You know, Kerry's starting to remind me of Chef's father. He couldn't talk about anything without
. Or Cambodia. Or not Cambodia, as the case may be. Too bad the Democrats are so blinded by their Anyone But Bush campaign or they'd notice that their candidate has severe problems talking about the 21st century. As a candidate, I'd say he's worth about $3.50.
I'll make sure and tell my husband his shrapnel wound is not as worthy as someone else's injury.::rollingeyes:: I think that a lot of times that peoiple forget when they insult Kerry's Purple Hearts, you are probably also insulting thousands of soldiers who received wounds that people are now deeming not worthy. If you don't like Kerry, fine, there are plenty of other things to pick him apart about without insulting a bunch of people who went and did the right thing.
Posted by: Jen at August 10, 2004 11:15 PM (n8GLX)
I am certainly not saying that people do not deserve Purple Hearts for any injury. However, many believe Kerry's first injury was self-inflicted, and I believe he should've had the integrity to deny a Purple Heart for that. But if he really did get injured bad enough three times in four months that he had to go home, he shouldn't keep acting like he's GI freakin Joe. Lots of people served two full years in Vietnam...or years in POW prisons...and Kerry's little wounds that let him leave are an insult to those people.
When my friend got hit, the Chaplain said that he was cursing and yelling about how stupid it was that he had gotten hit. He wanted back in the fight. Kerry went and signed himself up for a ticket home. Not the same thing.
Posted by: Sarah at August 11, 2004 02:18 AM (eDh8I)
I'm at the part in Tommy Franks' book where he gets home from Vietnam. His father is looking over his medals, and comments on his son's three Purple Hearts. Franks says something like "Those are just for the serious wounds, Dad. I'd have a lot more if I reported every little scratch I got."
Sheesh! What an EGO!
Posted by: Liberal Larry at August 11, 2004 05:34 PM (7ldvV)
I just can't help but wonder how many people will one day be saying the same thing about our guys. When you question one soldiers, you question them all, I just don't see how you can seperate the two. My husband was wounded several times in one month, it does happen.
Posted by: Jen at August 11, 2004 11:14 PM (n8GLX)
Jen, hopefully if you've been reading my site for a while, you know that I would never
belittle your husband's service. What I see as the difference is this: does your husband go around talking about his service all the time, to anyone who will listen? While downrange did he make fake combat videos and interviews to capture the moment of glory? Does he disparage those who haven't served? Did he come home and accuse his brothers of war crimes? I doubt that he does any of this, or you wouldn't be writing. Your husband probably served according to the Army Values (or whatever branch he's in), with integrity and selfless service. I just don't think Kerry did that. And it happened over 30 years ago, at which point he came home and joined the anti-war crowd, yet now he's acting like he stormed Normandy singlehandedly. That's what bugs me about him. Many soldiers are wounded in Iraq -- one of my husband's guys is now deaf in one ear -- but they don't prance around like they wear their medals on their civilian clothes too...
That's my beef. Not that Kerry was awarded Purple Hearts, but that they're present in everything he does today.
Posted by: Sarah at August 12, 2004 02:13 AM (1cbr7)
I think what Sarah is trying to point is the pathalogical deception that is apparent when you examine Kerry, his service, his record, and his actions.
To my examining eye, his actions were motivated by ambition, and the truth is malleable to further that ambition. These are not the actions of an honorable man.
Posted by: John at August 12, 2004 02:36 AM (crTpS)
When you question one soldiers, you question them all, I just don't see how you can seperate the two.
And I don't see how you can't see how you can seperate the two.
Am I questioning all U.S. presidents when I say that Nixon was a crook?
Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 12, 2004 05:57 AM (+S1Ft)
Sarah, you seem very smart and thoughtful, but you sometimes seem to be getting some bad information. For example, John Kerry served in Vietnam from Nov. 1968 to Apr. 1969. A quick math check will reveal that this is longer than four months.
In recent months you've posted links to widely discredited stories concerning an aborted terrorist attempt and John Kerry's staged combat reenactments.
I try to get news from a variety of sources. If Drudge is the only one reporting it, there's a good chance it's bogus.
Posted by: Rigby Maguire at August 12, 2004 12:14 PM (jhAOH)
I am not going to comment about the fake videos, because I am still not sure what exactly I think about that.Kerry's bragging (lol jibjab comes to mind) may be over the top, but no more so or less than Bush bragging about his service too. It's election time, those things wil get blown out of proportion by both sides. If my husband chose to brag about his medals (I don't see that happening) then I feel it is his right to. I just worry that this close inspection into who won what and why is one day going to hurt the guys we are supporting right now. It would kill me to see the fine men I know who deserve every small thing they can get, for living through hell, be examined this way. Imagine how painful that would be. I think it's a bigger issue than just Kerry.
and Pixy, that analogy is not even close.
Posted by: Jen at August 12, 2004 01:38 PM (n8GLX)
Rigby, according to John Kerry's own timeline
, he arrived in Vietnam 17 Nov and was granted a trip home on 17 Mar. That's exactly four months. He left about a week and a half later, so I guess technically you're right: it was four and a half months.
And how exactly is the story about Kerry's combat videos disputed? Kerry himself admitted making them...and they were used at the DNC. I don't see the problem there.
And I hardly ever read Drudge, only if someone else links to him.
Posted by: Sarah at August 13, 2004 02:43 AM (Oga1Y)
I don't think you realize that you and Sarah are on the same side. I'm sorry your husband was injured...I appreciate his service to our country. However, Sarah's criticism of Kerry has nothing to do with your husband.
Posted by: Erin at August 13, 2004 02:01 PM (O383z)
I suspect that everyone who's worn the uniform has served with the glory hunting medal grabbers. Some of us have even served with real heros. There's a big difference. The men I served with in the Southeast Asian War Games knew the difference as we knew the difference between a wound and a ding.
I didn't serve with Senator Kerry, I wasn't even there in the same year or Branch of Service. I've never met the man personally. All I know is that his subsequent behavior has not been that of an honorable or couragous individual.
Of the various terms we had for someone like him, the one fit for a family setting is Hee-row.
I'm not real fond of a man who'd put himself in for a decoration for the Hee-row-ick act of throwing a grenade into a stash of rice and peppering his own backside with rice grains. That's just me, though.
Posted by: Peter at August 14, 2004 04:17 PM (iMUy+)
All of the brouhaha over Kerry in Vietnam, medals, etc. is really only serving one purpose.
It is stopping everyone from examing the more current record of Senator Kerry. The man has 30+ years since Vietnam. That is what he is, that is what defines him. Research what he stands for, that will tell you what kind of president he would be.
Posted by: Pamela at August 19, 2004 05:12 PM (w8c17)
Well, you may not like it, kiddies... but Kerry will be the next President. Get used to it!
Posted by: Yoda at September 29, 2004 04:17 AM (05K68)
| Add Comment