Mark & Juanita wrote in message . ..
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:
...

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.


I don't agree. It fall squarely in with the above exception. A more
important consideration is the severity of the wound and it would appear
that shrapnel wound was minor.




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

...




...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.


... 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.

But this makes clear the fact that whether or not there was enemy
fire is not relevant. Thus the criticism that there was no enemy
fire is not relevant and therefor dishonest.

It is clear that there was much confusion in that incident. Those
who concluded there was no enemy fire and those who concluded there
was, may be equally honest. But those who attribute to Kerry,
statements made in reports by others, are plainly dishonest.

In particular, the man Kerry pulled from the water says he was thrown
into the water by a second explosion, after the mine explosion, and
shots were fired at him while he was in the water.

I rather hope that was NOT freindly fire.


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.

And I'll add that the present administration, protestations aside,
undoubtbly appreciates their efforts. Having this on their resume
might prove highly advantageous in the future. Of course that swings
both ways.



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?

As I said above, I think that is their point of view. I don't know
how many would or have gone as far as lying though.

--

FF