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: 06-17-2004
Tue, 08-17-2004 - 10:21pm

<Those shells date back to the 1980's. They aren't evidence of stockpiles of weapons or weapons programs that we were told Saddam was currently developing.>>


First of all, the UN resolutions

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-15-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 3:00am
Doesn't matter. It's a tax and it's being used to fund our government today. Without it, we'd be in big trouble. So you might want to thank those low income workers instead of disrespecting them. And you might want to support a raise in the minimum wage so that they can support themselves and maybe even make enough money to pay an income tax. And no, it will not raise prices. If that were the case, how come the cost of goods in the US hasn't dropped 90% due to the 50 cent an hour wages people overseas are getting now? Further, if we had a President who enforced our trade laws, other countries wouldn't be able to violate environmental, human rights and labor laws that are part of many of them. That way we could compete, even with a higher minimum wage.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-15-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 3:12am
"Secondly, the warheads that have been turning up are more technologically advanced than anything Iraq had 20 years ago."

Not true.

"But the U.S. military said only two of the rockets had tested positive for sarin gas, and another 16 of the rockets found by the Poles had contained no chemical agents."

"Poland said in a statement from Iraq that "beyond doubt the shells were from the 1980-1988 period, of the type used against Kurds and during the Iraq-Iran war."

In Baghdad, the U.S. military issued a statement saying that two 122 mm rockets found by Polish forces had tested positive for sarin gas and confirmed that they were left over from the Iran-Iraq war, but said they posed little danger."

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20040702_209.html

Holding Saddam accountable to meet the terms of the UN resolutions is one thing, and one I'm not going to argue. I've already said that's exactly why Kerry said he would vote for the IWR, even without WMD, because disarmament isn't a one shot deal. Which doesn't mean rushing to war.

But that isn't what Bush said. He and his entire administration said Saddam had weapons and they knew were they were. We couldn't wait for a mushroom cloud. Saddam was a grave danger collaborating with al qaeda. THAT is why he said we were going to war, not because Saddam hadn't filed the proper paperwork. And the IWR didn't authorize him to "liberate Iraqi's" with his "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

Working with the UN to deal with Saddam is one thing. In fact, according to the UN charter, ONLY the UN can authorize military action to enforce resolutions. This was an illegal war in every possible way. And totally unnecessary as well.


Avatar for tmcgoughy
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 8:23am

Thank you allianor.

The first key to wisdom is constant and frequent questioning, for by doubting we are led to question and by questioning we arrive at the truth.  -
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 1:39pm
Nothing was done in response to the first bombing of the WTC.

Nothing was done in response to the Khobar Towers bombing.

Nothing was done in response to the two US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

Nothing was done in response to the USS Cole.

I guess the terrorists saw a pattern.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 1:44pm
First, how are we going to guard the Syrian border. Do you think we should have invaded Syria to do so????

Is this the new ploy to try to put down the Bush Administration? Criticize them for not taking over Syria? Did we have any idea that Hussein replaced his border guards with his own private people? We do now, but I doubt we did back then. There has been speculation for over a year that the chemical weapons may have been moved to Syria, and the news from yesterday just pushes that theory to the front again.

Second, Iraq did not buy Sarin from us, they purchased some of the ingredients, in the form of chemical fertilizer from us, as well as from other countries around the world.

It is nice to look at a snippet of information to try to prove it as fact, but when you look at the entire picture, it makes things a lot more interesting.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 1:47pm
All of the intelligence pointed to the fact that Iraq had the WMD's. The CIA thought so, MI5 thought so, the Russian intelligence thought so, Mossad thought so.

Where is Osama? Probably in Pakistan in the mountains. We had the best opportunities to take him out during Clinton but we did not do so. Were you angry at Clinton for that?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 1:48pm
In my eyes, that is murder, but in military terms, that is collateral damage as well.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 1:49pm
Just stating a fact. I am not trying to prove you wrong or attack your post at all.

If you dont like the facts, dont shoot the messenger (please).

That is what it is referred to, and you should know it.

Whenever non-combatants are killed in war they are referred to as collateral damage.

It is a horrible fact of war, but it is a fact.

Edited 8/18/2004 2:54 pm ET ET by debateguy


Edited 8/18/2004 2:55 pm ET ET by debateguy

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 1:50pm
No problem.....just kidding around a little.

Pages