TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Swift Change of Heart
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Swift Change of Heart

AUGUST 20--The broadside against John Kerry's war record is particularly bizarre in light of what one of the leading bomb throwers had to say about the Democrat while both served in Vietnam. George Elliott, a key member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who appears in the anti-Kerry group's virulent TV commercial, recommended Kerry for a Bronze Star in 1969. In the below Navy report, Elliott, a lieutenant commander, recounts how Kerry was "highly courageous in the face of enemy fire" during a fight on the Bay Hap river in March 1969. During that skirmish, Elliott noted, Kerry dodged sniper fire to save a colleague who was knocked overboard when a mine detonated. In a March 1969 evaluation, Elliott reported that Kerry was involved in "several enemy initiated fire fights" and "exhibited all of the traits desired of an officer in a combat environment." A December 1969 fitness report was equally laudatory, with Elliott giving Kerry the highest possible grade available ("Is not exceeded") in most categories, including loyalty and moral courage. (5 pages)




http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archiv...1.html?link=eaf

Fact check analyzed their latest ad:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=244

That 527 is so deceptive they make moveon.org look like a bastion of credibility.

Re: Swift Change of Heart

quote:

Originally posted by xKaoSx AUGUST 20--The broadside against John Kerry's war record is particularly bizarre in light of what one of the leading bomb throwers had to say about the Democrat while both served in Vietnam.

Oh come on, like Kerry doesn't know anything about flip-flopping

Re: Re: Swift Change of Heart

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Oh come on, like Kerry doesn't know anything about flip-flopping

Maybe they actually work for Kerry and this was the intent all along to make it look like Bush was slinging.

Re: Re: Swift Change of Heart

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Oh come on, like Kerry doesn't know anything about flip-flopping

oh please


can you think of a democratic frontrunner that hasn't been called a flip-flopper by the republicans in recent history?

it's their favorite insult. well that and "liberal"

the great thing about the information age is that we have the ability to locate refutions on foundationless right wing claims rather quickly... too bad that their dying breed hasn't attracted enough freethinking youth smart enough to figure out that the misinformation should be dished out later in the campaign. the poor bastards peaked too early

would be an interesting stat to see percentage wise
according to belief who owns computers and who has internet access.

Im pretty sure the lefties probably own more computers and have a higher percentage of internet access.

I know it's in its early stages of development, but drudge report has a budding story that Kerry's first purple heart was from self-inflicted wounds. Apparently his own journal backs the story. It may be "insignificant," but if this is true, I believe it's going to be a field day for the republicans. The issues with his credibility and Vietnam will be much more tangible.

quote:

Kerry's campaign now says is possible first Purple Heart was awarded for unintentional self-inflicted wound... Kerry received Purple Heart for wounds suffered on 12/2/68... In Kerry's own journal written 9 days later, he writes he and his crew, quote, 'hadn't been shot at yet'... Developing...

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I know it's in its early stages of development, but drudge report has a budding story that Kerry's first purple heart was from self-inflicted wounds. Apparently his own journal backs the story. It may be "insignificant," but if this is true, I believe it's going to be a field day for the republicans. The issues with his credibility and Vietnam will be much more tangible.

"Kerry has said he was wounded by a piece of shrapnel as he and his crew engaged Vietcong fleeing on a beach. Kerry has said he was uncertain where the shrapnel came from."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...veterans05.html

quote:

SEC. 571. PURPLE HEART TO BE AWARDED ONLY TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL.--(1) Chapter 57 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: "� 1131. Purple Heart: limitation to members of the armed forces "The decoration known as the Purple Heart (authorized to be awarded pursuant to Executive Order 11016) may only be awarded to a person who is a member of the armed forces at the time the person is killed or wounded under circumstances otherwise qualifying that person for award of the Purple Heart.". (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item: "1131. Purple Heart: limitation to members of the armed forces.". (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--Section 1131 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to persons who are killed or wounded after the end of the 180-day period beginning on (18 Nov 1997) the date of the enactment of this Act. 2-8. Purple Heart The Purple Heart was established by General George Washington, at Newburgh, New York, on 7 August 1782, during the Revolutionary War. It was reestablished by the President of the United States per War Department General Orders 3, 1932 and is currently awarded pursuant to Executive Order 11016, 25 April 1962, Executive Order 12464, 23 February 1984 and Public Law 98-525, 19 October 1984. a. The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force or any civilian national of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded (1) In any action against an enemy of the United States. (2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged. (3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. (4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces. (S) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force. (6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed Services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack. (7) After 28 March 1973, as a result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force. b. While clearly an individual decoration, the Purple Heart differs from all other decorations in that an individual is not "recommended" for the decoration; rather he or she is entitled to it upon meeting specific criteria. (1) A Purple Heart is authorized for the first wound suffered under conditions indicated above, but for each subsequent award an Oak Leaf Cluster will be awarded to be worn on the medal or ribbon. Not more than one award will be made for more than one wound or injury received at the same instant or from the same missile, force, explosion, or agent. (2) A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above A physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record. (3) When contemplating an award of this decoration, the key issue that commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused the injury. The fact that the proposed recipient was participating in direct or indirect combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but is not sole justification for award. (4) Examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows: (a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action. (b) Injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap. (c) Injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological or nuclear agent. (d) Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire. (e) Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions. (5) 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. (h) Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence. (i) Post traumatic stress disorders. (j) Jump injuries not caused by enemy action. (6) It is not intended that such a strict interpretation of the requirement for the wound or injury to be caused by direct result of hostile action be taken that it would preclude the award being made to deserving personnel. Commanders must also take into consideration, the circumstances surrounding an injury, even if it appears to meet the criteria. Note the following examples: (a) In case such as an individual injured while making a parachute landing from an aircraft that had been brought down enemy fire; or, an individual injured as a result of a vehicle accident caused by enemy fire, the decision will be made in favor of the individual and the award will be made. (b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment. (c) Individuals injured as a result of their own negligence; for example, driving or walking through an unauthorized area known to have been mined or placed off limits or searching for or picking up unexploded munitions as war souvenirs, will not be awarded the Purple Heart as they clearly were not injured as a result of enemy action, but rather by their own negligence. c. A Purple Heart will be issued to the next of kin of each person entitled to a posthumous award. Issue will be made automatically by the Commanding General, PERSCOM, upon receiving a report of death indicating entitlement. d. Upon written application to Commander, ARPERCEN, ATIN.- DAR-P-VSEA, 9700 Page Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63132-5200, award may be made to any member of the Army, who during World War 1, was awarded a Meritorious Service Citation Certificate signed by the Commander in Chief, American Expeditionary Forces, or who was authorized to wear wound chevrons. Posthumous awards to personnel who were killed or died of wounds after 5 April 1917 will be made to the appropriate next of kin upon application to the Commanding General, PERSCOM. e. Any member of the Army who was awarded the Purple Heart for meritorious achievement or service, as opposed to wounds received in action, between 7 December 1941 and 22 September 1943, may apply for award of an appropriate decoration instead of the Purple Heart. f. For those who became Prisoners of War after 25 April 1962, the Purple Heart will be awarded to individuals wounded while prisoners of foreign forces, upon submission by the individual to the Department of the U.S. Army of an affidavit that is supported by a statement from a witness, if this is possible. Documentation and inquiries Should be directed to Commander, PERSCOM, ATTN: TAPCPDA, Alexandria, VA 22332-0471. g. Any member of the U.S. Army who believes that he or she is eligible for the Purple Heart, but through unusual circumstances no award was made, may submit an application through military channels, to Commander, PERSCOM, ATTN: TAPC-PDA, Alexandria, VA 22332-0471. Application will include complete documentation, to include evidence of medical treatment, pertaining to the wound. PUBLIC LAW 104-106 - FEB. 10, 1996 SEC. 621. AWARD OF PURPLE HEART TO PERSONS WOUNDED WHILE HELD AS PRISONERS OF WAR BEFORE APRIL 2G, 1962. (a) AWARD OF PURPLE HEART.�For purposes of the award of the Purple Heart, the Secretary concerned (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code) shall treat a former prisoner of war who was wounded before April 25, 1962, while held as a prisoner of war (or while being taken captive) in the same manner as a former prisoner of war who is wounded on or after that date while held as a prisoner of war (or while being taken captive). (b) STANDARDS FOR AWARD.�An award of the Purple Heart under subsection (a) shall be made in accordance with the standards in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act for the award of the Purple Heart to persons wounded on or after April 25, 1962. (C) ELIGIBLE FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR.�A person shall be considered to be a former prisoner of war for purposes of this section if the person is eligible for the prisoner-of-war meda1 under section 1128 of title 10, United States Code http://www.purpleheart.org/Awd_of_PH.htm

He didn't need to have been shot at for the purple heart to still retain legitimacy.

And to think that I thought that dems were grasping at straws trying to convict Bush over the whole awol thing ..

Occrider, I'm assuming that the "unfolding" story is something with different information than the article you posted from May of this year. I realize that this is a "drudge report" and it could disappear as quickly and as unsubstantiated as it appeared, but as I posted, it would change things if the wound was self-inflicted. I can understand fully getting a purple heart for friendly fire, but I would find it hard to believe the military hands out medals for self-inflicted wounds. Hopefully we'll get more information soon, especially since the site claims that his own campaign is backing these claims.

Washington Post is sticking to their substantiated story about how Kerry, Rasmussin, and some other guy blew up a 5 ton barrel of rice with a few hand grenades and during their flee Kerry got some rice grains in the buttocks. he then put himself in for the last purple heart for the effort even though he was totally fine.

i really don't give a damn but it's interesting to watch.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Occrider, I'm assuming that the "unfolding" story is something with different information than the article you posted from May of this year. I realize that this is a "drudge report" and it could disappear as quickly and as unsubstantiated as it appeared, but as I posted, it would change things if the wound was self-inflicted. I can understand fully getting a purple heart for friendly fire, but I would find it hard to believe the military hands out medals for self-inflicted wounds. Hopefully we'll get more information soon, especially since the site claims that his own campaign is backing these claims.

The first story was to provide background and provide legitmacy to rule 2-8 (1).

Scrolling down to rule 5, "(5) Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:"

and going to line h we see:

quote:

Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.

Therefore they do indeed give out purple hearts in the case of self-inflicted wounds. This is further corroborated by Navy personnel in charge of awarding medals:

quote:

The award came from the Naval Support Facility in Saigon � issued without any evident formal protest at the time from Hibbard, Letson or other commanders. Neither the slightness of Kerry's wound nor its murky origins would have likely disqualified him, said Shelby Jean Kirk, a retired civilian director of the Bureau of Naval Operations awards branch. The most critical element in an award decision was "action against the enemy." Conflicting battle accounts were not uncommon, and when Navy awards personnel could not make a clear determination, the serviceman often "got the benefit of the doubt," Kirk said. "The fog of war forced the system to bend to interpretation," said former Navy Cmdr. David L. Riley, author of "Uncommon Valor," a history of the Navy's awards. A review of injury reports from Kerry's boat units during his tour of duty confirms that pattern. Stacked in the Navy archives in Washington, the records show that in the last three months of Kerry's tour, 46 Swift boat personnel were wounded. Most were hurt by shrapnel, and all but five of the cases earned Purple Hearts. Injury reports are missing from Kerry's first month � including his contested Dec. 2 wound. But at least two dozen of the 46 men who were wounded later suffered "light" or "minor" shrapnel injuries. In a similar number of cases, wounds could not be clearly traced to enemy fire. http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...lines-frontpage

So if you want to make an issue out of Kerry's purple heart,

A)take it up with the US military in charge of the rules and regulations of distributing said medals.

B)start taking offense to all those other vietnam vets who similarly were "undeserving" of their purple hearts.

If I had the power and weight, then I would take it up with the US military. Its pretty silly, in my opinion, that if you injure yourself you are awarded a medal no different than the medal given to those wounded by the enemy. I would think that if the story in the Washington Post proves true, blowing up a rice barrel with a grenade would fall under gross negligance. If Kerry has no problem raking Bush over the coals for his National Guard service record, I don't see why there should be a double standard when the "right" attempts to do the same with Kerry. The public has demanded Bush's service records, and even though his compliance was questionable, he made some measurable effort to comply. John Kerry could resolve this entire situation by releasing medical records and other information that he has on these events, but he continues not to do so. That to me is nearly the same as admitting fault.

Bob Dole, who recently denigrated Kerry's purple hearts, wrote this about his own first purple heart:

"As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg�the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart."

Sigh ... people need to learn how to read articles themselves rather than propogate erroneous claims from word of mouth. Both of you are getting your incidents mixed up. The Washington Post article referencing Kerry's self inflicted injury sustained from blowing up rice barrels with grenades occured on March 13, 1969.

quote:

In his book, Brinkley writes that a skipper who remains friendly to Kerry, Skip Barker, took part in the March 13 raid. But there is no documentary evidence of Barker's participation. Barker could not be reached for comment. Brinkley, who is director of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies at the University of New Orleans, did not reply to messages left with his office, publisher and cell phone. The Kerry campaign has refused to make available Kerry's journals and other writings to The Post, saying the senator remains bound by an exclusivity agreement with Brinkley. A Kerry spokesman, Michael Meehan, said he did not know when Kerry wrote down his reminiscences. As they were heading back to the boat, Kerry and Rassmann decided to blow up a five-ton rice bin to deny food to the Vietcong. In an interview last week, Rassmann recalled that they climbed on top of the huge pile and dug a hole in the rice. On the count of three, they tossed their grenades into the hole and ran. Evidently, Kerry did not run fast enough. "He got some frags and pieces of rice in his rear end," Rassmann said with a laugh. "It was more embarrassing than painful." At the time, the incident did not seem significant, and Kerry did not mention it to anyone when he got back on the boat. An unsigned "personnel casualty report," however, erroneously implies that Kerry suffered "shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks" later in the day, following the mine explosion incident, when he also received "contusions to his right forearm." Anti-Kerry veterans have accused Kerry of conflating the two injuries to strengthen his case for a Bronze Star and Purple Heart. Kerry's Bronze Star citation, however, refers only to his arm injury. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Aug21.html

The events leading to his injuries of his first purple heart on December 2 were a completely different set of circumstances:

quote:

The incident that led to Kerry's first Purple Heart was risky, and covert. He and his crew left the safe confines of the huge US base at Cam Ranh Bay, climbing aboard a "skimmer" boat -- a craft similar to a Boston Whaler -- to travel upriver in search of Viet Cong guerrillas. At a beach that was known as a crossing area for enemy contraband traffic, Kerry's 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 Kerry's arm. '`We came across the bay onto the beach and I got [hit] in the arm, got shrapnel in the arm," Kerry told the Globe in a 2003 interview. Kerry has also said he didn't know where the shrapnel came from. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...r_purple_heart/

By the way, the medical records for those incidents have been released.

I think something's being left out here but it is possible that my own facts are in error. If anyone could confirm the validity (or lack thereof), it was my understanding that...

• He was injured by a tiny piece of shrapnel from his own grenade, with no enemy fire (seems like everybody agrees on this one)
  
• The doctor removed it with a pair of tweezers and stuck a band-aid on it (again, seems like we all agree here)
  
• The same doctor refused to sign off on it as an injury which warranted a purple heart (this part I'm not sure about)
  
• According to the veterans, his commanding officer at the time also refused to sign off on it (this may also be false)
  
• Finally, he went to another commanding officer who had no knowledge of the incident, and who gave him the "benefit of the doubt", which is how he got the heart.
  

i just implied irony that he got bit when he decided to blow up five tons of rice and then writes up his own (third) purple heart like an afterthought.

Lt. Cmd. Elliott

http://66.90.81.11/ds082304.avi

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'm not asserting this entire story to be true - I've heard it a few times but never seen any hard evidence for or against it. However, if it is true, then it would appear that Kerry was really scrounging for that heart. One would have to surmise that he was either a cry baby or staged the whole thing on purpose. I'm not as familiar with this topic as some people - any thoughts here?[/COLOR][/FONT]

there's room here to assert just about whatever you like within reason.

to this day in the military it is not uncommon to write up your own "bragsheet" with respect to awards, evals, fitreps ect. as an enlisted person. once submitted to the chain of command, it becomes the chain's responsibility to take out or insert pieces and parts of that bragsheet how they (your superiors) see fit. all of your own endorsements might make it, a small portion might make it with others added.

now with Kerry, a lieutenant, skipper of his own boat, he reserves the right to right-up any award he sees fit as an officer for him and his crew. and his endorsments may or may not be scutinised as carefully but his CO is obligated to follow the same procedures.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Sigh ... people need to learn how to read articles themselves rather than propogate erroneous claims from word of mouth. Both of you are getting your incidents mixed up. The Washington Post article referencing Kerry's self inflicted injury sustained from blowing up rice barrels with grenades occured on March 13, 1969. By the way, the medical records for those incidents have been released.

I'm sorry if it seems I've mixed these two up. To me it really does not matter which one is in question, only if it is deserved. Right now there is enough "word of mouth" from both sides to make a case either way, so I'm going to reserve judgement until I can make a more informed decision. That said, do you know where I might find the medical records for his injuries that led to medals? I'd be interested in reading them.

An interesting thread, which hopefully doesn't mirror the real election debate in the US: Why is it so important how Kerry got his medal? Are there people voting on the basis of issues such as this?

A right-wing journalist down here in Melbourne recently wrote an article about John Kerry that was so riddled with innaccuracies that I was motivated to write him a long, long essay on exaclty where he went wrong (which he never responded to ) as well as a letter to the editor (which was eventually published).

The original article can be found here:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/co...5E25717,00.html

As you can see he criticised the manner in which Kerry was awarded his medals towards the end of my article, so I set him straight:

(This is just a snippet from the "essay" I wrote to him.)

quote:

It would be fairly difficult for Kerry to have won even one Purple Heart (let alone three) without having been directly injured by enemy combatants. If you feel that these criteria are too general, or that individuals shouldn't be awarded medals against these criteria, then it's the award you have a problem with, not John Kerry. With regards to his first Purple Heart you stated: "A former army doctor claims he treated Kerry for his first Purple Heart wound, which he describes as a self-inflicted scratch that he covered with a Band-aid." Even though you failed to source this quote, a quick search reveals that it is attributed to either Grant Hibbard (a registered Republican) or Dr. Louis Letson, who actually did serve with Kerry in Vietnam. If he was the one that administered treatment to Kerry, though, then his recent statement is at odds with the medical report filed on December 3rd 1968 and revealed to Boston Globe reporters earlier this year: "3 DEC 1968 U.S. NAVAL SUPPORT FACILITY CAM RANH BAY RVN FPO Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl. Bacitracin. Ret. to duty." http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2...ple/index1.html The facts are as follows: Kerry's crew came under heavy fire on the night of December 2nd and Kerry ended up with a large piece of shrapnel in his arm that subsequently had to be removed. While he was fit to return to duty the next day, according to his biographer he did so impeded by a bandage and sling. Hardly what I'd call a "self-inflicted scratch" capable of being "covered with a band-aid" and certainly - under the criteria posted above - deserving of a purple heart. With regards to the third Purple Heart he was awarded (does this mean you count the second one - another deep shrapnel wound sustained under enemy fire - as being legitimate?), you state: "Crew who were there say the third Purple Heart -- which got him out of Vietnam -- was for a small bruise and a wound to Kerry's backside, hit when he dropped a grenade into a rice depot left behind by guerillas." Kerry's third Purple Heart was actually awarded for an injury sustained on March 13th 1969, in Bay Hap river. Confirmation of this date can be found on Kerry's official Purple Heart citation found here: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmils..._3_Citation.pdf The Purple Heart in this case was awarded for a serious arm injury sustained in a mine explosion. Immediately after sustaining this injury, John Kerry lept from his boat and rescued a fellow soldier that had fallen overboard, earning him a bronze star in the process. The incidents of that day are detailed in Kerry's Bronze Star citation, awarded by Admiral Zumwalt: "Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as an Officer-in-Charge of Inshore Patrol Craft 94, one of five boats conducting a Sealords operation in the Bay Hap River. While exiting the river, a mine detonated under another Inshore Patrol Craft and almost simultaneously, another mine detonated wounding Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in the right arm. In addition, all units began receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry discovered he had a man overboard, he returned upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both banks. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain and with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return to and assist the other damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." The original citation can be found here: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmils...Bronze_Star.pdf Is there any part of that testimony that you believe is unworthy of a Purple Heart medal? Hardly a "bruise in the backside" is it?

And on the Swift Boat veterans:

quote:

[T]he Swift Boat Veterans you cite do not count as legitimate character-witnesses. Only one of the men - Steven Gardner - actually served under Kerry. There is scant evidence to suggest that any of the other men actually spent significant periods of time - if any time at all - with Kerry. Firstly, their accounts of Kerry's character differ wildly from those who did serve under him and knew him well (which should tell you something - the opinions of these people are predominantly positive) secondly some of the men have only changed their opinions in recent times, since John Kerry's ascension to the Democratic nominee for president. Roy Hoffman, for instance - the chairman of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth body cited in your article - had this said about him recently in the Los Angeles Times: "Other Swift boat officers � Republican sympathizers and veterans bitter over Kerry's post-Vietnam peace activism � pose a darker alternate history. Members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an anti-Kerry political committee, they are led by retired Rear Adm. Roy F. Hoffmann, a blunt-edged Navy career man who oversaw the hit-and-run river raids Kerry viewed as a costly waste of American lives. [�] Yet Hoffmann and Kerry had few direct dealings in Vietnam. A Los Angeles Times examination of Navy archives found that Hoffmann praised Kerry's performance in cabled messages after several river skirmishes. And while the Purple Heart account remains murky, its award was routine. Navy records show Swift boat crews were frequently raked with slight wounds of uncertain origin � injuries that often earned decorations." http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...enter-elect2004 As stated in the article, most members of the SBVfT are either registered Republicans, bitter veterans or both - in any case not an impartial source, as evidenced by the fact that some (including Hoffman here) changed their tune on Kerry only after he won the Democratic nomination.

I don't think there's any doubt that Kerry qualified for the criteria under which Purple Hearts were awarded. As occrider said, if you wish to question the logic by which Purple Hearts are awarded, then that's something you'd need to take up with the US military. With at least to of the Purple Hearts (I'm not clued in enough on the second one to comment) there appears to be strong evidence that they were awarded for fairly serious injuries (the third one was awarded for especially serious injuries) inflicted under heavy injury fire. Besides, even if you were somehow to successfully argue that he was deserving of none of his Purple Hearts, you still cannot discount the bravery with which his Bronze and Silver stars were awarded. The full military cititions (both of which contain detailed information on how they were won) can be found on his website.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Why is it so important how Kerry got his medal? Are there people voting on the basis of issues such as this?

I certainly hope not (most voters will have already made up their minds and it would take more than the Vietnam issue, I would think, to win over the swing voters), but it wouldn't suprise me altogether if - especially on a more "subconscious" level - it did affect people's judgement. But what I don't understand is:

1) Even if Kerry's war record can be discredited, why do these Republican-sympathisers automatically assume that people will vote for Bush instead?

2) Given Bush's rather "patchy" service record in Vietnam ( ) why are Republicans trying to make an issue out of this? Surely if Vietnam does become a major election issue (here's hoping that it doesn't) surely that's going to end up working against Bush rather than for him?

I mean this just comes across as petty, lowest common-denominator politics to an impartial observer and both sides are stupid to get mired in it. I'm not saying that the political campaigns in Australia are any better at the moment (because they certainly aren't) but this whole issue is just incredibly boring and should not be a central election issue.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic An interesting thread, which hopefully doesn't mirror the real election debate in the US: Why is it so important how Kerry got his medal? Are there people voting on the basis of issues such as this?

Well, it tells a lot about the person, don't you think?

Debating the 'issues' is as pointless if not more so, as we've learned that these politicans promise what they can not and simply do not deliver.

The issues are real pointless. Kerry complains about Bush's policy currently in Iraq.. as if when he takes office something will magically and dramatically change

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic An interesting thread, which hopefully doesn't mirror the real election debate in the US: Why is it so important how Kerry got his medal? Are there people voting on the basis of issues such as this?

Kerry's past does hold significance, because we have no way of knowing how he will act as president except by examining his past actions. Bush has four years of being in the White House for us to judge him by. Kerry has his senate experience and his time in and after Vietnam for us to predict how he may or may not act as president.

Kerry already enjoys the ability to spew forth a proposed action plan that has absolutely no base economically, which to me is one strike against him. As I have said before, he promises the expansion of many government programs, along with the establishment of new ones, while claiming he will reduce the deficit. I am at a loss as to how he proposes to do this with real-world economics. His senate record is a quasi strike two to me because although I do not fault him for all of his voting inconsistencies, the politique surrounding these changes of heart leave me with a bad taste in my mouth (see his Iraq voting record changes over the past 4 years and the political BS he cloaks it in). If it were to come out that he was undeserving of medals in Vietnam, especially due to gross embellishment or neglect, that would be a strike three in my books. He has used his service in Vietnam as a pillar in his election campaign and to learn that his tour of duty was used either consciously or subconsciously as a political vehicle would devalue Kerry's integrity further.

As I have said before, I see little difference between Kerry and Bush politically. The democrats and republicans prove more and more that they are branches of the same party. Therefore, when looking at the two men, I must weigh Bush's past four years and character against Kerry's character and pick the next president. I find it hard to pick Kerry when I do this.

quote:

Originally posted by devonian rabbit Bob Dole, who recently denigrated Kerry's purple hearts, wrote this about his own first purple heart: "As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg�the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart."

Dole better shut his pie hole in regards to this whole fiasco. His war record in it's own right is a little controversal as well:

http://www.tedellis.net/dole-article.htm

But what I really found interesting about Dole was his final quote here at the end of this Washington Post story. It demonstrated his TRUE rationale for stating those things about Kerry:

quote:

Dole yesterday went back on CNN, where he had made his critical remarks the previous day, to say that he had received a call from Kerry. "I said, 'John, I didn't mean to offend you,' " Dole said. "But I said, 'You know, when you continue to attack George Bush . . . you know, George Bush is my guy.' . . . The final words were 'John, I wish you good luck up to a point.' " http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Aug23.html

Hmmm, methinks the old grumpy-ass Dole misses playin' politics a little bit here.

Here a couple more interesting stories:

1. The weekly Navy Task Force report, created by none other than Roy Hoffmann (the founder of Smear Boaters) supports Kerry's version of events on his Bronze Star:

http://ap.savannahnow.com/pstories/...5/2394884.shtml

2. Pretty good account of events in Cambodia with Kerry:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2105529/

3. O'Neill himself caught lying about his own trips into Cambodia (yeah, I know it's a real shocker how much this guy's lied so far):

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408250004

3. Bush's campaign's top outside lawyer advised Smear Boaters:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/25/p...=print&position

And has abruptly resigned as a result of his relations:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...boat/index.html


Gee, maybe Kerry's filing to the FEC wasn't so farfetched after all? First we have one volunteer advisor to Bush's campaign being let go on Monday because of his involvement with the Smear Boaters, now we have a paid lawyer today.

4. The eriposte blog has done an incredible job with each and every Smear Boat claim. You can read in exhaustive detail here:

http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/

Why are people caring about this, Kerry whether you like it or not is a war hero, his medals indicate that. You are not going to turn back the clock 35 years to find out the real truth because the Vietnam war was a disgrace in every way. The real truth will never come out about that war, soldiers killed entire villages of people. There was no real leadership command anyway because they were fighting in thick jungle. Bush's real records will never be confirmed and the public will never know. I give Kerry at least some sympathy because what those soldiers went thru in that war was disgusting and the things that they saw will last a lifetime. He spoke about how bad the war was and the people needed to know that. I think both sides should stfu about the war records because you have skeptics on both sides and they should debate the real issues that affect Americans.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.