John "The War Hero" Kerry
 

I have given this guy some slack the last couple of months, because I knew stuff like this is going to catch up with him.

Insight on the News - Politics
Issue: 4/27/04

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


Purple Hearts: Three and Out
By Stephen Crump

Democratic presidential nominee in waiting Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) frequently speaks of courage, brotherhood and responsibility when he mentions his brief service in Vietnam. He took Super-8 home movies there in which he staged heroics in full-battle dress, so that later he might use them for campaign ads. Kerry has made so much of his Vietnam medals which he once pretended to throw away that critics have begun to wonder why he has been so cagey about the dubious circumstances surrounding the Purple Hearts that got him out of Vietnam after only four months of combat service. Under the rules, a serviceman had to be awarded three Purple Hearts to apply to go home. Not one or two, but three. And, say critics, there's the rub.

Kerry, who piloted Patrol Crafts Fast (PCFs) as a young Lt.(jg) in the Vietnam War, has always made much of those Purple Hearts. An award often pinned on the pillow of a combat warrior so badly wounded that he cannot sit up to receive it, the Purple Heart recognizes the sacrifices of combat when a soldier or officer has sustained a wound "from an outside force or agent" and received treatment from a medical officer. The records for such treatment "must have been made a matter of official record," according to the military definition of the award.

According to Kerry's own description in Douglas Brinkley's Tour of Duty, the Dec. 2, 1968, mission behind what he has claimed to be his first Purple Heart was "a half-assed action that hardly qualified as combat." Indeed. Kerry was stationed with Coastal Division 14 at Cam Ranh Bay. At that time he piloted a small foam-filled boat, known as a Boston Whaler, with two enlisted men in the darkness of early morning. The intent, apparently, was to patrol an area that was known for contraband trafficking, but it was an undocumented mission. Upon approaching the objective point, the crew noticed a sampan crossing the river. As it pulled to shore, Kerry and his little team opened fire, destroying the boat and whatever its cargo might have been.

In the confusion, Kerry claims to have received a "stinging piece of heat" in the arm, the result of a tiny piece of shrapnel. He was not incapacitated and continued with regular swiftboat-patrol duty. William Shachte, who oversaw this ad hoc mission, was quoted by the Boston Globe as saying Kerry's injury, from whatever source, "was not a serious wound at all."

But Kerry met with his immediate superior officer, Lt.Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, the next morning and requested a Purple Heart for his wound. Hibbard recalls that Kerry had a "minor scratch" on his arm and was holding in his hand what appeared to be a fragment of a U.S. M-79 grenade, the shrapnel that had caused the wound. "They didn't receive enemy fire," Hibbard tells Insight. Since this was an essential requirement for the award, the commander rejected Kerry's request. Hibbard does not remember that Kerry received medical attention of any kind and confirms that no one else on the mission suffered any injuries.

Shortly thereafter, Kerry was transferred to Coastal Division 11 at An Thoi. Apparently, Kerry petitioned to have his Purple Heart request reconsidered. Hibbard remembers getting correspondence from Kerry's new division, asking for his approval. In the hurried process of moving to a new command himself, Hibbard thinks he might have signed off on the award. If so, "it was to my chagrin," Hibbard remembers. Kerry's second commander, Lt.Cmdr. G.M. Elliott, says he has no recollection of such an event ever occurring.

There are no written records of Kerry's magical first Purple Heart on file at the Naval Historical Center in Washington, the nation's primary repository for such documentation. A Purple Heart normally is not requested but is awarded de facto for a wound inflicted by the enemy - a wound serious enough to require medical attention. The Naval Historical Center keeps all documents connected to such awards to U.S. Navy and Marine personnel. These typewritten "casualty cards" list the date, location and prognosis of the wound for which the Purple Heart is given, and they are produced by the medical facility that provides treatment for the combat wound at the hands of the enemy. There are two such cards for Kerry - for his slight wounds on Feb. 20 and March 13, 1969, but none for his December 1968 claim.

After receiving a Purple Heart for the March 13 scratch and bruise, Kerry sought an early pass out of combat duty, invoking the informal Navy "instruction" known as 1300.39. According to the Boston Globe, 1300.39 meant an officer could request a reassignment from his superior officer after receiving three Purple Hearts. The instruction states that, rather than being automatic, the reassignment would "be determined after consideration of his physical classification for duty and on an individual basis." Of the 138 servicemen and officers in Kerry's unit who received Purple Hearts during the time he was there, records indicate only two received more than two. These were Lt.(jg) Jim Galvin and a boatswain's mate named Stevens. When Insight reached Galvin he said all three of his Purple Hearts were the result of shrapnel or glass shards. Such minor injuries were common on PCF boats with their glass windows and thin metal hulls, and, like Kerry's, Galvin's injuries were not serious enough to take him out of combat for more than a few days.

Unlike Kerry, Galvin elected to stay with his men. Indeed, though a professional Navy officer, he never had heard of instruction 1300.39. It was not until early April of 1969, when Galvin noticed that Kerry was preparing to leave the officers' barracks at An Thoi that he learned about "three Purple Hearts and you're out." According to Galvin, it was Kerry who told him, "There's a rule that gets you out of here and I'm getting out. You ought to do the same." Galvin remembers, "He seemed to take care of everything pretty quickly," because that was the last time Galvin saw Kerry in Vietnam.

The three-times wounded Galvin stayed with his men, transferred to Cam Ranh Bay to get them a respite from the dicey Mekong Delta, and eventually left the swiftboats for destroyer school.

Insight: contacted many men who served in Coastal Division at the same time Kerry did to ask if any of them had heard of anyone leaving the combat zone by invoking three minor wounds. Of the 12 who replied, none had heard of anyone doing so but John Kerry."

Less than a month after having claimed three wounds for which he lost no more than a total of two days of duty, Kerry reported as an aide to a navy yard admiral in Brooklyn, New York, leaving his crew in Vietnam. Two years later, preparing for a congressional race in a left-wing Massachusetts district - where the seat eventually was won by the even more radical Rev. Robert Drinan - Kerry was working with Maoists and other radicals in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, saying of those he left behind who were being killed and wounded for real that they were committing crimes "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels."

Indeed, Kerry said, he knew men who in Vietnam "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside." Addressing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, about these and other alleged war crimes, he called on the United States to pay "extensive reparations."

Stephen Crump is an associate reporter for Insight magazine.

here is the link:http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/...t-656749.shtml

Yeah....pretty much standard issue from politicians, with the obvious exception of Mc Cain. Still at least he went, rather than use daddy and friends to hide in the U.S.

Insight magazine has some of the lousiest, most biased journalism I've ever seen. Kerry saw real action in Vietnam, and it's ridiculous and sad that anyone would claim otherwise. Here's a nice timeline you might want to check out:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/upda...02/02_400.html
Compare what Kerry was doing with what Bush was doing. Note that the Insight article leaves out the actual combat that Kerry was involved in, along with his Silver Star and Bronze Star.

His first purple heart was legitimately signed off on by his CO. His second and third were well documented and received in the heat of battle. The only controversy here is how a crappy publication like Insight can continue to delude their readers.

Im not a huge Kerry fan, but amen HRabbit. Insight is a piece of trash, and I cannot believe anyone could take that article seriously.

I read the article and was about to say damn this Kerry is a real creep, but then i opened up the website to see their cover, "Relics on Faith"

Their Poll: Does the release of the August 6, 2001 briefing memo to the President saying bin Laden "had designs on America" damage the President?

In the poll, 89% to 11% said No. Obviously not representative to what every day americans think as its probably closer to 50-50.

And the book "French Betrayal of America"

Very very conservative website which makes this article much less believable but it's still interesting.

Frankly, there is really no backup for this story. It may be true, but my guess is that (as Harmless Rabbit points out) much of Kerry's actual experiences in the service were intentionally left out. Insight is a fairly biased site. Just a quick perusal of recent "Political Alerts" show praise for the Bush administration and Condi Rice and the following alert titles:

"Is Kerry Inept or Ignorant?"

"Kerry's Anitwar Group Full of Communists"

"Kerry Not in Communion with Church"

"Bad Memory" (Where Kerry is criticized for not remembering being at a meeting in 1971 which many others don't remember him being at either)

and just for good measure they had:

"Party Disloyalist: McCain Bashes Bush and Republicans"

I guest I'll have to take this editorial with a grain of salt.

Ummm...yeah. Might I suggest the whole bag of salt.

I'm sorry, the man won 3 Purple Hearts, the Silver Star and the Bronze Star, with the Combat "V". He gets my respect. My vote...well, we'll see. But, he definately gets my respect.

I am sorry, but this is merely another example of the heavily Conservatively biased media in existence today. I know this term was coined towards the "liberals", however, I am increasingly finding this administration to be "hoist on their own petard".

What does it matter if someone serves in the military or not? Just because you went through boot camp and served 2 or 3 years doing whatever easy task was given doesn't mean you have more/less experience in being commander in chief than someone with absolutely zero military experience.

It's not like the President is at the front lines doing infantry work. He just calls the shots and lets the Generals handle the dirty details.

Well, in this specific case the problem comes from whether Kerry is lying about his past, which brings up questions of his overall integrity.

In general, however, I tend to agree.

As for the article, as much as I'd want to believe it :D, the source doesn't seem too valid.

Here's why:
http://www.clicktronic.com/archives/...complished.jpg

:) :) :)

you mean as oppossed to motherjones.com?

Anyway - couldn't this matter be solved if John Kerry would make his military service record public,which from my understanding he's been asked a number of times....

Man, does it seem like we're going in circles here?

What's hidden?
- First purple heart: signed off on by his CO, it isn't kerry's fault that his CO bitches about it later.
- Second purple heart: earned in battle
- Third purple heart: earned in battle
- Silver star: earned in battle
- Bronze star: earned in battle

Is there something more that you're looking for? The Insight article is a huge distortion of the truth. You don't need Kerry's military record to see that.

Are you disputing my assertion, or are you just changing the subject? Do you think the Insight article is accurate?

Well we will never know, that is unless he releases his service records. The thing is we people in Massachusetts know what he's all about, and all the bad things said about him are usually true.

Feel free to speak for your whole state. I was up there this weekend, and spoke with about 30 people from the state, some relatives, some friends, some strangers. I heard very little negative commentary about Kerry.
As for the stuff about the military, if you want to say the injuries he received in combat were not that severe, fine. Show me your three Purple Hearts. Then I'd like to see your Bronze and Silver stars.

NEVER KNOW WHAT?

He has three legitimate purple hearts, a silver star, and a bronze star. Are you saying that the article posted above is the truth? I say it's a terribly distorted piece of yellow journalism.

What are you hoping to find in his personal military records?

This is a joke right? The GOP have nothing better to do than to try to smear a war hero's record.

Come on GOP tell us how you will run things and jumpstart the economy, end the war and save all our souls and America. Show me some hard work, show me why we should vote GOP.

Or will you just sit back and take the easy way and tell us why we shouldn't vote for Kerry?

I have an open mind believe it or not. I can change it and vote GOP. Hell, I love Ohio Sen. George Voinivich, Dewine is a puss but....

I know the Dems are doing it also, so you have to take the low road with them. After all they did want Bush's medical records and proof he served his time in the Guard.

See and I speak from watching my friends and the heart here when I say this. Articles like this and those from the Left and commentators like Hannity, Limbaugh and O'reilly or Moore, Franken and whomever (with their party's approval).... they only cater to those that already have their minds made up. They don't work to change minds so they spew hate and filth and hope something sticks and stinks badly enough to raise a little heat.

In the process though, unfortunately, they alienate alot of voters and people who might have voted because noone talks about how they truly want to help fix things. When all you give is pessimism all you will ever get back is negativism. We need politicians and a political party that is optimistic, has a plan, says we may have to swallow a few bad pills to fix things but then we'll be ok and when others are negative about them, they just say "join us and give us better ideas and help or sit there and complain and do nothing."

I firmly believe a vast majority would take the bitter if they knew the sweet was coming and would last longer, and as long as the party and the people working the changes did so with positive and informative atmosphere.

I hope kerry picks mcain to be his running mate so I can see people bash mcains service record. "When he was a prisoner of war all he did was sit back on a lazy boy and drink champagne"

Lol.... you forgot country club Saturdays and Sundays and wicked party wednesdays.

There's a difference. Nobody questions McCain's record, because of how public he has been about it and how much it has been verified.

Kerry doesn't have that luxury because most people didn't know he served until last year. Also, he has refused to release his records, which President Bush did do after the Democrats demanded it.

That would indeed be interesting, considering Kerry is a Democrat and McCain is a Republican.

not as strange as you might think. People have been theorizing about this for weeks:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...3910-8075r.htm

mccain is about as solid a traditional republican as I can imagine, though, so it would be awfully strange. Too bad. I like McCain. If he was on the ticket, he would have my vote.

The Party of Principle



Agreed. To this day, I wish that McCain had won the Republican nomination in 2000. I, too, have heard it bantered around that he may be a possible Kerry running mate. I'm not sure how that would work, but it would certainly set a precedent. I don't know of any other Presidential ticket that has breached party lines. In my opinion, a Kerry/McCain ticket would spell much time in Crawford, writting memoirs, for GW.

I voted for McCain in the primaries and would have definitely preferred him to Bush. He will not be a Kerry running mate, however, and, if he did go that route, Kerry would still not get my vote.

Sorry about derailing this thread, but I think the kerry/mcain ticket would be a true chance break the bipartisanship that has become so strong lately. Though I have a feeling if mcain accepted that position the republican party would have a big split down the middle. And probably the democrat too. For once it would be nice to leave the partisanship behind and actually talk about politics.

The last time was Lincoln/Johnson, '64 (heh, 1864)

No chance the partisanship (I suspect you meant partisanship and not bipartisanship) would decline. I suspect it would increase. The VP plays the second fiddle. McCain's agendas would not be pushed by Kerry and his supporters and McCain will be left out in the cold by both the Republicans and Democrats.

well, i think he'll pick McCain if he really wants to win. Gosh I heart McCain.

i agree it will never happen but it would be nice.

Hey, no problem on the derailment, it's more interesting than the original topic. :)

Having two vietnam vets as president and vice president would certainly inject some reality into the military. McCain for prez and Kerry for VP would be much better though, too bad we can't make that one happen.

I heard that McCain has a new book coming out about courage, I'm looking forward to reading it.

is that so? in what way do you think the military is out of touch with reality?

Kerry is as much of a war hero as Al Gore was!

Did anyone think twice about him leaving his boat to hunt down an NVA?
His patrol boat must have beached to accomplish this. I was in the navy and all. I wasn't a patrol boat crew member. Therefore I cannot accurately recite any of their rules of combat.
A simple question 1st. Why would you take a fast mobile craft,thats works effectively on water, and park it at the enemies doorstep in a combat zone? Now the flash's in the bush have a non-moving target. If they kill the crew. They can easily take the boat and do some serious damage.
I beleive he should have been courtmartialed for that unwise decision. Not awarded a medal for hunting down and killing a wounded man in cold blood. I assume he finished the job with a pistol. I also assume the NVA was wounded or he would have escaped the tall goofy yankee jumping off of his boat.

Depending on the location of the sniper(s) and when they opened up on the boat, they may have been in more danger trying to get out of range than they'd be in heading towards the enemy. While his strategy in this instance wasn't the norm, it was obviously effective.

FrKerry faces questions over Purple Heart
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff, 4/14/2004

WASHINGTON -- John F. Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam, distinguished by Silver and Bronze stars and the close-range killing of an enemy fighter, is highlighted in his campaign ads and cheered on the trail. Even the campaign of President Bush, who did not see combat, hasn't tried to make an issue of his opponent's service record.

But as the presidential campaign heats up, some Vietnam veterans are using the Internet and talk radio to question the Democratic candidate's military record. They complain that Kerry's three Purple Hearts were for minor wounds and that he left Vietnam more than six months ahead of schedule under regulations permitting thrice-wounded soldiers to depart early.

A review by the Globe of Kerry's war record in preparation for a forthcoming book, "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography," found that the young Navy officer acted heroically under fire, in one case saving the life of an Army lieutenant. But the examination also found that Kerry's commanding officer at the time questioned Kerry's first Purple Heart, which he earned for a wound received just two weeks after arriving in Vietnam.

"He had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel," recalled Kerry's commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard. "People in the office were saying, `I don't think we got any fire,' and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm." Hibbard said he couldn't be certain whether Kerry actually came under fire on Dec. 2, 1968, the date in questionand that is why he said he asked Kerry questions about the matter.

But Kerry persisted and, to his own "chagrin," Hibbard said, he dropped the matter. "I do remember some questions, some correspondence about it," Hibbard said. "I finally said, `OK, if that's what happened . . . do whatever you want.' After that, I don't know what happened. Obviously, he got it, I don't know how."

Kerry declined to talk to the Globe about the issue during the preparation of the Kerry biography. But his press secretary, Michael Meehan, noted that the Navy concluded that Kerry deserved the Purple Heart.

During the Vietnam War, Purple Hearts were often granted for minor wounds. "There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts--from shrapnel, some of those might have been M-40 grenades," said George Elliott, who served as a commanding officer to Kerry during another point in his five-month combat tour in Vietnam. (Kerry earlier served a noncombat tour.) "The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes." Under Navy regulations, an enlistee or officer wounded three times was permitted to leave Vietnam early, as Kerry did. He received all three purple hearts for relatively minor injuries -- two did not cost him a day of service and one took him out for a day or two.

The incident that led to Kerry's first Purple Heart was risky, and covert. He and his crew left the safe confines of the huge US base at Cam Ranh Bay, climbing aboard a "skimmer" boat -- a craft similar to a Boston Whaler -- to travel upriver in search of Viet Cong guerrillas. At a beach that was known as a crossing area for enemy contraband traffic, Kerry's crew spotted some people running from a sampan, a flat-bottomed boat, to a nearby shoreline, according to two men serving alongside Kerry that night, William Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon. When the Vietnamese refused to obey a call to stop, Kerry authorized firing to begin.

"I assume they fired back," Zaladonis recalled in an interview. But neither he nor Runyon saw the source of the shrapnel that lodged in Kerry's arm. '`We came across the bay onto the beach and I got [hit] in the arm, got shrapnel in the arm," Kerry told the Globe in a 2003 interview. Kerry has also said he didn't know where the shrapnel came from.

Back at the base, Kerry told Hibbard he qualified for a Purple Heart, according to Hibbard. Thirty-six years later, Hibbard, reached at his retirement home in Florida, said he can still recall Kerry's wound, and that it resembled a scrape from a fingernail. "I've had thorns from a rose that were worse," said Hibbard, a registered Republican who said he was undecided on the 2004 presidential race.

The Globe asked Kerry's campaign whether the Massachusetts senator is certain he was under enemy fire and whether he recalled that a superior officer raised questions about the matter. The campaign did not respond directly to those questions. Instead, Meehan said in a prepared statement that Kerry "received the shrapnel wound early in the course of that combat engagement. " Meehan also provided a copy of a medical report showing treatment for a wound on Dec. 3, 1968. The Purple Heart regulation in effect at that time said that a wound must "require treatment by a medical officer."

Nearly three months later, a document was sent to Kerry informing him that he would receive a Purple Heart "for injuries received on 2 December 1968." The Naval Historical Center, which could not locate a copy of the original card for the incident, nonetheless confirmed that Kerry did receive the Purple Heart.

Kerry went on to earn another two Purple Hearts and he led more than two dozen missions in which he often faced enemy fire. He won the Silver Star for an action in which he killed an enemy soldier who carried a loaded rocket launcher that could have destroyed Kerry's six-man patrol boat, and he won a Bronze Star for rescuing an Army lieutenant who was thrown overboard and under fire.

One reason that Kerry has long divided Vietnam veterans is because of the way he led a group called Vietnam Veterans Against the War after he returned to the United States. While in Vietnam, Kerry began to question the policy of "free-fire zones," which permitted sailors to open fire on rivers where Vietnamese were violating nighttime curfews. He said in a 1971 appearance on "Meet the Press": "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed, in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones."

Thirty-three years later, that statement still rankles some veterans, apparently including those who have formed a group called Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry, which has a website devoted to what it calls Kerry's association with the "radical pro-communist" antiwar movement.

The statements of that group have been circulated widely over the Internet and picked up on conservative radio talk shows.

But some historians said Kerry is being unfairly criticized over his antiwar effort, which is best remembered for his Senate testimony in which he asked why soldiers should be asked to die for a mistake. "Thirty-three years later, his testimony has really proved to be prescient," said historian Stanley Karnow, author of "Vietnam: A History." "The war was a mistake. Nobody knew better that the war was a mistake than the poor grunts out there fighting it."

Indeed, some of Kerry's crewmates who were aghast that Kerry had led them into battle and then came home to protest the war now say Kerry was ahead of his time in seeing the mistaken policy. Crewmate James Wasser, who originally felt "betrayed" by Kerry's antiwar leadership, said, "Knowing what I know now, I would have totally agreed with him."

Michael Kranish can be reached at kranish@globe.com
om Today's Boston Glob the most liberal broadsheet in the USA
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/..._purple_heart/
So this gives you a perspective from a left leaning paper and the original article from a right wing alternative press source. But the facts of the matter are the same. Yes, John Kerry did go to Nam, but he found a way to get out quick. What ever you can say about him, the man is not stupid, and will do whatever he can for his own personal gain.

Yep, it clears it up all right. He has three legitimate purple hearts, a bronze star, and a silver star.

Wow, what a weasel. Going after a viet cong with a loaded RPG just so he could get out of Vietnam quickly. I can't believe this didn't become a controversy earlier! (/sarcasm)

It must be really embarassing to much of the conservative right that talk show hosts and a few isolated vietnam vets are trying to make a big deal out of Kerry's war record. Personally, I hope they succeed in making war records a big deal in the election campaign, since I think Kerry can defend himself very well in that regard versus pampered national guard pilot Bush.

So, please, by all means, make this an election issue. Be my guest.

Heehee. The man's got a point, Y'all.

I don't see the logic in forcing an issue, when one obviously isn't there, when your own position is on some extremely unsteady ground...at best. I don't get it.

Sometimes stories have their own legs, no matter what those in power may want. Maybe there's a concerted effort to get these stories running and maybe there's not.

So he beached his boat to attack a solitary soldier with an rpg? HUH? Didn't charlie travel in packs? As in; likely to be more than 1 RPG in the area. It's stupity, not courage to put your crew in danger due to the nature of the attack. Closing distance on a sniper is sound doctrine. Esp with the 50 cal's and such available on the boat. The sniper rifle range is obviously beyond that of a 50 cal. Close the range by driving in closer and attacking on foot is also reasonable.
Correct me if I am wrong. The guns mounted on the boat have a much greater range than an RPG? Why would you manuveur yourself anywhere near a weapon that can do serious damage to the vessel entrusted to you?
Maybe I should look further into the incident. As far as I can tell from the facts presented so far. He made a serious error in judgement.

All of you, John Kerry detractors, are absolutely right John Kerry some 35 + years ago wanted out of Vietnam so badly that he made sure he got injured 3 times.

Just for good measure knowing he was going to run for president he did all he could to make the injuries look "good" so that he would get the Silver and Bronze stars also.

It's all been a conspiracy these last 35+ years so he could get to the White House on the coattails of being a war hero. A well thought out, planned conspiracy, set forth by the Kennedy and Heinz families, who knew a few years in advance of Chappaquidick Teddy would never make president and how the Bush family would be in power.

It's all been planned..... you're onto us now though.

Pan6467, In John Kerry's case what you say is exactly true. He has patterned his life after John F. Kennedy. Everything he has done in his life has been with one goal in mind. Be President of the United States.

If kerry didn't beach the swift at the time he earned his Silver Star, the VC may have got a shot off and everyone, including Kerry may be dead today.

Which medals did he throw over the Capitol Fence when he was protesting the war? I know he threw someone else's medals and kept his own (which he framed years later for the wall in his Senate office.) But I'd still like to know which were worthless to him when he came back.

Nice Troll Mojo.

Let me preface my response by saying that I have never served in the military.

I think that when someone is morally opposed to something they have the right to state this and in fact take action as long as that action does not violate the law. In my opinion, Kerry and others protested, spoke out, wrote letters and yes threw medals in order to bring attention to what they perceived to be the evils of the Vietnam War. What these protestors were trying to say is that the lives of our young men and they lives of the Vietnamese and the inegrity of the United States is more important than any individual or individual accomplishment or honor(i.e. medals). It is not unpatriotic or wrong to publicly oppose something you disagree with. If our forefathers did not protest the abuses of Britain, our country would not exsist. Is is wrong to protest against abortion?

The attempt to paint Kerry or anyone who opposes war or the government as unpatriotic is fallacious and indeed comes much closer to being unpatriotic than what Kerry, his compatriots and protestors of today have done.

Nice troll. What does that have to do with this discussion?

I don’t see how my post is a troll. This thread is about his medals, and so was my post. It’s a valid question.

Which medals did he throw?

I never called Kerry "unpatriotic or wrong to publicly oppose something". I never would, he put on a uniform, that’s enough proof for me. Protesters are fine, as long as you don't keep me stopped up in traffic.

http://indi.blogs.com/indica/KerryMedals.png

Those who live in Glass houses.........

I have an Idea, Anyone who has been shot at in the line of duty please feel free to be critical of someone who has been thru the same. Any one who has not been threatened with impending death while protecting American Freedoms, please refrain from attempting to debase someone for doing it for you.

I cannot and will not be critical of ANY American soldier without knowing exactly what they have done, and why. I do not have the right, and neither do most of you. It will hurt no one to show a measure of respect for Veterans of the Wars that allow you to have this discussion. You can be critical of his politics, or his personality, even his Family......But it is inappropriate to speculate unfairly, on an issue we can not understand, until we have lived it.

Sadly tecoyah some people find it funner to ridicule vets based on party lines:rolleyes:

Seriously though, I agree tecoyah and personally I find it despicable people question others based on some political line

Thank you for properly responding to a troll, and not just flaming back.

This is a question:

This is a troll:

No more trolling from anyone. Don't ruin an otherwise informative thread.

Thanks!

I have been wondering this myself, because I couldn't find anything substantial on this. I was able to find, however, a website that wasn't supportive of Kerry.

"The 1988 issue of Current Biography Yearbook explained: " . . . the ones he had discarded were not his own but had belonged to another veteran who asked him to make the gesture for him"

FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"

--http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/913184/posts

i'll side with the traditionally left leaning posters in defending kerry's war record because no matter the circumstances they (his medals) were awarded to him... he still put himself in harms way for a while, more than many in his generation were willing to do. even if you could prove that he did it for a political future, that still takes guts whatever the motivation.

i'm just confused why this is all of the sudden a positive aspect of kerry's campaign. since when did democrats push military service as a positive factor in political leadership?

Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Senior and GWB have all performed military service and i've not seen these two things come from that...

1. i've never seen a liberal cede the point that their military service makes them more qualified for office.

2. i've never seen any of the aforementioned men make their military service a campaign talking point like kerry has used his.

if you want to talk about heroes... talk about Bob Dole. there is a humble man who has more to boast about than nearly every politician this century... yet did not allow it to be exploited when people tried to make a big deal of it in his run for the presidency.

all this to say: i don't think anyone has the right to delegitimize kerry's service, but i think the way kerry has used it in his campaign is vulgar compared to how presidential candidates of the past have treated theirs.

All I want to add the the discussion of him tossing medals over the capital wall is:

The most decorated american veteran in US history, Col. David Hackworth gave all his medals away to little kids in Australia because they meant absolutely nothing to him. He felt that since they were given to him by a military who made disgusting decisions and irrationally put americans in harms way when it was not needed that he didn't want to associate with them anymore.

Honest answer? Maybe since Republicans started calling us Anti-american and using military service as an issue to declare democrats unfit for office.

And it is doubly frustrating, the attacks when you consider the leaders of the republican and democratic parties. By and large the democrats current leadership have a much more complete and distinguished career of military service, yet they unceasingly get clubbed with the military and get attacked on our supposed lack of patriotism. I think Kerry is attempting to fight back against that.

A little bit of backing up my statements.

Who Served
The Chickenhawk Brigade
It is REALLY amusing seeing some of the excuses Republicans used for avoiding Nam.

Now I would also like to say that I know there are plenty of republicans, and prominent ones at that who served faithfully in the military. And that site does recognize the most prominent among them. And I know plenty of democrats avoided the draft as well. I think this info is important because it is a shield we can use to show that the Republicans enjoy no high ground, as they claim, over our pride of country and faithfulness to America.

I want to add to Superbelt's points:

I don't think Kerry is trying to win voters with his record; rather, he is using it as a rebuttal to certain claims regarding his record insinuating he is anti-american.

He is already an elected official. When his service and dedication to the country began to be questioned, the news reports indicated that he hadn't used his record as a political issue before.

The way I see it is that leftist political thinkers also recognize reality when we see it--despite what others might think. Kerry isn't saying he will end the war, so are being given the choice between two presidents who say the war will continue. Do you see any other candidate out there--one who is promising to end the war? I don't even know very many people who think we should just stop involvement tomorrow. Honestly, I don't even know how I feel about that myself. I can say, however, that I would rather have a president who fought in a war and witnessed its horror (I haven't met anyone who has argue against this being the case--and more of my familiy is military than not) be the one guiding the government right now. And let's be clear, I don't want someone to run the nation--that's our job--I just want someone to guide the government.

Col David Hackworth
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterro...582658,00.html
just to back up my earlier statments about him. To get this in his own words read his Autobiography About Face.

I don' know if anyone cares, but here is a list of the Military Service of U.S. Presidents.


http://www.magweb.com/sample/wl020pre.htm

Military Service of Presidents
of the United States
George Washington to Bill Clinton
by Russ Lockwood

Military Service of Presidents of the United States
President State Term of Office Summary of military service
From To
George Washington Va. 30 Apr 1789 4 Mar 1797 Virginia Militia 1754-58; on General Braddock's staff in 1755; appointed C-in-C of armed forces of the Co 1783; commissioned Lt Gen and appointed to command of US Army on a standby basis 3 Jul 1798; died 14 Dec 1799.
John Adams Mass 4 Mar 1797 4 Mar 1801 No record of service.
Thomas Jefferson Va 4 Mar 1801 4 Mar 1809 No record of service.
James Madison Va 4 Mar 1809 4 Mar 1817 No record of service.
James Monroe Va 4 Mar 1817 4 Mar 1825 2d Lt to Maj in Revolutionary War serving from 28 Sep 1775 to 20 Dec 1778.
John Q. Adams Mass 4 Mar 1825 4 Mar 1829 No record of service.
Andrew Jackson Tenn 4 Mar 1829 4 Mar 1837 Maj Gen of Volunteers 1812-14; Brig Gen in US Army 19 Apr 1814; Maj Gen in US Army 1 May 1814; discharged 1 Jun 1821.
Martin Van Buren N.Y. 4 Mar 1937 4 Mar 1841 No record of service.
William H. Harrison Ohio 4 Mar 1841 4 Apr 1841 Ensign to Capt in US Army 1791-98; resigned 1 Jun 1798; appointed Brig Gen, US Army, 22 Aug 1812 and Maj Gen 2 Mar 1813; resigned 31 May 1814.
John Tyler Va 4 Apr 1841 4 Mar 1845 Raised a company for the defense of Richmond in 1813.
James K. Polk Tenn 4 Mar 1845 4 Mar 1849 No record of service.
Zachary Taylor La 4 Mar 1849 9 Jul 1850 Rose from 1st Lt, 3 May 1808 to Maj Gen 29 Jun 1846, US Army, with service in War of 1812 and Mexican War; out of service only from 15 Jun 1815 to 17 May 1816; resigned 31 Jan 1849.
Millard Fillmore N.Y. 9 Jul 1850 4 Mar 1853 No record of service.
Franklin Pierce N. H. 4 Mar 1853 4 Mar 1857 Private to Brig Gen of Volunteers 1846-48 for service in Mexican War.
James Buchanan Pa 4 Mar 1857 4 Mar 1861 No record of service.
Abraham Lincoln Ill. 4 Mar 1861 15 Apr 1865 Capt of Volunteers 21 Apr 1832-27 May 1832; private in Volunteers 29 May 1832-16 Jun 1832 during Black Hawk War.
Andrew Johnson Tenn 15 Apr 1865 4 Mar 1869 Brig Gen of Volunteers 4 Mar 1862-3 Mar 1865 serving as military governor of Tennessee.
Ulysses S. Grant D.C. 4 Mar 1869 4 Mar 1877 Cadet USMA 1839-43; rose from brevet 2d Lt to Capt 1 Jul 1843; resigned 31 Jul 1854 with service in Mexican War; Col of Volunteers 17 Jun 1861 to Gen US Army 25 Jul 1866; commanding general, US Army, 12 Mar 1864-3 Mar 1869.
Rutherford B. Hayes Ohio 4 Mar 1877 4 Mar 1881 Maj of Volunteers 27 Jun 1861 to Brig Gen of Volunteers 19 Oct 1864; brevet Maj Gen 13 Mar 1865; resigned 8 Jun 1865.
James A Garfield Ohio 4 Mar 1881 19 Sep1881 Lt Col of Volunteers 21 Aug 1861 to Maj Gen of Volunteers 19 Sep 1863; resigned 5 Dee 1863.
Chester A. Arthur N.Y. 20 Sep 1881 4 Mar 1885 Inspector general and quartermaster general of New York Militia in Civil War. No Federal service.
Grover Cleveland N.Y. 4 Mar 1885 4 Mar 1889 No record of service.
Benjamin Harrison Ind. 4 Mar 1889 4 Mar 1893 2d Lt of Volunteers 14 Jul 1862 to Col of Volunteers 7 Aug 1862; brevet Brig Gen 23 Jan 1865; mustered out 8 Jun 1865.
Grover Cleveland N.Y. 4 Mar 1893 4 Mar 1897 No record of service.
William McKinley Ohio 4 Mar 1897 14 Sep 1901 Private in Volunteers 23 Jun 1861 to Capt of Volunteers 25 Jul 1864; brevet Maj 13 Mar 1865; mustered out 26 Jul 1865.
Theodore Roosevelt N.Y. 14 Sep 1901 4 Mar 1909 Lt Col of Volunteers 6 May 1898 to Col 11 Jul 1898; mustered out 15 Sep 1898.
William H. Taft Ohio 4 Mar 1909 4 Mar 1913 No record of service.
Woodrow Wilson N.J. 4 Mar 1913 4 Mar 1921 No record of service.
Warren G. Harding Ohio 4 Mar 1921 2 Aug 1923 No record of service.
Calvin Coolidge Mass 3 Aug 1923 4 Mar 1929 No record of service.
Herbert Hoover Calif 4 Mar 1929 4 Mar 1933 No record of service.
Franklin D. Roosevelt N.Y. 4 Mar 1933 12 Apr 1945 No record of service.
Harry S. Truman Mo. 12 Apr 1945 20 Jan 1953 1st Lt in National Guard 1917 (entered Guard in 1905) to Capt 11 Nov 1918; remained in Reserves after WWI; Col in Reserves 1927.
Dwight D. Eisenhower N.Y. 20 Jan 1953 20 Jan 1961 Cadet USMA 1911-15; 2d Lt in RA 12 Jun 1915 to General of the Army 20 Dec 1944; Chief of Staff 19 Nov 1945 to 7 Feb 1948; resigned 18 Jul 1952; served in WW I and commanded ETO in WWII
John F. Kennedy Mass 20 Jan 1961 22 Nov 1963 Commander, US Navy WWII.
Lyndon B. Johnson Tex 22 Nov 1963 20 Jan 1969 Lt. Commander, US Navy, WWII, Commander US Naval Reserves 1948.
Richard M. Nixon Calif 20 Jan 1969 9 Aug 1974 Lt. Commander, WWII.
Gerald R. Ford Mich. 9 Aug 1974 20 Jan 1977 Lt. Commander, US Navy, WWII.
Jimmy Carter Ga. 20 Jan 1977 20 Jan 1981 Lt. Commander, US Navy 1946-1953.
Ronald W. Reagan Calif 20 Jan 1981 20 Jan 1989 Acted in US Army training films.
George H.W. Bush Tex 20 Jan 1989 20 Jan 1993 Lt. WWII, US Navy pilot.
William J. Clinton Ark. 20 Jan 1993 20 Jan 2001 No record of service.

It does not include George W. Bush, but he was a Lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard and flew F-102's.

If you notice, most Presidents have served in some capacity:

12 presidents did not serve in the military---John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Van Buren, Polk, , Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, FDR and Clinton. Cleveland actually paid someone to fight in his place during the Civil War which was legal and not all that unusual at the time--a kind of pay as you go family deferment).
Of the 30 who served all were officers but James Buchanan who was a Private.
3 rose to the highest rank
General of the Army (5 Stars) - Washington, Grant and Eisenhower
5 Major Generals (2 Stars)
4 Brigadier Generals (1 Star)
3 Colonels
1 Lt Colonel
7 Majors (Navy=Lt. Commander)
2 Captains
4 1st Lieutenants (Navy - Lt. JG)

Andrew Jackson was the youngest to enlist. He joined the South Carolina militia at 13.

23 served in the Army, 6 in the Navy and 1in the Air Force.

15 saw action in combat.

2 pilots - H. Bush and son W Bush
1 submariner, Carter.

2 graduated from West Point Military Academy - Grant and Eisenhouer
1 from Annapolis Naval Academy - Carter.

Thanks mml, that was interesting to see.

Uh, I noticed you listed Reagan as "serving" by being in training films. That seems a little hokey to me. I'm counting the rank numbers and wondering what Reagan's rank as an actor was. If I add the 30 who served and the 12 who didn't, I get 42. Did you throw Bush (number 43) into those rank numbers?

Otherwise, yes, quite interesting.

he stated he didnt throw bush 43 in there

But then he's listed as a pilot on the bottom. The original list didn't include him, but he could have modified the stats. When I count the LT.s on the list I get three, so it seems like he's in there, but if he's not, what's Reagan's rank?

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/rr.htm

it appears reagan enlisted as a private, got a commission... and ended up a captain.

he did appear in films for the military during his service