Kerry gets purple heart without shots

Originally posted by ShawnJ
:rolleyes: I think we covered this issue in your first lame Purple Heart thread (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41700). 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

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?"

Pathetic! unbelievably pathetic . . .

purely lame and absolutely . . . . pathetic

what losers

what lame, pathetic, losers.

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

:p :p

Good publicity for the rest of the world :grumble:

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.

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.

Nick, did you volunteer to serve in gulf war I?

No, I didn't think so.

So STFU!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

:mad:

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

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.

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.

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.

Hey, there's more:
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

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.

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.

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 :rolleyes: )

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.

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

Originally posted by midwinter
Good. Then let them be.

I'll be glad to when Kerry does.

Nick

I understand that you and other Republicans don't like the fact that John Kerry is using his past military experience as a political asset. Your candidate could lose, after all. And if I understand correctly, you want to tarnish or diminish his military service to help impede his future political career-- namely, his bid for the White House. While the nitpicking at his record has revealed some minor discrepancies, the overall narrative of his life and his service remains unchanged, unassailable, and honorable-- to most.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/kerry.ap/index.html

I think trying to tarnish Kerry's record is going to backfire if Bush continues to support it.;)

Originally posted by trumptman
He should remove the phrase "thirty years ago..."
Why, because it highlights that he has over 20 years more service to his country than Bush does? Yeah, I bet you'd like that.

Man, I don't even like kerry, but the ineptness of your attacks combined with Bush's horrible incompetence make him look outstanding. Go figure.

Why don't you actually quote what Kerry says about how his war record informed his views-- as opposed to fabricating what you *think* he says. And you still haven't shown how under military guidelines, Kerry did not deserve his Purple Hearts. Military guidelines, Nick, cited appropriately. The larger disinformation campaign against Kerry will not go away-- regardless of the merits of their case. Hopefully, we can pressure you into abandoning this baseless line of reasoning-- on the merits.

I can't believe how many pro-Kerry people- or anti-Bush people to more accurate- have fallen for this. You've let the right wing echo chamber win again. You were easily drawn into a debate over Kerry's record, feeling confident that you could defend Kerry's record. Which you could. But in the process, you let the GOPee-rs do exactly what the want which is to center the debate just over Kerry's record. What they don't want is to have Bush's far more questionable record as the focal point or worse yet, have Kerry's record compared to Bush's.

But the people on AI as well as the national media have done exactly what they were hoping for. No one is talking about Bush being persona non grata anymore. It's all about what happened on some boats during the fog of war three decades ago. Even if you take the accusations to heart then at worst Kerry had wounds as a volunteer in a war zone for a moderately short period which cannot all be substantiated but at least one was legit. Whereas Bush at best used his daddy to get him into the National Guard to avoid the war and missed time drilling because he was working on a Congressional campaign. At worst he was AWOL. Which is more favorable, the worst case Kerry scenario or the best case Bush scenario. Clearly Kerry's record trump(t)s Bush's. But no one is talking about that.

The same Bushies who shrugged off his arrest in the mid-70s for endangering people's lives while drunk driving as ancient history want to dwell on something Kerry did even before then. And by playing a part in letting Kerry's war record become the topic de jour you've let them get away with it. Ignore them and make Bush the topic. Bush's war record if you like. I prefer his record on the federal budget. On social issues the record is even scarier. On economics, well that one is so bad and actually matters to voters so much that it migth even get Kerry elected if people would pay attention to it.

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Why don't you actually quote what Kerry says about how his war record informed his views-- as opposed to fabricating what you *think* he says. And you still haven't shown how under military guidelines, Kerry did not deserve his Purple Hearts. Military guidelines, Nick, cited appropriately. The larger disinformation campaign against Kerry will not go away-- regardless of the merits of their case. Hopefully, we can pressure you into abandoning this baseless line of reasoning-- on the merits.

I would love to quote Kerry with regard to how the war informed his view. But Kerry has not fully detailed his differences from Bush regard to Iraq and terrorism. He just says things he never would have done, and that he will do better. On matters like withdrawing our troops and replacing them with those of our allies, it doesn't appear he would be able to follow through or that any of the countries mentioned will commit any troops.

On the areas where he does have statements, I have quoted him directly. If they aren't detailed, take it up with John Kerry.

I also mentioned why the first purple heart was not deserved and the criteria. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is invalid.

Nick

If he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on,'" declared Kerry to loud cheers.

Originally posted by pfflam
HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Now this is the BEST:

it turns out that the man who said that Kerry's boat did not take fire on that day when his own boat accompanyed Kerry's up river, has war records that say that they DID take fire: his own records say that they took fire that day!!!

He would deny his own heroism just because he hates Kerry!!!

ARTICLE (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html)

From the article:
This man swore an affadavid last month . . . so, he either lied on his record (punishable crime?) or he lied under affadavid (punishable crime?)
Let's see him in court, and see what happens to the "swift boat vets for 'truth'"
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Too funny... :lol: :lol: :lol:

That guy is saying it was Kerry who wrote the report that was in his file. Not sure if that's plausible though.

Originally posted by BRussell
That guy is saying it was Kerry who wrote the report that was in his file. Not sure if that's plausible though.

Time to hand back that Bronze Star, I suppose.

where was George when this was going on? oh yeah Texas playin pilot on weekends when he did decide to show up. I think we should look harder into Bushes records but they are missing. I have yet to see one commercial that shows Bush doing any good for this country of ours. all he is doing is throwing mud at Kerry because he has no record to run on. Bin Laden must be laughing at him big time while he still roams the deserts, and we the American tax payer are crying because he blew 200 billion and counting on a freaking lost cause. a republican president,congress & senate and he has nothing to run on. George's spin Doctors are working overtime arent they. oh yeah but George is trying to cut out overtime for a lot of americans. at least overtime pay. worst president since freaking Carter.

Originally posted by faust9
Personally, I'm still waiting for a response to (not complaints of venom) my question of "Are Kerry's crewmates lying or is Trumtman simply wrong?" They vouch for Kerry. They vouch for this incident so it's one or the other.

I must have missed your post faust. The articles I have linked to mentioned that the crewman did not encounter any enemy fire with first purple heart. They fired upon smugglers who were loading a boat at night. It was claimed that Kerry's wound was self-inflicted from launching a weapon at too close a range and having a piece of shrapnel from that weapon come back and hit him.

Please link again to what you would like for me to read.

Nick

Originally posted by trumptman
I must have missed your post faust. The articles I have linked to mentioned that the crewman did not encounter any enemy fire with first purple heart. They fired upon smugglers who were loading a boat at night. It was claimed that Kerry's wound was self-inflicted from launching a weapon at too close a range and having a piece of shrapnel from that weapon come back and hit him.

Please link again to what you would like for me to read.

Nick

Again, Kerry's crew still vouches for him and this incident.

Here, I'll pull some stuff from an anti-kerry site for your enjoyment.

The Boston Globe - June 6, 2003 -- Kerry experienced his first intense combat action on Dec. 2, 1968, when he "semi-volunteered for, was semi-drafted" for a risky covert mission in which he essentially was supposed to "flush out" the enemy, using a little Boston Whaler named "Batman." A larger backup craft was called "Robin."
Unfortunately, Robin had engine trouble, and Batman's exit was delayed until the boats could depart in unison. The Batman crew encountered some Viet Cong, engaged in a firefight, and Kerry was slightly wounded on his arm, earning his first Purple Heart on his first day of serious action.
"It was not a very serious wound at all," recalled William Schachte, who oversaw the mission and went on to become a rear admiral.

source (http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/kerry_pur_hrts.htm)

Yep, says he was wounded in a combat situation. Doesn't matter that the wound was minor. He met the criteria and was approved for the purple heart.

I don't know if you saw the DNC but there was a point--oh toward the last hour'ish--where Kerry's crew and one Green Baret vouched for Kerry's Viet Nam service

http://www.billingsgazette.com/testdex.php?id=1&display=rednews/2004/07/29/build/nation/32-kerry-crewmates.inc

I wonder what Del Sandusky has to say... Well Fox has a word or three

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127586,00.html

There is only one guy critical of Kerry, Steve Gardner, who critiques Kerry's decisevness. The rest of his crew refute the claim

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408160005

The point is Trumpt, all of these guys vouch for Kerry and the incident in question. All of these guys say the incident occured. You might not like that Kerry got a medal of honor (not the medal of honor) for a minor wound--so be it. The fact is Kerry deserved it though. Read the requirements for the medal. He met them. Read what Zalinski(sp) had to say about Kerry before he died. He supported John.

I say again, the incident occured. Kerry was on a combat assignment. He engaged an enemy. He was wounded. Shrapnel was removed form his arm. All of this is verified and verifiable. The doctor who treated him said he pulled a small piece of metal out of his arm. The crew vouches for the mission occurance. It happened. Veitnamvetsagainskerry even says the event happened.

So, the crew either lied, or your wrong on this account. We've hashed out the validity of the medals before. You statred this thread with a premise that the event never occured which is false.

Originally posted by faust9
Again, Kerry's crew still vouches for him and this incident.
It's already been explained to him, so this is clearly yet another example of trumptman knowingly making false statements.

Originally posted by bunge
I used to call this lying, but some people get mad when I do.

Use mendacious (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mendacious), prevaricating (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prevaricating), or delusory (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=delusory). They're all adjectives and missleading in context if used correctly.

Originally posted by faust9
Oh c'mon!!! I was in the military. You don't show up and find a medal on your desk. You are presented with the medal. An honorous medal such as the bronze would be given with some pomp and circumstance. The citation (Kerry's is probably the same as this guys if you want to read it) is read aloud to proclaim why the soldier/sailor/airmen deserved the award. Kerry's mentions "hostile fire" so I bet dollars to dougnut his does too.

Think of a Bronze star as a teacher of the year award. Would you expect to come into class one day and find an award such as this thrown on your desk with absolutely no explaination? No.

Do you have some sort of reading disorder? I never said that the medal was given to him without his awareness or that there was no ceremony involved. I said that the medal was awarded based on the reports filed regarding that action. This as opposed to asking for the medal repeatedly and filing your own motion for it after being told the action did not merit a medal.

Nick

Originally posted by giant
It's already been explained to him, so this is clearly yet another example of trumptman knowingly making false statements.

Actually it's another example of you resorting to personal attacks.

Nick

Originally posted by Harald
... aaaaaaand this is the point where our Trumpt will go quiet ... Haven't you learned by now that Trumpt will never ever let a thread go without him getting the last word . . . . no matter how wrong he was shown to be and no matter how many pages ago he was shown to be wrong . . . . what ususally happens (and this post may be its beginning) is that he derails the th