Atleast 2 of 3 purple hearts were awarded for scratches that did not even involve enemy fire. 3 out the 3 incidences only gave Kerry scratches and Kerry did not even miss a day of work due to these minor scratches. It was unheard of for a soldier to get shipped out of Vietnam after only being there for 4 months. This all seems very fishy. Why hasn't the media reported on this? Seems this was some sort of phony act. How did Kerry get out of Vietnam after 4 months and then upon return he starts to bash America for war crimes and such. Kerry admited to commiting war crimes, this is much worse than panties gate. Why hasn't Kerry been tried for war crimes that he admitted to?
No problem with him receiving them...but once he fake tossed them over the White House fence that's it. Don't talk about them ever again. But all Flipper can talk about now is Nam...and to an audience of loonie lefties who burned the flag and spit on the vets.
P.S. I'm sure a lot of guys did some filming...no problem with that either.
P.S. I'm sure a lot of guys did some filming...no problem with that either.
Senditin don't insult Viet Nam Vets by pretending to know anything abvout them. You have no clue what happened over there. Just be thankful there were some real men brave enough to fight for the freedom you so much take for granted today. Twerps like you make me wonder if it was ever worth the effort.
Hey Wil, I was there, and I agree with Senditin.
Senditin doesn't even know what morons most officers were, especially Lieutenants.
To have this guy come back to the world and accuse his "brothers" of attrocities is a real joke. And then to throw (his??) metals over the White House fence, as though they were meaningless.
Also - I see him at the same rally as Hanoi Jane, and I need to know nothing else - Kerry is an oportunist at worst, and a person who would turn his back on his brothers for his own personal gain - that he is in thye same area as Hanoi Jane without spitting on her -- well, "birds of a feather flock together!"
Senditin doesn't even know what morons most officers were, especially Lieutenants.
To have this guy come back to the world and accuse his "brothers" of attrocities is a real joke. And then to throw (his??) metals over the White House fence, as though they were meaningless.
Also - I see him at the same rally as Hanoi Jane, and I need to know nothing else - Kerry is an oportunist at worst, and a person who would turn his back on his brothers for his own personal gain - that he is in thye same area as Hanoi Jane without spitting on her -- well, "birds of a feather flock together!"
IMO, the only opinions that matter on his service record are the guys who served on the boat with him.
If they can testify that they would follow him into battle and if the Republican Green Beret he fished out of the water can testify to his courage, I don't really care what neocon pundits like Anne Coulter have to say about it. She has about as much frame of reference for opining on that as she does explaining quantum physics - no fvckin clue.
Btw, anyone who has ever had military experience knows you don't award yourself medals. So if you don't think he deserved them, your real beef is with the superiors who approved and awarded them.
If they can testify that they would follow him into battle and if the Republican Green Beret he fished out of the water can testify to his courage, I don't really care what neocon pundits like Anne Coulter have to say about it. She has about as much frame of reference for opining on that as she does explaining quantum physics - no fvckin clue.
Btw, anyone who has ever had military experience knows you don't award yourself medals. So if you don't think he deserved them, your real beef is with the superiors who approved and awarded them.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mudbone:
IMO, the only opinions that matter on his service record are the guys who served on the boat with him.
If they can testify that they would follow him into battle and if the Republican Green Beret he fished out of the water can testify to his courage, I don't really care what neocon pundits like Anne Coulter have to say about it. She has about as much frame of reference for opining on that as she does explaining quantum physics - no fvckin clue.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mud, most of those who served with Kerry find him repulsive. Here's one who talks about the 'death defying' rescue of Rassman:
"As for the first, more fundamental objection to the convention video, Thurlow says that Kerry's version of the events of March 13, 1969, is simply wrong. "His story is a total fabrication," Thurlow says. One of the Swift Boats did hit a mine that day, Thurlow says, but much of the rest of Kerry's story is inaccurate. "This thing about being under intense enemy fire is a falsehood...There was no fire off either bank [of the river]. This thing about getting Jim out of the river under a hail of bullets with these serious injuries is totally fabricated."
"We fired our weapons onto the bank to suppress any chance that there might be snipers that might try to pick off guys in the chaos," Thurlow says. "But I don't remember any fire from the banks." Thurlow also says he saw Kerry briefly toward the end of the day, and "he wasn't bleeding, and he wasn't hurt."
IMO, the only opinions that matter on his service record are the guys who served on the boat with him.
If they can testify that they would follow him into battle and if the Republican Green Beret he fished out of the water can testify to his courage, I don't really care what neocon pundits like Anne Coulter have to say about it. She has about as much frame of reference for opining on that as she does explaining quantum physics - no fvckin clue.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mud, most of those who served with Kerry find him repulsive. Here's one who talks about the 'death defying' rescue of Rassman:
"As for the first, more fundamental objection to the convention video, Thurlow says that Kerry's version of the events of March 13, 1969, is simply wrong. "His story is a total fabrication," Thurlow says. One of the Swift Boats did hit a mine that day, Thurlow says, but much of the rest of Kerry's story is inaccurate. "This thing about being under intense enemy fire is a falsehood...There was no fire off either bank [of the river]. This thing about getting Jim out of the river under a hail of bullets with these serious injuries is totally fabricated."
"We fired our weapons onto the bank to suppress any chance that there might be snipers that might try to pick off guys in the chaos," Thurlow says. "But I don't remember any fire from the banks." Thurlow also says he saw Kerry briefly toward the end of the day, and "he wasn't bleeding, and he wasn't hurt."
So throwing his medals or in other words voicing his opinion in protest was wrong? So we as Americans don't have a right to protest? to voice our opinions?
Nobody said anything of the sort. My point was I feel it's disingenuous of the Kerry campaign to continue to harp on the medals when Kerry disowned them years ago...period. Don't try and read in "attacking veterans" or "you don't respect our freedom" into the post because it isn't there or intended.
Nobody said anything of the sort. My point was I feel it's disingenuous of the Kerry campaign to continue to harp on the medals when Kerry disowned them years ago...period. Don't try and read in "attacking veterans" or "you don't respect our freedom" into the post because it isn't there or intended.
Shot:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mudbone:
IMO, the only opinions that matter on his service record are the guys who served on the boat with him.
If they can testify that they would follow him into battle and if the Republican Green Beret he fished out of the water can testify to his courage, I don't really care what neocon pundits like Anne Coulter have to say about it. She has about as much frame of reference for opining on that as she does explaining quantum physics - no fvckin clue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mud, most of those who served with Kerry find him repulsive. Here's one who talks about the 'death defying' rescue of Rassman:
"As for the first, more fundamental objection to the convention video, Thurlow says that Kerry's version of the events of March 13, 1969, is simply wrong. "His story is a total fabrication," Thurlow says. One of the Swift Boats did hit a mine that day, Thurlow says, but much of the rest of Kerry's story is inaccurate. "This thing about being under intense enemy fire is a falsehood...There was no fire off either bank [of the river]. This thing about getting Jim out of the river under a hail of bullets with these serious injuries is totally fabricated."
"We fired our weapons onto the bank to suppress any chance that there might be snipers that might try to pick off guys in the chaos," Thurlow says. "But I don't remember any fire from the banks." Thurlow also says he saw Kerry briefly toward the end of the day, and "he wasn't bleeding, and he wasn't hurt."
First of all, I question whether "most of those who served with him find him repulsive". You're saying that Wesley Clarke or former JCS Chief of Staff Gen John Shalikashvilli, both veterans of Viet Nam are repulsed by him, when in fact, they endorsed him during the convention?
Nice exaggeration, but it does not work.
second, you base your claims that the rescue of rasmussen was not an act worhty of decoration due to observation of one witness while 4 others on the crew, not merely observing, felt otherwise. Np. Here's where Bush Senior's account of him bailing over the Ocean during WWII is questioned:
http://www.tarpley.net/bush6.htm
In fog of war, shvt hasppens. Bush Senior has nobody to back up his story while Kerry has his entire crew plus Rasmussen to back up his.
Frankly, I think attempts to discredit both are chickenshit. Let me make this clear: I respect George H.W. Bush for fighting for his country, volunteering for the war and for being willing to sacrifcie his life if necessary - same way I respect Kerry. Very easy to question the bravery or decisions of those in war from behind the comfort and security of your keyboard.
Peace out,
Mud
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mudbone:
IMO, the only opinions that matter on his service record are the guys who served on the boat with him.
If they can testify that they would follow him into battle and if the Republican Green Beret he fished out of the water can testify to his courage, I don't really care what neocon pundits like Anne Coulter have to say about it. She has about as much frame of reference for opining on that as she does explaining quantum physics - no fvckin clue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mud, most of those who served with Kerry find him repulsive. Here's one who talks about the 'death defying' rescue of Rassman:
"As for the first, more fundamental objection to the convention video, Thurlow says that Kerry's version of the events of March 13, 1969, is simply wrong. "His story is a total fabrication," Thurlow says. One of the Swift Boats did hit a mine that day, Thurlow says, but much of the rest of Kerry's story is inaccurate. "This thing about being under intense enemy fire is a falsehood...There was no fire off either bank [of the river]. This thing about getting Jim out of the river under a hail of bullets with these serious injuries is totally fabricated."
"We fired our weapons onto the bank to suppress any chance that there might be snipers that might try to pick off guys in the chaos," Thurlow says. "But I don't remember any fire from the banks." Thurlow also says he saw Kerry briefly toward the end of the day, and "he wasn't bleeding, and he wasn't hurt."
First of all, I question whether "most of those who served with him find him repulsive". You're saying that Wesley Clarke or former JCS Chief of Staff Gen John Shalikashvilli, both veterans of Viet Nam are repulsed by him, when in fact, they endorsed him during the convention?
Nice exaggeration, but it does not work.
second, you base your claims that the rescue of rasmussen was not an act worhty of decoration due to observation of one witness while 4 others on the crew, not merely observing, felt otherwise. Np. Here's where Bush Senior's account of him bailing over the Ocean during WWII is questioned:
http://www.tarpley.net/bush6.htm
In fog of war, shvt hasppens. Bush Senior has nobody to back up his story while Kerry has his entire crew plus Rasmussen to back up his.
Frankly, I think attempts to discredit both are chickenshit. Let me make this clear: I respect George H.W. Bush for fighting for his country, volunteering for the war and for being willing to sacrifcie his life if necessary - same way I respect Kerry. Very easy to question the bravery or decisions of those in war from behind the comfort and security of your keyboard.
Peace out,
Mud
What has to baffle anyone with 1/2 a brain is Kerry suffered no injuries and received 3 purple hearts. This whole Kerry is a war hero non-sense is based off 4 months of duty in Vietnam, which is great he showed for 4 months. Lets face it no one else could get out after 4 months except Kerry. I really believe the 4 months was a phony act for his run today for President. Why would he put himself in for these fake purple hearts and film himself as some kind of fake war hero. The fake injuries got him out of duty early. A nobody would not have been removed from Vietnam unless they suffered a serious injury.
Game,
Why do you believe Kerry could get out after 4 months if he did not deserve to do so? Plz name the people who conspired to pull the strings.
And here's your bonus question on the test: Explain to me why you think Bush was not AWOL when he was supposed to be reporting to Alabama National Guard.
Thanks for playing.
Why do you believe Kerry could get out after 4 months if he did not deserve to do so? Plz name the people who conspired to pull the strings.
And here's your bonus question on the test: Explain to me why you think Bush was not AWOL when he was supposed to be reporting to Alabama National Guard.
Thanks for playing.
Mud,
The dems and the media have beat the dead horse about Bush and his service. I don't see Bush trying to play himself up as a war hero.
Kerry ran the Vietnam war in the ground and cost US soldiers lives with his action upon returning. Kerry claimed he commited war crimes. Now he's outraged at panties gate. Kerry now tries to make himself out to be a war hero for a war he was supposedly was against, it just doesn't pass the smell test.
The dems and the media have beat the dead horse about Bush and his service. I don't see Bush trying to play himself up as a war hero.
Kerry ran the Vietnam war in the ground and cost US soldiers lives with his action upon returning. Kerry claimed he commited war crimes. Now he's outraged at panties gate. Kerry now tries to make himself out to be a war hero for a war he was supposedly was against, it just doesn't pass the smell test.
From Swiftvets.com:
John Kerry's service in Vietnam lasted 4 months and 12 days, beginning in November 1968 when he reported to Cam Rahn Bay for a month of training. His abbreviated combat tour ended shortly after he requested a transfer out of Vietnam on March 17, 1969, citing Navy instruction 1300.39 permitting personnel with three Purple Hearts to request reassignment. So far as we are able to determine, Kerry was the only Swift sailor ever to leave Vietnam without completing the standard one-year tour of duty, other than those who were seriously wounded or killed.
It is clear that at least one of Kerry's Purple Heart awards was the result of his own negligence, not enemy fire, and that Kerry went to unusual lengths to obtain the award after being turned down by his own commanding officer.
John Kerry has long insisted that using the three-injury loophole to leave combat early was his own idea, but Kerry's fellow Swift officer Thomas Wright, who served on occasion as the OIC (Officer in Charge) of Kerry's boat group, contradicts that claim. Wright reports that he "had a lot of trouble getting Kerry to follow orders," and that those who worked with Kerry found him "oriented towards his personal, rather than unit goals and objectives." He therefore requested that Kerry be removed from his boat group. After John Kerry qualified for his third Purple Heart, Thomas Wright and two fellow officers informed him of the obscure regulation, and told him to go home. Wright concluded, "We knew how the system worked and we didn’t want him in Coastal Division 11."
John Kerry's service in Vietnam lasted 4 months and 12 days, beginning in November 1968 when he reported to Cam Rahn Bay for a month of training. His abbreviated combat tour ended shortly after he requested a transfer out of Vietnam on March 17, 1969, citing Navy instruction 1300.39 permitting personnel with three Purple Hearts to request reassignment. So far as we are able to determine, Kerry was the only Swift sailor ever to leave Vietnam without completing the standard one-year tour of duty, other than those who were seriously wounded or killed.
It is clear that at least one of Kerry's Purple Heart awards was the result of his own negligence, not enemy fire, and that Kerry went to unusual lengths to obtain the award after being turned down by his own commanding officer.
John Kerry has long insisted that using the three-injury loophole to leave combat early was his own idea, but Kerry's fellow Swift officer Thomas Wright, who served on occasion as the OIC (Officer in Charge) of Kerry's boat group, contradicts that claim. Wright reports that he "had a lot of trouble getting Kerry to follow orders," and that those who worked with Kerry found him "oriented towards his personal, rather than unit goals and objectives." He therefore requested that Kerry be removed from his boat group. After John Kerry qualified for his third Purple Heart, Thomas Wright and two fellow officers informed him of the obscure regulation, and told him to go home. Wright concluded, "We knew how the system worked and we didn’t want him in Coastal Division 11."
You righties are really running scared on this issue.
The bottom line is that Kerry served, and Bush did not.
Kerry went to Vietnam. Bush did not.
Kerry is a decorated Vietnam veteran. Bush is not.
Kerry was a volunteer. Was Bush?
http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp
Face it guys, when it comes to the personal crunch, hes a wimp.
Any asshole can send 'other people' to do the business. He was never there, he didn't do it, he took no risks, he hasn't a clue.
The bottom line is that Kerry served, and Bush did not.
Kerry went to Vietnam. Bush did not.
Kerry is a decorated Vietnam veteran. Bush is not.
Kerry was a volunteer. Was Bush?
http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp
Face it guys, when it comes to the personal crunch, hes a wimp.
Any asshole can send 'other people' to do the business. He was never there, he didn't do it, he took no risks, he hasn't a clue.
He was only a lekky(electrician) that took a 'prospective officer of the deck' course, using his 'small boat experience' as a lever to get the posting.
(probaly able seaman type stuff (AB) )
An ambitious lad, he wanted to be 'officer in charge'.
Part 2. is the important bit of the application.
But it takes a bit more experience to be in charge of a boat.
