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