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..... 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.

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.

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.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

Remember the two psychiatrists on one show swearing adamantly George had an
attention deficit disorder. I wondered how well he had mastered it when
flying high performance fighter aircraft . Suppose his daddy got him pilots
duty!!!!!!!!!!! mjh

--
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2
"WD" wrote in message
...
On 22 Aug 2004 08:44:50 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

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.

Charlie, Kerry have to the liar! I know it deep down in my heart, I can
even
feel it in my bone. Bush will never lie cuz, he's is a born again
Christian, a
Christian NEVER lie. Are you forgetting that he lead us to victory against
the
Saddam Hussein and the beautiful sight of shock and awe destruction of
Baghdad?

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.

I love both faces of Michelle Malkin's twisted mouth angrily refuting
Chris
Matthew's stunned face.

otforme (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.

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.

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.

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.

--

FF

WD responds:

Of course it's ok if your daddy is President getting your son a cozy
Stateside
job. Wouldn't you do it for your own son?

Remember the two psychiatrists on one show swearing adamantly George had an
attention deficit disorder. I wondered how well he had mastered it when
flying high performance fighter aircraft . Suppose his daddy got him pilots
duty!!!!!!!!!!! mjh

And it has been stated, time after time after time and for many years, that it
is possible to teach a monkey to fly. I don't know that anyone has tried,
though.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:00:21 -0500, WD wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:52:05 GMT, "Mike Hide" wrote:

Of course it's ok if your daddy is President getting your son a cozy Stateside
job. Wouldn't you do it for your own son?

I think you have a slight problem with history there. Bush was president
about 16 YEARS after the Vietnam war had ended. However, the senior Bush
was CIA director under Nixon. It is highly unlikely the younger Bush would
have even been allowed to serve in Vietnam since were he to be captured,
the North would potentially have had a significant bargaining chip.


Remember the two psychiatrists on one show swearing adamantly George had an
attention deficit disorder. I wondered how well he had mastered it when
flying high performance fighter aircraft . Suppose his daddy got him pilots
duty!!!!!!!!!!! mjh

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.

In article , Mark & Juanita
wrote:

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

BINGO!

On 22 Aug 2004 22:04:21 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

Mike Hide notes:

Many times on TV the reporters refer to Kerry's TWO tours of duty in Vietnam
. Was a tour reduced to 6 weeks at that time . I now guys that went in for
one and spent 2 years there .

No. If they went for one, it was 13 months.

If the went longer, they signed up for it. I've got a friend who did most of
two tours in the Airborne...caught phosphorus in the forehead and decided to
take the ticket home.


I hear reporters say Kerry enlisted to go to Vietnam, which as far as I am
concerned is true . No mention is made that after being deferred to complete
his law degree, and at that point being eligible for the draft, he requested
another deferment so he could go to France, it was denied. At that point he
was going to Vietnam regardless .

No. He was going in the Army, if he was drafted. He might or might not have
gone to 'Nam. There was enough in-service finagling, just as there is during
every war, to allow most people to stay well away from combat locales, never
mind actual combat. There's another point that no one seems to recognize: for
every grunt, otherwise known as a combat troop, there are from 7 to 9 support
people keeping that grunt fed, in ammo, generally supplied and healthy. So
going into a combat area such as 'Nam does not automatically mean you're going
to get shot at. Going into an outfit like swift boats does. I wonder if that
was voluntary?


According to his fitness reports, Kerry volunteered for Swift boat duty:
http://www.swiftvets.com/staticpages...p?page=Fitreps (this links to
a web page on Kerry's own site that publishes the fitness reports Kerry is
willing to release).

.... snip

Time Daneliuk responds (most of long post snipped to bash Bush one more time):

4) Quit trying to make the 'rich' pay for everything. Growth economies
require capital formation. Capital formation requires (gasp!)
*rich people*. Why? Because poor and middle-class people, even in
the aggregate, simply do not have the disposable income to create
large pools of capital. Well ... maybe they do, but they have
historically not shown the self-discipline necessary to do it. Rich
people can spare large amounts of capital without noticing it.
Every time we attack the rich we are slitting the throat of a
a growing economy.

Now that's fair enough. What is amusing is Bush acolytes bashing Mr. & Mrs.
Kerry for their wealth. I keep expecting to hear that poor Laura has to make do
with a "plain cloth coat" to quote Richard Milhous Nixon nearly half a century
ago. Bush and Cheney are probably only worth 2/3 of what the Kerrys are worth,
but it's enough.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

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.

....


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. 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.


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?


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.

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.

--

FF

In article , wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:52:05 GMT, "Mike Hide" wrote:

Of course it's ok if your daddy is President getting your son a cozy Stateside
job. Wouldn't you do it for your own son?

Idiot. George HW Bush became President in 1989. The Vietnam War ended in 1974.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , Mark & Juanita wrote:

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.

How could Kerry throw those medals in your face? He already threw them in the
Reflecting Pool.

Oh, wait, those were somebody *else's* medals he threw, weren't they?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Doug Miller responds:


Of course it's ok if your daddy is President getting your son a cozy
Stateside
job. Wouldn't you do it for your own son?

Idiot. George HW Bush became President in 1989. The Vietnam War ended in
1974.

True enough. Lessee. What was HW doing back then? Was he director of the CIA at
that time?

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

Doug Miller responds:


How could Kerry throw those medals in your face? He already threw them in the

Reflecting Pool.

Oh, wait, those were somebody *else's* medals he threw, weren't they?

At least he had some to throw. The only medals Shrub qualified for...whoops, no
he didn't. Officers don't get Good Conduct Medals, since one assumes they're
ossifers an' gennelmens. And he wouldn't have qualified anyway, being over the
hill for a year.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:55:06 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

However, the senior Bush
was CIA director under Nixon. It is highly unlikely the younger Bush would
have even been allowed to serve in Vietnam since were he to be captured,
the North would potentially have had a significant bargaining chip.


Incorrect. Check your dates. Bush Sr. was DCI long after Jr. left the
ANG.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Doug Miller responds:


How could Kerry throw those medals in your face? He already threw them in
the

Reflecting Pool.

Oh, wait, those were somebody *else's* medals he threw, weren't they?

At least he had some to throw. The only medals Shrub qualified
for...whoops, no
he didn't. Officers don't get Good Conduct Medals, since one assumes
they're
ossifers an' gennelmens. And he wouldn't have qualified anyway, being over
the
hill for a year.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

I just take offense to someone going over there with what appears to be the
express purpose of getting three purple hearts, then getting the hell out of
there so he could get his political career going stateside. I would think
most vets wouldn't even bother trying to get a purple heart from an injury
treated by tweezers and a band-aid.

todd

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?

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message ...
...

I just take offense to someone going over there with what appears to be the
express purpose of getting three purple hearts, then getting the hell out of
there so he could get his political career going stateside. I would think
most vets wouldn't even bother trying to get a purple heart from an injury
treated by tweezers and a band-aid.


That strikes me as an *honest* criticism as opposed to most of those
being made on both sides.

--

FF

In article , "Todd Fatheree" wrote:

I just take offense to someone going over there with what appears to be the
express purpose of getting three purple hearts, then getting the hell out of
there so he could get his political career going stateside. I would think
most vets wouldn't even bother trying to get a purple heart from an injury
treated by tweezers and a band-aid.

That was just one of the three. Another was supposedly "contusion, minor...
treated with cold compress" IOW an ice-bag on a bruise.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Todd Fatheree"
wrote:

I just take offense to someone going over there with what appears to be
the
express purpose of getting three purple hearts, then getting the hell out
of
there so he could get his political career going stateside. I would
think
most vets wouldn't even bother trying to get a purple heart from an
injury
treated by tweezers and a band-aid.

That was just one of the three. Another was supposedly "contusion,
minor...
treated with cold compress" IOW an ice-bag on a bruise.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Well, hold the phone! Why doesn't this guy have a CMH?

todd

In article , "Todd Fatheree" wrote:

Well, hold the phone! Why doesn't this guy have a CMH?

Probably because the Medal of Honor paperwork has to be written by someone
*else*.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Mark & Juanita"

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?



It's the height of hypocrisy. I think they are trying to downplay his war
record now that it wasn't smooth sailing. He should be honored for his
service but it seems clear he at least embellished his performance and
his motives all along was to make a name for himself. I think the DNC
shot themselves in the foot on this one. Blaming Bush for the ads is
weak and pathetic, especially when he already denounced all such
ads. I'm enjoying the spectacle of watching them trying to put the genie
back in the bottle.

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 07:45:11 -0500, Todd Fatheree wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...

That was just one of the three. Another was supposedly "contusion,
minor...
treated with cold compress" IOW an ice-bag on a bruise.

Well, hold the phone! Why doesn't this guy have a CMH?

Hey now, wait a minute, it was a _nasty_ bruise. All sorts of colors
for a week or two, I'd imagine. Show some damn compassion, would you?

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message

I just take offense to someone going over there with what appears to be
the
express purpose of getting three purple hearts, then getting the hell out
of
there so he could get his political career going stateside. I would think
most vets wouldn't even bother trying to get a purple heart from an injury
treated by tweezers and a band-aid.

Right on, Brother ... I can tell you for a dead certain fact that when
you're standing next to a guy who just got both legs shredded, and you only
got a small scratch on the arm from the same incoming round, a PH is the
_very_ last thing on your mind.

Personally, my vote won't be cast for either candidate based on a war
record, medals, or lack of same.

I do take exception to the propaganda being spread on the college campuses
about drafting women next year. The Kerry folks were fanning the flames and
fears this weekend when I was moving my daughter into her college dorm.

But then there's no lack of assholes on either side ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

All of this Swift Boat Veterans for Truth business has reached a
fairly comical point.

To me it is indicative of the total lack of credibility and lack of
tangible results that the Bush administration has. When you have no
record to run on, the only thing you can do is sling a whole bunch of
mud and hope that some portion of the public is ignorant enough to
believe it.

Swingman notes:

But then there's no lack of assholes on either side ...

Amen!

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

Larry Blanchard responds:

In article , says...
So the kid I went to high school with, whose mother had died, was
lying when he said he was getting social security payments? Wasn't
disabled in any way that was evident in years of knowing him.

OK, I forgot that case. But he was getting it only because his mother
(or father) had sufficient quarters to qualify. And he stopped getting
it at 18 or 21 or whenever he finished school, I forget which.

I do know about that because we raised my brother-in-law who was about
10 when his parents died. We had to keep extensive records to prove
that what we got from SS for him was spent on him. It's been a long
time, but I remember those payments as being very small.


18 if not in school, 21 if. It ends when school stops in any case.

Probably easier to let the orphans starve.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

"Nate Perkins"
All of this Swift Boat Veterans for Truth business has reached a
fairly comical point.

To me it is indicative of the total lack of credibility and lack of
tangible results that the Bush administration has. When you have no
record to run on,


Have you been in a coma? Tax cuts, economy bouncing back,
terrorism averted at home since 9/11, for starters. Thats a pretty
good record. Gore would probably still be wringing his hands.


the only thing you can do is sling a whole bunch of
mud and hope that some portion of the public is ignorant enough to
believe it.


I'd say the ignorance comes from those who believe the administration
was behind it and yet, said had nothing to say about the mud slinging
from all the lefty hate books and films.

otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in
:

Swingman notes:

But then there's no lack of assholes on either side ...

Amen!

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary


What there are, unfortunately, are few attractive options...

Patriarch,
who seldom, if ever, enters these discussions...

On 24 Aug 2004 18:00:31 GMT, Charlie Self wrote:
Larry Blanchard responds:

In article , says...
So the kid I went to high school with, whose mother had died, was
lying when he said he was getting social security payments? Wasn't
disabled in any way that was evident in years of knowing him.

OK, I forgot that case.

18 if not in school, 21 if. It ends when school stops in any case.
Probably easier to let the orphans starve.

Who said anything about orphan? He was living with his (professionally
employed) father in a nice neighborhood.

Patriarch writes:


Swingman notes:

But then there's no lack of assholes on either side ...

Amen!

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary


What there are, unfortunately, are few attractive options.

Yeah, we'll that's been the case for some time now. I'm hard put to recall the
last time I felt confident in the ability of a presidential candidate to do the
job properly. It may not be possible anyway, but our political process has
regressed to it's mid-1800s stages recently so that doesn't help.

I'm still more than slightly ****ed that Bush's supporters used the big guns on
McCain, who is still the best man out there.

Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken

otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in
:

Patriarch writes:


Swingman notes:

But then there's no lack of assholes on either side ...

Amen!

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary


What there are, unfortunately, are few attractive options.

Yeah, we'll that's been the case for some time now. I'm hard put to
recall the last time I felt confident in the ability of a presidential
candidate to do the job properly. It may not be possible anyway, but
our political process has regressed to it's mid-1800s stages recently
so that doesn't help.

I'm still more than slightly ****ed that Bush's supporters used the
big guns on McCain, who is still the best man out there.

Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L.
Mencken

Agreed, McCain

On the other side of the aisle, I have been very impressed with the impact
Jerry Brown has had as mayor of Oakland, CA. Almost NO chance that he'd
survive the national scene again, however.

Patriarch

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

On 25 Aug 2004 12:29:52 -0700, Nate Perkins wrote:
For
similar reasons, enacting a nonstimulative tax package during a
recession is unwise because it incurs long term interest rate
increases while not providing spending stimulation.

I don't know about you, Nate, but I cashed that check and spent it.
Sounds pretty much like it provided at least some "spending
stimulation". I'm pretty sure I'm not unique in that regard either.

Yeah, the economy
may be slooowly bouncing back, but it's still nowhere near the economy
that existed in the 90's. Unemployment is higher, real wages after
inflation are lower, and the costs of many goods is up. I work in
high tech, and we are still hemorraging pretty massively.

I do too, and I don't see what you're seeing.

Fletis Humplebacker snorts:

I do give Bush kudos for paying attention to terrorism (how could he
not after 9/11 happened on his watch?).


I guess he could ignore it like Clinton?

Clinton has some warnings, but are you saying 9/11 happened on his watch? Best
check your occupancy list for the White House.

I also give Clinton some
credit here (the Millenium attacks were foiled under the last
administration).


Some guards got lucky and that's good enough for you?

Same old, same old. Except we don't know if any guards got lucky this time
around. Maybe, maybe not. Seems to me that Homeland security is mostly security
for the employees.

Where's the homefield attacks since 911? Seems like it worked pretty
well. I agree there's room for improvement but the U.S. occupied Germany
and Japan with much heavier losses.

Can't prove a negative, can you. WTF is the relevance of combat in Germany or
Japan?

Only if your brain has been crippled by left wing hate propaganda.

That's pitiful.

There's been quite a few as of late, calling Bush a traitor, murderer, etc.
Moore's movie is filled with slander, doesn't seem to bother the lefties.
If Kerry's contemporaries come out 10 to 1 against Kerry's version
of events, it's Bush's fault. That's how propaganda works and it sounds
like you bought it hook, line and sinker.

Where have 10 of Kerry's contemporaries come out against Kerry's version of
events versus one for Kerry? Seems to me that the records are starting to show
that the whole melange was a set-up, something neocons thought would derail the
Kerry campaign. It has created problems, I'm sure, but it may in the end do
more damage to Bush's Babies.




Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken

"Charlie Self"
Fletis Humplebacker snorts:

I do give Bush kudos for paying attention to terrorism (how could he
not after 9/11 happened on his watch?).


I guess he could ignore it like Clinton?

Clinton has some warnings, but are you saying 9/11 happened on his watch? Best
check your occupancy list for the White House.


The object of the sentence was terrorism. And Clinton had
much more than warnings.



I also give Clinton some
credit here (the Millenium attacks were foiled under the last
administration).


Some guards got lucky and that's good enough for you?


Same old, same old. Except we don't know if any guards got lucky this time
around. Maybe, maybe not. Seems to me that Homeland security is mostly security
for the employees.


That's the beauty of Federal employment.


Where's the homefield attacks since 911? Seems like it worked pretty
well. I agree there's room for improvement but the U.S. occupied Germany
and Japan with much heavier losses.


Can't prove a negative, can you. WTF is the relevance of combat in Germany or
Japan?


I can't think for you. He was talking about casualties in war. It will be
too tiring for me to explain every point to you.


Only if your brain has been crippled by left wing hate propaganda.

That's pitiful.


I agree. There's many that have been so brainwashed that they are infected
with the disease of liberalism.


There's been quite a few as of late, calling Bush a traitor, murderer, etc.
Moore's movie is filled with slander, doesn't seem to bother the lefties.
If Kerry's contemporaries come out 10 to 1 against Kerry's version
of events, it's Bush's fault. That's how propaganda works and it sounds
like you bought it hook, line and sinker.


Where have 10 of Kerry's contemporaries come out against Kerry's version of
events versus one for Kerry?


Well, there's 250 on the anti-side compared to his handful of supporters.



Seems to me that the records are starting to show
that the whole melange was a set-up,


Every now and again they drag out another supporter, if that's what you mean.
But we would have to discount many accounts in favor of Kerry's supporters.
Seems to me that would be a whole lot of men who are outright lying. Some have
been saying so for 30 years or so. Those Republicans sure plan ahead.


something neocons thought would derail the
Kerry campaign. It has created problems, I'm sure, but it may in the end do
more damage to Bush's Babies.


It would seem that way to the mentally challenged. The polls prove otherwise.

Charlie Self wrote:

Patriarch writes:


Swingman notes:


But then there's no lack of assholes on either side ...

Amen!

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose
Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary


What there are, unfortunately, are few attractive options.


Yeah, we'll that's been the case for some time now. I'm hard put to recall the
last time I felt confident in the ability of a presidential candidate to do the
job properly. It may not be possible anyway, but our political process has
regressed to it's mid-1800s stages recently so that doesn't help.

I'm still more than slightly ****ed that Bush's supporters used the big guns on
McCain, who is still the best man out there.

Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken
Charles,
I agree wholeheartedly with you on McCain. I wrote him in as a candidate
in the last election. I just couldn't make myself vote for Al or
Shrub. Al is anti gun and Shrub is just a dip**** in dip****'s clothing
(I really didn't like his "Read my Lips" daddy either.

I guess I might have to write in anudder candidate again this time.

I absolutely hate the way the Bush machine has dine their best to
discredit Viet Nam vets - the little ****er hid behind his daddy's skirt
in my opinion.

Philski

"philski writes:

snip
I absolutely hate the way the Bush machine has dine their best to
discredit Viet Nam vets - the little ****er hid behind his daddy's skirt
in my opinion.

Given a choice, Elmer Fudd would be a winner compared to the "Fish ****"
from Crawford.

Now that I think about it, Fred Muggs wouldn't be that bad.

Lew

Lew Hodgett responds:

"philski writes:

snip
I absolutely hate the way the Bush machine has dine their best to
discredit Viet Nam vets - the little ****er hid behind his daddy's skirt
in my opinion.

Given a choice, Elmer Fudd would be a winner compared to the "Fish ****"
from Crawford.

Now that I think about it, Fred Muggs wouldn't be that bad.

Huey, Dewey or Louie?


Charlie Self
"A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." H. L. Mencken

In article , philski wrote:

I absolutely hate the way the Bush machine has dine their best to
discredit Viet Nam vets - the little ****er hid behind his daddy's skirt
in my opinion.

Wow, so many errors, it's hard to know where to begin.

How exactly did GWB "hide behind his daddy's skirt"? The war ended some
fifteen years before GHWD became President.

The "Bush machine" has done nothing to "discredit Viet Nam vets". Some
veterans groups *not* affiliated with or funded by the Bush campaign are
attempting to discredit _one particular_ Viet Nam vet, who happens to be the
Democrat nominee.

That same Democrat nominee has, himself, done his best to discredit, demean,
besmirch, and libel Viet Nam vets, in his 1971 Senate testimony. So I think
you're a little confused about who's anti-veteran here.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.