He wanted to make his service in Vietnam an issue, so here you go. I'm perfectly willing to help Mr. Kerry in that regard.

A group of swift boat veterans is releasing a book August 15 with some pretty damning allegations. Among them: two of The Poodle's three Purple Hearts resulted from self-inflicted wounds and had nothing to do with enemy fire and all three Purple Hearts were for minor injuries that required no hospitalization. They're also claiming The Poodle filed a false report involving the death of a father and a child in a fishing boat. Another allegation is that sKerry entered an abandoned village and burned it down with his lighter after slaughtering all the domestic animals. The other swift boat veterans thought he was so reckless, he had to go. Doesn't quite match his image as a courageous war hero, does it?

The Poodle has been bragging for a year about his four months in Vietnam, and it's fair game. The Democrats and the media will no doubt whine and cry about these 'dirty tricks,' but Kerry put himself out there. He's running on his Vietnam war experience front and center, and people have a right to ask questions. If all of his awards were the result of minor injuries or outright fabrications, shouldn't that figure into voter's decisions? If he'll lie to receive a Purple Heart, what else would he lie about?

Imagine if these type of allegations were leveled against George Bush? We would never hear the end of it. As it is now, you can bet the media will ignore this, the Kerry campaign will call it an outright fabrication and people will accuse George Bush of masterminding the whole thing.

We know for a fact that Lieutenant Kerry repeatedly lied about his fellow soldiers in Vietnam when he came back. By what standard to you believe him now?

The Poodle??

That must be the nicname right wing trash are giving Kerry.

Doesn't beat the Chimp or Shrub though.

Is your silence on the subject meant to convey agreement with the post ?

Otherwise, avoidance issues should be taken up with a doctor. :Y:

How in the hell should I know about Kerry's war wounds? Frankly I do not care about them or think they should have anything to do with running for President. If the Generals in charge thought he deserved them so be it. Are you questioning our military leadership?

And there were worse things people did in Vietnam than shoot farm animals...

Like lie about the reasons he would take us to war? Perish the thought.

Any person who has seen combat deserves credit, and any person who's seen combat would punch someone in the face for what you're suggesting. To begin with, Kerry received a Bronze Star for uncommon valor when he turned his boat around into enemy fire to retrieve a wounded comrade out of the water. He also voluntarily returned for a second tour of duty. Furthermore, the whole thing about one of his Purple Hearts being from a self-inflicted wound is so partisan it stinks to high hell. To begin with, thousands of Purple Hearts are issued, and you can be certain that some are given for fairly superficial wounds that are of questionable origin. But the question surrounding this particular one, as I understand it, is based in part on the testimony of the doctor who supposedly removed the shrapnel in question from Kerry's arm. This man is relying on a 35-year-old memory of a minor incident. Why would he remember Kerry and the shrapnel in his arm at all when he was dealing with soldiers who had been reduced to hamburger on a daily basis? But more importantly, I assume that the process that leads to receiving a Purple Heart begins with the report from the doctor who treated the soldier. Why didn't he note at the time that the wound wasn't deserving of a Purple Heart? And the wound, btw, was not "self-inflicted." The doctor's report is that he believes it was shrapnel that ricocheted off rocks back onto Kerry. That's quite different from intentionally shooting yourself in the foot. Kerry was shooting at the enemy. Whether it was enemy fire or ricocheted friendly fire that hit him, he did not self-inflict this wound. So whom do we accuse of lying here? If the doctor didn't think he deserved a Purple Heart, he should've made that clear in his report 35 years ago. I'm willing to stake a lot of money on this doctor, who is today a retired general practitioner in Alabama, being a Republican and a Bush supporter.

Furthermore, when we compare Kerry's service record to Bush's, aren't you a little embarrassed to be making the allegations you're making? One man served two tours of duty in heavy combat in Vietnam--voluntarily. The other man ran with his tail between his legs to Daddy and entered the National Guard. Any person from the Vietnam era, of which I'm one, knows that the surest way to avoid seeing action was to join the National Guard. That's why the waiting list was years long to get in. But somehow little George Bush miraculously rose to the top of that waiting list, ahead of hundreds of other boys who were trying to evade military service in the jungles of Vietnam. You see, his daddy was a very influential man with high connections. And despite little privileged George Bush being a coward and opting for the safety of National Guard duty, it is now known that he didn't even show up for duty on a regular basis. Still, he lies about even that.

So, let's see: A man who served two voluntary terms in heavy combat and was wounded multiple times and committed proven acts of heroism and bravery, vs. a man who took the coward's way out, didn't show up much of the time, and then lied about it anyway. Hmm. That's a tough call . . . :rolleyes:

If there is dispute over how he received the (band-aid) purple hearts, why not open the medical records to the press and let's have a national discussion. That is a sure fire way to determine just how much of a war hero he is.

Which Kerry admitted to being part of during the senate hearings in the 70's. Yeah, war hero.

No, I am questoning the man's 4 1/2 month war record that he throws around like manure in a garden.

IGotMail, you have aroused in me a level of anger I seldom feel over these types of disputes. First let me say I am no huge fan of John Kerry's. I believe the Dems. could've done better. Why do I say that here? So you'll know I'm not just having a knee-jerk defensive reaction to my candidate. But let me say this to you: Any man--ANY MAN--who saw combat in Vietnam deserves your respect. How old are you? I'm a child of the Vietnam generation. Many of my friends went to Vietnam. Some never came back. I used to be among those marching to protest the war. But I NEVER engaged in anything disrespectful to a soldier who had been there. I didn't spit at them. I didn't call them names. I had nothing but respect for them. How dare you be disrespectful of a man who served in that awful war. How dare you. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Bush would trade military records with Kerry in a heartbeat. The Republicans would be eating it up and not nitpicking his purple hearts and it the Democrats did they would be calling them unpatriotic you can bet.

Kerry has stolen one from their playbook and they do not like it one bit.

Personally, I think those who worked for peace and avoided the killing in Vietnam should also be commended. Many thousands of humans died needlessly and someone should have been held accountable.
I choose to think Kerry would be a better leader because of the politics he stands for.

The fact that Kerry has been in the thick of combat makes him a much wiser judge than Bush of when this country needs to go to war. And I think anyone who nitpicks about whether shrapnel in his arm came from friendly fire or enemy fire is really looking for a bruising. If this had been Kerry's only medal, it might be valid to say he wasn't really wounded badly and what's he making a big deal about. But the issue here isn't how bad the wound was or whether it came from friendly or enemy fire. The issue is that Kerry committed many well-documented acts of bravery and heroism in Vietnam, he saw heavy combat, he has proven that he is willing to fight for his country (unlike Bush), and he knows a thing or two about what it's like to be in a war. There's no disputing that, and any attempts to belittle his Vietnam experience are groundless at best, and shameful at worst.

I don't care what you did or didn't do 30 years ago. Any one who has been in combat has my respect. But, the man has made his time spent in Vietnam an important part of his campaign. As such it is open to the detailed scrutiny that a presidential candidate must go thru today. And then when his record is discussed, it is considered unpatriotic to ask questions? :rolleyes:

Are you this upset when someone on your side of the aisle makes remarks far more out there than anything I said in this post? Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Dennis K., Al Sharpton? All have made off the wall remarks that even Kerry has had to distance himself from.

Kerry has been obscurring his past twenty years in the senate and his voting record by saying he sees nuances. My butt, he is saying that to try and cover up that he is the most liberal senator. Then in the convention speech, he says judge him by his record! The mind reels from all the spinning going on!!

I don't want a nuance president, I want a president who has broad and bold ideas, who has conviction, makes decisions, and sticks to them. That is why Bush should and will be president again come november 3, 2004.

Just an aside, why wasn't Harold Ford, Jr. giving a speaking part at the dem convention. He is a young, up and coming democrat. Obama got a speaking slot, why not him? :?: Is a twelve year old girl chastising a sitting vice-president (why didn't she chastise Kerry for his F-bomb in Rolling Stone?) more prominant than an elected member of congress?

He was the keynote speaker in 2000. Why he did not speak this time I don't know. He is one of Kerry's main campaigners. He was one of the first to come out for Kerry.

Oh please. So many lies and GOP spin in one place I hardly know where to begin.

Let's start with Kerry's Viet Nam record and "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth". An organization run by a GOP operative who didn't serve on a Swift Boat.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh050504.shtml
http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200405050004
http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200406020006

Now if you want to talk about military records and cover-ups, lets talk about Bush's National Guard service.
http://www.awolbush.com/

And now to the GOP spin of Kerry & Edwards being the 1st and 4th most liberal senators.

On July 10, the Journal’s Richard E. Cohen (not the Post columnist) tried to explain the pleasing facts which so many scribes have been peddling. Are Kerry and Edwards really first and fourth most liberal? That rating is based on calendar year 2003, when both senators—campaigning for the White House—missed large numbers of the 62 votes the Journal used for its tabulations. (Kerry missed 37 of the 62 votes; Edwards missed 22.) Writing in the rag Goldberg loves, Cohen laid out the big picture:

COHEN: The bigger picture presents a more nuanced view of the two senators on the Democratic presidential ticket. Since joining the Senate in 1985, Kerry has compiled a “lifetime average” composite liberal score of 85.7 in NJ's vote ratings. Ten other current senators have a lifetime composite liberal score that is higher than Kerry’S. (See NJ, 3/6/04, p. 679.) Meanwhile, Edwards, who first joined the Senate in 1999, has a lifetime composite liberal score of 75.7, a number that puts him in the moderate wing of his party.

“The bigger picture presents a more nuanced view?” Richard E. Cohen, repeat after us: In fact, the bigger picture shows that Kerry and Edwards are not first and fourth most liberal! In fact, ten current senators have more liberal lifetime voting records than Kerry. And how crazily liberal is Edwards? Here are the Journal’s annual rankings since he arrived in the Senate:

John Edwards:
1999: 31st most liberal senator
2000: 19th most liberal senator
2001: 35th most liberal senator
2002: 40th most liberal senator
2003: 4th most liberal senator

When pundits call Edwards the “fourth most liberal,” they are cherry-picking his rank from one year—a year in which he missed more than a third of the votes used to make the tabulations.

All the spinning that is going on is from the right. So take your bag of GOP lies and get out of here.

Your posts are becoming increasingly offensive, IGotMail. You have your head so far up your butt that you can't even smell shit when it's in front of you anymore. We've been extraordinarily tolerant of your views on this board, but you're pushing it today. You have the right to say whatever you want, but we have the right to stop you from posting here. It's your choice. Stop spreading your filth around, and we'll continue talking to you. Otherwise, take it somewhere else.

LOLLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Earthmother.

Also, Harold Ford Jr. did speak Thursday of the convention.

Thanks

Harold Ford, Jr. did? Thanks for that correction! I must have missed it.
Hope the transcript is still on the web.

Yep:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories....02220657&EDATE=

Actually it was on Wed.