On 23 Aug 2004 10:47:49 -0700, (Fred the Red Shirt)
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in message . ..
On 22 Aug 2004 12:22:38 -0700, (Fred the Red Shirt)
wrote:
...

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.


Wrong. See: http://www.purpleheart.org/Awd_of_PH.htm

...
(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:
...

(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.

...


Somehow a self-inflicted wound from your own grenade launch, even if it
was trying to destroy enemy stores seems to fall short of the spirit of the
above exception.




There seems to be no doubt, however, that the wound in question
was relatively minor and stretched the criterion on that basis.


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.

A lot more than one person supports him.

The reference was to the photo that was promoted in the Kerry ad during
which Edwards intoned, "if you want to know what kind of leader John Kerry
is, just ask those who served with him" while the above photo was
displayed. In *that* photo, only one of the people in that photo supports
Kerry, the remainder are either dead (2 or 3), have no opinion, or label
Kerry as unfit for command. The use of that photo by the Kerry campaign is
disengenous at best.

Some of those who attack him
are proven liars. For instance, there is a doctor who claims to have
treated Kerry for his shrapnel wound but the record shows that someone
else treated him. One of the vets claiming that there was no hostile
fire during the engagement for which that same vet received a bronze
star, citing hostile fire.


In the latter case, said vet was greatly suprised about the content of
the citation. He thought he had received the citation for his jumping in
the water and working to save the boat hit by the mine. He did not see the
citation as it was written and disputes the contents of the citation that
says there was intense enemy fire.



Take a look at www.swiftvets.com for a summary of that
picture.


Are those not the smae people claiming that Kerry filed false reports,
when in fact those reports (putting aside for th emoment the issue of
ther veracity) were not even filed by Kerry?

How many of the people at 'swiftboats.com' ever saw Kerry in Vietnam
or anywhere else?


Take a browse through the web site -- a significant number.




One reporter (who supports Kerry) vs. a myriad of former Swift Boat
commanders and crewmen who served with Kerry and observed his actions.

'Served with Kerry' is a bit of a stretch. How many of those
ever even SAW Kerry in person? All but one of his surving crew,
who have come forward to speak, support him.


Well, I would guess that those in the picture with Kerry that Kerry used
in his ad probably at least saw him. Of those in the picture, only one of
them who is still alive supports Kerry.

Those who served on other boats with Kerry certainly knew him. They went
into battle with him expecting certain behavior in achieving tactical
objectives. According to those commanders on the other boats, Kerry was
not reliable as a commander in a flotilla of boats going into battle. It
is certainly possible that actions Kerry took were viewed positively by his
own crew because they thought he was keeping them personally safe while the
other commanders viewed his actions negatively because his self-preserving
actions placed the other boats and thus their crews in greater danger.

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.

I think they are retaliating for Kerry's anti-war activity.


Accusations of lying aside, don't you think that they might be just a
little bit miffed with a person who served with them for less than 4
months, then returned to the states and accused them of committing war
atrocities, then 35 years later attempting to run on his war record as a
war hero and involving them by using pictures of them in those ads?