Kerry lied to get purple heart?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Kerry lied to get purple heart?
221
Tue, 08-10-2004 - 5:33pm

The records should be able to shed some light on this if Kerry chooses to open them to the public.


http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/28856.htm


'Larry Thurlow, the skipper of a boat trailing Kerry's, says in the book that he saw Kerry suffer a buttocks wound earlier that day in 1969 when he was hit by fragments from his own grenade while trying to destroy a Viet Cong rice cache.


"He dishonestly transferred the time and cause of the injury to coincide with the action later in the day and claimed that the cause of the injury was the mine exploding during the action," the book claims.

In Kerry's version of the incident, he says a mine struck his swift boat - wounding him in the buttocks and arm.

Kerry maintains he braved enemy fire from both shores to race to the bow of the boat and pluck Rassman, who had fallen overboard, out of the water.


But, the book says, "Many participants in the incident state that neither weapons fire nor a mine explosion occurred near Kerry during the incident.

"Unless one believes in the amazing coincidence that Kerry got two wounds in the same place on the same day, he lied to get the Purple Heart," the authors say.

Rassman is backing Kerry's presidential candidacy and he supports Kerry's version of the rescue.

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-15-2004
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 6:44pm
No I am not - I am railing that we did not need a decrease from where we were at. The force size was just fine where it was before all the cuts were made.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 6:48pm

<<The people who flew into those buildings were from SAUDI ARABIA.>>


Are you trying to claim the Saudi government was somehow involved???


<<If Bush hadn't been convinced Saddam was the threat BEFORE 9/11, maybe he would have paid more attention to bin laden at the time.>>


That was the opinion of both the Clinton & Bush administrations & EVERYONE.

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 7:12pm

<>


The question is how liberals can make such a claim with a straight face after all we know now, and after Kerry has said he'd vote for the war knowing WMDs wouldn't turn up.


Are you planning on voting for Nader?

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 7:19pm
Welcome ilinn!

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 7:35pm
Please tell me what "introduced into the campaign" means, because I've already ceeded that the Kerry staff got which boat he was on wrong on their site. Is there a speech you're refering to? Who said they were on different boats and where? (And I'll repeat that I still don't understand why it's so critical which boat he was on...) Rassmann's speech at the DNC doesn't mention the incident at all...so his WSJ piece is not contradictory. It's a confusing war story. What's the big deal?

Here's all that Rassmann said at the convention:

http://www.wach.com/Global/story.asp?S=2109755

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 7:43pm
It's my understanding that Kerry wants to retain the guard and reserves for much needed duty here at home - we just had a huge hurricane in Florida, and heaven forbid there's another terrorist attack, we'd need to have people ready stateside. The Guard was not meant to be deployed in nation building excersises overseas, especially not for two or three consecutive tours.

You wrote "I myself cannot say what the perfect size for the military" and yet you were clearly saying earlier that you decry Dem's who want to decrease it and applaud Rep's want to increase it, when it' s actually the opposite. It's like bizarro world, huh.

You wrote: "but if we were to allow other nations to play big brother to everyone then maybe we would not need to increase our force size." I have to admit that I don't get what you mean. Care to elaborate?

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 7:44pm
I know this is a fine distinction, & it's difficult for people to understand the difference. But I am confident you could get this concept if you try.

Kerry did not say he would vote for the war. The vote wasn't a vote for or against the war. The vote was to grant power to the president to enforce disarming Saddam. We will never know exactly how Kerry would have used that power himself if he had been president. I feel confident that he would not have used it the same way Bush did. My vote goes to the man who understands that the world doesn't come in simple black & white.


< The question is how liberals can make such a claim with a straight face after all we know now, and after Kerry has said he'd vote for the war knowing WMDs wouldn't turn up.>

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 7:59pm
The buck stops here, or over there maybe, no on his desk, not mine, just anywhere else.


< Bush has admitted that he did not make the best decision, that he was going by what his people tell him. Bush was not gathering the information that led him to his decision - other agencies were feeding it to him - >

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 8:15pm


They voted to give the president authority to go to war. The ultimate decision was the president's. The president failed to do the necessary due diligence. He failed our country.



You wish

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 8:39pm
Well, that doesn't change the fact that Kerry volunteered and was not drafted. If you feel he's not "manly" enough, you're free to feel that way. But please back up your arguments with reasons that are correct. There are plenty of real issues for everyone to debate.

Pages