On 22 Aug 2004 12:22:38 -0700, (Fred the Red Shirt)
wrote:

(Charlie Self) wrote in message ...
WD babbles:

One simple question. 1. How does one obtain 3 purple hearts in 4 months
of combat service, yet not lose a single duty day nor spend any time in the
hospital?

http://chuck.mahost.org/weblog/index.php

....or on Friday night night Michelle Malkin claimed that Kerry shoot himself
during the Vietnam war.....

Kerry's first PH was for a shrapnel wound to his arm which he received
from a grenade he had fired himself. So What? PH's are awarded for
friendly-fire wounds, so long as the fire in question was intended
to be directed toward the enemy, even if the enemy was not, in fact,
present.


Nothing wrong with that at all, EXCEPT THAT IT FAILS TO MEET THE CRITERIA
FOR A PURPLE HEART! Three criteria must be met to be awarded a purple
heart:
1. It must occur in the presence of enemy fire. In the first
instance of Kerry's PH, this was *not* the case.
2. One must receive medical care for the wounds received. In the
case of this first PH, the accounts do indicate he received medical care,
but the care received stretches the criteria pretty much; it certainly
violates the spirit of the PH, especially considering those who received
those awards for severely debillitating wounds.
3. A report of the action and the wound must be written up and sent
up the chain. This also happened.

The spirit of the PH is to reward those who have been seriously
wounded in defending their country. That a person received the PH for
wounds that were even serious enough to require hospitilization, let alone
be life-threatening does a dis-service to those who received the award for
actions that truly merited it.

None of this would matter one whit if Kerry and his campaign hadn't
started using his three purple hearts and silver star as a centerpiece of
his campaign. Earlier this year, you couldn't turn on the TV without his
throwing those medals in your face at every opportunity. It would have
been less of an issue as well if he hadn't used a picture of his former
comrades, with Edwards intoning, "if you want to know what kind of man John
Kerry is, just ask those who served with him" implying that everyone in
that picture supported him. Turns out, aside from himself, only one person
still living (I'm sure in Chicago, the dead ones will support him) supports
Kerry, the remainder either view him as unfit for command or have come out
as neutral. Take a look at www.swiftvets.com for a summary of that
picture.


and William Rood, a Tribune editor who served in
Vietnam alongside John Kerry (left), stepped forward today to dispute attacks
challenging Kerry's war record.

One reporter (who supports Kerry) vs. a myriad of former Swift Boat
commanders and crewmen who served with Kerry and observed his actions.
Those vets have nothing to gain from the stand they are taking, many of
them have served highly distinguished careers and are risking reputations
by coming forward publicly to what is a heavily Kerry favoring media (as
evidence of this, these people approached the media months ago with this
information but couldn't even get an interview. In a truly impartial
media, you would have thought that as serious as these charges are, the
media would have at least taken a look).


Kerry must be a damn liar?


Someone is not exactly truthful, that's for certain. Given the lack of solid
proof possible in either direction, I'd point the finger at the people who
instigated this morass.


Had Kerry not made this a centerpiece of his campaign ( "John Kerry
reporting for duty" in his speech to the Democratic convention, as well as
the numerous ads *his* campaign put forth, all intoning, "John Kerry, War
hero, Senator, ...), none of this stuff would have come to light, nor would
it have mattered. Since he has challenged us to "find out what kind of
leader John Kerry is by asking those who served with him", this is a valid
topic for discourse. [Oh, he meant only ask those who served with him and
support him -- ignore all those other fellows]


Loved the cartoon in the Roanoke Times yesterday: showed a swift boat at speed,
towing 2 water skiers. The header noted that the swift boat was one man's
contribution to 'Nam, while the water skiers, Bush & Cheney, did nothing.

Think about it. Cheney had either five or seven exemptions from the draft yet
has temerity to sneer at Kerry's contribution.


I'm not aware of any specific statements Cheney has made in that
regard. Bush at least has had the good sense to leave the accusations
to persons not under his nominal control.

AFAIK, only one person in Bush's cabinet has had combat experience,
Powell, and he is pretty much ignored, except when the White House
sees fit to contradict him.