 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
War Dog
Captain
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 517
Location: Below Birmingham Alabama
|
 Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 2:49 am Post subject: |
 |
|
eecee, you forgot the bottom part:
| Quote: | (a) In case such as an individual injured while making a parachute landing from an aircraft that had been brought down enemy fire; or, an individual injured as a result of a vehicle accident caused by enemy fire, the decision will be made in favor of the individual and the award will be made.
(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.
(c) Individuals injured as a result of their own negligence; for example, driving or walking through an unauthorized area known to have been mined or placed off limits or searching for or picking up unexploded munitions as war souvenirs, will not be awarded the Purple Heart as they clearly were not injured as a result of enemy action, but rather by their own negligence. |
I think that firing a M79 40mm grenade launcher at rocks close aboard to your own boat, and having the shrapnel from the explosion come back and hit you doesn't count!
The documentation for this 1st Purple Heart is missing from the documentation that LTJG/Senator John F. Kerry posted on his website. Let's have him release all of his records to the public, then we all can judge for ourselves if he did or didn't warrant the awarding of this purple heart.
Since Kerry's own Commanding Officer, members of the Headquarters Command and members of Kerry's own boat crew said that there was no enemy fire, combat against the enemy, or enemy action that day, this question will remain open for debate. The only one so far that is claiming that there was enemy action, enemy fire, combat against the enemy that day was John F. Kerry himself!
Open the records, that is only fair, and not too much to ask. If that report on this 1st purple heart cannot be released or found, then this will remain an issue among all Vietnam Veterans.
War Woof!
_________________
"When people are in trouble, they call the cops.
When cops need help, they call the K-9 unit." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
eecee
Ensign
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 52
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| War Dog wrote: | eecee, you forgot the bottom part:
| Quote: | (a) In case such as an individual injured while making a parachute landing from an aircraft that had been brought down enemy fire; or, an individual injured as a result of a vehicle accident caused by enemy fire, the decision will be made in favor of the individual and the award will be made.
(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.
(c) Individuals injured as a result of their own negligence; for example, driving or walking through an unauthorized area known to have been mined or placed off limits or searching for or picking up unexploded munitions as war souvenirs, will not be awarded the Purple Heart as they clearly were not injured as a result of enemy action, but rather by their own negligence. |
I think that firing a M79 40mm grenade launcher at rocks close aboard to your own boat, and having the shrapnel from the explosion come back and hit you doesn't count!
The documentation for this 1st Purple Heart is missing from the documentation that LTJG/Senator John F. Kerry posted on his website. Let's have him release all of his records to the public, then we all can judge for ourselves if he did or didn't warrant the awarding of this purple heart.
Since Kerry's own Commanding Officer, members of the Headquarters Command and members of Kerry's own boat crew said that there was no enemy fire, combat against the enemy, or enemy action that day, this question will remain open for debate. The only one so far that is claiming that there was enemy action, enemy fire, combat against the enemy that day was John F. Kerry himself!
Open the records, that is only fair, and not too much to ask. If that report on this 1st purple heart cannot be released or found, then this will remain an issue among all Vietnam Veterans.
War Woof! |
No, I didn't forget that part, but I take it you didn't see the part where the qualifying factor is whether it was an action involving the enemy or not.
I guess you didn't notice that none of the examples of disqualifying "negligence" involved contact with the enemy. Nor the earlier examples of self-inflicted wounds that still qualified.
I guess you also didn't notice, even though you posted it, the paragraph preceding the one you highlighted:
>>>(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. <<<
And no one disputes the wound occurred when firing on VC - the only discussion Hibbard reported was whether they returned fire. [Edit: Kerry's own crewmember says he "assumes they fired back."]
And by the way, anyone's guess as to the source of the shrapnel is exactly that - a guess. Kerry never even said he knew where it came from. He was using an M-16 at the time though, not a grenade launcher.
Finally, your claim is based solely on the recollection of a supposedly overheard conversation by a man who may or may not have treated Kerry - 36 years after the fact. A provably flawed recollection at that. [Edit: proven flawed by the crewman's own words, for one thing]
Edit:
>>The incident that led to Kerry's first Purple Heart was risky, and covert. He and his crew left the safe confines of the huge US base at Cam Ranh Bay, climbing aboard a "skimmer" boat -- a craft similar to a Boston Whaler -- to travel upriver in search of Viet Cong guerrillas. At a beach that was known as a crossing area for enemy contraband traffic, Kerry's crew spotted some people running from a sampan, a flat-bottomed boat, to a nearby shoreline, according to two men serving alongside Kerry that night, William Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon. When the Vietnamese refused to obey a call to stop, Kerry authorized firing to begin.
"I assume they fired back," Zaladonis recalled in an interview. But neither he nor Runyon saw the source of the shrapnel that lodged in Kerry's arm. '`We came across the bay onto the beach and I got [hit] in the arm, got shrapnel in the arm," Kerry told the Globe in a 2003 interview. Kerry has also said he didn't know where the shrapnel came from. <<<
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/
Last edited by eecee on Wed May 12, 2004 5:01 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| eecee wrote: |
And no one disputes the wound occurred when firing on VC - the only discussion Hibbard reported was whether they returned fire.
And by the way, anyone's guess as to the source of the shrapnel is exactly that - a guess. Kerry never even said he knew where it came from. He was using an M-16 at the time though, not a grenade launcher.
|
Actually, there is significant dispute that there were any enemy at all (would have been difficult for it to have been Viet Cong, they effectively ceased to exist during Tet '6 . And it is his crew that stated he fired the M-79.
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sparky wrote: | | Quote: | | Might want to actually read the regulations regarding the award of the Purple Heart. |
It's hard to read a newspaper without seeing this:
a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel or other projectile created by enemy action.
b) Injury caused by enemy-placed mine or trap.
c) Injury caused by enemy-released chemical, biological or nuclear agent.
d) Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire.
e) Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy-generated explosions.
Where does it specify that Kerry's wounds do not qualify? |
Those aren't regulations. They are general criteria. There is a difference. Try doing some research.
This is part of the regulation:
"A wound which necessitates treatment by a medical officer and which is received in action with an enemy, may in the judgment of the commander authorize to make the award be construed as resulting from a singularly meritorious act of essential service."
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eecee
Ensign
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 52
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Greenhat wrote: | | eecee wrote: |
And no one disputes the wound occurred when firing on VC - the only discussion Hibbard reported was whether they returned fire.
And by the way, anyone's guess as to the source of the shrapnel is exactly that - a guess. Kerry never even said he knew where it came from. He was using an M-16 at the time though, not a grenade launcher.
|
Actually, there is significant dispute that there were any enemy at all (would have been difficult for it to have been Viet Cong, they effectively ceased to exist during Tet '6. And it is his crew that stated he fired the M-79. |
Actually, the only dispute appears to be between Letson's flawed recollection and what the crewmembers who were with Kerry actually said.
>>>The incident that led to Kerry's first Purple Heart was risky, and covert. He and his crew left the safe confines of the huge US base at Cam Ranh Bay, climbing aboard a "skimmer" boat -- a craft similar to a Boston Whaler -- to travel upriver in search of Viet Cong guerrillas. At a beach that was known as a crossing area for enemy contraband traffic, Kerry's crew spotted some people running from a sampan, a flat-bottomed boat, to a nearby shoreline, according to two men serving alongside Kerry that night, William Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon. When the Vietnamese refused to obey a call to stop, Kerry authorized firing to begin.
"I assume they fired back," Zaladonis recalled in an interview. But neither he nor Runyon saw the source of the shrapnel that lodged in Kerry's arm. '`We came across the bay onto the beach and I got [hit] in the arm, got shrapnel in the arm," Kerry told the Globe in a 2003 interview. Kerry has also said he didn't know where the shrapnel came from.
<<<
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/
I'm going to edit my prior to include the crewman's own account.
Perhaps you will do the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The incident that led to Kerry's first Purple Heart was risky, and covert. |
Yeah. Right. One skimmer, out by itself. 
| Quote: | | "I assume they fired back," |
Laughing my arse off. He assumes? He doesn't know?
Well, then I'm going to assume he is full of it, because I honestly cannot conceive of any circumstance in which you would not know you were under fire (no big weapons noise to mask the sound of incoming AK fire) on a skimmer.
Sorry, but this story isn't credible at all. Oh, and one more thing. Kerry ordered firing on unarmed personnel? Am I reading that correctly?
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
"WE the undersigned Veterans of the United States Armed Forces recognize that Presidential nominee John Kerry not only has the strong National Security qualifications and character to be our next Commander-In-Chief. WE are insulted by continuous efforts of attempts by the Bush/Cheney campaign to smear the reputation of combat Veteran John Kerry during Vietnam using surrogates. This same shameful smear campaign was condoned by President Bush during 2000 against fellow Vietnam Veterans John McCain who performed with distinction as a POW in Vietnam and in 2002 against Max Cleland who suffered lost of limbs while serving in-country Vietnam. These attempts to Steal Valor from combat Veterans are and continue to be politically motivated. BECAUSE all these gentlemen smeared were and are in competition for public office with George W. Bush or someone in the Republican party who failed to serve in combat and desired the combat service of their political opponent lessened."
WE STRONGLY believe John Kerry will make a better Commander-In-Chief than George W. Bush, BECAUSE of his sensitivity to combat, his knowledge of defense AND foreign policy, and his STRONG defense record.
John Kerry is a Strong Supporter of America's Military; Has Supported More Than $4.4 Trillion in Defense Spending & Voted for "Largest Increase in Defense Spending since the Early 1980's.
He has support 16 of the 19 defense authorization bills since elected to the Senate. John Kerry is a strong supporter of the U.S. Armed Services and has consistently worked to ensure the military has the best equipment and training possible. In 2002, John Kerry voted for a large increase in the defense budget. This increase provided more than $355 billion for the Defense Department for 2003, an increase of $21 billion over 2002. This measure includes $71.5 billion for procurement programs such as $4 billion for the Air Force's F-22 fighter jets, $3.5 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter and $279.3 million for an E-8C Joint Stars (JSTARS) aircraft. Kerry's vote also funded a 4.1% pay increase for military personnel, $160 million for the B-1 Bomber Defense System Upgrade, $1.5 billion for a new attack submarine, more than $630 million for Army and Navy variants of the Blackhawk helicopter, $3.2 billion for additional C-17 transports, $900 million for R&D of the Comanche helicopter and more than $800 million for Trident Submarine conversion. The current chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner (R-VA) stated: "The defense spending increase for FY03 is the largest increase in defense spending since the early 1980's-reflecting the importance of defending the homeland and winning the global war against terrorism" [2002, Senate Roll Call Vote # 239; Websites of U.S. Senators Warner,Daschle, Dodd accessed 7/25/03]
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE PROGRAMS JOHN KERRY IS BEING ATTACKED ON
APACHE HELICOPTER: Kerry has supported $13 billion in defense authorizations for the Apache
AEGIS SHIPS: Kerry has supported at least $53 billion defense authorizations for the Aegis program
BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLES: Kerry has supported at least $8.5 billion in defense authorizations for the Bradley program
BLACKHAWK HELICOPTERS: Kerry has supported at least $13 billion in defense authorizations on versions of the Blackhawk.
B-2 BOMBER: Kerry has supported over $16.7 billion in defense authorizations for the B-2 program
C-17 CARGO JETS: Kerry supported at least $34.5 billion in defense authorizations for the C-17
F/A-18 FIGHTER JETS : Kerry supported at least $60 billion in defense authorizations for the F/A-18 and F-18
F-16 FIGHTER JETS: Kerry supported at least $25 billion in defense authorizations for the F-16.
TOMAHAWK MISSILES: Kerry supported at least $6 billion in defense authorizations for the Tomahawk missile program.
C-130 CARGO JETS: Kerry supported at least $12 billion in defense authorizations for the C-130
PATRIOT MISSILE SYSTEM: Kerry supported at least $10 billion in defense authorizations for the Patriot program.
SOURCES ON KERRY SPENDING: Congressional Quarterly Almanacs, 1986-2002; House Armed Service Committee Authorization Conference Report Summaries; Conference Reports for Defense Authorizations, FY1986 – present
JOHN KERRY HAS THE PROVEN RECORD THAT SHOWS HE WILL FIGHT TO DEFEND HIS COUNTRY AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, AND HIS COURAGE TO STAND UP AGAINST A WAR HE FELT WAS GOING WRONG SHOWS US HE HAS THE SENSITIVITY NOT TO COMMIT AMERICA'S YOUNG TO WAR EXCEPT AS A LAST RESORT AND UNLESS HE HIMSELF WOULD GO AND GUTS TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT COMMITMENT.
WE STRONGLY believe John Kerry is fit to be the next Commander-In-Chief.
Name Rank Service War/Era
Christopher Ream LT Navy (3 years) Vietnam one year as Swift Boat commander out of An Thoi (year ahead of Kerry), Bronze Star
Joe Muharsky PO2 Navy Vietnam Swift Boat Crewman
Marty Becktell SN Navy 66-68 Swiftboats An Thoi RVN
James Starowicz GMG3 Navy '67-'71 In-Contry Vietnam '70-'71
Jerrold M. Weinstein MSGT Air Force Cold War/Vietnam
Michael Swinford Navy Reserve Vietnam
Gary Crane SGT Army VIETNAM/CYPRUS
Nicholas J. Alaga Jr. CMDR Navy Reserve Gulf War I, II
R. Todd Grant CTR2/E5 Navy Cold War/Gulf War I
Brian J. Wiltberger Army Vietnam 68 & 69
Thomas M. Kroeger LT Navy 89-94 - Gulf War 1
Thomas J. Keating Sgt/E4 Air Force 83-90
Donald E. Bryant CPT-Retired Army 1975-1999
Frederic W. Seamon III Lt.Col-Retired Army Vietnam 1967-68,72-73
Alvin Grossman Major-Retired Air Force (Navigator/Bombardier) WWII
Timothy Brannan SGT Army Vietnam 67-68 Bronze Star
Stanley M. Davis Officer Navy 1971-1973.
Joseph F. DeBoise MSgt Air Force Vietnam 68 & 71-72 100% Service Connected. AO Exposed I Love My Country, But I Don't Trust George Bush
Sidney S. Wolfeld, LTC-Retired Army WWII & Korea, 60% SC Disability
Shaun Dale SP4 Army 69-72 Vietnam (MACV, 1st Sig Bgd)
Frances C Harriman Navy (W) 52-54 Korea Era
Joseph M. Glynn, Jr., Navy 1952-1956
David L. Shaufelberger PO1 Navy Cold War 78-86
Don E. Johnson, E4 Army Cold War/Germany
Dan Towers SP5 Army Vietnam'68-Infantry-2 Purple Hearts
John M. Tracey Navy Vietnam 1970-1971
Dennis Raymond Ferguson FC2(SW) Navy 89 - 95 Gulf War I
Francis J. Connell III SP5 Army Vietnam,'69-'70
Larry F.Coonrod - Sgt Army 1984-1991 Gulf War 1
Arrie R. O'Brien Navy Gulf War 1
Peter Kyriakoulis Lt Army 2003-2204 Iraq operation
Darrel La Mar Wakley SFC-Retired Army 58-93 Korea,Vietnam, Gulf
Ronald K. Christensen Navy(SeaBees) 1960-1977 Vietnam
Jimmie L. Price Army Reserves 1960-1965
Robert A. "Bob" Gammage SP4/Captain Army/USNR Korea/Cold War
Rodney A. Metzler Air Force Vietnam 69-70
Matty Loughran US Merchant Marine WWII
Norman D. Thompson AWC-Retired Navy
Robert L. Hanafin SP5/Major-Retired Army/Air Force Vietnam/Gulf War 1
Joseph V. Bangert E-5/SGT USMC Indochina War
Steven A. Sherlock 1st Lt Army Vietnam
Sandy Cleary PFC Army VietNam era
Claude F. Goldsmith, Jr. CPT Army Vietnam Era ('70-'72)
Ronald C. Smith LCDR-Retired Navy Active duty Aviator 1956-1962 Reserves 1962 - 1977 Lebanon, Cuba, East Berlin
David Honish Sp5/SGT Army/TXARNGUS Viet Nam Era Veteran
Kenneth I. Henry, Ph.D. Corporal USMC Viet Nam, lost my right arm in the TET Offensive. I am a Veteran for Peace and do not necessarily approve Kerry’s record on defense (although it is better than Bush’s) but I am a Kerry supporter.
Edward Kemp Air Force 70-74
Charles C. Smith Army Vietnam 68/69
Gerald R. White SP-4 Army 68 - 79 - Vietnam disabled vet
David A. Collins E-4 USMC Viet Nam 1968 – 1970
R.A. Hassett SSG Army RVN mid 1970-early 1972
Patrick A. Shumaker Spec4 Army Vietnam 69-70
A. A. Verrengia B/Gen-Retired Air Force
Cameron R Beech SSG Army GW1 Somalia,Operation Just Cause
Gerald R. Simons E7/SFC-Retired Army /100% Disabled 1964-1985
Richard M. Flake E-7/CPO-Retired Navy 1959–1983
Michael J. Fitzgerald PO3 Navy Vietnam
James G. Tracy MSgt-Retired Air Force 1970-1990
Edwin Rogers PFC Army 64 Vietnam
Gordon A. Scott E7-Retired Air Force WWII, Korea & NAM in the USN Air to finish 25+ in '65
Paul E. Kruger MSG-Retired Army Vietnam/Gulf War I 1972-1992
Michael F. Chenoweth LTC-Retired Army Vietnam-Bosnia 1966-1998
Donald J. Woods SP4 Army S.E. Asia 1957-1966
Bill G. Winter E-5 USMC (1982-86) USN (1990-97)
I'm a vet of the Marines and the Navy and I'll do whatever I can to help John Kerry
James Raab Army 1967 Vietnam 69-70
Dewey W. Hulsey Navy Korean War
Rick Martin Duiker BtnSgt/Mjr Army '52-'54 Korea
Robert G. Smith, Jr. CSM Army Vietnam/Gulf War 1
Eddie D. Smith SFC/E-7-Retired Army VN 68-69, 70-71
Wendell Liemohn LT(JG) (USNR retired as Navy Captain) (56-59 Ret- 1994)
Aaron L. Depew MSG/E8-Retired Army
Conrad G. Creitz SP5 Army Vietnam 67-69 & 70-71
Stephen A. Muehleisen SP4 Army 75 - 84
James Mabury SFC E-7-Retired Army Vietnam
Herbert A. Bourne Disabled Vietnam Era Veteran - Air Force - Sgt. Navy seaman
John McDonough Sgt Army Vietnam Era
Stacia McDonough Spec4 Army Vietnam Era
Anne McDonough Navy CPO Vietnam Era
Francis Moore SP5 Army First Infantry Division Vietnam service in 1968 and 1969
Michael McDonnell Air Force SE Asia 1968-1970
Joe Rzeczkowski PO2 Navy Southeast Asia with VA-145 on USS Ranger 1972-73
David H. Hewitt SP5 Army Vietnam 1969-70
Ray Sharbutt Sp4 Army Security Agency 1970-73
-SIGNED-
A. A. Verrengia, Brigadier General, U.S.Air Force-Retired |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yah, I just saw that letter and list of signers a few minutes ago on johnkerry.com - so who's your persona over there?
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 5:27 am Post subject: Strong Record on Defense? |
|
|
"On reaching political office, John Kerry earns one of the most liberal voting records possible. On defense issues, he can be relied on to oppose almost any program. The issue that really motivates him in the 1980s is banning testing of anti-satellite weapons. He also supports a nuclear freeze, unilateral cuts of US chemical weapons stockpiles, an end to SDI and cuts of cruise missiles, ICBMs and other strategic programs. Apparently, the only WMDs he ever got exercised about were American ones.
Of course, if you think America is the kind of place that purposefully sends its soldiers off to act "in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan", naturally you would consider the US to be the rogue state in need of reining in by the international community.
In the 1990s, the Clinton Administration cuts in defense aren't deep enough, and Sen. Kerry drafts a bill to cut more programs across the board, including $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. He later claims he was trying to press for efficiency and better resource allocation (“What we were trying to do, some of us, was push the funding not into technical means. There was a fascination always with satellites, listening devices, not with human intelligence. I’ve always been somebody who has felt that we needed human intelligence, that’s our failure.… I wanted to reduce spending from national technical means and change the culture of our intelligence gathering.") But the actual text of his proposal says only "[r]educe the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000." Nothing about pushing funding in any direction; just straight cuts.
Senator McCain's defense of Kerry, that GOP charges that his votes against various defense programs are spurious because many Senators end up opposing omnibus bills laden with pork even while supporting specific programs within the bill, rings hollow. S. 1290, the proposal that sought the $1.5 billion intelligence budget cuts and other caps on defense and related spending, was authored by Kerry. It wasn't a take-it-or-leave-it bill Kerry found himself presented with, where conscience dictated that he vote against the pork even if that meant voting against all those wonderful weapons he really supported. This bill reflected Kerry's views and Kerry's priorities."
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eecee
Ensign
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 52
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Greenhat wrote: | | Quote: | | The incident that led to Kerry's first Purple Heart was risky, and covert. |
Yeah. Right. One skimmer, out by itself.
| Quote: | | "I assume they fired back," |
Laughing my arse off. He assumes? He doesn't know?
Well, then I'm going to assume he is full of it, because I honestly cannot conceive of any circumstance in which you would not know you were under fire (no big weapons noise to mask the sound of incoming AK fire) on a skimmer.
Sorry, but this story isn't credible at all. Oh, and one more thing. Kerry ordered firing on unarmed personnel? Am I reading that correctly? |
I see, you find a 36-year old recollection of a doctor who may or may not have treated Kerry, who can remember the size of the shrapnel down to the centimeter, but who cannot get facts like the number of crewmen straight, more credible than the crewman who was actually with Kerry that night. Got it.
If you'd read anyone's description of the event, you would know that nobody knew if they returned fire or not. Which goes to the question of whether they were armed or not.
Thanks so much for making my task easier. I now know better than to take a thing you say seriously.
S'long ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| eecee wrote: |
If you'd read anyone's description of the event, you would know that nobody knew if they returned fire or not. |
Which means they didn't. Assuming the incident even happened at all. After all, it sounds more like a Tom Clancy novel than a real combat operation.
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stop... my sides are killing me! I'm on the floor! Even the only dittohead Kerry-hater in his crew isn't saying the incident didn't happen at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ROTC DAD
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 1:21 pm Post subject: What about Bush? |
|
|
I have a question for all of you - If you consider Kerry a war criminal for something he may or may not have done 30 years ago, what do you consider the present Administration?
Rumsfeld has come out and stated that he is responsible for the actions at Abu Ghraib ( perhaps not personally, but as the one in charge of the DOD), yet it appears you can be responsible without being accountable. If he's responsible, then he's a war criminal as we know the actions taken at the prison are against the rules of the Geneva Conventions. So Rumsfeld is a war criminal as is the Administration which harbors him.
We also know that at least two high-ranking members of the Administration are traitors, having disclosed the name of an non-official cover operative of the CIA to the press for no other reason than to discredit her husband. This act was against the security interests of the US. And again, the Administration chooses to harbor these officials, making them complicit in acting against the interests of the US.
So the question is - if you believe Kerry to be unfit because of comments made some 30 years ago, how can you believe the Bush Administration is fit to run the country when they are war criminals and traitors now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sparky wrote: | | Stop... my sides are killing me! I'm on the floor! Even the only dittohead Kerry-hater in his crew isn't saying the incident didn't happen at all. |
How many times have you had an AK fired at you, Sparky?
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Buddy
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 08 May 2004
Posts: 18
|
| Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sparky wrote: | | Stop... my sides are killing me! I'm on the floor! Even the only dittohead Kerry-hater in his crew isn't saying the incident didn't happen at all. |
| Quote: | | Isn' t this just great. Sparky, with 191 posts you are the king of defending" Kerry Eruptions". Were you also in charge of Clinton's "Bimbo Eruptions". Just take a look at this: A Ltjg in the U.S. Navy, a commisioned officer, is in Vietnam for just a few days. He's on a first patrol with 2 enlisted men(1 of whom I know personnally). He is struct with something so small and insignificant that it only requires a band-aid. (You have cut yourself in the kitchen while slicing food I'm sure and didn't beg for any special recognition) Plrease!! Now Mr.Kerry applies for a medal for this. He's denied as it's too superficial. He gets transferred and re-applies! What does this behavior show about his character as an officer to his men? It's ridiculous on the face of it. In a previous post you went on about even tho his wounds were so small they COULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS IF THEY HIT IN A MORE VITAL AREA. Does that mean that a near miss of inches over your head from an 7.62x39 round as opposed to a miss of a vital area of a few feet on his body also qualifies? The near miss is closer than a hit in the rear end. Doesn' t Kerry's action re: the first PH look like medal envy? |
_________________
Buddy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
