Gunny
Gold Member
I wouldn't bat that particular ball if I were you.. It's liable to blow up in your face before you ever make contact...
Methinks I'll watch this one for awhile....
I was under the impression that comment was directed at MM, not me.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I wouldn't bat that particular ball if I were you.. It's liable to blow up in your face before you ever make contact...
Methinks I'll watch this one for awhile....
That had to suck.![]()
I was under the impression that comment was directed at MM, not me.
So for whatever their respective motives were, Kerry wanted to go and Bush did not. I can agree with that.
I am sure it did.... he couldn't sit on it for a month or so....
and you are right about vets at bars....when I say I am just a black shoe sailor and that I have never actually killed anyone with my bare hands, they all laugh.
Was it? I misread something, then.
In either case, I'll watch anyway, because eventually it's liable to snap back. You don't compare any sane person to Kerry and walk away unscathed..
Fill us in with some actual fact. I have heard of only one incident that is questionable. I'd like to see the evidence that supports the other two.
John Kerry's 'self-inflicted'
Purple Heart, Bronze Star
Vietnam Swift Boat vets reveal new details of charges against presidential candidate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 10, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – In a letter to television station managers they hope to convince to air their blistering 60-second commercial opposing John Kerry for president, the Swift Boat Vets for Truth reveal new details of their politically sizzling charges against the candidate who made his war experience the cornerstone of his convention acceptance speech.
Attempting to bolster their accusations that Kerry misrepresented slight injuries to win Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, the vets cite a March 13, 1969, incident for which the young lieutenant was decorated.
Two injuries – a small bruise on his right arm and a minor injury to his buttocks – won Kerry his Third Purple Heart and a trip home. However, the vets say, the wound to his buttocks was self-inflicted and should never have received Purple Heart consideration.
While Kerry claims the injury came from shrapnel from an underwater mine, Larry Thurlow, an officer on shore with Kerry that day, insists the wound was the result of Kerry's decision to throw a concussion grenade into a rice pile. The "shrapnel," he says, was actually rice pellets.
As further evidence, the vets say, Kerry himself reflected in his own journal that his buttocks' wound came, not from a mine but, rather, from a grenade tossed into a rice cache.
Sworn statements of those present say there was no hostile fire involved in this incident for which Kerry received his third Purple Heart and the coveted Bronze Star.
"The conclusion is inescapable: that Kerry lied by reporting to the Navy that he had been wounded by shrapnel in his backside from an enemy mine when in reality he negligently wounded himself and then lied about the wound in order to secure a third Purple Heart and a quick trip home," reads the letter.
The letter continues: "Kerry's operating report, Bronze Star story, and subsequent 'no man left behind' story are a total hoax on the Navy and the nation," they say.
As to the daring rescue discussed in the documentary video shown to the nation at the Democratic convention, the vets say the rescue was well underway under the leadership of others when Kerry returned to the scene where Special Forces soldier Jim Rassman was plucked out of the water. Eyewitnesses have signed affidavits explaining when Kerry returned, there was no more hostile fire. He just merely leaned over the boat and assisted Rassman out of the water.
"Kerry's account of this action, which was used to secure the Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart, is an extraordinary example of fraud," they say.
The letter also recounts the incident that occurred Dec. 2, 1968, that led to Kerry receiving his first Purple Heart.
Once again, the vets insist there was no hostile fire involved, and, again, they say, Kerry's very minor wound was self-inflicted.
According to the vets' account, Kerry, Navy Lt. William Schachte, and an enlisted man were on a whaler.
"Seeing movement from an unknown source, the sailors opened fire on the movement," the letter says. "There was no hostile fire. When Kerry's rifle jammed, he picked up an M-79 grenade launcher and fired a grenade at a nearby object. This sprayed the boat with shrapnel from Kerry's own grenade, a tiny piece of which embedded in Kerry's arm."
Upon examining Kerry's injury, Dr. Lewis Letson says he asked Kerry why he was there.
Kerry reportedly told him he had been wounded by hostile fire. Letson removed the tiny fragment with tweezers and placed a Band-Aid over the scratch.
The next morning, Kerry went to see Division Commander Grant Hibbard to ask for the Purple Heart. Hibbard had already spoken to Schachte and conducted an investigation. Hibbard's investigation revealed that Kerry's "rose thorn" scratch had been self-inflicted in the absence of hostile fire. Hibbard denied the award.
Some three months later, Kerry managed to obtain his first Purple Heart from an officer with no connection to Coastal Division 14 or knowledge of the Dec. 2, 1968, event, they say.
"All normal documentation supporting a Purple Heart is missing," the letter says. "There is absolutely no casualty report (i.e., spot report) or hostile fire report or after-action report in the Navy's files to support this 'Purple Heart' because there was no casualty, hostile fire, or action on which to report. The sole document relied upon by Kerry is a record showing the band aid and tweezers treatment by Dr. Letson recorded by deceased corpsman, Jess Carreon.
"There are no witnesses who claim to have seen hostile fire – necessary for a Purple Heart (even a rose thorn Purple Heart) – that day. At least three witnesses, Dr. Letson (who spoke to the participants and removed the M-79 fragment), Lt. Bill Schachte (on the boat), and Cmdr. Grant Hibbard (whose investigation revealed Kerry's application for a Purple Heart to be fraudulent), are able to testify directly or based upon contemporaneous investigation that Kerry's first Purple Heart was a fraud," says the letter.
Swift Boat Vets for Truth claims a membership of 254 sailors from Coastal Squadron One, ranging from vice admirals to seamen. They claim 16 of the 23 surviving officers who served with Kerry in swift boats in Vietnam and who could be found have joined.
Related offer:
"Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related stories:
Anti-Kerry cover altered on Barnes & Noble
Vets say Kerry made up Cambodia story
Vet denies retraction of Kerry war criticism
Book: Kerry took no enemy fire for medal
Dems press TV stations to shun vets' ad
White House avoids criticism of Vets' ad
Vets: Kerry lied to get Silver Star
Kerry's Viet comrades call him a liar in TV ad
Kerry's wounds self-inflicted?
Kerry flip-flop on war footage
Controversy over Kerry's re-enacted war scenes
Anti-Kerry vets to sue candidate?
Kerry honored at communist museum
'Kerry lied while good men died'
Vets to Kerry: Stop using photos
Vet: Officers told Kerry to leave Vietnam
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39889
Here's the problem with this. These are former Sailors Kerry maligned to the US Congress and the US public in general. In other words, they have an axe to grind.
I'm not saying the Swifties aren't telling the truth. What I am saying is, as is, you have presented hearsay from biased sources with no factual evidence to support it.
When I say factual evidence, I mean after-action reports, unit logs, awards recommendations and/or citations.
Base on what I am reading here ... http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/navawards/blpurpleheart.htm ... I do not see why Kerry would not technically rate the rice cache PH.
I'm not sure about the grneade launcher because a dtermination would have to be made as to whether believing you are engaging an enemy force is the same as actually engaging an enemy force. To the man on the ground scared shitless and firing the weapon, there is no difference.
This has nothing to do with my opinion of anyone who wants to cheapen the PH by collecting on superficial wounds, but the technicality of the law allows it, so you can't call it illegal.
I have also read an account from the man Kerry scooped out fo the water that contradicts the one told above. Again, biased hearsay with no factual evidence to support it.
Whether or not they were still activiely engaged with an enemy they had been engaged with is splitting hairs to me. Under those circumstances of only minutes separating actual contact and breakoff of engagement, I'm going to be locked and cocked and amped as Hell, and NOBODY better move too fast.
I am more than willing to question Kerry, his motives and his actions. I don't like the man. I don't like what he represents.
However, it is neither fair nor objective to accuse him of anything that cannot be supported by actual fact and/or evidence, IMO.
With all the lies and distortions in what Kerry has said about his war record - I find it hard to take anything he says seriously
Also, with his sliming and insulting remarks about the US militray - it is just more reason not to believe him unless there is hard evidence to back up his claims
Insofar as his decorations are concerned, the evidence DOES support his claims, and there has been no evidence produced to refute them.
My point here is that Kerry has done enough questionable crap that hurts his credibility that there is no need to heap coonjecture on top. Once you start down that road, it then makes everything YOU say less credible thus requiring evidence to back up each and every thing. If, on the other hand, your accusations are unimpeachable, your credibility cannot be questioned.
bingo....Kerry was definitely not my favorite candidate, but attacking HIS record and Jack Murtha's record on one hand while complaining that democrats are sliming our troops is pretty silly.
and we know for a fact that two of the more prominent Swifties are liars. Jim Thurlow and George Elliott can be proven quite easily as liars....and their stories are top of the list.... you would think that the authors would have led with their top stuff, not easily provable slander.
bingo....Kerry was definitely not my favorite candidate, but attacking HIS record and Jack Murtha's record on one hand while complaining that democrats are sliming our troops is pretty silly.
I think going after Kerry's record was legitimate because he tried to run for office with that very record as the basis for his qualification to be President. Like I said, I do not however agree with just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.
I don't recall Murtha's military service being attacked. I DO recall many of us going to great lengths to point out the difference between attacking his military service and attacking him as a screwball politician.
I DO find it odd that a Marine LtCol could be so out-of-touch with the military, and so willing to accuse it of illegal activities. That just about IS sliming the troops,
It has been and still remains my opinion that one cannot be against what the troops are doing AND support them. When you break it down into simple English, you are telling that young Marine, Soldier, Sailor or AIrman that you believe what they are doing is wrong. That can be nothing but detrimental to the psyche of someone carrying a lethal weapon and authorized to use deadly force.
IMO, one who is against the war but believes in supporting the troops, is voicing his opinion to his elected representative, who are the ones that can actualy change policy anyway, but isn't ranting to every sensationalist media outlet, trying the war in the media, or participating in protests such as the one held yesterday.
I believe that Jack Murtha had inside dope from active duty marines on Haditha that told him those guys were gonna get charged with murder... I can well imagine that a career marine officer now a hawkish congressman would have plenty of sources at 8th and I. I cannot imagine that he would have accused them of cold blooded murder if he were not pretty damned sure that a court of inquiry would come to the same conclusion.
And how do elected representatives really understand the intensity of their constituent's beliefs without the media to inform them? Certainly they closely monitor and tabulate calls and letters from constituents, but their staffs also closely monitor letters to the editor and editorials in their home states/districts as well as media reports from there describing demonstrations and other noteworthy events in support or in opposition to policies.
I think that electd officials ARE getting their understanding of their constituents' beliefs from the media; which, IMO, they may as well get from a Curious George book out of the library.