Neil Bortz

[giddyup]

A friend called me to tell me that Neil Bortz is going to have as a guest the physician who treated John Kerry for one of his Purple Heart injuries.

This MD has not come forth before. I think it is supposed to be on Thursday.

Let the Bortz-hating begin....

[Rocketman95]

What about the doctor or doctors who may have treated Bush when he was over there?

Oh wait...

[outlaw]

this guy is gonna remember the details of some random sailor he treated 30 year ago?

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by giddyup


Let the Bortz-hating begin....

It's interesting how you shift the onus of "hating" onto the other side, when the very think you cite is among the more vile episodes of hate-fueled, campaign filth of the political season.

Kerry is a war hero, plain and simple, according to all who were with him and the US Navy (don't give me the swift boat veterans, only one of htem was actually with kerry on his boat, and even that guy's only beef was kerry's anti war activism) and there's nothing any of you people who weren't there with him can do about it.

End of story, see you later.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by outlaw
this guy is gonna remember the details of some random sailor he treated 30 year ago?
It was a Purple Heart not a Winnie the Pooh bandaid... or was it?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by SamFisher
Kerry is a war hero, plain and simple....
It may not be that plain and simple. I agree with Kerry's heroism. Sorry if that doesn't fit your stereotype for my side.

My question is about the Purple Heart. The insinuation is that there are Purple Hearts and there are purple hearts. Some think Kerry only deserved the latter but acts like he got the former.

[Rocketman95]

Originally posted by giddyup
It was a Purple Heart not a Winnie the Pooh bandaid... or was it?

WWWB?

[andymoon]

Originally posted by giddyup
It was a Purple Heart not a Winnie the Pooh bandaid... or was it?

How many Purple Hearts were awarded in Vietnam?

How many Purple Hearts did Bush receive?

For that matter, how many Silver or Bronze Stars did Bush receive?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by andymoon
How many Purple Hearts were awarded in Vietnam?

How many Purple Hearts did Bush receive?

For that matter, how many Silver or Bronze Stars did Bush receive?
don't know

zero

zero

Are those the issues? Oh, they are, aren't they. That's what Kerry runs on.

[rimrocker]

Same song, second verse. I can't help but think that some of the Repubs get joy out of this kind of thing. Read the following for insight on the ReThug playbook.

The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton
by Joe Conason, Gene Lyons

Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative
by David Brock

[Rocketman95]

They can run out as many doctors as they want. It'll just remind people that Kerry was in Vietnam.

WWWB?

[rimrocker]

By the way Giddy, it's two O's, as in Boortz.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by rimrocker
By the way Giddy, it's two O's, as in Boortz.
as in boor, right?

[rimrocker]

Originally posted by giddyup
as in boor, right?

As in Boortz.

[gifford1967]

Originally posted by giddyup
don't know

zero

zero

Are those the issues? Oh, they are, aren't they. That's what Kerry runs on.


Didn't you start this thread?

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by giddyup
It may not be that plain and simple. I agree with Kerry's heroism. Sorry if that doesn't fit your stereotype for my side.

My question is about the Purple Heart. The insinuation is that there are Purple Hearts and there are purple hearts. Some think Kerry only deserved the latter but acts like he got the former.

Yes, it is plain and simple.

Feb. 28, 1969, was a day that started out badly and got much worse. Kerry and his crewmates were given a mission to take their Swift boat up a canal off the Bay Hap River, surrounded by thick mangrove brush and many, many Vietcong. There were two ambushes.

"I guess we had gotten 800 yards or 1,000 yards at the most," recalled crewmate Fred Short. "And this time, another B-40 rocket hit, and maybe a couple more. But this one was close aboard. It blew the windows out of the crew cabin. I see out of a spider hole a Vietcong stand up dressed in a loin cloth, holding a B-40 rocket."

"Charlie would have lit us up like a Roman candle because we're full of fuel, we're full of ammunition," said Sandusky.

Protocol at the time would be for Kerry's Swift boat to fire to shore and then take evasive action. But Kerry ordered Sandusky, his second-in-command, to drive the boat onto the beach — directly into the ambush.

"I knew right away that, you know, uh-oh, we're in the doo-doo now," Sandusky said. "But, yeah, I knew — you know, John was intent. You know: 'We got to go and get this guy.' There was no way we were going to back down off the beach." Alston recalled: "I know when John Kerry told Del to beach that damn boat, this was a brand-new ball game. We wasn't running. We took it to Charlie."

They saw their enemy up close, Short noted. "I would say he was so close that I could see that he had a mustache, a very weak mustache, that he was growing. I could see the mustache on his face. And things were going slow-motion now, because you feel you were, you know, this is really getting scary."

Things almost went against the sailors. "He needed like, 25, 30 yards to arm that rocket, all right," Sandusky said, "and as we beached, he could not aim it at us. So he got up out of the spider hole, started running."

Tommy Belodeau was manning the boat's M-60 machine gun, Short said. "Tommy in the pit tank winged him in the side of the legs as he was coming across," he said. "But the guy didn't miss stride. I mean, he did not break stride."

Kerry assessed their options quickly, according to Sandusky. "John sized up the situation and realized that once Tommy had started shooting at the guy and wounded him in the leg, you know, that this was the only course of action — you know, John was going to chase this guy down and kill him. 'Cause if he didn't, we were all dead."

The man was still running down a path when they got to the bank. Kerry, Belodeau and Michael McDarris, in hot pursuit, saw the Vietcong soldier. Short recalled: "The guy was getting ready to stand up with a rocket on his shoulder, coming up. And Mr. Kerry took him out … he would have been about a 30-yard shot. Which, we were dead in the water up on the bank, point blank. If he missed us, he would have to, you know — there's no way he could miss us. He could've thrown a rock and taken me out."

The others agreed that it was a close call. "If this guy would have got up, and he had a clear shot at us, we would have been history," Thorson said. "Wouldn't have been no doubt about it." "If that RPG had exploded in the pilot house or anywhere in that area," Short said, "we were toast."



http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cach...r+beached&hl=en

Quote:

In March, 1969 JimRassman was a Green Beret in Vietnam when the river boat he was riding hit a mine in the Hap River and came under heavy enemy fire from the banks. A short distance ahead, then-Navy Lt. Kerry was in command of a Swift Boat also under attack. Kerry, wounded in the arm, ordered his boat to turn around. He directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, then moved into an exposed position on the bow to pull Rassman out of the water




Quote:
Reading Brinkley’s book, one wonders why Kerry’s campaign does not make more of another occasion when Kerry was sharply reprimanded for having stepped ashore. On a narrow tributary of the Duong Keo River, he and his crew came upon what looked like a deserted village. Then someone thought he saw a man running away. There was no response to a call for surrender, and Kerry took his gun and went to have a look. As he approached, forty-two Vietnamese—women, children, and old men—appeared with empty hands raised. They were in desperate shape, hungry and sick, and although Kerry received radio instructions to leave them and get on with the business of killing enemy combatants, he herded the villagers onto boats and took them to the nearest American base to receive food and medical care. “For an afternoon,” he told Brinkley, “it felt good to really be helping the Vietnamese instead of destroying their villages.”


http://mitchcohen.blogspot.com/2004/07/forty-four.html


You are simply dead wrong, and your fixation on this aspect is disingenuous and the product of hate, envy, and negativity, rather than the product of any intellectual curiosity on your part.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by giddyup
don't know

zero

zero

Are those the issues? Oh, they are, aren't they. That's what Kerry runs on.

YOU are the one who brought this up, not me, not Sam, and not Kerry. You can claim that Kerry didn't "deserve" the PH all you want, but you cut your own candidate's throat with the claim because HE DIDN'T EVEN GO!

I know that you (and the GOP) are just trying to obfuscate, but the fact remains that Kerry was a war hero while GWB was deeply embroiled in "youthful indiscretions."

[giddyup]

Originally posted by gifford1967
Didn't you start this thread?
Yeah, the thread is about Boortz' radio show. The only question to which I didn't know the answer was how many Purple Hearts were awarded in Viet Nam. Do you know? What's yer point?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by andymoon
YOU are the one who brought this up, not me, not Sam, and not Kerry. You can claim that Kerry didn't "deserve" the PH all you want, but you cut your own candidate's throat with the claim because HE DIDN'T EVEN GO!

I know that you (and the GOP) are just trying to obfuscate, but the fact remains that Kerry was a war hero while GWB was deeply embroiled in "youthful indiscretions."
How does this cut GWB's throat? I remind you that Clinton's throat was just fine (and he didn't serve in any way).

[andymoon]

Originally posted by giddyup
Yeah, the thread is about Boortz' radio show. The only question to which I didn't know the answer was how many Purple Hearts were awarded in Viet Nam. Do you know? What's yer point?

My point in asking that question was to illustrate that it is extremely unlikely that any physician could recall the specific details of a 30+ year old visit, especially when so many people were hurt in that war.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by SamFisher
You are simply dead wrong, and your fixation on this aspect is disingenuous and the product of hate, envy, and negativity, rather than the product of any intellectual curiosity on your part.
I remind you that I didn't and don't challenge Kerry's bravery or heroism. The intellectual curiosity is this: were his wounds exagerated and does he really belong in the company of those who have truly earned Purple Hearts?

It is you, SamFisher, who is wrong. You accuse me of things I have not charged. Be careful or you will go the way of "timing."

[Rocketman95]

Originally posted by giddyup
How does this cut GWB's throat? I remind you that Clinton's throat was just fine (and he didn't serve in any way).

How many times did Clinton criticize Dole's time in the service? He's obviously got more respect for veterans than you or other Republicans do.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by giddyup
How does this cut GWB's throat? I remind you that Clinton's throat was just fine (and he didn't serve in any way).

But Clinton never tried to denigrate the service of either Bush 41 OR Dole. GWB and Co. are trying to color Kerry's service in a negative light when Bush himself did not even choose to serve, much less get decorated for heroism and wounds in battle.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by andymoon
My point in asking that question was to illustrate that it is extremely unlikely that any physician could recall the specific details of a 30+ year old visit, especially when so many people were hurt in that war.
I think you just don't want to hear what he probably has to say. Maybe he'll come out extolling the virtue and bravery of Kerry. Who knows? Tune in.

[Rocketman95]

Originally posted by andymoon
But Clinton never tried to denigrate the service of either Bush 41 OR Dole. GWB and Co. are trying to color Kerry's service in a negative light when Bush himself did not even choose to serve, much less get decorated for heroism and wounds in battle.

It's gonna be sad in 20 years when they're minimizing the sacrifices made by an Iraq War veteran who happens to disagree with them politically.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by giddyup
I remind you that I didn't and don't challenge Kerry's bravery or heroism. The intellectual curiosity is this: were his wounds exagerated and does he really belong in the company of those who have truly earned Purple Hearts?


GWB sure doesn't belong in that company, so who is HE to question the service of a war hero?

[andymoon]

Originally posted by giddyup
I think you just don't want to hear what he probably has to say. Maybe he'll come out extolling the virtue and bravery of Kerry. Who knows? Tune in.

You and I both know that Boortz would NEVER put anyone on who would cast Kerry in a positive light.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by andymoon
But Clinton never tried to denigrate the service of either Bush 41 OR Dole. GWB and Co. are trying to color Kerry's service in a negative light when Bush himself did not even choose to serve, much less get decorated for heroism and wounds in battle.
I don't agree that they have tried to denigrate his service other than to cast a pall over his reception of purple hearts. It is beyond dispute that Kerry drove boats into enemy fire for a period of approximately four months.

Kerry's problem is the certifying and/or justifying the aftermath of his heroism, re: Purple Hearts and anti-war activism.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by giddyup
I remind you that I didn't and don't challenge Kerry's bravery or heroism. The intellectual curiosity is this: were his wounds exagerated and does he really belong in the company of those who have truly earned Purple Hearts?

It is you, SamFisher, who is wrong. You accuse me of things I have not charged. Be careful or you will go the way of "timing."


LOL, a walking contradiction as usual.

Let your hate flow.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by andymoon
You and I both know that Boortz would NEVER put anyone on who would cast Kerry in a positive light.
Probably not. I only listened to him for the first time yesterday. His show just came on in our market a couple of weeks ago.

The issue is this: is the man telling the truth. We have heard this story before-- this version may be coming from the horse's mouth.

[outlaw]

http://www.aurence.net/purpleheart.htm

During World War II, 500,000 Purple Hearts were minted. The United States feared there would be many causalities during the attack on Japan. However, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki put a quick end to the war. After the war ended no more Purple Hearts were minted for another 25 years!

During the Vietnam War it is estimated that 250,000 to 270,000 Purple Hearts were awarded. It was customary to award the family of a deceased soldier with the Purple Heart. By the end of the Gulf War the United States Purple Heart supply had been depleted.

Since its inception in 1872 it is estimated that 1,635,000 Purple Heart medals have been awarded to members of the United States military. In 2003 it was estimated there were 500,000 living Purple Heart recipients.

...

so 260,000 - 58,000 (deceased) = 202,000 purple hearts given to survivors of Vietnam

[rimrocker]

Attacking Kerry's valor isn't enough... they have to attack the valor of those that support him... Here's an NRO piece that ticks me off immensely. Not just for the denigration of firefighters, but also the atavistic opinion of women and the glorifying of ignorance under the guise of "regular guys." Plus, the outhor does all this anonymously. By the way, this was featured on the Bush web site's blog...
______________

First Responders for Kerry?
Don’t bet on it.

Iwas not among the National Review Online stalwarts reporting from Boston last week. Instead I was here in Los Angeles doing my small part in the battle against crime and villainy. Mine was arguably the more pleasant task.

If you doubt this, consider if you dare this blood-curdling scene, beamed from Boston into the Dunphy living room last Wednesday morning, courtesy of C-SPAN: There was Michael Moore holding forth before an enthralled, adoring audience, an audience that cheered and applauded and Oh, yes, Michael!-ed at every inanity spilling forth from the man's lips. But when the camera was briefly turned on Moore's enraptured flock, there incongruously among them was Byron York, stoically enduring the pain as he scribbled away in his trusty notebook. Can you even begin to imagine what an ordeal this was for him? Better to spend time among L.A.'s criminal rabble than that bunch any day, I say. I don't know what York's drinking habits are, but I suspect he needed a bracer after walking out of that one.

I'm a part-time political junkie, so when I wasn't out among the said rabble I was of course paying close attention to the proceedings in Boston. I was struck by the attention the Democrats paid to "first responders," i.e. police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel. There was a live broadcast from the engine bay of a Detroit fire station and a moving video tribute to the six Worcester, Mass., firefighters who died in a December 1999 warehouse blaze. And scattered throughout the Fleet Center and coming before the cameras every five minutes or so were clusters of men and women wearing those now-ubiquitous "Fire Fighters for Kerry" T-shirts. "We, as first responders, police, fire, and EMS, support John Kerry," said the Detroit paramedic as he stood before his comrades, some of whom looked a little embarrassed to be there. The uninformed viewer was perhaps left with the impression that John Kerry enjoys the unqualified support of the nation's public-safety workers.

He doesn't.

In one of my first contributions to NRO, back in August 2000, I warned readers against being misled into thinking that America's police officers supported Al Gore. If you read the column today, substitute Kerry's name for Gore's and the admonition is just as apt now as it was four years ago. And now the leadership of the International Association of Fire Fighters, A.F.L.-C.I.O., is trying to bring firefighters into this little deception on behalf of John Kerry.

As there is in police work, there is in the fire service a wide chasm of opinion between those on the front lines and those who represent them — or claim to — in their labor unions. Generally speaking, the likelihood that a firefighter will vote for John Kerry is inversely proportional to the number of fires he has actually fought. Witness all those T-shirted "Fire Fighters for Kerry" you saw at the convention. A little soft around the middle some of them were, weren't they? Do you think some of them could haul a hose pack up 50 flights of stairs? I'm not betting on it. I'm guessing the only fires many of them have seen lately were at IAFF barbecues.

Don't just take my word for it. Visit Fire Fighters for Bush on the web and read the postings from firefighters disaffected by the leftward leanings of the IAFF leadership. A message board asks firefighters if they were polled prior to the IAFF's endorsement of Kerry. An illustrative sample response from a fireman in Kentucky: "No IAFF unions in Kentucky were polled. After receiving the IAFF magazine yesterday and reading [IAFF General President Harold] Schaitberger's excuse for the IAFF endorsement I resigned as VP of the union today. I also quit the IAFF after being a member for 39 years."

Granted, some firefighters, even some who actually fight fires, will no doubt vote for Kerry. So will some cops. But most will vote for President Bush, and as NRO has no firefighter on the payroll I will attempt to speak for both groups in explaining why this is so. (I hope the smoke-eaters won't object.) First, cops and firefighters are inherently conservative in that they understand the importance of following society's rules. Unlike John Kerry, they don't find "nuance" in every question that confronts them. In their daily duties they see the often-deadly consequences that result when people fail to do what society expects of them. Nearly every call to 9-1-1 is the result of someone concluding that these rules, be they the criminal laws or the fire codes, can be ignored. They did a good job of hiding it last week, but the Democrats are the party of libertinism, the price of which is well known to those who come when people call for help.

Second, cops and firefighters are, if the women in the ranks will forgive the expression, Regular Guys. They drink beer, not wine, and certainly not French wine. They played football and baseball in high school, not lacrosse. Regular Guys think Al Sharpton is a fraud and Michael Moore (who pretends to be a Regular Guy) is a fool, and they think Ted Kennedy is a criminal. Regular Guys do not blame Secret Service agents (who are Regular Guys) for knocking them down on the ski slopes, especially when those agents are there to take bullets for them. And Regular Guys relate to and prefer the company of other Regular Guys; they do not invite people like Leonardo DiCaprio and Ben Affleck to their conventions.

Even with the piles of dough they're sitting on, both George Bush and Dick Cheney still come across as Regular Guys, the kind of men you might find hanging around the fire station or the detective squad room. And with his recent suggestion to Pat Leahy on how he might spend his idle time, the vice president climbed several notches on the Regular Guy scale. John Kerry, on the other hand, owing to his valorous service in Vietnam, might have been a Regular Guy years ago, but he surrendered his membership when he came home to join the Jane Fonda crowd and brand his former comrades as war criminals. And whatever tenuous grip he may have had on Regular Guy status since then was lost when he married his current wife. Old-fashioned notions of chivalry prevent me from offering my full opinion on her here, but Regular Guys do not under any circumstances marry women like Teresa Heinz Kerry.

You're going to see lots of those yellow t-shirts between now and election day, but don't be taken in. Like most cops, most firefighters will be voting for President Bush in November. You should be a Regular Guy and vote for him too.

— Jack Dunphy is an officer in the Los Angeles Police Department. "Jack Dunphy" is the author's nom de cyber. The opinions expressed are his own and almost certainly do not reflect those of the LAPD management.
______________________

Now, I hang out with wildland firefighters and some of the local structure guys. The vast majority are for Kerry (or against Bush). The vast majority of those planning to vote for Kerry are front-line men and women who do the hard work on fires. This article is an insidious ploy to make all firefighters who support Kerry look like fat elitists while those supporting Bush are the real workers and heroes. Don't believe it.

I don't doubt that some groups of firefighters are more pro-Bush, but that's not the point here...

[giddyup]

Originally posted by SamFisher
LOL, a walking contradiction as usual.

Let your hate flow.
Please explain. What is contradictoy? I hate nobody. Please stop these silly charges.

I'm going to lunch now. I expect a full explanation when I return.

:)

[andymoon]

Originally posted by giddyup
I don't agree that they have tried to denigrate his service other than to cast a pall over his reception of purple hearts. It is beyond dispute that Kerry drove boats into enemy fire for a period of approximately four months.

Kerry's problem is the certifying and/or justifying the aftermath of his heroism, re: Purple Hearts and anti-war activism.

There is not any good reason why Kerry should have to justify anything regarding his PHs given who he is running against. Kerry served, Bush didn't, and the GOP attack machine just can't have a qualifications deficit like that so they are denigrating Kerry's service. If you don't think that the attacks on Kerry's service constitute denigration, then I have serious doubts about your ability to analyze information.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by outlaw
so 260,000 - 58,000 (deceased) = 202,000 purple hearts given to survivors of Vietnam

So, out of over 200,000 PHs, this doctor is supposed to remember three of them (assuming he treated Kerry for all three) thirty years later?

:rolleyes:

[mc mark]

Originally posted by andymoon
There is not any good reason why Kerry should have to justify anything regarding his PHs given who he is running against. Kerry served, Bush didn't, and the GOP attack machine just can't have a qualifications deficit like that so they are denigrating Kerry's service. If you don't think that the attacks on Kerry's service constitute denigration, then I have serious doubts about your ability to analyze information.

Oh there's a good reason.

It keeps dorks like us bitching back and forth to no end and nothing gets accomplished. Just what the RNC wants.

God forbid we actually talk issues. God forbid we analysis the last four years of policy to see if it's how we want to continue going.

But please! Lets keep talking about wives and purple hearts and movies and books and entertainers.

[bnb]

Originally posted by giddyup

The issue is this: is the man telling the truth. .

Seriously...how does the severity of the wounds matter?

Would he be less of a patriot if he didn't get injured?
Do you really believe he staged his whole vietnam gig as a pr move?
Possibly he's overplayed his vietnam time -- but thats what candidates do. George pretended to be be a good businessman -- yet he has a sketchy past there, doesn't he?

If the angle is that he took advantage of a 'loophole' to get out early -- well, this was a much more foolhearty loophole than the ones employed by Clinton, Bush, Cheney and their ilk. I just don't get it?

I could understand (though disagree) if the focus was on his post vietnam protests. But to disparage his service -- when we're all supposed to be rallying around the flag -- seems so petty.

Does it resonate with anyone? Why?

As an aside -- does anyone else get the feeling we're in the summer rerun season. Seems these discussions have been played out before!

[gifford1967]

Originally posted by mc mark
Oh there's a good reason.

It keeps dorks like us bitching back and forth to no end and nothing gets accomplished. Just what the RNC wants.

God forbid we actually talk issues. God forbid we analysis the last four years of policy to see if it's how we want to continue going.

But please! Lets keep talking about wives and purple hearts and movies and books and entertainers.

Exactly

[outlaw]

Originally posted by andymoon
How many Purple Hearts did Bush receive?

For that matter, how many Silver or Bronze Stars did Bush receive?

Bush got several Pink Hearts, Yellow Moons, Orange Stars, Green Clovers, Blue Diamonds and Purple Horseshoes.

They were awarded to him by the head of the Alabama Air National Guard, General Mills.

[Baqui99]

Bush should receive a Purple Heart for staring death in the face when he fought off that deadly pretzel.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by giddyup
How does this cut GWB's throat? I remind you that Clinton's throat was just fine (and he didn't serve in any way).

1. Clinton never tried to portray himself as a "war president".
2. We weren't at war during the 1992 and 1996 elections.

[Rocketman95]

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex
1. Clinton never tried to portray himself as a "war president".
2. We weren't at war during the 1992 and 1996 elections.

Not to mention, Clinton never criticized Bush41 or Dole's war records. He obviously has more respect for veterans than the current Republican leadership and their sheep.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by bnb
Seriously...how does the severity of the wounds matter?

I could understand (though disagree) if the focus was on his post vietnam protests. But to disparage his service -- when we're all supposed to be rallying around the flag -- seems so petty.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for the umpteenth time I'm not disparaging his service. The question looms, though, about the legitimacy of his decorations.

Would all of you stop pretending that there is not a distinction between the two things....

[Faos]

Originally posted by outlaw
this guy is gonna remember the details of some random sailor he treated 30 year ago?

I think Kerry would be offended that you referred to him as just a "random sailor".

[andymoon]

Originally posted by giddyup
I can't speak for anyone else, but for the umpteenth time I'm not disparaging his service. The question looms, though, about the legitimacy of his decorations.

The only reason that "the question looms" is because the GOP attack machine has questioned that legitimacy. I was never aware that there was such a thing as a "legitimate" war wound and an illegitimate one. Kerry was wounded three times in battle while Bush "served" in Texas and Alabama. The GOP have no right whatsoever to question the "legitimacy" of Kerry's war wounds as their candidate chose NOT to serve in Vietnam and even left his "service" early so that he could work on a political campaign.

ANY wound suffered in battle is a legitimate PH earner in my book.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by giddyup
I can't speak for anyone else, but for the umpteenth time I'm not disparaging his service. The question looms, though, about the legitimacy of his decorations.

Would all of you stop pretending that there is not a distinction between the two things....

:D

There's your explanation.

[Chump]

Originally posted by giddyup
I can't speak for anyone else, but for the umpteenth time I'm not disparaging his service. The question looms, though, about the legitimacy of his decorations.

Would all of you stop pretending that there is not a distinction between the two things....


there is a difference

1. Kerry (or Bush) controlled if they went to Vietnam (or not)
2. Kerry (or Bush) did NOT control medals awarded to him

end of argument

[andymoon]

Originally posted by Faos
I think Kerry would be offended that you referred to him as just a "random sailor".

He WAS a "random sailor" 30 years ago. It's not like he was LBJ or RMN's kid.

[Oski2005]

Why does this fall on Kerry? He can't demand a purple heart. You get wounded, you get treated. Wounds are logged, if the people responsible for handing out PHs think it deserves one, they hand it out. What did Kerry do wrong? Was he supposed to leave the shrapnel in his arm and hope it didn't get infected?

[Faos]

Originally posted by andymoon
GWB and Co. are trying to color Kerry's service in a negative light

When did GWB himself say anything like this?

[Faos]

Originally posted by bnb


Would he be less of a patriot if he didn't get injured?


By the same token, should he bore MORE of a patriot because he got in the way of a bullet?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Chump
there is a difference

1. Kerry (or Bush) controlled if they went to Vietnam (or not)
2. Kerry (or Bush) did NOT control medals awarded to him

end of argument
Didn't Kerry promote himself for one or more of the PHs?

[andymoon]

Originally posted by Faos
When did GWB himself say anything like this?

Are you really so obtuse that you believe that GWB has to say it "himself" in order for it to have relevance?

[andymoon]

Originally posted by Faos
By the same token, should he bore MORE of a patriot because he got in the way of a bullet?

I believe he is more of a patriot because he spilled his blood on the battlefield in defense of this country, yes. ALL soldiers who spill their blood on the battlefield are more patriotic than those of us who sit at home and watch the war on TV and in the newspapers.

[Chump]

Originally posted by giddyup
Didn't Kerry promote himself for one or more of the PHs?

the fact remains that the decision to award him a PH was not his and was dependant on doctors, commanding officers, etc

the decision to go to Vietnam was John Kerry's, as was GWB and Cheney's decision not to go

[gifford1967]

Originally posted by giddyup
Didn't Kerry promote himself for one or more of the PHs?

Did he? Your entire premise for bringing this up hinges on Kerry having some control over whether he is awarded a Purple Heart.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by gifford1967
Did he? Your entire premise for bringing this up hinges on Kerry having some control over whether he is awarded a Purple Heart.
The lead reason not the entire premise.

[Oski2005]

Originally posted by giddyup
The lead reason not the entire premise.


So what is the premise? You can't give yourself a PH, you can't ask for one, you can't campaign for one (I, John Kerry, believe that I should be your next Purple Heart winner, remember, vote for my Purple Heart in 69'. Oh, and visit KerryforPurpleHeart69.com)


So, if you are intellectually curious if John Kerry recieved a Purple Heart he shouldn't have gotten, shouldn't your focus be on the person or persons who gave it to him?

[giddyup]

The premise is that there are those who got Purple Hearts because they had their legs blown off and there are those who got a purple heart because they got a deep scratch. If I were the latter, I don't think I'd be crowing about it.

Stories suggest that Kerry's medals may, in part, belong to the latter group. What is wrong with knowing the truth about it? What are all of you so afraid of? If it's nothing; it's nothing. Let's out the story and move on or move in.

[Cohen]

Originally posted by giddyup
...Are those the issues? Oh, they are, aren't they. That's what Kerry runs on.



It's what he runs on because the Republicans make it an issue. They claim Bush is a more qualified Commander-in-Chief. I guess AWOL national guard chicken-hawks make good CiCs; they don't have to envision how all of those people will be dying in War. :)

[Chump]

Originally posted by giddyup
What are all of you so afraid of? If it's nothing; it's nothing. Let's out the story and move on or move in.

the story is out there already, his service records are open and available to all

we still don't know why Bush skipped his drug test in 1972 and lost his flight status though

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Cohen
It's what he runs on because the Republicans make it an issue. They claim Bush is a more qualified Commander-in-Chief. I guess AWOL national guard chicken-hawks make good CiCs; they don't have to envision how all of those people will be dying in War. :)
Was FDR in the service? Was there this kind of griping about him as CIC? How many more American boys died then than now?

EDIT: I also want to mention that the argument that Bush is better qualified to be CIC is based on his four years of experience in that current job rather than that he had nominal military experience-- how dumb a claim would that be?

[Oski2005]

The premise is that this is political. If you truly cared about this, your focus would be on the people who hand the award out. You have yet to bring them up. None of the conservative talking heads and attack dogs bring them up either. The whole point of this is to paint Kerry as someone who "TOOK" a purple heart he shouldn't have gotten, completely ignoring the other 2 for one thing, and completely ignoring the fact that he can't take a purple heart, they are "GIVEN." So, why are you afraid to mention the people who hand them out? I'll tell you why, it would take the argument away from Kerry, and that's not what you want. If you truly cared, the argument would go to the system that hands teh awards out. You don't want the negative light on that, you want it on Kerry.

[BrianKagy]

Left out in all this is that Neal Boortz is a hypocrite and an idiot. This is a guy who routinely makes disparaging remarks about people who "attended government schools" yet is a proud graduate of Texas A&M, which last I checked was a public-- i.e., government-- school.

[pgabriel]

Keep up the good fight Giddy. You're entertaining.

[Oski2005]

Originally posted by BrianKagy
Left out in all this is that Neal Boortz is a hypocrite and an idiot. This is a guy who routinely makes disparaging remarks about people who "attended government schools" yet is a proud graduate of Texas A&M, which last I checked was a public-- i.e., government-- school.


LOL, as a student of A&M, I can tell you Neal Boortz isn't the only former or current student who takes the same hypocritical stance.

[rimrocker]

This is truly Bizarro world...

We have a campaign supporting a candidate who used his political connections to get placed in the TANG, still avoided service, and can't find anyone from his Alabama unit to corroborate his story attacking a candidate who volunteered to go to Vietnam by using people who were there to denigrate his service, question his medals, and imply that he used political connections and wiles to coast through a tour and play up his achievements.

This is ridiculous and completely fails the other shoe test. If Bush had Kerry's record and Kerry had Bush's record, would we still be having the same conversation?

[giddyup]

If Kerry had come back from Viet Nam and not defamed the US military as he apparently did, we would not be having this discussion.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by giddyup
If Kerry had come back from Viet Nam and not defamed the US military as he apparently did, we would not be having this discussion.

What's the problem with going to fight in a war, and then protesting against it after you have experienced it firsthand?

[Chump]

Originally posted by giddyup
If Kerry had come back from Viet Nam and not defamed the US military as he apparently did, we would not be having this discussion.

this is where your argument falls apart because you, like a lot of right-wingers, like to confuse candor and 'whistle-blowing' with lack of patriotism. IMO of course

[DonnyMost]

Originally posted by giddyup
If Kerry had come back from Viet Nam and not defamed the US military as he apparently did, we would not be having this discussion.

How many damn times are you going to look at a war protestor and think "why do they hate our troops?"

Seriously. It's getting old.

[Oski2005]

So if in Iraq, a group of soldiers go crazy from being there too long, having their combat pay slashed and health benefits cut, and they kill innocent civillians on purpose in their state of rage, and a troop where to step forward and expose them, he'd be the bad guy?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by DonnyMost
How many damn times are you going to look at a war protestor and think "why do they hate our troops?"

Seriously. It's getting old.
When I have said that about any and every war protestor, let's talk.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Chump
this is where your argument falls apart because you, like a lot of right-wingers, like to confuse candor and 'whistle-blowing' with lack of patriotism. IMO of course
Kerry's serious mistake was to cast his net of guilt too widely and associate with idiots like Jane Fonda and the communists.

Surely there are those who protested without making those kinds of mistakes.

There certainly was a lot to protest, wasn't there? Damn Democrats... :D ... they are the ones who escalated Viet Nam into a quagmirish status.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Oski2005
So if in Iraq, a group of soldiers go crazy from being there too long, having their combat pay slashed and health benefits cut, and they kill innocent civillians on purpose in their state of rage, and a troop where to step forward and expose them, he'd be the bad guy?
No. where did you get a crackpot idea like that? Don't say you got it from me...

It's really tough to discuss these matters with a group who either doesn't want to understand a position different from their's or can't do the same. So which is it?

[aghast]

Brian Kagy is absolutely correct. Boortz is a buffoon. For one example where he obviously lied to gain a trivial debating advantage, see the idiotic lie he gave onCNN (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/30/lad.02.html)when Air America first debuted.

He claimed (http://qando.net/archives/003159.htm) he invited Al Franken to guest host his show, but that Franken was too much of a coward to go before his callers, and refused the offer. Franken had him on during the first weeks of his show, and Boortz said, 'I never said that. I never invited you to do my show. That must be a mistake in the transcript.' A few weeks later, Franken had Boortz on again. This time, he played him the audio from CNN. Boortz, instead of apologizing for the pathological and completely trivial nature of the lie, became enraged, and threatened (http://boortz.com/nuze/200406/06032004.html)never to be interviewed on Air America again.

===

You haven't given the name of the doctor. One CO in the past came forward and claimed one of Kerry's wounds was nothing but a tiny scratch on his forearm (as has been noted, remembered the exact location after thirty years). But Kerry's medical report (not signed by this blowhard, I believe his name was Hubbard) explicitly stated that Kerry's wound was above the elbow, making obvious that the guy was lying or at best had a faulty memory.

If it's the same guy, this Boortz interview is a non-story.

By the way, Kerry never claimed his wounds were massive. Two, IIRC, were relatively minor, from shrapnel. The third was also from shrapnel, but a more serious injury to his leg (before he pulled Rassman from the water) that required a brief hospitilization, again, if I remember.

The point is, he was wounded three times. It's, in my opinion, a good thing he wasn't partially paralyzed like Dole, and that he can still walk. He was awarded the purple hearts ultimately by his commanding officers. How does this matter?

Also, the difference between Clinton's non-service and Bush's non-service is that Clinton actively demonstrated against the war. He didn't believe in it, and refused to fight in it. GWB, on the other hand, doesn't remember Vietnam as being that 'big a deal' when he was in college. He tacitly supported the war, as he admits, but refused to fight it. See the contradiction?

Kerry has both of 'em beat. Kerry didn't agree with the war, but still volunteered for service because he thought it was his duty to his country. Then, seeing the horror of war firsthand, and after acquitting himself well in battle, returned to actively make sure the war would end as soon as possible, so that no more soldiers would need to "die for a mistake."

[aghast]

Bizarro world indeed.

Giddyup,

Have you never heard of the Phonix quotas? Tiger Force (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031020/SRTIGERFORCE/110190136) didn’t exist? Maylay didn’t happen? Nixon didn’t illegally order the bombing of Cambodia? Free fire zones didn’t cut down innocent women and children, anybody who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Soldiers weren’t ordered to set fire to villagers’ homes, raze entire villages based on nothing but hunches? Napalm didn’t rain down equally on civilians and VC alike? Agent Orange didn’t defoliate entire crop supplies, pollute the groundwater, and leave birth defects for generations to come? What world are you living in?

In your worldview, for Kerry to be wrong in opposing Vietnam, Vietnam would have to be right, a just war. Do you honestly believe that? So that must mean the domino theory was correct, right? Funny thing: we lost Vietnam. And the rest of SE Asia did not turn Communist; why is that? Do you really believe that Kerry had no reason to protest, citing his own experiences and those of many other disillusioned veterans?

[Chump]

Originally posted by giddyup
Kerry's serious mistake was to cast his net of guilt too widely and associate with idiots like Jane Fonda and the communists.

Surely there are those who protested without making those kinds of mistakes.

There certainly was a lot to protest, wasn't there? Damn Democrats... :D ... they are the ones who escalated Viet Nam into a quagmirish status.

have you seen 'Fog of War' ?

this is a interesting site that has transcripts (or you can listen) of LBJ's conversations dealing with the Vietnam dilemma

http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/prestapes/d1.html

this has nothing to do with your reply, just you mentioning LBJ being the one to esculate the war reminded me of that movie and that site

:)

[aghast]

And yes, the Democrat LBJ didn't trump up the Tonkin Gulf incident in order to garner support for a rapid escalation of the war?

[aghast]

Chump,

Off-topic, but I just saw Fog for the first time a few nights ago. Robert McNamara might be the most complex man of the past century. He had no compunctions at the time about fire-bombing to death 100,000 civilians, yet later fights for seat belts to save lives. Realizes that Vietnam was a horrible mistake, but still has too much pride to bring himself to say it. Wants to make, with the film, an absolute confession of the lessons learned from the mistakes he's made, then ends up lying (http://slate.msn.com/id/2092916) about them anyway. Absolutely amazing film.

[SamFisher]

This thread A-Bortz.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
I can't speak for anyone else, but for the umpteenth time I'm not disparaging his service. The question looms, though, about the legitimacy of his decorations.

Would all of you stop pretending that there is not a distinction between the two things....

The legitimacy of is decorations are not in question. There may be some question about 1 purple heart that ends up surfacing more than thirty years later. That's hardly a scandal, and relatively unimportant.

But let's suppose that all the purple hearts were incorrectly awarded. Who does that hurt? Did Kerry award himself the medals? No. Kerry didn't award himself a single medal. Others bestowed the medals upon Kerry. Now if thirty years later some folks want to come out and attack Kerry's officers and the people who award medals, that's up to them. To me it's pointless.

Kerry was awarded the medals and has every right to mention that. If someone says later that he was awarded a medal that he shouldn't have gotten, it's still not Kerry's fault. He doesn't pin the medals on himself.

I don't begin to assert that a doctor who says thirty years after the fact that Kerry shouldn't have gotten a medal is correct, I was just supposing for the sake of this pointless argument.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
Kerry's serious mistake was to cast his net of guilt too widely and associate with idiots like Jane Fonda and the communists.

Surely there are those who protested without making those kinds of mistakes.

There certainly was a lot to protest, wasn't there? Damn Democrats... :D ... they are the ones who escalated Viet Nam into a quagmirish status.

Kerry did not associate with Jane Fonda. They met, and were at some of the same rallies. Kerry never organized a thing in cooperation with Jane, he never supported her photo's and trip to visit the n. Vietnamese army. They are two people who happened to be at the same rally. End of story.

Kerry has explained how the free fire zones which were common in Viet Nam could be considered war crimes, and those that obeyed the common and frequent order to enforce those zones were war criminals. He cited and read the Geneva Convention to back up the claims.

Kerry never claimed that every Viet Nam vet was guilty of war crimes, or that they raped, beheaded or tortured anyone.

The explanation is there, and it has been there almost since day one of this 'controversy'. Anyone who is still accusing Kerry of those things hasn't been listening, so I don't know if it's worth anybody's time of trying to point them to the evidence.

That doesn't mean I disagree with people who are upset about Kerry did with his medals. Actually I do disagree with them, but that action is one where two people can rationally have two different views on what it meant. Others who blindly listen to the charges about Kerry calling all vets war criminals etc. just isn't reading the transcripts, and facts.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by aghast
In your worldview, for Kerry to be wrong in opposing Vietnam, Vietnam would have to be right, a just war. Do you honestly believe that? So that must mean the domino theory was correct, right? Funny thing: we lost Vietnam. And the rest of SE Asia did not turn Communist; why is that? Do you really believe that Kerry had no reason to protest, citing his own experiences and those of many other disillusioned veterans?
This is getting so idiotic. Where have I said that anybody was wrong for opposing Viet Nam? I said that the way that Kerry opposed Viet Nam left a lot to be desired.

I have stated this umpteen times and yet you still continue to mis-characterize my position: see my post about mis-understanding-- intentional or not...

[giddyup]

<b>Originally posted by FranchiseBlade

Kerry did not associate with Jane Fonda. They met, and were at some of the same rallies. Kerry never organized a thing in cooperation with Jane, he never supported her photo's and trip to visit the n. Vietnamese army. They are two people who happened to be at the same rally. End of story.</b>

I do believe that their paths crossed more than once, no?

<b>Kerry has explained how the free fire zones which were common in Viet Nam could be considered war crimes, and those that obeyed the common and frequent order to enforce those zones were war criminals. He cited and read the Geneva Convention to back up the claims.</b>

This was a war with farmers firing on soldiers. Oops, there goes the Geneva Convention in the first place. Is it better to level the playing field or to fight stupid?

<b>Kerry never claimed that every Viet Nam vet was guilty of war crimes, or that they raped, beheaded or tortured anyone.</b>

He stated "thousands" of soldiers. Where did he get his figures? How did he calculate that number? Estimation? Calculation? Exagerataion? Taken as a percentage of the number of soldiers that Kerry would have had any kind of knowledge about their duty and service, I think that as a percentage, an expresson of "thousands" is pretty high.

<b>The explanation is there, and it has been there almost since day one of this 'controversy'. Anyone who is still accusing Kerry of those things hasn't been listening, so I don't know if it's worth anybody's time of trying to point them to the evidence.</b>

And who provided the explanation? This heretofore silent attending physician certainly may have something substantial to say... but your side doesn't even want to hear it and is already calculating ways to dismiss him.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup

I do believe that their paths crossed more than once, no?
Not that much more. Note that they weren't even next to each other at the events. It wasn't a cooperative thing. If you attend a concert and someone gets assaulted in the mosh pit, or stabbed in the parking lot does that mean you are guilty of associating with violent criminals?


This was a war with farmers firing on soldiers. Oops, there goes the Geneva Convention in the first place. Is it better to level the playing field or to fight stupid?
You can throw out your principles because the other side does. I don't think it makes someone else wrong for believing that they should be held more dearly.

He stated "thousands" of soldiers. Where did he get his figures? How did he calculate that number? Estimation? Calculation? Exagerataion? Taken as a percentage of the number of soldiers that Kerry would have had any kind of knowledge about their duty and service, I think that as a percentage, an expresson of "thousands" is pretty high.
I do believe that thousands participated in the free fire zones. He might know what units were involved in the free fire zones he participated in and know that it was in the thousands. That doesn't seem like a stretch at all. I think the important thing is is to look at what he calling a war crime. You already said that you disagreed with his definititon of the war crime(Geneva convention under the circumstances of Viet Nam). So by your definition maybe it was or wasn't thousands of vets. Certainly by Kerry's definition thousands is accurate. By the way, Kerry is the one talking, so there is nothing inconsistent with his statements.

And who provided the explanation? This heretofore silent attending physician certainly may have something substantial to say... but your side doesn't even want to hear it and is already calculating ways to dismiss him.

What the physician has to say more than three decades later isn't really important as it affects John Kerry. It may give some credence to those that thing one of Kerry's three purple hearts wasn't deserved. If does then I still don't care, because Kerry being awarded medals isn't up to Kerry. Are the officers that decided who did and didn't receive medals running for office? Then why does it matter whether those gentleman made mistakes? (again that's for the sake of argument because one doctor singing out three decades later in an election year doesn't prove the argument one way or the other.) Would I rather the election were focused on issues, and qualifications of the candidates? You bet I would, but if people want to make an issue and attack those that award medals instead, that's up to them.

[aghast]

Originally posted by giddyup
This is getting so idiotic. Where have I said that anybody was wrong for opposing Viet Nam? I said that the way that Kerry opposed Viet Nam left a lot to be desired.

I have stated this umpteen times and yet you still continue to mis-characterize my position: see my post about mis-understanding-- intentional or not...

Fair enough. It seemed to me to be the logical extensions of your claims, but OK. My question: what do you see wrong with Kerry's protests?

Here's a copy of what Kerry said before the Armed Services committee in 1971.
[i[Kerry's Senate Armed Services committee speech (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1972VVAW.html) [/i]

Modern History Sourcebook:
Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement, 1971

Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry, 1971 to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations April 23, 1971

I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term Winter Soldier is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriots and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out....

In our opinion and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American.

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search and destroy missions, as well as by Viet Cong terrorism - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.

We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings." We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?....We are here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country - the question of racism which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions such as the use of weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.

An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of Alcatraz put it to me very succinctly. He told me how as a boy on an Indian reservation he had watched television and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said, "my God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people," and he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end.

We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission - to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so when thirty years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

Please tell me what you consider wrong in this. By stating the obvious facts that war crimes occurred, and that his fellow veterans were ordered to commit them, he was not attacking the soldiers. He was attacking the commanders so corrupt that they ordered them to do so. Above, Fog of War was mentioned. Do you realize how many years Vietnam continued after McNamara came to the conclusion that the war was unwinnable.

The problem obviously to me, is that Kerry was disillusioned with the nation's leadership, both Democrats and Republicans. Our leaders sent young men to war, our leaders ordered them to open fire on civilians in so-called "free-fire zones." 18 year old men didn't make that term up.

All the atrocities, the war crimes, Kerry mentioned, actually happened.

...raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country...

Do you doubt that? Can you honestly read anything about the history of the Vietnam War and doubt that? Why are you impugning Kerry for stating the obvious? And, in so doing, help to END the unjust war?

Stating the obvious atroctities which occured in Vietnam is not attacking the troops who fought it. Rather, not bringing it to the light of day would be the supreme insult. Because of the work of Kerry and others like him, Vietnam ended earlier. How is this wrong?

[DonnyMost]

Originally posted by giddyup
When I have said that about any and every war protestor, let's talk.

I can't remember you ever mentioning anyone who has remotely dissented against American military action (especially the actions of Bush) in a light that didn't lean more towards 'treason' or 'sabotage' of the US as a whole.

[Oski2005]

That was my first time reading that, thanks aghast. Wow, it made me want to support him more. It also pissed me off more because once again, I clearly see how people don't pay attention at all to what he said and accuse him of attacking our troops because the RNC says so. That entire speech was him begging the leaders of this country to save our troops.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by DonnyMost
I can't remember you ever mentioning anyone who has remotely dissented against American military action (especially the actions of Bush) in a light that didn't lean more towards 'treason' or 'sabotage' of the US as a whole.
You, sir, are hallucinating then! :D

[FranchiseBlade]

I think it's funny that some conservatives like to ridicule those that criticize the military. Yet some conservatives are going out of their way to criticize the military in regards to this. They are trying to criticize the part of the military that awards medals.

[aghast]

Originally posted by Oski2005
That was my first time reading that, thanks aghast. Wow, it made me want to support him more. It also pissed me off more because once again, I clearly see how people don't pay attention at all to what he said and accuse him of attacking our troops because the RNC says so. That entire speech was him begging the leaders of this country to save our troops.

My thoughts exactly.

Yeah, when it was a field of 8/9 Dem. candidates, reading that speech is absolutely what made me throw my lot in with Kerry. One can make the argument that he has become politically calculating as he's gotten older. I think, to a certain degree, that may very well be true (witness the asinine statement about the family/personal SUVs). But anybody who can speak, and ACT, on that topic so passionately in his early 20s, I'll absolutely support.

[Faos]

Originally posted by andymoon
I believe he is more of a patriot because he spilled his blood on the battlefield in defense of this country, yes. ALL soldiers who spill their blood on the battlefield are more patriotic than those of us who sit at home and watch the war on TV and in the newspapers.

That wasn't my point. I wasn't referring to Kerry in particular. I think you are short changing other vets who weren't wounded.

I don't know how old you are or if you ever served, but it seems like you think that those of us who didn't enlist are losers. Are firemen and policemen not heroes?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
I think it's funny that some conservatives like to ridicule those that criticize the military. Yet some conservatives are going out of their way to criticize the military in regards to this. They are trying to criticize the part of the military that awards medals.
This is too funny. Wasn't it you who told me I should be criticizing the military but wasn't doing so?

[mc mark]

Giddyup I don't know if it was mentioned in the thread but do we know the name of the doctor that's going to be on the show?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
This is too funny. Wasn't it you who told me I should be criticizing the military but wasn't doing so?

I don't know if I said that or not. I don't think I've ever told anyone to criticize the military. I support the military, and I have a nephew currently serving the marines. My father fought in WW2 and my Grandfather fought in WW1. I'm not anti-military. I won't hesitate to say when I disagree with the military, and believe it's American to do so. So even if I was criticizing them for something I disagreed with it wouldn't be hypocritical of me.

It would only be hypocritical of those that believe such a critique is un-American and not supporting the troops. I was merely pointing out that those that do that are the same ones trying to smear those that awarded soldiers medals in Viet Nam. In their rush to attack Kerry they are attacking others and hoping that somehow their attack can spread to discredit John Kerry.

[mc mark]

just a followup...

The doctor on Boortz's show was Dr. Louis Letson.

---------------------------------

A doctor, Louis Letson, repeats accusations he made in newspaper interviews this spring that Mr. Kerry did not deserve his first Purple Heart because his wounds resulted from a ricochet off friendly fire, saying in the advertisement, "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." The Kerry campaign pointed out yesterday, as it had previously, that another doctor, J. C. Carreon, signed Mr. Kerry's treatment record.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/05/politics/campaign/05veterans.htmll

[outlaw]

Originally posted by mc mark
A doctor, Louis Letson, repeats accusations he made in newspaper interviews this spring that Mr. Kerry did not deserve his first Purple Heart because his wounds resulted from a ricochet off friendly fire,

Better retract Pat Tillman's Purple Heart as well then

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by mc mark
just a followup...

The doctor on Boortz's show was Dr. Louis Letson.

---------------------------------

A doctor, Louis Letson, repeats accusations he made in newspaper interviews this spring that Mr. Kerry did not deserve his first Purple Heart because his wounds resulted from a ricochet off friendly fire, saying in the advertisement, "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." The Kerry campaign pointed out yesterday, as it had previously, that another doctor, J. C. Carreon, signed Mr. Kerry's treatment record.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/05/politics/campaign/05veterans.htmll
Descending unto the muck for a second.....

What an idiot, not only was he not there, but the rules for getting a purple heart are thus:

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.

Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

a) Frostbite or trench foot injuries.

b) Heat stroke.

c) Food poisoning not caused by enemy agents.

d) Chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy.

e) Battle fatigue.

f) Disease not directly caused by enemy agents.

g) Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action


He think's he shouldn't get one because "a ricochet"? Any reading of the Rules indicates that this type of injury merits a purple heart:


Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel or other projectile created by enemy action.

Kerry was in enemy action, he was injured by a projectile, the projectile was removed and/or the wound treated. = purple heart, end of story.

So, I wonder if "serious questions" still remain...I bet they do :rolleyes:

[arno_ed]

Originally posted by mc mark
Oh there's a good reason.

It keeps dorks like us bitching back and forth to no end and nothing gets accomplished. Just what the RNC wants.

God forbid we actually talk issues. God forbid we analysis the last four years of policy to see if it's how we want to continue going.

But please! Lets keep talking about wives and purple hearts and movies and books and entertainers.
best post this thread.
it doesn't matter that he got a purple heart or that his wife yelled against a journalist.
AL that matters is wich of the candidates is the best for the usa and the world. It matters what they want in the world.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by Faos
That wasn't my point. I wasn't referring to Kerry in particular. I think you are short changing other vets who weren't wounded.

No, those people are patriots as well. In fact, veterans in general are FAR more patriotic than those of us who laze on our couches enjoying the freedoms that THEY fight for. That means that Kerry is right in there with the group of people who I consider the MOST patriotic in our country, even moreso since he VOLUNTEERED to go to 'Nam, VOLUNTEERED for front-line duty rather than being stationed on a ship miles offshore, and VOLUNTEERED to command a boat whose sole duty was to engage the enemy.

Because he volunteered for these duties, he was wounded in battle three times and after leaving 'Nam, performed even MORE patriotic duty by protesting an unjust war, helping to force our leaders to bring the boys home.

Do I think that vets who did not get wounded qualify as patriots? Absolutely.

Do I think that Kerry's service qualifies him as more of a patriot than GWB? Absolutely so.

Originally posted by Faos

I don't know how old you are or if you ever served,

34 and no.

Originally posted by Faos

but it seems like you think that those of us who didn't enlist are losers.

Your assumptions are not my opinions. I never said anything about people who don't enlist being losers. I do believe that we are not as patriotic nor as heroic as those who served, but to qualify as a "loser" during the time in question, one would have to actively avoid going to 'Nam despite supporting the war.

Originally posted by Faos

Are firemen and policemen not heroes?

Of course they are. Are they as "patriotic" as a veteren, particularly one who volunteers for front line duty in time of war? No, but that does not take away from the heroism necessary to do their jobs.