for the Globe. In particular, lets look at what Kranish did when a Vietnam veteran said that Kerry should not have received his first Purple Heart. Deftly, Kranish set the scene in an April 14 Globe report:
KRANISH (4/14/04): A review by the Globe of Kerrys war record in preparation for a forthcoming book, John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography, found that the young Navy officer acted heroically under fire, in one case saving the life of an Army lieutenant. But the examination also found that Kerrys commanding officer at the time questioned Kerrys first Purple Heart, which he earned for a wound received just two weeks after arriving in Vietnam.

He had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel, recalled Kerrys commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard. People in the office were saying, I dont think we got any fire, and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm. Hibbard said he couldnt be certain whether Kerry actually came under fire on Dec. 2, 1968, the date in question and that is why he said he asked Kerry questions about the matter.
According to Hibbard, Kerry just had a little scratch, and may not even have come under fire. As he continued, he explained how Kerry got that award:
KRANISH (continuing directly): But Kerry persisted and, to his own chagrin, Hibbard said, he dropped the matter. I do remember some questions, some correspondence about it, Hibbard said. I finally said, OK, if thats what happeneddo whatever you want. After that, I dont know what happened. Obviously, he got it, I dont know how.
Faced with Kerrys grim persistence, Hibbard gave in, to his own chagrin. Thats what Boston Globe readers saw on the morning on April 14.

But Kranishs story is full of holes. He presents the kind of shaky reporting that, over the course of two long years, made a sick joke out of Campaign 2000. Hibbards ancient memory was factually inaccurate, and Kranish knew that when this story was filed. But he also knew one other thing. He knew not to tell his papers readers how shaky this tale really was.

For starters, consider Kranishs key assertion. The Globe found that Kerrys commanding officer at the time questioned Kerrys first Purple Heart, the scribe wrote. In fact, Kranish has never presented any evidence supporting this conclusion. In particular, he has never presented any correspondence (or other record) showing that Hibbard challenged Kerrys award in real time. Nor has he ever quoted anyone saying that Hibbard did so. What did the Globes examination really find? It really found that commander Hibbard questions Kerrys Purple Heart now. Kranish has never presented a bit of evidence to show that Hibbard questioned it then. Did Hibbard question Kerrys Purple Heart at the time? Its possible, but, despite what Kranish says, the Globe has presented no evidence.

At any rate, Hibbard makes a damaging charge now. But just how accurate is his memorythe memory that stretches back 36 years? Uh-oh! Even as Kranish wrote his report, he knew Hibbards memory wasnt that swift. But Kranish knew how to handle such news. He hid the news from the Globes readers.

What was wrong with Hibbards memory? As weve seen, Hibbard seemed to have a clear recollection of Kerrys puny wound. He had a little scratch on his forearm, he said, showing off his potent memory skills. But uh-oh! Kranish knew that this memory was false. In an April 20 Globe report, Kranish said the Kerry campaign had already shown him a record verifying that Kerry was treated for the wound and that shrapnel was removed from his arm. (He had seen the record earlier this year, Kranish said. That document was cited in last weeks story.) But what does that medical record show? It shows that Kerry was wounded above the elbownot on the forearm, as Hibbard recalls. Among many others, Katharine Seelye quoted the document in the April 21 New York Times:
SEELYE (4/21/04): [Kerry aide Martin] Meehan offered a Sick Call Treatment Record from Mr. Kerrys personal medical files with these handwritten notes from someone who treated to him on Dec. 3, 1968, at the naval support center at Cam Ranh Bay:
Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty.
As the record shows, shrapnel was removed from Kerrys arm above the elbow. Hibbards ancient memory is faultyand Kranish knew that all along. But so what? Knowing that Hibbards memory was wrong, he let Hibbard vent all the same:
KRANISH (4/14/04): Thirty-six years later, Hibbard, reached at his retirement home in Florida, said he can still recall Kerrys wound, and that it resembled a scrape from a fingernail. Ive had thorns from a rose that were worse, said Hibbard, a registered Republican who said he was undecided on the 2004 presidential race.
Pitiful, isnt it? Thirty-six years later, Kranish knew that Hibbard could not still recall Kerrys wound. But so what? He let the angry old man blow off steam, mocking the severity of Kerrys fingernail scrape. As Kranish knew (but didnt say), the scrape didnt appear on Kerrys forearm at alland required removal of shrapnel.

For the record, one more problem with Hibbards story surfaced on April 21. On that day, Kerry posted more than 140 pages of military records on his campaign Web site. According to Seelye, the records showed uniformly positive evaluations from his commanders. And guess what? Even Hibbard gave Kerry the highest possible marksjust two weeks after the troubling incident which he described to the Globe!
SEELYE (4/22/04): Even a commander who, 36 years after the fact, questioned a Purple Heart awarded to Mr. Kerry in 1968, recorded no reservations at the time. The officer, Grant W. Hibbardtold The Boston Globe last week that the wound for which Mr. Kerry won his first Purple Heart was no more than a small scratch.

But there was nothing negative about Mr. Kerry in an evaluation that Mr. Hibbard wrote two weeks after that incident.

For the most part, Mr. Hibbard wrote, Mr. Kerry was under his command for too short a time to evaluate him fully. Of 16 categories for rating, including professional knowledge, moral courage and loyalty, Mr. Hibbard checked not observed in 12. Mr. Hibbard gave Mr. Kerry the highest rating of one of the top few in three categoriesinitiative, cooperation and personal behavior. He gave Mr. Kerry the second-best rating, above the majority, in military bearing. Reached Wednesday at his retirement home in Florida, Mr. Hibbard said he had no comment.
In the Globe, Kranish had recorded Hibbards complaints about Kerrys troubling conduct. Hibbard had complained about the way Kerry persisted in his quest for the Heart; to his own chagrin, the commander relented (see above). But how amazing! Just two weeks after this troubling incident, Hibbard had to evaluate Kerryand he gave him the highest possible marks for cooperation and personal behavior! Does it sound like Hibbard was really aggrieved? Or does it sound like he may be a phony old hackthe kind of fellow whose shaky reports are normally kept out of print?

Yesterday, Hibbard was there in D.C. with the Swift Boat Veterans, venting again about Troubling Kerry. Tomorrow, well review the way the rest of the press has dealt with Hibbards shaky complaints. Hibbards memory aint all that swiftbut major papers just dont want to say so. Well, so much for liberal bias in the media, panelist Hall sagely said.

TOMORROW: Propping up Hibbard

PURPLE HAZE: By the way, just how hazy is Hibbards memory? On April 15, the UPIs Stephen Crump reported an interview with the fearless commander. Hibbard does not remember that Kerry received medical attention of any kind, Crump wrote. This memory, of course, is flatly wrong too. But so what? When it comes to Kerry-accusers, the Boston Globeand the rest of the pressgive a free rein. More tomorrow.

SURPRISED EVERY TIME: Pinkerton expressed surprise when he saw the Globe trashing Kerry. But in fact, the Globe trashed Gore throughout Campaign 2000, often in the most egregious ways, and the paper has trashed Kerry for years, sometimes in ways little short of astonishing. More on the Globes past conduct tomorrow. But isnt it time for major scribes to drop the shock at this papers strange conduct? Shall we quote her one more time? So much for liberal bias, Hall said.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh050504.shtml
post #34 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
a couple things to clear up about purple hearts.

1. they are unique in that individuals are not recommended for them.

2. It requires that a commanding officer sign off on it.

In other words, trumpt, your arguments are totally and completely irrelevant because you were not there and a commanding officer signed off on it (likely Hibbard) so he meets all of the criteria. What you are arguing about, be it accurate or inaccurate, doesn't matter because the commanding officer already made the decision, as was his to make. End of story.

Sure and I suppose if I get a judge to grant me a restraining order against you that is the end of it, end of story.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy that is well below you. Just because someone signed a paper doesn't make it right or just, especially with those who are connected. Someone signed the deferments for Cheney and the pay stubs for Bush, so I suppose we will hear no more about those now since it obviously has been all settled by a signature.


Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #35 of 102
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
1) Any attempt to smear any decorated veteran's war record for political gain is disgusting and the practitioners of such a tactic ought to be ashamed of themselves.

2) If you're a Bush-supporter (or a Kerry-hater) Isn't it kind of stupid (not you, Nick, although I think you should be ashamed of yourself for this and I frankly expected more from you) to make a big deal out of one of FOUR medals?

3) As for the 4 months thing. I really wish that someone would point out that Bush, Sr.'s tour of duty was 5 months.

Nonetheless, this is disgusting and shameful behavior.

Exactly. Long story short: trumpman, you are in no position to question it whatsoever. His commanding officer signed off on it. The two individuals with him, about whom you said "I'm not even questioning the two men that went on patrol with Kerry," are Kerry supporters who were both at the convention. Sit down and have some respect for the people that risk their lives so you can continue to be a slumlord.
post #36 of 102
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
This is a pretty decent article that appears to give many sides of this and other Kerry issues.

Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
That's an excerpt from the anti-Kerry book.

OOF.

post #37 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
1) Any attempt to smear any decorated veteran's war record for political gain is disgusting and the practitioners of such a tactic ought to be ashamed of themselves.

So say I came back and say... testified before Congress and then ran for Congress based off the exposure gained from telling about all the atrocities the people I served with committed. That wouldn't be disgusting or something to be ashamed of right? Mid, you are right that certain things should be above politics. But I'm not the one trumpeting his record for credibility. I'm not the one starting my posts/speechs with "Reporting for duty" decades after the fact. In otherwords, I'm not bringing it up to just bring it up. Kerry has stuck this in our faces.

Quote:
2) If you're a Bush-supporter (or a Kerry-hater) Isn't it kind of stupid (not you, Nick, although I think you should be ashamed of yourself for this and I frankly expected more from you) to make a big deal out of one of FOUR medals?

Again, I'm not the one using them to gain a sort of credibility. Kerry has and does to this day. Kerry wasn't just some anti-war hippy. He was a "decorated war veteran" who spoke for and "joined the movement" when it was a political opportunity. Now he is the "decorated war veteran" who will be able to deal with Iraq better than Bush because he has the "wisdom gained from fighting abroad."

If you brandish something as a credential that gives you credibility over others, expect to have it questioned. Kerry hasn't just used this against Bush. He has used it through out his entire career. Some of these critics, who are now claimed to be nothing but hacks for Bush, have been challenging Kerry since the early 70's. (but it is all about Bush, really )

Quote:
3) As for the 4 months thing. I really wish that someone would point out that Bush, Sr.'s tour of duty was 5 months.

Nonetheless, this is disgusting and shameful behavior.


If Kerry would stop tossing it out there, then I suppose the critics would stop coming around to rebutt him. You would think Kerry would have learned that in 30+ years. But the point is Kerry uses it over and over and so it is questioned over and over.

Take a look at this line. Because it is from Kerry's acceptance speech.

Quote:
As President, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war.

That is why this keeps coming up. Kerry claims wisdom and credibility from Vietnam. But when you check out the reality there is no reason to believe that is true. The reason to check it is because Kerry claims it, not just because people feel like attacking someone.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #38 of 102
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Mid, you are right that certain things should be above politics.

Good. Then let them be.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #39 of 102
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Good. Then let them be.

I'll be glad to when Kerry does.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #40 of 102
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
So say I came back and say... testified before Congress and then ran for Congress based off the exposure gained from telling about all the atrocities the people I served with committed. That wouldn't be disgusting or something to be ashamed of right?

Say you're an uber-wealthy New England liberal elite who went to a war that was wildly unpopular and heavily contested. Say you came back and read a statement before Congress written by a group of soldiers who wanted to let America know, in a public fashion, what kinds of horrible things were going on in the war.

Are you suggesting that reading a group-authored statement in which some of the authors admit to committing war crimes is the same thing as smearing a war veteran's record for political gain?

The simple fact is that this tactic (which was used against both McCain and Cleland in 2000) is disgusting and those who engage in it should be ashamed of themselves.

Quote:
Mid, you are right that certain things should be above politics. But I'm not the one trumpeting his record for credibility. I'm not the one starting my posts/speechs with "Reporting for duty" decades after the fact. In otherwords, I'm not bringing it up to just bring it up. Kerry has stuck this in our faces.

So in other words you're saying that a decorated Vietnam veteran ought not mention his record because his opponents will just try to smear him and paint him as a coward? You sure you want to argue that? I swear to God, I can't figure conservatives (not you) out. Clinton didn't serve and the right wing went batshit about it. Kerry did serve, and the right wing is going batshit about it.

I wish they'd make up their minds.

And by the way, this debate is disgusting, and anyone who tries to smear a decorated veteran's record for political gain ought to be ashamed.

Quote:
Again, I'm not the one using them to gain a sort of credibility. Kerry has and does to this day. Kerry wasn't just some anti-war hippy. He was a "decorated war veteran" who spoke for and "joined the movement" when it was a political opportunity. Now he is the "decorated war veteran" who will be able to deal with Iraq better than Bush because he has the "wisdom gained from fighting abroad."

Kerry was a decorated veteran who volunteered to go to a war that neither of the previous two presidents wanted to have anything to do with. He was wounded and came home. When he got home, he spoke out against the war and attempted to work with like-minded others to expose the evils he had seen while there.

Again, you seem to be suggesting that Kerry shouldn't talk about his record because his political opponents will just try to disparage his record.

Quote:
If you brandish something as a credential that gives you credibility over others, expect to have it questioned.

Especially if that "questioning" involves attempting to smear a decorated war veteran. Now that I think about it, I really wish I'd interrogated my grandfather when he'd pull his WW2/Depression stories out on me to get me to do something. Maybe someone should've question GHW Bush's "war credentials" before they let him talk about it.

Quote:
If Kerry would stop tossing it out there, then I suppose the critics would stop coming around to rebutt him. You would think Kerry would have learned that in 30+ years. But the point is Kerry uses it over and over and so it is questioned over and over.

Again, you're arguing that decorated combat veterans ought not say anything about their military record, because their opposition will just try to smear them.

I say again, this is a shameful and disgusting tactic.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Kerry gets purple heart without shots