Enemy action is not a criterion for the Purple Heart. The criteria is that it must be sustained while engaged in action against the enemy (“action” being boadly defined). It is not necessary that the injury be caused by the enemy.
magellan, unfortunately, I can’t ask my father about his. He told me when I was a child that the scar was due to simple brick falling down as he was walking by. I know now that he is very unwilling to talk about his time in the war - according to my stepmother, he still would occasionally have nightmares. So I suspect he was being a daddy telling a little white lie to his baby girl (I was the youngest).
What I do know is that no one on Kerry’s boat feels that Kerry was awarded the medal unjustly. Also that the Chinese Olympic opening ceremonies were fantastic. And last, but not least, we’ve strayed awfully far from the OP.
So, to return to the OP, you feel it’s OK to totally trash John Kerry’s war record based on the so-called testimony of people who weren’t in a position to observe as closely as those who say he was worthy of his honors, but that it’s unjust to honor John McCain for his war record but feel that he has put a stain on his honor by selling out his integrity in the last 4-8 years? Because that’s what I seem to be reading here. Please clarify if I am mistaken. Note that I no longer want to argue in this thread the merits of John Kerry’s war service - if you still feel the need to tear him down, please open another thread. I’m just trying to get a feel for what does and does not “disgust” you, and just how much that disgust falls in line with your apparent political beliefs. Because, to be honest here, it really seems that your disgust very conveniently lines up with your politics in this paritcular context. I’m not trying to personally insult you in this post, unlike above. I’m saying I’m honestly having trouble reaching any other conclusion. Can you present me with evidence to the contrary?
Not true.
Public Law 99-145 authorized the award for wounds received as a result of “friendly fire”. No enemy required.
I’d like to see some evidence that it was any harder for anyone else to get Purple hearts than it was for Kerry. I’ve heard that they were handing them out like party favors after awhile. Kerry was far from the only guy who got PH’s for relatively minor wounds. At least his were all sustained during combat.
Please, as I asked magellan, if you want to debate this further, why don’t you open a new thread about it? I’ll be happy to join in there. This has gone way off track, and it’s not fair to Bricker (the opening poster).
Not true. More comprehensive criteria (found in Wikipedia) shows that the enemy is indeed required, even in the instance of friendly fire, as can be seen in Item 6, Section b:
Section c might also be helpful when looking at the great Windsurfing Warrior:
(c) Individuals injured as a result of their own negligence; for example, driving or walking through an unauthorized area known to have been mined or placed off limits or searching for or picking up unexploded munitions as war souvenirs, will not be awarded the Purple Heart as they clearly were not injured as a result of enemy action, but rather by their own negligence.
I also would suggest you read this discussion I just came across. You will see that even if Kerry didn’t do anything dishonest (which I do NOT grant for a second), he contorted the spirit of the award. He amassed three “injuries”, none even causing him to miss a day of service. He seemed to equate Purple Hearts with band-aids.
And for the umpteenth time, where are those complete military medical records Kerry said he was going to release about four years ago. Hmmm, interesting that…
You’re right. I’ll drop it. My apologies to Bricker. The one chapter I cited should be enough for those with still open minds. The rest, I value my time too much.
Onward.
Thank you, magellan. Now could you answer the relevant part of my question?
To wit:
Again, I’m really not trying to sandbag you. I’m trying to understand your viewpoint. However, I’m also going to bed, so unless you answer in the next few minutes, you’ve got plenty of time.
I’m not sure this is appropriate given your previous observation, so I’ll keep it short. I am a registered Independent. I never voted for GWB and have stated numerous times that that the day he got the nomination was a dark day in America. If I though McCain was the next GWB I’d be helping Obama beat him. I’ve also not been a huge fan of McCain’s politics. But I’ve always been able to separate that from the man, who I think has earned our admiration. Actually, I have very little use for either party, for different reasons. I simply don’t see it that McCain has sold out his integrity. I do think there was a reasonable justification for the war when it was being debated. I do think it was horribly botched. I do think that McCain was very vocal in criticizing the prosecution of the war and put forth a plan that has proved to be the right one. I think that the result we have now is immeasurably superior to if we had pulled out when Obama wanted to (assuming it was even possible, which I doubt). I think it’s fine to change your mind on issues, as circumstances change. I don’t think it is fine to take a pricipled stance, claiming the moral high ground, then abandon it for cash. I hope that helps. I’m not sure it does.
Actually you have studiously ignored any cited facts (which are in abundance and not disputed by anyone) in this thread that explicitly show McCain selling out his integrity. You are hidebound to the republican talking point that he is a hero and therefore beyond reproach.
Then you like to whip the horse of Obama changing his mind on one point (campaign finance which is frankly more nuanced than you are having it) versus McCain’s 60+ flip flops (which include such things as torture and illegal wire tappings of American citizens).
You are grasping at one or two flimsy points in the face of an avalanche of evidence. I think you need to address the meat of the argument and stop with the minor diversions (if you really want to continue debating Kerry by all means open a new thread and I will participate in that discussion there).
Magellon101, your statement has more leaps of faith than the Leaping Sisters of St Beryl. Reasonable minds are uncertain as to whether or not the surge had a negligible effect, some effect, or a significant effect. Few but the faithful are willing to believe that it had the defiinitive effect. But put that aside.
So what?
What do we have now we didn’t have before? The Iraqis are handing us our hat and showing us poilitely to the door. This is victory, then? This what the sacrifice and suffering was for?
Is Iraq our new BFF? Seems unlikely, don’t you think? Seeing as how we have installed a rudimentary democracy, so that the people be heard. And the people don’t like us very much. They are not interested in supporting our agenda, they are interested in seeing the back of us.
If this is all there is, then opposing the clusterfuck from Day One was, is, and will remain the most correct position. Maybe it takes a smart guy to open the car door when it is slammed on his pecker, but the smarter guy is the one who didn’t put his pecker there in the first place, don’t you think?
And just as you say, McCain criticized the execution of the wars aftermath (there was nothing to criticize about the war itself, you seize the baby’s hand and you pry his fingers from the candy, its ain’t rocket surgery…) As well he might.
But he supported the war itself, and that position is unutterably misguided. I do not and will not trust a man so completely off base, so one-eighty out. What in the name of Bleeding Of did he *think * we were going to get out of this?
Or is this it? Are we supposed to be thrilled at all we’ve gained? I’m always happy to be thrilled, so tell me: what should we be so pleased about?
So in an attempt to tie two thread topics together: Bricker, are there any VP candidates that would really tip you one way or the other conclusively?
Love, a gallant attempt, but I still need to talk to magellan a little more. Sorry. 
magellan, thank you so much for that straightforward answer. I’m absolutely serious. But I still have a few questions.
McCain very clearly reversed himself on quite a number of issues since 2000 and aligned himself more closely with the “mainstream Republican” position. Among these issues were the use of torture at Gitmo, tax cuts for the wealthy (purportedly for the purpose of bolstering the economy, based on the trickle-down theory of economics), and the immigration bill that he himself co-authored. Oh, and the off-shore oil-drilling that he opposed until June 13 of this year, and that is now the centerpiece of his entire campaign.
It seems apparent to the rest of of that most of these were not changes of conviction, but rather opportunistic changes, made in order to give McCain a chance at getting the 2008 nomination, which in fact he has successfully achieved. They may be understandable, but they go directly against the image he had built in his previous years in Washington, of being a man who did and said what he felt was right, irrespective of party line or public opinion.
What I’m trying to understand is how these many changes he has made have not given you the same opinion? Are you so in agreement with them that it seems logical to you that anyone with a brain would eventually come around to agreement with them? If so, why have you not been a fan of the Bush administration?
I’m truly trying to understand here, so if I sound stupid, please bear with me: it’s because I am.
ETA: At least we’re back on the 2008 election!
Oy!, this is still a hijack of the original thread. If you want to discuss this with magellan01, why not take it to a thread of it’s own. I am sure Bricker would really like to see the original concept of this thread discussed here. 
OK, fair enough.
ETA: Where should I open it?
I have created a new thread here.