I find it amazing that 10 guys who served on Kerry's boat speak the truth
but every one of the 250 who served along side his boat are liars and are
politically motivated.

Most of the charges this group brings against Kerry involve his actions on just
a few missions. There are 6 guys on a boat.
Do the math, Jim. Do you believe they sent 40 boats at a time to maneuever at
high speeds in very restricted waters?

Even *if* they did, why would anybody be inclined to pay particular attention
to the
actions of one particular skipper who, at that time, was not a public figure?

I'm astonished at the one doctor who said he treated Kerry for one of his
wounds, but now believes that the wound was (depending on the day he tells the
story, it seems to change depending on the audience) either self inflicted or
not serious enough to warrant a purple heart.

Do they just hand out a purple heart to everybody who says, "I'd like one of
those, I think it will look good on my uniform and get me laid back home," or
does somebody check the medical records to evaluate whether a serviceman was
wounded?

If anybody checks the records at all, was the doctor who treated Kerry lying
then, or is he lying now?

If nobody checks the records and they do hand out purple hearts like so many
Cracker Jacks prizes to anybody who cares to ask for one......then what is the
basis for the angst and outrage that Kerry "wasn't wounded badly enough" to
qualify?

Oh, hang on......here's something factual about Purple Heart awards. It looks
like
there is no requirement that the injury be of
any certain severity. Only that it required medical treatment and that it was
caused by the enemy.

From:

http://www.purpleheart.org/Awd_of_PH.htm


b. While clearly an individual decoration, the Purple Heart differs from all
other decorations in that an individual is not "recommended" for the
decoration; rather he or she is entitled to it upon meeting specific criteria.


(1) A Purple Heart is authorized for the first wound suffered under conditions
indicated above, but for each subsequent award an Oak Leaf Cluster will be
awarded to be worn on the medal or ribbon. Not more than one award will be made
for more than one wound or injury received at the same instant or from the same
missile, force, explosion, or agent.

(2) A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside
force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above A
physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made
must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical
treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a
matter of official record.

(3) When contemplating an award of this decoration, the key issue that
commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused
the injury. The fact that the proposed recipient was participating in direct or
indirect combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but is not sole
justification for award.


Face it, Kerry wouldn't have been wounded "badly enough" to satisfy the modern
Republican tribe unless he came home in a box.

Gould 0738 wrote:
I find it amazing that 10 guys who served on Kerry's boat speak the truth


Do they just hand out a purple heart to everybody who says, "I'd like one of
those, I think it will look good on my uniform and get me laid back home," or
does somebody check the medical records to evaluate whether a serviceman was
wounded?




And of course, Dubya didn't even get the "Good Attendance" award.


--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I find it amazing that 10 guys who served on Kerry's boat speak the truth
but every one of the 250 who served along side his boat are liars and are
politically motivated.

Most of the charges this group brings against Kerry involve his actions on
just
a few missions. There are 6 guys on a boat.
Do the math, Jim. Do you believe they sent 40 boats at a time to maneuever
at
high speeds in very restricted waters?

No, nor do I think others do. I do believe that at some point in time they
served along side Kerry. Do you believe that is possible?

BTW. How many weeks did these 9 or 10 guys serve with Kerry on his boat?
5? And some 30 years ago at that. And they now believe they can offer an
opinion about the mans ability to serve as POTUS based on those 4 or 5 weeks
with him?

Amazing.


Even *if* they did, why would anybody be inclined to pay particular
attention
to the
actions of one particular skipper who, at that time, was not a public
figure?

I'm astonished at the one doctor who said he treated Kerry for one of his
wounds, but now believes that the wound was (depending on the day he tells
the
story, it seems to change depending on the audience) either self inflicted
or
not serious enough to warrant a purple heart.


Why doesn't Kerry debate the issue then and open up the records? It seems
it could be resolved fairly easily.

Do they just hand out a purple heart to everybody who says, "I'd like one
of
those, I think it will look good on my uniform and get me laid back home,"
or
does somebody check the medical records to evaluate whether a serviceman
was
wounded?

If anybody checks the records at all, was the doctor who treated Kerry
lying
then, or is he lying now?

If nobody checks the records and they do hand out purple hearts like so
many
Cracker Jacks prizes to anybody who cares to ask for one......then what is
the
basis for the angst and outrage that Kerry "wasn't wounded badly enough"
to
qualify?

Oh, hang on......here's something factual about Purple Heart awards. It
looks
like
there is no requirement that the injury be of
any certain severity. Only that it required medical treatment and that it
was
caused by the enemy.



Face it, Kerry wouldn't have been wounded "badly enough" to satisfy the
modern
Republican tribe unless he came home in a box.


Face it, Kerry loves the fact that the attention has been shifted to his 4
months in Vietnam some 30 years ago rather than on his record as Senator.

Afterall, he thinks so much of his 20 years in Congress that he offered a
whole 73 words to it in his 10,000 word acceptance speach at the convention.

I hope the Vietnam thing goes away so important things can be focused on.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

.....evidence of your wild allegations, other than what the
swift boat vets are being paid to say?


Um, to which group of swift boat vets are you referring?

Glad to see you've resurrected the "wild allegations."



he forgot the *unfounded* part though.

Afterall, he thinks so much of his 20 years in Congress that he offered a
whole 73 words to it in his 10,000 word acceptance speach at the convention.

He's not runing for Congress. He's running for POTUS. Unlike the incumbent, he
doesn't have a (dismal) record of job performance as POTUS.

In that case, it's all about character. How will he do the job once elected?
Probably better, and certainly no worse than the current "character" in the
office.

The very fact that Bush winks and nods while his controllers and his supporters
go on a rampage of character assassination in his behalf, (and ignores calls
from rational Republicans like McCain to repudiate the activity), is certainly
informative about Bush's character.

No, nor do I think others do. I do believe that at some point in time they
served along side Kerry. Do you believe that is possible?

BTW. How many weeks did these 9 or 10 guys serve with Kerry on his boat?
5? And some 30 years ago at that. And they now believe they can offer an
opinion about the mans ability to serve as POTUS based on those 4 or 5 weeks
with him?

If you had stopped to consider the logic of that argument, you would not have
offered it. It destroys itself on the runway before ever getting off the
ground.

You say that all 250 people who are damning and slamming Kerry are all experts
on his character because they were in other boats, in the same approximate
vicinity for at least a few minutes and on perhaps only a single mission,
during Kerry's service in Viet Nam. (Odds are, they didn't even know or care
what the name of the Lt. skippering the the other boat was).

Then you say, the people who served on the same boat with him for (in your own
words) "4-5 weeks" are less qualified to judge his character than those who
happened to be assigned to the same or nearby mission for perhaps less than one
day.

Could I interest you in a spectacular deal on a bridge crossing the East River?

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:35:15 +0000, Gould 0738 wrote:


I'm astonished at the one doctor who said he treated Kerry for one of his
wounds, but now believes that the wound was (depending on the day he tells
the story, it seems to change depending on the audience) either self
inflicted or not serious enough to warrant a purple heart.

Do they just hand out a purple heart to everybody who says, "I'd like one
of those, I think it will look good on my uniform and get me laid back
home," or does somebody check the medical records to evaluate whether a
serviceman was wounded?

If anybody checks the records at all, was the doctor who treated Kerry
lying then, or is he lying now?

I believe your talking about Dr. Louis Letson. If he treated Kerry, one
would think his name would appear on Kerry's sick call sheet. It doesn't.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Afterall, he thinks so much of his 20 years in Congress that he offered a
whole 73 words to it in his 10,000 word acceptance speach at the
convention.

He's not runing for Congress. He's running for POTUS. Unlike the
incumbent, he
doesn't have a (dismal) record of job performance as POTUS.

But he does as a Senator but does not want to bring his past 20 years up.
Strange.


In that case, it's all about character.

What a bunch of pure BS. You know better than that Chuck.

How will he do the job once elected?

If we take his past 20 years in the Senate as any indication then it is
obvious that he will push for higher taxes on all of us and more government
control of our lives.


Probably better, and certainly no worse than the current "character" in
the
office.


So character is important now but was not an issue when Clinton was in
office? Funny stuff Chuck.

The very fact that Bush winks and nods while his controllers and his
supporters
go on a rampage of character assassination in his behalf, (and ignores
calls
from rational Republicans like McCain to repudiate the activity), is
certainly
informative about Bush's character.

The character assassination is being done by a group of men independant of
the President and the President has distanced himself away from that group.


No, nor do I think others do. I do believe that at some point in time
they
served along side Kerry. Do you believe that is possible?

BTW. How many weeks did these 9 or 10 guys serve with Kerry on his boat?
5? And some 30 years ago at that. And they now believe they can offer an
opinion about the mans ability to serve as POTUS based on those 4 or 5
weeks
with him?

If you had stopped to consider the logic of that argument, you would not
have
offered it. It destroys itself on the runway before ever getting off the
ground.


You say that all 250 people who are damning and slamming Kerry are all
experts
on his character because they were in other boats, in the same approximate
vicinity for at least a few minutes and on perhaps only a single mission,
during Kerry's service in Viet Nam. (Odds are, they didn't even know or
care
what the name of the Lt. skippering the the other boat was).

Then you say, the people who served on the same boat with him for (in your
own
words) "4-5 weeks" are less qualified to judge his character than those
who
happened to be assigned to the same or nearby mission for perhaps less
than one
day.

Could I interest you in a spectacular deal on a bridge crossing the East
River?




I am trying to show that the opinions of these guys carry as much weight as
the 9 you have been discussing...zippo.

Understand Chuck? Not too difficult a concept.

Perhaps it is you who needs the bridge Chuck.

And how about we drop this Vietnam crap already and discuss what Kerry is
really about...high taxes and more government control.

But he does as a Senator but does not want to bring his past 20 years up.
Strange.

His Senate career is a matter of public record. His constituents have been
pleased well enough to reelect him repeatedly. Next wobbly accusation?

In that case, it's all about character.

What a bunch of pure BS. You know better than that Chuck.

You don't believe character is important?
That it's a prime requisite for POTUS?
How about aspects of character, like honesty, intelligence, integrity, and so
forth? Are they "BS" as well?

If we take his past 20 years in the Senate as any indication then it is
obvious that he will push for higher taxes on all of us and more government
control of our lives.

The current guy has obliterated the Bill of Rights. How does that square with
your concern about "government control of our lives"? The current guy has run
up a debt
that will take generations to pay back. How does that square with your concern
about taxation? I'll take a full and faithful restoration of the Constitution
and a moderation of the deficit, thank you very much.

So character is important now but was not an issue when Clinton was in
office? Funny stuff Chuck.



Character has always been important.
I condemned Clinton for a lack of it. You're the Google star. Try "Clinton,
disgrace, embarassed the office" and see what you find.

The character assassination is being done by a group of men independant of
the President

Well, at least we agree that it *is* a case of character assassination. There
may be hope for you still.

I am trying to show that the opinions of these guys carry as much weight as
the 9 you have been discussing...zippo.


You're trying to make a point that working alongside somebody for 4-5 weeks
gives you no more insight into that person's charcter than being aboard another
boat that happpened to be going downriver and passed Kerry's boat going up.

That doesn't make sense.

Bridge back to you. Sorry.

Don't let Chuck get to you, he's just "Harry West Coast" and more a
troll than anything else.

If I were any lower, I'd be a specialist in two-line name calling.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
But he does as a Senator but does not want to bring his past 20 years up.
Strange.

His Senate career is a matter of public record.

So? Why is he refusing to talk about it? Because it is lackluster at best
with votes for more taxes and votes for more government control of our
lives.

He is now trying to hide from it and make 4 months in Vietnam more
important.

Then when challenged on his claims he has the gall to bring out the
attorneys to try and stop it.

Yep, a man of character....indeed.