Link Kerrys 2nd and 3rd Purple heartsFollow

To be honest, I doubt that "we" have any clue as to whether or not a medal is deserved. Kerry made public the citations by commanding officers who were qualified to decide if the wound warrented a Purple Heart or not.

That's like saying Cheney needs to release his EKGs and blood tests so we can decide for ourselves how serious his heart problems are.

But Joph aren't you even in the slightest curious to know if the citations where awarded based on erroneous information? What if the witness statements are true? It's not hard to lie about a situation as long as you have 6 crew mates to back up your story.

I'm not saying JFK lied, I'm just saying that I'm curious to find out who is telling the truth. And having experience writing military reports it is possible to elaborate on the truth to make something sound more dramatic than it actually is to get attention brought to an issue. Shoot we see this everyday in the news how depending on how something is written about will determine the amount of attention paid to it.

Very good argument, the problem with this analogy is that Cheney isn't running for president based on his EKG readings.

Also, the doctor who actually treated Kerry has said that "Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on shore. The crewman thought that the injury was caused by a fragment ricocheting from that mortar round when it struck the rocks.

That seemed to fit the injury which I treated.

What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle."

(http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200405041626.asp)

Is this enough probable cause to look into Kerry's records?

Not probable enough for a court to open them.

At least I have morals. What's your excuse? Ignorance or fear of reality?

At least I have morals. What's your excuse? Ignorance or fear of reality?


No, you have a blind political ideology.

If you had morals you'd have recused this bullsh[b][/b]it smear campaign long ago.

Close, though.

Just because I'm curious, what's in the middle?

It was more then they had to open ryans records.


Yeah, the fact that they had actual facts didn't matter in Ryan's case, right?

The basis they used for the opening of Ryan's recordeds was for the "public good" and because "he was running for high office". A judge bought the argument and unsealed the records. Period. The only thing they had that refered to the records was what Jo said "His wife's lawyer. It was part of the paperwork to seal the records in which she states that Ryan's motive to seal them was political." (thank for the correction)

Also, I never contested the factr that was a war hero. Frankly I'm more concerned about his action on the return from his stint in vietnam and his senatorial voting record.

This

Edited, Fri Aug 6 17:15:00 2004 by Lordimsorry

Okay we have beaten this bi[/i]tch with in an inch of it's life. Kerry is a war hero, the man served 4 months as a Swift Boat commander, received 3 purple hearts, 1 bronze star (he saved a mans life) and 1 silver star (he killed an Armed Viet Cong that was threating the lives of him and his crew) So after receiving 5 awards that he earned in 4 months he leaves combat on the regulations that states anyone that receives 3 purple hearts during combat can leave the combat theater.

People that served in the same theater and conducted the same missions as Kerry but on different boats, say Kerry's story are not 100% factual, but we must believe Kerry because he is the Democrats choice for President and he is a war hero.

Bush is considered AWOL and a Coward by the liberals because he served in a National Guard Unit flying Jets. He put in more hours and days than was required to maintain a "good year" toward retirement. According to the National Guard and the officers that Bush served with, he met his commitment. However there are those that say they served with him and said they never saw him so his going AWOL must be true.

When you boil it all down, my biggest gripe about this entire discussion is the Hypocrasy, and you took it hook line and sinker. Now you know what it's like to have every minute fuc[i]king detail about the mans record that happened thirty years ago gone over with a fine tooth comb when it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things for the leader of the free world.

People that served in the same theater and conducted the same missions as Kerry but on different boats, say Kerry's story are not 100% factual, but we must believe Kerry because he is the Democrats choice for President and he is a war hero.


Are you that fuc[/b]king slow?

Why would we ever give the benefit of the doubt to the person in question when we have the accounts of people who weren't even there to conted with!?

Don't you get it yet?

It's a smear campaign. The whole purpose is to sow doubts when there is no factual evidence so that Kerry's war record compares equally with Bush's.

don't you understand that yet?

It's exactly like me starting a flat earth foundation and hiring a bunch of PhD's to say the Earth is flat.

You apparently would look at that and say "Well, I guess there are arguments on both sides, there's no way to tell"


[b]
Bush is considered AWOL and a Coward by the liberals because he served in a National Guard Unit flying Jets. He put in more hours and days than was required to maintain a "good year" toward retirement. According to the National Guard and the officers that Bush served with, he met his commitment. However there are those that say they served with him and said they never saw him so his going AWOL must be true.


No, Bush is considered to have been granted special privlidges because of his father's connections which allowed him a unique stadard that the average Nationa Guardsman wouldn't be afforded.

Not that the average National Guardsman could even get into the unit Bush was in, but you get the idea.



When you boil it all down, my biggest gripe about this entire discussion is the Hypocrasy, and you took it hook line and sinker. Now you know what it's like to have every minute ******* detail about the mans record that happened thirty years ago gone over with a fine tooth comb when it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things for the leader of the free world.


I know you aren't doing the "I lost an argument so it was all a big ploy to get you upset" thing.

You can't possibly be that fuc[b][/b]king pathetic and petty.

Can you?

His voting record in the Senate should say everything that we need to know about John Kerry.

**** 20 years ago I was a different person than I am now. My life is completely different than what I thought it would be. I made decisions then that I wish I could change and I made decisions that I'm glad where made. My political leanings and affiliation back then was Liberal and Democrat. Who I was then from a political and social issues stand point is not who I am today.

People change and I'd wager that most of us have made some grievious errors that we wish we could change. But the history is behind us, and the question should be, did it make you a better or a worse person.

Hopefully Kerry's experiences in Vietnam and afterward made him into a better person. Hell the man was elected to the US Senate by his state, so he must be capable of leading the country, though not the way that people that think like I do would want him to. -This statement is not intended as an insult.

LordImSorry:

Divorce records and Medical records are completely different, legally speaking.

One is a matter of public record, the other is private, part of doctor-patient confidentiality.



(Divorce records probably SHOULD be private, but that's a whole nother argument.)