On 24 Aug 2004 18:14:40 -0700, (Fred the Red Shirt)
wrote:

.... snip

... 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.


You are confusing awards here. The purple heart requires injuries
inflicted in the presence of enemy fire (the exception you mention noted).
The boat *was* hit by a mine, that counts as enemy fire; the second vet's
actions were a result of that enemy action and were certainly valourous.
What surprised him was that the citation indicated that they were under
"intense enemy fire from both banks", this is what he indicates was untrue.


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.


Where is your evidence that others made those statements in the reports?
It is possible that the report for the second vet's citation was taken
verbatim from the report for Kerry's citation -- that doesn't provide any
citation of original authorship.

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.


The man had been thrown in the water and was potentially disoriented.
The swift boats indicated that they did fire into the banks to suppress any
potential fire that they were afraid might take place. It is highly likely
the guy in the water mistook the fire from the boats for incoming fire
while he was trying to get himself oriented.


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.

Again, the accusation that all of those men are lying.