News The Grand Deception: 'Kerry, War Hero,' Is a Myth

[kat]

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031778019405&path=%21editorials%21commentary&s=1045855934999

Just a few "Snippets", you should read the whole thing before commenting on it.

The widely repeated myth of "John Kerry, the Vietnam Navy Hero" is one of the most dishonorable and dangerous deceptions ever perpetrated upon the American public. John Kerry is not a hero. He built this facade with unabashed personal promotion, aided and abetted by a supportive liberal media ready and willing to repeat in print his gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, and outright lies about his abbreviated four-month, 12-day tour of duty in Vietnam. Until the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth spoke up in press conferences, television ads, and with the now best-selling book, Unfit for Command, no one - not even the conservative media - seriously or effectively challenged the veracity of John Kerry's self-aggrandizement. Only now is his war-hero facade beginning to peel away.

Stooped to Achieve Goal
In hindsight, his obvious objective was to emulate his idol, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, serve as short a time as possible, and escape Vietnam unscathed but with sufficient credentials and decorations to portray himself in heroic terms. To achieve his goal, Kerry stooped to scamming an after-combat reporting system that was based on trust, promoting himself for a handful of medals regardless of their dubious merits, so he could "bug out" of the war zone early.

Kerry's First Purple Heart
Another troubling sequence involves Kerry's first Purple Heart. Exactly two weeks after arrival in Vietnam, Kerry was involved in a scenario in which he was "wounded" by a small fragment, about the size of a rose thorn - a self-inflicted wound resulting from the careless use of his own M-79 grenade launcher. According to the testimony of the attending physician, Dr. Louis Letson, the fragment barely penetrated the skin of his right arm and was easily removed with tweezers and dressed with a Band-Aid. Despite the minor nature of the injury, Kerry still requested a Purple Heart from Division Commander Grant Hibbard. Commander Hibbard denied, noting that there was no hostile fire involved in the incident, no casualty report, and no after-action report - all requisites for a Purple Heart medal.

Claims of Making Rescue
Based on the after-action report filed by Lt. (jg.) Kerry, he was awarded a Purple Heart for wounds resulting from a mine explosion and a Bronze Star with a "V" for rescuing Lt. Rassmann, U.S. Army, who fell overboard when Kerry's PCF-94 abruptly fled the scene of action.

Contrary to the false after-action report citing automatic weapons and rifle fire from both banks for 3.1 miles, there were six on-scene witnesses who have stated that there was no enemy fire from either bank. Kerry did return to the scene and pick up Rassmann after it was evident that there was no hostile fire. There was nothing heroic about rescuing Rassmann, who was about to be picked up by another PCF. Had the truth been known, Kerry would have been disqualified from being awarded the Bronze Star.

Meeting With Madame Binh
Kerry's meeting with Madame Binh representing the Viet Cong and with other members of the Vietnamese Communist delegations to the Paris Peace Conference in 1970, while he was yet a Naval Reserve officer, constitute meeting with the enemy during time of war. His subsequent press conference in July, 1971, urging President Nixon to accept Madame Binh's proposal for the return of our POWs , was a major propaganda victory for the Communist regime. His illegal and traitorous activities with the VVAW and the ilk of Jane Fonda unquestionably had a seriously demoralizing impact on our POWs and probably extended their imprisonment by at least two years

 

[graphic7]

I read yesterday that a Navy board ruled that Kerry legitimately received his medals.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/kerry.medals.ap/index.html

For some reason, this seems more credible. Maybe it's the CNN in it that strikes me.

This might not prove Kerry is a war hero, and I agree. But the whole "Kerry's family knew JFK - that's how he got his medals," is a bunch of crap now.

 

[kat]

I read yesterday that a Navy board ruled that Kerry legitimately received his medals.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/kerry.medals.ap/index.html

For some reason, this seems more credible. Maybe it's the CNN in it that strikes me.

This might not prove Kerry is a war hero, and I agree. But the whole "Kerry's family knew JFK - that's how he got his medals," is a bunch of crap now.

Well yes, this is how mistruths get spread..by equating a statement in the article of "approval process was properly followed," to equalling "legitimately recieved"
Other then that you're going to have to dig out the quote from the article that says "Kerry's family knew JFK - that's how he got his medals,"
So, thanks for your non-response which basicly only amounts to more mis-direction (lies?).

 

[graphic7]

I find it amusing how the republicans were overly anal when the Bush war record documents surfaced, even to the fact of discrediting CBS (now you're saying CNN and the naval official aren't credible). What's more amusing is the republicans are pulling the exact same act on Kerry.

As far as I know, an approval process observes serveral things. One of those (I would hope) would be making sure that Kerry deserved the medals.

 

[wasteofo2]

God, people are still on this nonsense?

As far as I know, not even these Swiftboat Liars have raised questions about Kerry's 2 other Purple Hearts and Silver Star, but that's not important, there are 2 undisputed Purple Hearts and a Sliver Star, and the guy's suddenly a kitty who didn't do crap in Vietnam.

Thurlow, the guy who said Kerry wasn't under fire when he rescued Rassman, got a freakin' Bronze star rewarded for brave actions which "took place under constant enemy small arms fire." during the SAME INCIDENT!

The after-action report from that incident also showed 3 bullet holes in one of the boats Kerry was with, where did those come from? Did Kerry just shoot the holes himself to make it look like he really was being heroic?

Just go to www.factcheck.org, it was all debunked a good month or so ago.

 

[kat]

I find it amusing how the republicans were overly anal when the Bush war record documents surfaced, even to the fact of discrediting CBS

I don't find discrediting forged documents to be "anal". I do however, find calling it anal to be just a bit... disingenious.

(now you're saying CNN and the naval official aren't credible). What's more amusing is the republicans are pulling the exact same act on Kerry.

Lol, I have no problem saying that CNN lacks credibility. What amazes me is that you have a problem with questioning it's credibility! Of course you're going to have to quote me where I've said that the Naval Official is not credible. Perhaps you can do that while actually replying to my last post instead of avoiding it!

As far as I know, an approval process observes serveral things. One of those (I would hope) would be making sure that Kerry deserved the medals.

Well, good...why don't you back that up with facts...links...official statements.

 

[plover]

I fail to understand why kat, who rejects on principle references to the New York Times as unacceptably biased, expects anyone to take an opinion column which backs itself up with a book from Regnery Publishing as evidence of anything.

 

[Smurf]

CNN may be biased bull****. But it doesn't lie.

 

[kat]

God, people are still on this nonsense?

As far as I know, not even these Swiftboat Liars have raised questions about Kerry's 2 other Purple Hearts and Silver Star, but that's not important, there are 2 undisputed Purple Hearts and a Sliver Star, and the guy's suddenly a kitty who didn't do crap in Vietnam.

Well, actually there are problems with the other medals but let's hash out the first one before we go off into a tangent on his other medals.

Thurlow, the guy who said Kerry wasn't under fire when he rescued Rassman, got a freakin' Bronze star rewarded for brave actions which "took place under constant enemy small arms fire." during the SAME INCIDENT!

None of the claims of the SBVFT have been proven false. Here's the statement from Swift Boat Member For Truth Larry Thurlow I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star was language taken directly from John Kerry's report which falsely described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river.

To this day, I can say without a doubt in my mind, along with other accounts from my shipmates -- there was no hostile enemy fire directed at my boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day.

I submitted no paperwork for a medal nor did I file an after action report describing the incident. To my knowledge, John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incidents that occurred on the river that day.

It was not until I had left the Navy -- approximately three months after I left the service -- that I was notified that I was to receive a citation for my actions on that day. On Kerry's side there have been conflicting accounts of this story, including a direct contradiction to Kerry's "no man left behind speach" at the convention and Rassmans account in the Oregonian newspaper.

The after-action report from that incident also showed 3 bullet holes in one of the boats Kerry was with, where did those come from? Did Kerry just shoot the holes himself to make it look like he really was being heroic?

I think you're confusing (as some of the media did) two different incidents. I think the relevant information can be found in the COMNAVFORV files but why don't you link the after action report or at least quote it so that we can see what you're talking about for certain.

Just go to www.factcheck.org, it was all debunked a good month or so ago.

It was never "debunked" and what factcheck basicly used to refute them are quotes from Kerry's supporters and his biographer. I'll be glad to argue anything you offer on a point by point bases...as in one item at a time so as not to end up with a jumbled and confusing mess.

 

[kat]

I fail to understand why kat, who rejects on principle references to the New York Times as unacceptably biased, expects anyone to take an opinion column which backs itself up with a book from Regnery Publishing as evidence of anything.

Don't ...Do not..derail my thread. I did not offer the Opinion Column of Rear Admiral, the "overall commander of U.S. Swift Boats during the period of Kerry's Vietnam coastal service" as evidence of anything. I offered his opinion as a starting point for a thread open for discussion on the subject matter in his column.
If you have something pertinant to HIS column, please feel free to comment. Otherwise start YOUR OWN thread!

 

[wasteofo2]

God, this had all been so thuroughly debunked so long ago, I thought no one would even think of bringing it up again and deleted all this stuff from my mind. If I have time I'll try to dig up the reality of the events, but do you really want to keep going over crap that happened such a long time ago? Couldn't you at least attack something about Kerry that will actually matter, like his proposed economic policies or something? I'd much rather argue about the present and the future than the past.

 

[Integral]

I am speaking as a Vietnam era veteran.

There were 2 kinds of Heroes it that era. Hero Type 1 was the men who enlisted or were drafted into the military. These men unflinchingly did the job they were asked to do. It was not their fault the war was lost. Kerry is a type 1 hero. According to the current theme you need not distinguish yourself in battle to be a hero, it is only necessary to serve. Kerry did that, why do we even need to mention medals?

Type 2 Hero was the long hairs and college students that took to the streets and protested until this ill conceived war was stopped. In some ways Type 2 Heroes were the true American Patriots engaging in the American tradition of civil disobedience and suffering the consequences.

Kerry also qualifies as a Type 2 hero.

Therefore Kerry is a Vietnam era Hero²

Where was our ignoramus president during this era? Skipping out on his minimal stateside duties and rallying around a bottle to hide from the issues of the day. Ain't he grand!

 

[wasteofo2]

Type 2 Hero was the long hairs and college students that took to the streets and protested until this ill conceived war was stopped. In some ways Type 2 Heroes were the true American Patriots engaging in the American tradition of civil disobedience and suffering the consequences.

Kerry also qualifies as a Type 2 hero.

Therefore Kerry is a Vietnam era Hero²

B...b...but... How could they be heros? They had long hair, and listened to The Greatful Dead, and they said that the govt. was doing something bad and they fought against the war and.. and... hippies...jane fonda... hairy freaks... oh god, you're making my brain hurt.

Why do you hate America?

 

[kat]

God, this had all been so thuroughly debunked so long ago, I thought no one would even think of bringing it up again and deleted all this stuff from my mind. If I have time I'll try to dig up the reality of the events, but do you really want to keep going over crap that happened such a long time ago? Couldn't you at least attack something about Kerry that will actually matter, like his proposed economic policies or something? I'd much rather argue about the present and the future than the past.

Oh no, it's never been "thuroughly debunked". It's been pushed aside with comments that never address the facts, just as you're doing here. SO, yeah I very much would like to discuss this subject. I have a bit of a passion for it, particularly since my father served in the same place during the same period of time...right up the river at danang...

 

[wasteofo2]

Oh no, it's never been "thuroughly debunked". It's been pushed aside with comments that never address the facts, just as you're doing here. SO, yeah I very much would like to discuss this subject. I have a bit of a passion for it, particularly since my father served in the same place during the same period of time...right up the river at danang...

Whateva tickles yo' fancy hon. I'll get on that if I've got some free time.

 

[kat]

Type 2 Hero was the long hairs and college students that took to the streets and protested until this ill conceived war was stopped. In some ways Type 2 Heroes were the true American Patriots engaging in the American tradition of civil disobedience and suffering the consequences.

Kerry also qualifies as a Type 2 hero.

Therefore Kerry is a Vietnam era Hero²

Quite frankly, where Kerry is concerned I think this is a load of crap. I think he used your "type 2 hero's" as well as manipulated the system and denigrated your type 1 hero's in doing so. BUT please dont' derail my thread. I'd be glad to talk about Kerry's actions upon arriving stateside on a different thread. This thread isn't about BUSH, so don't go there in this thread. THANK YOU.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The Navy just responded to the FOI request for Kerry's medal documents. Did he deserve them? The papers reveal that he DID! And all that swift boat stuff, with the vets carefully coached in what to say, and all of them with a personal interest in bringing down the Democrat's candidate, has turned out to be flushable stuff.

 

[kat]

The Navy just responded to the FOI request for Kerry's medal documents. Did he deserve them? The papers reveal that he DID! And all that swift boat stuff, with the vets carefully coached in what to say, and all of them with a personal interest in bringing down the Democrat's candidate, has turned out to be flushable stuff.

Mmmm, why don't you give some supporting evidence..links...quotes..jest a li'l sumthin sumthing to support yourself and allow some debate.

 

[graphic7]

I fail to see why we have to support ourselves with quotes and further documenation. The Navy had a hearing, and they ruled that Kerry went through the correct approval process. That's all there is to it.

 

[ray b]

B...b...but... How could they be heros? They had long hair, and listened to The Greatful Dead, and they said that the govt. was doing something bad and they fought against the war and.. and... hippies...jane fonda... hairy freaks... oh god, you're making my brain hurt.

Why do you hate America?

only those who really love america
are willing to fight for the values that the founding fathers loved
freedom is not blindly following the "LEADER"
justice is not whatever the "LEADER" says it is
the one who do blindly follow leaders are the ones who
hate the real freedoms america stands for
it is not my country right or wrong
it is not love it or leave it
it is the heros who fight the powers that lead us astray

btw the Greatful Dead and the deadheads are closer to being true americans
in the spirit of the founding fathers
then the NEO-CONed ditto-heads ever will be
rush and the ditto heads hate the freedoms that america stands for


kat tipical neo-con try at censorship as it is all about BuSh2 vs Kerry
and what they did during and after the war
bush2 hid and then went AWOL
Kerry did go and cameback and fought againts an evil war

 

[kat]

I fail to see why we have to support ourselves with quotes and further documenation. The Navy had a hearing, and they ruled that Kerry went through the correct approval process. That's all there is to it.

1. Do you or do you not understand the difference between process and content?
2. The Navy concluded that the NAVY (not Kerry) followed proper procedure.
3. The Navy is NOT discussing the circumstances surrounding the events involving Kerry that allowed him to attain the awards.
4. They are in particular not discussing the silver star with the non-existantCombat V.
5. They are in particular not discussing the the authenticity of the signature of former Navy Secretary John Lehman as it appears on Kerry's Silver Star citation. Lehman says he never signed the document and also questioned its language.

Need I continue?

 

[graphic7]

How does Kerry have to follow proper procedures to receive medals? He was nominated, the board follows procedures, he sits back and waits to hear from them. As far as I recall, the Navy doesn't have to investiage Kerry, himself - whoever decided whether he was to get a medal or not did that. They investigated the board, of whom followed procedures that were investigated in this recent investigation.

What you're doing is finding each detail of this nonsense that makes Kerry look bad.
If Kerry didn't wipe his ass this morning, you'd start a thread about that and criticize. This whole argument is so trivial.

So what if they're not investigating each of the medals he was awarded? If he won a single medal (legitimately), would it be just as suspicious if he won 20 more? You're also finding gaps in terminology from me and CNN's article, which is even more annoying.

Get over it.

 

[kat]

kat tipical neo-con try at censorship as it is all about BuSh2 vs Kerry
and what they did during and after the war
bush2 hid and then went AWOL
Kerry did go and cameback and fought againts an evil war

Yeah right Ray, talk about Bush on your own thread then. I know how it works with your type ..you use Bush to avoid discussing Kerry. I think it's fair to discuss Kerry on his own merits. Period.
Do you have anything on topic to say about Kerry?

 

[Smurf]

Yeah, he's the lesser of two evils.

 

[kat]

How does Kerry have to follow proper procedures to receive medals?

erm...you're the one who said this, not me...I was correcting you. .

What you're doing is find each detail of this nonsense that makes Kerry look bad. So what if they're not investigating each of the medals he was awarded? If he won a single medal (legitimately), would it be just as suspicious if he won 20 more? You're also finding gaps in terminology from me and CNN's article, which is even more annoying.

Get over it.

yeah right. Can you show me one instance of a legitimate Silver Star with a combat V?
Put up or shut-up.

 

[kat]

Evasion Evasion Evasion...why oh why am I not surprised.

 

[graphic7]

You clearly said: "The Navy concluded that the NAVY (not Kerry) followed proper procedure." Tell me what that one means? You're implying that they should've investigated whether or not the procedures that Kerry followed were proper to receive his medals (which no such procedures exist that I'm aware of).

You're avoiding my other argument. If Kerry legitimately receives one medal (which he was) that says a lot about the credibility of the others.

 

[kat]

You clearly said: "The Navy concluded that the NAVY (not Kerry) followed proper procedure." Tell me what that one means? You're implying that they should've investigated whether or not the procedures that Kerry followed were proper to receive his medals (which no such procedures exist that I'm aware of).

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be confusing. I was responding to your statement "Kerry went through the correct approval process. in that there was no investigation into Kerry's actions only the Navy's procedure and process. However, the statement that "awards were properly approved" is interesting as it seems to imply that the documentation for the awards was also correct. The reason this would be important (in regards to the first Purple Heart award) is the missing after action report. Does this suggest that an after action report exists that justifies the award? If so...Kerry should release it, it would answer a lot of questions .

You're avoiding my other argument. If Kerry legitimately receives one medal (which he was) that says a lot about the credibility of the others.

If Kerry receives one medal fraudulently...that says a lot about the credibility of the others. Now about that Silver Star with the Combat V...

 

[Mercator]

Amusing. I guess Kerry was also deliberately missing the VC targets when he shot, to save his communist brothers. Brave Bush on the other hand was continuously encouraging the marines to kill the bl**** bas*****. This discussion is a typical example of "If you can't defend the major issue, then find a detail, however small and try to mak it the main issue". I am not a supporter of Kerry, but that is not because of a detail of his distant past in Vietnam. I'm not a supporter of Bush either, but not because he was a coward to avoid the draft. The lesser evil rule certainly applies. For leftists the choice is clear: Bush; because he refused to kill the communist brothers with his own hands, while Kerry did kill them and later tried to hide that fact by teaming up with Jane Fonda. Luckily I am not a leftist.

 

[Integral]

Quite frankly, where Kerry is concerned I think this is a load of crap. I think he used your "type 2 hero's" as well as manipulated the system and denigrated your type 1 hero's in doing so. BUT please dont' derail my thread. I'd be glad to talk about Kerry's actions upon arriving stateside on a different thread. This thread isn't about BUSH, so don't go there in this thread. THANK YOU.

What kind of double standard are you pushing? All that is required is to serve. Isn't that the standard that is applied to the current men in the service? Why is it different for the Vietnam vet?

Kerry is a Vietnam era vet therefore he is a hero. The fact that he has medals is frosting. You can cast aspersions all you want, but the basic facts cannot be changed.

 

[kat]

What kind of double standard are you pushing? All that is required is to serve. Isn't that the standard that is applied to the current men in the service? Why is it different for the Vietnam vet?

All that is required is to serve? I don't think that is accurate but it is irrelevent. The fact is that the term "lying swift boat vets" has been tossed around quite a bit on this forum. Yet, here we are heading into a third page and nobody has supported the "lying swift boat vets" statements. They either need to support their "swift boat vets are liars" accusations or they need to stop making the claim.

 

[russ_watters]

What kind of double standard are you pushing? All that is required is to serve. Isn't that the standard that is applied to the current men in the service? Why is it different for the Vietnam vet?

Kerry is a Vietnam era vet therefore he is a hero. The fact that he has medals is frosting. You can cast aspersions all you want, but the basic facts cannot be changed.

My own personal opinion is:

His service: good.
His medals: mixed, but I don't care all that much.
His conduct after the war: dishonorable.

Its not the protesting against the war that I don't like, its the way he did it.

 

[ray b]

My own personal opinion is:

His service: good.
His medals: mixed, but I don't care all that much.
His conduct after the war: dishonorable.

Its not the protesting against the war that I don't like, its the way he did it.

kerry reported to THE United States Congress
{when asked by them}
what HIS'S group [the winter solders] said to HIM
AND ONLY WHAT HIS GROUP SAID
he didnot report on the actions of others EXCEPT the LEADERSHIP
read the report and DONOT FALL FOR THE BIG LIES that
the NEO-CONs use to twist the truth
Kerry never said anything about vets not in his group
or the actions of non group members
WHAT IS DISHONORABLE about reporting to OUR CONGRESS
exactly what you were told to say by other vets

hero's speakout about injustice
cowards fear to speak

 

[Integral]

All that is required is to serve? I don't think that is accurate but it is irrelevent.

What happened to the "support our troops" idea? Isn't that what this is all about? Why is it that that same support can not be offered to Vietnam vets.

When I returned from a 10month deployment in 1972, there was no TV on the pier, there was no national coverage, no one cared. It is clear, by your attitude, that you consider Vietnam vets as 2nd class citizens who can do nothing right.

Why not turn you microscope on someone else? Afraid of what you might see? Supporter of Bush need to avoid any discussion of this era. Even if Kerry made mistakes at least he was involved, where was Georgie boy?

 

[kat]

What happened to the "support our troops" idea? Isn't that what this is all about? Why is it that that same support can not be offered to Vietnam vets.

When I returned from a 10month deployment in 1972, there was no TV on the pier, there was no national coverage, no one cared. It is clear, by your attitude, that you consider Vietnam vets as 2nd class citizens who can do nothing right.

Why not turn you microscope on someone else? Afraid of what you might see? Supporter of Bush need to avoid any discussion of this era. Even if Kerry made mistakes at least he was involved, where was Georgie boy?

I'm going to assume by your post that you also realize that you are not able to support the claim that the Swift Boats Vets are liars. If you have some notable information that can shed light on Kerry's conflicting reports/stories/medals feel free to contribute.

 

[Mercator]

Excuse me for asking, but, in the US, do you ever consider discussing the political agendas when comparing various candidates , or do you just concentrate on personal details?

 

[Integral]

I'm going to assume by your post that you also realize that you are not able to support the claim that the Swift Boats Vets are liars. If you have some notable information that can shed light on Kerry's conflicting reports/stories/medals feel free to contribute.

Where, and when, have I ever mentioned the swift boat vets?

My claim is that Kerry is a Vietnam era vet. End of story.

What else do we or should we need? He served his country in a time of need, recognized the war for what is was and came home.

I have never been influenced by, nor will I give any credence to, paid political commercials for either side. Notice that my point is not about what was presented in some commercial, but is about the content of public record. Do you dispute the fact that he is a Vietnam era vet? I do not understand the hullabaloo about one of his medals. He did not award them to himself, they were awarded by the Navy and the existing system. If you have issues with that perhaps you need to address the system that awards medals.

 

[plover]

Excuse me for asking, but, in the US, do you ever consider discussing the political agendas when comparing various candidates , or do you just concentrate on personal details?

We tried discussing political agendas, but unfortunately that sometimes led to competent people getting elected, so we decided it was best to stop...

 

[Mercator]

My claim is that Kerry is a Vietnam era vet. End of story.



I have never been influenced by, nor will I give any credence to, paid political commercials for either side. Notice that my point is not about what was presented in some commercial, but is about the content of public record. Do you dispute the fact that he is a Vietnam era vet? I do not understand the hullabaloo about one of his medals. He did not award them to himself, they were awarded by the Navy and the existing system. If you have issues with that perhaps you need to address the system that awards medals.

Amen. Wish more people would avoid the UDT (Unimportant Detail Trap)

 

[JohnDubYa]

Amen. Wish more people would avoid the UDT (Unimportant Detail Trap)

Absolutley. So let's talk about Kerry's political career, especially his voting record in the Senate.

Oh, wait.

 

[Mercator]

Absolutley. So let's talk about Kerry's political career, especially his voting record in the Senate.

Oh, wait.

Why not? I think that is relevant. But Geniere had the flip flop topic already, no? Anyway I would like to be educated on the real political issues in the US.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Why not? I think that is relevant

Obviously, Kerry thinks so, too, which is why he doesn't want to talk about it.

 

[megashawn]

I gave you a link once before Kat. And to think I have sent people to this forum, referencing things you've posted.

But this is sad. I've given you a link, in a different thread about this same, exact subject. I will now copy and paste portions of this link, since it seems your clicking finger has a rather selective ability.

from http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

Note that the title of this page is "John Kerry's Vietnam War service medals were earned under "fishy" circumstances" and is deemed FALSE.

Snopes is, and has always been, about finding the truth.

And according to Douglas Brinkley's history of John Kerry and the Vietnam War:
As generally understood, the Purple Heart is given to any U.S. citizen wounded in wartime service to the nation. Giving out Purple Hearts increased as the United States started sending Swifts up rivers. Sailors — no longer safe on aircraft carriers or battleships in the Gulf of Tonkin — were starting to bleed, a lot.

Purple hearts were given out for injuries. It doesn't say "serious injuries", nor does it say life threatening.

We opened fire," he went on. "The light from the flares started to fade, the air was full of explosions. My M-16 jammed, and as I bent down in the boat to grab another gun, a stinging piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell. By this time one of the sailors had started the engine and we ran by the beach, strafing it. Then it was quiet.

The "stinging piece of heat" Kerry felt in his arm had been caused by a piece of shrapnel, a wound for which he was awarded a Purple Heart. The injury was not serious — Brinkley notes that Kerry went on a regular Swift boat patrol the next day with a bandage on his arm, and the Boston Globe quoted William Schachte, who oversaw the mission and went on to become a rear admiral, as recalling that "It was not a very serious wound at all."

Kerrys comments about his first injury, and more of Brinkley's comments in the second paragraph.

So Kerry shot and killed the guerrilla. "I don't have a second's question about that, nor does anybody who was with me," he said. "He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." Asked whether that meant Kerry shot the guerrilla in the back, Kerry said, "No, absolutely not. He was hurt, other guys were shooting from back, side, back. There is no, there is not a scintilla of question in any person's mind who was there [that] this guy was dangerous, he was a combatant, he had an armed weapon."

about another of his missions, which repugnicans claim he shot a innocent person in the back.
_______

About the swift vets, here is a good portion of their comments

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

also from that article.

Although the men quoted above are often identified as "John Kerry's shipmates," only one of them, Steven Gardner, actually served under Lt. Kerry's command on a Swift boat. The other men who served under Kerry's command continue to speak positively of him

So of all these people in the Swift Boat group, only steven gardner served with him.

Also, if you look through these opinions, the majority of them only speak about the way Kerry made them look bad in his report to Senate and his protest of the war. They do not mention his medals, and Steven, the only guy who served, and the only negative comment he really makes is about Kerry's moving of the boat.


So just what are the Swift Boat Liars saying? None of them but Steve served with Kerry. None accuse him of his medals being acquired under fishy circumstances. All they really do is offer up their opinion about why they don't like kerry because he told america how bad things were over their.

I don't need kerry, or anyone else, to tell me how atrocious war is. That is what war is, death, torture, loss of family. I know plenty of SICK individuals, whom join the army infantry, and would probably have been arrested for murder by now were it not for that.

__

But the really sad issue here, is that you make such a big stink about Kerry's war record. Look, its this simple. He served, he was injured, he was awarded justly for these injuries, and as the rule went, after 3 injuries was restationed, and then honorably discharged.

And not to make this about bush, but just what exactly did he do?

So before you respond with another of your "Do you have proof, links?" How about click on the links you've been given. This is not new information, and the fact that you have been exposed to it and still overlook it is pathetic.

How about focus on some issues, not asking an irrellevant question that is the same answer regardless if you are right (Which you are not) or wrong. He served our country, honorably, and exposed the atrocities that were taking place. Is their really a question such atrocities took place? I've sure seen them depicted in several movies, heard stories that match what Kerry reported by people I personally know who served in Veitnam. Regardless of how he got his medals, he was a hero.

My questions for you Kat.

1) If Kerry had never received a single medal for his service and injuries, what would you have to pick on?
2) Do you honestly believe the atrocities Kerry (along with countless others) claims took place in veitnam did not happen? This is all that the Swift boat liars are saying, that Kerry went home and started talking trash about how bad they were.
3) I for one personally consider anyone who puts themselves in, or near, the line of a fire, a hero. Atleast brave. Without question, regardless of what you believe about Kerry, he was much closer to potential death and injury then your beloved Bush. How can you be so hard on Kerry, basing all your arguements on Debunked lies about kerry, when Bush hardly broke a sweat serving our country? If that.

 

[Hurkyl]

1) If Kerry had never received a single medal for his service and injuries, what would you have to pick on?

I imagine exactly the same thing as if Kerry hadn't made his service a central part of his campaign.

 

[JohnDubYa]

What Hurkly said. Kerry chose to go on and on about his war record, so his war record has become a central point of the debate. He only has himself to blame.

 

[plover]

I imagine exactly the same thing as if Kerry hadn't made his service a central part of his campaign.

This is a bit confusing. Are you saying that unfounded attacks on Kerry's service record are only to be expected given that Kerry himself raised the issue of his service, or just that there is enough to criticize Kerry on without these attacks? The motive behind this comment is obscure – though perhaps only because I'm unsure of your overall take on Kerry.

 

[Hurkyl]

I am saying that questioning Kerry's record is more than fair game, since he raised it himself; I think it was rather disingenious of Megashawn to criticize Kat for doing so.

I don't have a real opinion either way, though I think those defending Kerry have put forth arguments of lesser quality. (Though not necessarily less factual value)

 

[plover]

I am saying that questioning Kerry's record is more than fair game, since he raised it himself; I think it was rather disingenious of Megashawn to criticize Kat for doing so.

There seem to be two distinct issues here. Most of megashawn's post is criticising kat for bringing up specific issues that seem (to him) refutable, and for which megashawn had provided evidence before. This is separate from whether it is legitimate to raise questions about Kerry's record.

To say that the angle through which Kerry's record has been attacked is discredited, and thus allowing debate to continue in that vein accepts a partisan frame for the issue, is not the same thing as denying that Kerry's service record could be a legitimate issue.

So, whether or not one accepts megashawn's evidence, I have trouble seeing him as disingenuous.

Given that kat is willing to present evidence from sources far more partisan than those she rejects in others' arguments, I would think it easier to argue that kat is being disingenuous for continuing this line of debate.

 

[megashawn]

Thank you plover, very well put.

I by no means intend to criticize Kat personally. As I mentioned, I've reffered people to this site in the past, purely to read something of Kat's that had stuck with me at the time. She has corrected me on plenty of issues back in the old religion forum days, and I respect her.

But to see her stoop to the level of all these other right wingers, well, its just shocking. There is mounds of evidence against the Swift Boat Liars, and hence why so many people refer to them as such. I've linked to it several times in this politics forum, mentioned it and argued, as have others.

The problem, Kat presents an opinion article. The entire group of Swift Vets only presents opinions. The vast majority of them express there dislike for Kerry due to his testimony at the senate, and other anti-war protests. Only one person served with him, and, well, I'm not repeating this.

Frankly Hurkyl, if all you read from my post was me being mean to Kat, you need to reread my post, and instead of slinging big worded insults, trying proving or disproving its content.

 

[Hurkyl]

I only said what I had to say; my post was not intended to address Megashawn's post in its entirety.