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 - 4:46pm
John O'Neill has had 35 years to produce these so-called self-written requests for Purple Hearts. 35 years. You file FOI paperwork, just like the press finally did with Bush. You seriously believe if this stuff existed, it wouldn't have been released when Nixon was going after Kerry DURING Vietnam??? He can't release stuff that DOESN'T EXIST.

Republicans aren't concerned about whites fathering black babies out of wedlock??? Uhm, they are in South Carolina. Republicans don't care about race? Then please explain why 60% of white males think they need their own party, the Republican Party. Explain how the Democratic Party has majorities of every other race, ethnic, gender and demographic besides the white male. Republicans don't care about race, yeah, you betcha.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-15-2004
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 4:51pm
"I didn't realize that I had a "patriotic sympathy card" - didn't know that they existed."

Of course you didn't.

"I thought that everyone in America was a patriot"

Of course you did.

Which is what prompts you to say things like:

"Great to know that Kerry draws 'those people' who don't believe in America."

What a leap. And "those people"? You already decided there was a whole host of "them", and that anybody that doesn't adore Bush, doesn't "believe in America".

Who's devisive, anti-American and hateful again?



iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 4:56pm
<>

I just read last week that Kerry wants to add 40,000 active troops to the military while Bush and Rumsfeld are opposed to it, saying that more troops are not needed - we just need to use the troops we have more effectively. They'd rather spend the money on a missle defense system.

Is it possible that you're supporting the wrong candidate?

Here's an article in which Rumsfeld talks about why he doesn't feel that the army needs to be any larger...

http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2004/01-14.htm

Rumsfeld Resists Calls for Bigger US Army

Alex Belida

VOA, Pentagon

14 Jan 2004, 17:38 UTC




 

Donald RumsfeldWith over 100,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq and another 100,000 poised to relieve them, defense officials concede the half-million strong U.S. Army, with additional missions in Afghanistan, South Korea and other points around the world, is being severely tested. That has led to new calls for a bigger Army. But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is resisting the idea.

Mr. Rumsfeld appeared this week to fire a pre-emptive shot at critics in Congress and elsewhere planning a new year's offensive aimed at permanently increasing the size of the Army.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld said he is not sure an increase is in the best interests of the military or the American taxpayer.

While he acknowledges the Army is currently under stress, he argues it is temporary and he predicts the scope of U.S. deployments to Iraq will eventually fall off.

"We hope and believe that the current stress that is put on the force is a spike, if you will, a temporary increase, rather than a - what would prove to be a plateau," he said. "Very simply, we just simply do not expect to have 100,000, 120,000 troops in a single country permanently deployed."

To ease the burden on American soldiers in Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld says a number of measures are being taken. First, he says, more security responsibilities are being turned over to Iraqis, whose security forces are now approaching 200,000 in number. Secondly, he says the level of international military participation in Iraq is also increasing.

In addition, Mr. Rumsfeld says the Pentagon is using emergency powers to temporarily add 36,000 members to the U.S. armed forces, largely by preventing personnel who planned to leave the military from doing so.

Mr. Rumsfeld says there is no question the U.S. government could afford to increase the size of the military.

But he says numbers alone are not as important as capabilities. "In the 21st century, what is critical to success in military conflict is not necessarily mass as much as capability," he said. "In Iraq, coalition forces defeated a larger adversary not with mass, but with overmatching speed, power and agility. In looking at our global posture, some observers have focused on the number of troops, tanks or ships that we might add or remove in a given part of the world, and I would submit that that's really not the right measure or the best measure."

Mr. Rumsfeld says the Pentagon is investing in new technologies, weapons and other equipment that will boost military capabilities.

He says that is a better investment than increasing the number of soldiers in the Army.

"The costs are sizable over a lifetime of each added service member; and because of the time it takes to recruit, train and integrate new military personnel, the benefits really cannot be felt for some time," he said.

But there are skeptics, even in the Army itself, who believe there is strength in sheer numbers.

The Association of the U.S. Army, a private group of about 100,000 members, including active duty soldiers, is lobbying for an increase of some 60,000 troops.

The association says it has been apparent since the end of the 1990s that more active duty soldiers are needed. It says the need has become more urgent since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.




iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 5:01pm
Just to clear up a misconception - Kerry was not drafted, he volunteered. And then re-upped for a second tour.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-15-2004
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 5:02pm
If I am anti-American why am I in uniform?

Do you proudly wear a military uniform? How many years have you given the military? How many of your family have been in the military?

"Great to know that Kerry draws 'those people' who don't believe in America." By those people I was pointing to you - trying to do it in a nice way - verses the mean, cut throat way that you go for people. If you want to preach "Who's devisive, anti-American and hateful again?" then maybe you should take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself that one.

You are showing me your true side and I do not like what I see.

"What a leap. And "those people"? You already decided there was a whole host of "them", and that anybody that doesn't adore Bush, doesn't "believe in America"." Gee last time I read my post I don't recall saying that anyone who doesn't adore Bush doesn't believe in America. Maybe you should reread what I wrote and not come up with your own meaning for what I have said. Things taken out of context often lead to greater wrong. So please go back and read it again before you ACCUSE me of things that I have not said nor have even hinted at.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-15-2004
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 5:06pm
Yes Kerry wants to add more people because he does not want to utilize the Guard and Reserves. I myself cannot say what the perfect size for the military - 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.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-15-2004
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 5:14pm
There you go again. You wear a military uniform, therefore you have more of a claim on patriotism than anybody else. Just not true. Mine or my family's military service has nothing to do with being an American. I consider the men and women who police our streets and fight fires to be just as much a patriotic American as those who wear a military uniform. That is the attitude of every military person I've ever talked to. Maybe it has something to do with being raised around Democratic service members, I don't know. You can deny your Bush loving patriotic indoctrination attempts all you want to. Your posts speak for themselves.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-15-2004
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 5:14pm
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/printer_7964.shtml

A little something that you may want to read.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 5:15pm

<<It's pretty obvious that whoever wrote the press release got it wrong.>>


But there's more to it than that. Kerry's campaign introduced Rassman into the campaign with the story about him being on a different boat and that's the one was repeated at the convention.

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 5:22pm


Do you really believe that? I'm voting for Kerry because I don't believe Bush has the best interests of America at heart.

He made a Big mistake, he bombed Iraq without enough information and/or with the wrong information. He alienated our allies, he has earned the scorn of the world. He's put our military in harm's way and has allowed our people to die because he wasn't smart enough or savvy enough and did what Cheney told him to do.

He's become the single biggest reason for people in the middle east join the terrorists - he's shown that America will bomb first and ask questions later. Now that the terrorists are multiplying like fruit flies, he's ready to start on Iran. This man may manage to destroy the world in just one term. Quite an accomplishment.

As far as the people in military hospitals cheering for Bush - right. They're not dumb enough to say anything against King George. They'd have their butts dragged out of bed and hauled to prison for treason. That's what Kerry did, he questioned a war and 30 years later they're trying to crucify him.

Pages