In a word, YES. We have “issues” with the lies and fabrications. We are not picking on a bunch of “decorated veterans”, we are picking on a pack of liars. On the one side, we have the Swifts, a group of “hired guns” who have been caught in repeated lies. On the other side we have their latest target. Criticize a group of “decorated veterans” for blatant falsehoods? Yer damn right. Why don’t you ask Max Cleland and John McCain what they think of your “heroes”? What did your boy do during that war? He got Daddy and Daddy’s buddies to sneak him into a “champagne unit” and then he didn’t even have the common decency to fulfill that commitment. Give it up. Just because you keep insisting on the same bullshit doesn’t make it so.
Besides, we’re not attacking the SBTs records. We never attacked their service, their medals, whatever. I’m sure they served honorably, so far as I’m aware.
Now, if they were going to attack Kerry on THE ISSUES here, that’s one thing. But they, and a whole bunch of others, are spreading lies about Kerry as a soldier. And we are attacking the fact that they are LIARS. Their service records are irrelevant at this point.
Not to mention that O’Neil was supposedly pissed off that Kerry spoke up about REAL abuses by soldiers serving in Vietnam, to Congress. That’s just fucking absurd. He gets his panties in a knot because Kerry pointed out that some of our service men are less than honorably, because HOW DARE ANYONE say anything negative about the U.S. military and its members. But it’s okay for him to turn around and attack another soldier with LIES.
That’s fucked up.
[quote]
He gets his panties in a knot because Kerry pointed out that some of our service men are less than honorably, because HOW DARE ANYONE say anything negative about the U.S. military and its members.
[quote]
That’s NOT what Kerry said. He said the U.S. army was ‘like the army of Genghis Khan’, raping and pillaging the countryside. He said war crimes were commonplace, and happened with the full knowledge and approval of the chain of command.
If Kerry had said that some abuses had happened, that some soldiers went overboard and did things they shouldn’t have, and even that the army wasn’t doing a good job of holding the guilty responsible, that would have been more accurate. But he didn’t. He implied that the entire army was out of control, and that the chain of command approved.
Hey Sam? Ever heard of Mei Lai? (Did I spell that right?)
See post 12 of moriah were Sam dutifully reports the position of the swifters.
And by this time, is the bend over one…
Bad research and failing to read carefully again Scylla?
looks at the post by Sam:
In fact the Admiral report on the Bronce star pointed out that Kerry was wounded in that action.
As the doc reported, the butt wound was not deserving of any further treatments, As I mentioned before: It is is a lie to say that “No one got purple hearts for minor bruises. Without the ass wound, there’s no purple heart.”
Indeed, the ass wound is only consider relevant by assholes.
It is a well attested and documented fact that war crimes were indeed commonplace and were indeed carried out with the knowledge and the approval (sometimes tacit, sometimes overt) knowledge of the chain of command.
Do you deny that such was the case?
IN RETROSPECT: THE
TRAGEDY AND LESSONS OF VIETNAM. ROBERT S. MCNAMARA
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/vietnam/mcnamara_4-17-95.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0125-01.htm
Never mind Mr. Mcnamara…. some members of the future generations are more concerned in polishing shit…
There were crimes. The fact that many people, even inside the military were sickened and disgusted by it does not undo it. A lot of them felt that Calley and his immediate superior got off way too easily. A lot of them felt like “WTF we are supposed to be the good guys”.
Hey, if anyone wants to make this yet another thread devoted to throwing facts in the face of our favorite Crazy Canunt, that’s no skin off my nose. But please, be aware that the only reason Shit Boat Partisan for Bush wanted to go through this at all (and he’ll be pleased as hell to do it all over again) is that page 7 of the Karl Rove Handbook of Democracy says that whenever your opponent has a strength or a virtue, smear it until the water is muddied enough so that even reasonable people will say that there must be something to the story.
I say fuck him and let him go jerk off with some back bacon and a snowshoe.
His man got wiped all over the floor on Thursday. The polls suggest people aren’t down with the program (hell, even the Gallup “George Bush by 13” Poll now has them even at 49 each). Don’t buy into the bullshit. Don’t let the water get muddied. And don’t ever, ever trust an uncited assertion from Shit Boat.
Actually, I won’t be pleased as hell. The smears and personal attacks you guys engage in sicken me. It depresses me. But I happen to think the SBVT guys have a case. Not open and shut, and there are points of contention on both sides. But it’s a case worthy of honest debate.
Too bad you people can’t engage in that, but instead have to engage in name calling and character assassination.
You behave like children.
Maybe I should just ignore him, but dammit, it’s hard to do. It’s like a festering boil. It itches, you know it’s gonna hurt like hell when you scratch, but you just have to scratch.
No, that happens only after pointing out that the swifters and now you are engaging in that behavior from the beginning, I think you project too much.
So nice when you post shit that I can demonstrate to be false through 2 minutes worth of googling.
Like I said, it took me 2 minutes finding this. So what’s your excuse Sam? Didn’t know better? Didn’t care to find out? Prefered not to know the truth about the shit you’re trying to pass on?
If you’re including my post (“why would even a bandage be called for”) as part of that carping, it wasn’t meant that way. I meant that the fact that a medic saw fit to apply a dressing was evidence that the wound, however superficial, must have been more than a simple bruise.
No. It is you who have failed to read carefully and researched poorly, and must now bend over and feel the wrath of the meritaphorical rice bin of my logic which is about to explode in your ass.
What I said was “I am not really aware of any Swiftvets claiming the shrapnel in his ass is rice.”
Unless I am gravely mistaken, Sam Stone is not a Swift Boat Veteran.
So, my words stand correct, do they not? Who now, may I ask is the bender, and who is the bendee?
Now, Sam’s mistake I believe it attributable to the Swiftvets citing of the Globe biography, wherein Kerry makes the funny story of the exploding grenade and getting peppered with rice about the fundament. I suppose some may read this and conclude that Kerry is walking around with a side of fried rice in his buttcheeks. I on the other hand speculate that rice, being organic, would have long since been expelled or absorbed from his body, and remaining foreign matter in his ass must either be metallic in nature or the remnant of some wild times on R&R
Well yes. And the point of the Swiftvets is that Kerry has told two other versions in which he was wounded earlier. That would create three ass wounds in a single day, all due to exploding ordinance, two in rice bins, and one from a submersible mine. That is one unlucky ass.
Sounds like a harsh form of triage to me. If my ass had been shrapnelized twice by exploding rice bins and grenade fragments and once from a mine, I doubt mine would look so good. Maybe what the medic meant was that he had no ass left and therefore there was nothing left to treat? This would coincide with my idea of the results produced by a hatrick of exploding anal ordinance. I challenge you to sit on a single grenade and fair so well. On the other hand, Kerry did claim his call sign was “iron jaw.” Perhaps it was really another portion of his anatomy and he was editing it for polite company?
Fortunately, I didn’t say either.
As for what the Swiftvets say, it contradicts your earlier statements. Some excerpts and commentary from page 87.
"Kerry was never wounded or bleeding from his arm. All reports including the medical reports, make clear that he suffered a minor bruise on his arm and minor shrapnel wounds on his buttocks. The minor bruise on his arm would never have justified a purple heart and is not mentioned in the citation.
I have no idea whether the Swiftees are speaking accurately about the merits of the bruise. However, the fact is that the arm wound is not mentioned in any citation.
“This leaves only Kerry’s rear-end wound.”
So, you see where the issue is here? There was no mention of a wound to Kerry’s arm in the citation. You can take your choice on the buttocks wound. Did he take shrapnel in the ass three times that day, or just once? It would be a hell of a coincidence, wouldn’t it?
Now Larry Thurlow confirms the version of events as portrayed in Tour of Duty I.E. Kerry uses grenade in rice bin, hilarity and shrapnel to the ass ensue. Rasmussen also confirms this version. We have it from three different sources, two of which are independant and opposed, the third from Kerry himself. I think we can accept it as is, and reasonably state that the Boston Globe version which has the Nung throwing the grenade is an innacurate description of the same event.
The book then goes on to talk about how the mine that exploded, did not explode under Kerry’s boat. Everybody agrees this is the case, including Kerry in most, but not all versions of the event.
What the book concludes from all this is the following: “Very probably, the incident Rasmussen describes that resulted in Kerry’s self-inflicted wound, is the very wound that Kerry used to claim his final Purple Heart.”
And really, there is one other choice to this conclusion. Kerry was wounded in the ass more than once on that day. Improbable? Yes. Impossible? No.
Actually, this kind of gets me too. There are many many versions of the events that occured that day. I’ve tried to read them all and despin them. The worst possible version of events is the following:
Explosion occurs from mine under another boat. Kerry accelerates immediately, than swings around and picks Rasmussen out of the water while the other boats hold a defensive perimeter and fire into the banks. Had Kerry not picked up Rasmussen, another boat would have done so a short time later.
That’s it. That’s the worst version. Big deal. I’m sure the other boats had to accelerate to get in their positions. If you look at the Washington Post diagram, it’s pretty clear that Kerry’s boat was in poor position to do the pickup, and the pickup was a vulnerable area. Still, Kerry swung around and jumped in to get him. I think that’s pretty damn good for any man, much less who’s had his ass blowed up three times that day.
(Y’know, they still say that just seeing a box of Uncle Ben’s will cause Kerry to flashback to 'nam.)
PDF saying 3rd Purple Heart was received for injuries sustained March 13, 1969.
PDF showing description of injuries received on March 13, 1969.
From the latter:
LilShieste
Right. That does not differ from what I quoted. The arm bruise is not mentioned in the citation. The requirements for a Purple heart say it requires medical treatment. The bruise, the Swiftees say did not (as I guess you really don’t treat a minor contusion) that leaves the ass wound which did require treatment.
There are two possible interpretations here.
-
Kerry got wounded in the ass earlier in the day (possibly twice) and then a third time when the mine exploded. The wound(s) was/were treated and the Purple Heart is legitimate.
-
The only wound that required treatment and hence was eligible for the Purple Heart was the ass wound. It is “Very probable” that this is the wound Kerry got earlier in the day with the exploding rice bin. Therefore, since the wound did not come from the exploding mine during the action, the Purple Heart is not merited.
So that’s it, either there were multiple ass wounds in a single day, or Kerry did not deserve the Purple Heart.
Now that I think of it, there is a third possibility. The bruise on the arm was treated (maybe a medic kissed the boo-boo to make it better or looked it over and shrugged. I don’t know. Is this treatment?" Therefore, since the arm was treated somehow, it qualifies.
I dunno. Take your pick. I’m not too concerned about it, though it is fun from an academic standpoint.
Kerry’s actual quote from his 1971 testimony speaks of war crimes being “…not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command”.
You’ll see from this that he actually says:
- War crimes were common.
- War crimes were committed with the full awareness of all kinds of officers.
He does NOT say that all officers are complicit, or that the chair of command is complicit, merely that many officers, junior and senior alike, were complicit.
Kerry’s two assertions were true. Your representation of his statement is incorrect and dishonest.
Wow, talk about splitting hairs.
Forgive my possible ignorance, but… the actual citation plainly says “… for injuries received on 13 March 1969.” So, it doesn’t explicitly mention any injury (not even the ass wounds).
That’s why I posted 2 cites, in my last post, so we could see the documentation of the “injuries received on 13 March 1969.” Which, as you know, tells us of the arm contusions and the ass wound.
Am I missing something?
LilShieste