32 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
I don't think it is fair.
And if medals were awarded, to take them back seems cheesy to me. Why not buckle down on the qualifications for future Purple Hearts and let the people who already have them be.
click here to email the mods
Oh stop it, Mark
Kerry's staff never said he intentionally wounded himself, as you keep accusing.
Even the most damaging testimony against Kerry said only that the wound that got him his first Purple Heart was inflicted when a mortar round he fired off hit some rocks and a rock fragment hit him in the arm.
Does that fit your description of a self-inflicted wound?
I'd say let the people that were injured by the hands of others keep their medals, not the people like Kerry that 'Earned' theirs with poor marksmanship.
Even good marksmanship....
....can result in injury from fragments. But that's not the same as a deliberately self-inflicted wound, which I think we can both agree is not something to pin a medal on someone for.
(NT) then why did kerry get medals
Because the military gave them to him
You know, the military that you agree with, when it comes to, if you are suspect you are guilty.
Or do you get to pick and choose which part of military regulation you agree with,
Like when you were in the military.
Maybe you should be the one to stop it
since those weren't Mark's words in his post....but rather the article itself. If you have a complaint, take up with that URL instead.
Mark posted it
Are you suggesting that Mark posted that because he found the oft-repeated and oft-refuted accusation outrageous?
Somehow I doubt that.
Spoken like a true Kerry man
Kill the messenger and not the message.....Whether Mark agrees with the article isn't at issue....whether you disagree with the article isn't at issue. At issue is that you hate the fact that OTHER sites besides SE members are still asking the same question, Josh.
We SE members endure the Bush bashing as an ongoing assault, and yet when we find and post links to stories or opinions or news articles that even HINT at still questioning Kerry, you (in general) get your shorts in a knot.
Get over yourself......as long as the stories are still coming from people still as outraged over Kerry's self-importance, the people in SE who happen to come across the stories have the same rights as the Bush bashers to post a link to them.
I specifically addressed the message. The "question" was answered long ago; it's a pity that some people think that continuing to ask it somehow changes that.
Your own words, Josh
"Oh stop it Mark...Kerry's staff never said he intentionally wounded himself, as you keep accusing."
Mark never said a word, you stated he "keeps accusing".
Sigh all day.....it won't change the fact that YOU accused, and YOU tried to shoot the messenger. I don't give a rat's if you don't like having questions brought back up. It's not up to you. If you don't like the questions posted, don't try to answer them.
What annoys me....
....is people continuing to ask questions even after they've been provided with the answers. The author of that piece no doubt knows perfectly well that John Kerry didn't intentionally wound himself; yet he chooses to continue to propagate the accusation.
Mark has continued to call Kerry a "coward" and said things that indicate that he concurs with this particular accusation, and his posting of this link (and his choice of excerpt) speaks for itself IMO.
And we continue to read various versions/themes
of Bush-bashing, Josh......old news is old news....and as long as SE members continue to try to dig and locate new slants of the same stuff, both sides in SE will be assaulted by it. Just move on and ignore the ones you already know are repeats of stuff you don't want to read anymore. That door swings both ways for both sides.
You make it sound like a rare occasion
The Reps have been bashing non-stop. Even Clinton, who hasn't been President for 4 years, is still getting kicked around at every opportunity.
What Mark posted wasn't an "article" either it was "news" or Nuze as Boortz spells from Neal Boortz website full of bias and opinion. He also posted the entire piece on Purple Hearts and not a blurb from an article. It's really not much different than trolling.
Nobody is really innocent here.
go read the article
and answered by you come off your high horse.
your type said elections wont happen
i relize you supported kerry but he was and is a coward his own men said same.
he went over to north viet nam and said chit.
your choice for presidents a coward
ill say it again why wouldnt kerry release his records?
if you have nothing to hide you release
Who is "your type," Mark? And why do you keep repeating things that I've already told you I never said?
he went over to north viet nam
Wrong again. He spoke with some North Vietnamese representatives in Paris. As did a lot of other people, most of them journalists. But again, I suppose your version sounds better.
Going to Paris back then, his last trip to Europe and the Middle East my understanding this fits the Logan Act.
Details about the Logan Act
The Logan Act was intended to prohibit United States citizens without authority from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments. There appear to have been no prosecutions under the Act in its almost 200 year history. However, there have been a number of judicial references to the Act, and it is not uncommon for it to be used as a political weapon. Although attempts have been made to repeal the Act, it remains law and at least a potential sanction to be used against anyone who without authority interferes in the foreign relations of the United States.
answered by who?
sigh you can post your bush hatred which is ok but heaven help me if i find the article which hasnt been answered yet
who refuted it?
the swifties staed it and contact the writer ok
you cant take it that kerry is not all that he says.
and till his records are released hes suspect
The doctor who treated the wounds
He said the injury was consistent with the mortar/fragments scenario. He did NOT say, nor has anyone else said, that the injury was consistent with a deliberately self-inflicted wound. That's just the spin that some people insist on putting on it. I guess it sounds better.
and as thats what you beleave sigh
whatever you want to beleave josh its your perogitive
Well let's see....
Who would probably know better, the doctor who saw and treated the wounds, or you.
In any case,
What do you think about them taking back the Purple Hearts? Do you think it's right to do, or should they not?
click here to email the mods
I don't think any Purple Hearts should be revoked
if they were obtained due to 'friendly fire'...war is war and all hurt should get the recognition they deserve for being there in the first place. If, however, a medal is given and an investigation later proves that it was self-inflicted or that person deliberately put themselves in harm's way in order to get out early, those medals should be publicly taken away just as they were public given.
Totally agree, Toni.
In fact, the criteria for award of the purple heart do not exclude "friendly fire." The current case has to do with "Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action," which are not to result in a purple heart. It becomes a gray area, however, when an accident is caused by evasive maneuvers to avoid hostile fire, which I believe was involved in at least one of the cases where the medal was rescinded. BTW, they didn't actually ask for it back -- just sent a memo advising that the medal shouldn't be worn.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email firstname.lastname@example.org
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
(NT) i think its terible
josh we know your upset but "During the final days of the campaign even Kerry's staff was admitting that Kerry's first Purple Heart may well have been the result of his actions, not enemy action"
not my words but remeber he is a suspect of cowardness
those who served with him said so but thats ok your entitled to sulk
suspect of cowardness
Kerry is suspect of cowardness, so he is a coward.
If a person is "suspected" of committing a crime they are "guilty" According to you.
The purpose of a trial is to determine "guilt or innocence"
In order to be "charged" you must be a "suspect"
The suspect is automatically guilty
Why bother with the trial?
Get the rope!
well military law is deferent
but you know my views on kerry and not mine alone
kerry was suspected and he refuses to help himself
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)