Gaps in Bush’s records indicate that he went AWOL. NOBODY remembers George Bush reporting for duty in Alabama, a period of five months. NO WITNESSES!
All Bush has is a dental exam, to prove he was in the Guard in Alabama.
There are missing pay stubs that indicate Bush was not reporting for duty, and NOBODY SAW HIM SHOW UP.
Bush asked NOT to go to Vietnam, so he’s the real hero of Vietnam. And Kerry, the guy who REQUESTED a SECOND tour of duty on one of the most dangerous assignments, is somehow the goat.
Here’s how Dole earned HIS first Purple Heart, in his own words:
“As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn’t a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg–the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart.”
Here’s how Dole earned HIS first Purple Heart, in his own words:
“As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn’t a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg–the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart.”
DOH!!![/quote]
Lumpy, I swear…
I don’t know why, but I am actually going to take the time to make a proper argument for you.
You can’t call Dole a hyporcrite, because Dole isn’t the one questioning Kerry based on the fact his wounds may have been self-inflicted.
You see, a hypocrite is someone who holds personal beliefs that contradict his own public statements.
Dole questioned Kerry’s wounds because they were very superficial – not really “wounds” to Dole.
Agree or disagree, that was Dole’s criticism. The criticism about Kerry’s wounds being self inflicted has come from other sources, so you cannot tar Dole as a hypocrite. QED.
Your argument should be that people who say Kerry doesn’t deserve his Purple Hearts for self-inflicted injuries must now agree Dole does not deserve any Purple Hearts for any self-inflicted injuries, or they are hypocrites. Sheesh.
Now, on a tangent, let me take a moment to correct something I posted earlier. Earlier I misstated the requirements for receiving a purple heart in a post on another thread, because I was mistaken in my understanding. Apparently, the requirement is more nuanced than I had realized. While it is generally required that the injury for which one receives a Purple Heart be from enemy fire, in certain circumstances an injury from friendly fire can qualify for a Purple Heart. I have been informed that friendly fire during “the heat of battle” can qualify. I have no idea how throwing a grenade into a rice container with no actual enemies in view fits into this, so I don’t know whether John Kerry’s self-inflicted wounds would qualify. I’ll post this correction with my original post as well.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I don’t know why, but I am actually going to take the time to make a proper argument for you.[/quote]
Shove your patronising tone up your ass.
Bob Dole’s first Purple Heart wounds were also superficial, and they were also self-inflicted. Dole’s got no business complaining about Kerry’s Purple Hearts.
Nice try, but that’s not why Kerry got a Purple Heart. The “rice container” incident happened earlier, on the same day Kerry won a Purple Heart when he rescued Rassman. When the mine blew up, Kerry was thrown and he injured his arm. He rescued Rassman with an injured arm.
What medals has George Bush won, besides the Pabst Blue Ribbon???
How do you manage to mischaracterize what Dole said when exactly what he said is posted at least twice above?
Dole’s complaint referenced the fact Kerry got 3 Purple Hearts with no more than superficial wounds – look at the transcript above.
Ah, probably too much effort for you – let me help:
"DOLE: I don’t quarrel with that. I said John Kerry’s a hero. But what I will always quarrel about are the Purple Hearts. I mean, the first one, whether he ought to have a Purple Heart – he got two in one day, I think. And he was out of there in less than four months, because three Purple Hearts and you’re out.
And as far as I know, he’s never spent one day in the hospital. I don’t think he draws any disability pay. He doesn’t have any disability. And boasting about three Purple Hearts when you think of some of the people who really got shot up in Vietnam…"
So, Lumpy, tell me precisely how this complaint makes Dole a hypocrite again?
Let me restate this posting what is coming out now…
For Immediate Release
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
KERRY CAMPAIGN BACKTRACKS ON FIRST PURPLE HEART AWARD
Campaign Says May Have Been Self-Inflicted
Washington?In a reversal of their staunch defense of John Kerry’s military service record, Kerry campaign officials were quoted by Fox News saying that it was indeed possible that John Kerry’s first Purple Heart commendation was the result of an, unintentional, self-inflicted wound."
“GARRETT: And questions keep coming. For example, Kerry received a Purple Heart for wounds suffered on December 2, 1968. But in Kerry’s own journal written nine days later, he writes he and his crew, quote, “hadn’t been shot at yet,” unquote. Kerry’s campaign has said it is possible this first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentional self-inflicted wound – Brit.” (Special Report with Brit Hume Aug.23, 2004)
A recent television ad from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth featured Doctor Louis Letson who treated Kerry for his minor injury and Grant Hibbard who served as John Kerry’s direct commander on the mission where he claimed his medal. Both men say Kerry did not deserve the medal given the fact that Kerry received a very minor wound requiring no more than band-aid treatment and because the wound was not a direct result of hostile fire, a requirement for a Purple Heart commendation.
“When Grant Hibbard and Doctor Letson appeared in our ad, they were attacked and vilified by the Kerry campaign but now we see news reports saying the Kerry campaign is now sheepishly acknowledging that what we said was true,” said Admiral Hoffmann, founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. “John Kerry’s own journal reinforces the fact that neither Kerry nor his crew had seen hostile enemy action. John Kerry’s first Purple Heart medal is based on fiction.”
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is calling on the Kerry campaign to apologize to Grant Hibbard and Doctor Letson as the men did nothing more than come forward to speak the truth about the situation involving John Kerry’s first Purple Heart medal.
This is not the only incident in which Kerry campaign officials have changed their story concerning Kerry’s prestigious war medals. The incident on the Bay Hap River in which Kerry received his third Purple Heart and Bronze Star has also been the subject of considerable waffling by Kerry officials.
During the Democratic National Convention, Kerry used the Bay Hap River incident to suggest that he alone returned to rescue Jim Rassmann?a Special Forces solider?who was on Kerry’s boat and was tossed into the river. Kerry described this incident to the American people as “No man left behind.”
However Kerry officials were forced to acknowledge that Kerry’s boat actually left the scene when another swift boat?operating on the other side of the river?was damaged by an underwater mine. Kerry officials now admit that Kerry’s boat returned after several minutes to pull Rassmann from the water while three other swift boats remained on site to render assistance to the injured crew of the one damaged boat. Campaign officials once claimed that Kerry returned to the scene under withering hostile fire to rescue Rassmann after all the other swift boats left. But other accounts from eyewitnesses of that day confirm that the other boats stayed on site and that Kerry returned to the scene, facing no enemy fire, only seconds before another swift boat was preparing to retrieve Mr. Rassmann from the water.
“John Kerry’s stories are falling apart,” added Hoffmann. His statements don’t even match up with his own journal entries. We are going to continue telling the truth about John Kerry’s military service record so that the American people can make their own decisions about John Kerry’s qualifications to be the next Commander in Chief."
First this first purple heart…Next we find out about Cambodia…from the Washington Post
It is an assertion he made first, insofar as the written record reveals, in 1979 in a letter to the Boston Herald. Since then he has repeated it on at least eight occasions during Senate debate or in news interviews, most recently to The Post this year (an interview posted on Kerry’s Web site). The most dramatic iteration came on the floor of the Senate in 1986, when he made it the centerpiece of a carefully prepared 20-minute oration against aid to the Nicaraguan contras.
Kerry argued that contra aid could put the United States on the path to deeper involvement despite denials by the Reagan administration of any such intent. Kerry began by reading out similar denials regarding Vietnam from presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. Then he offered this devastating riposte:
“I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared – seared – in me.”
However seared he was, Kerry’s spokesmen now say his memory was faulty. When the Swift boat veterans who oppose Kerry presented statements from his commanders and members of his unit denying that his boat entered Cambodia, none of Kerry’s shipmates came forward, as they had on other issues, to corroborate his account. Two weeks ago Kerry’s spokesmen began to backtrack. First, one campaign aide explained that Kerry had patrolled the Mekong Delta somewhere “between” Cambodia and Vietnam. But there is no between; there is a border. Then another spokesman told reporters that Kerry had been “near Cambodia.” But the point of Kerry’s 1986 speech was that he personally had taken part in a secret and illegal war in a neutral country. That was only true if he was “in Cambodia,” as he had often said he was. If he was merely “near,” then his deliberate misstatement falsified the entire speech. …
No wonder John Kerry won’t have all his military records released. nd he will not sign that form the vets want hin to sign…
And you keep brining up about Bush, and his military record. The bottom line is this: Bush NEVER turned against those that fought in Vietnam. Or took part in the Anti Vietnam protests, like John Kerry did…And the Vets are not upset about Bush, but what kerry did.
It’s the same old liberal double standard. We should accept the military’s acount of John Kerry’s record. However, we should not accept the military’s record for President Bush’s record. Yea…that’s fair.
Dole’s got some more gems - (where was this passion when he ran for President?):
Bob Dole on his recent criticism of John Kerry
The former U.S. senator talks about the Swift Boat ads, being a proud Vietnam veteran, and what it’s like to run for president
Updated: 5:36 p.m. ET Aug. 25, 2004
Former U.S. Senator Bob Dole spoke with MSNBC?s Joe Scarborough about John Kerry?s war record and the swift boat veterans ad controversy, in an interview scheduled to air on tonight?s ?Scarborough Country? 10-11 p.m. ET.
Dole tells Scarborough that Senator Kerry called Senator Dole after his statements on Sunday to tell him he was ?disappointed.? Dole also says that he thinks Kerry should stop talking about what a ?great veteran? he was, that he thinks the American people admire the ?quiet heroes? and it pays to ?not talk about yourself so much.?
Following is a partial transcript from tonight?s interview, which will telecast in its entirety on tonight on MSNBC.
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: I want to ask, you?ve been through one of these presidential campaigns. You know what it?s like on the campaign trail. Are you surprised, as a guy who is a war hero, that John Kerry?s war record is playing such a central role in this presidential campaign this year?
DOLE: Well, I am a little surprised because I remember in ?96, of course, Clinton didn?t have a record and the liberal media didn?t want to say much about my record. So it never really became?you know? I guess ?The New York Times? may have said I was a veteran, that?s about as far as they went.
So this time you?ve got a candidate named John Kerry who had a good record in Vietnam, came back from the service, denounced the war, in effect, trashed the Americans who were still fighting there. Went before a Senate committee in April of 1971, threw away his ribbons or his medals or whatever and now is standing before the American people and saying you?ve got to elect me because I?m this Vietnam hero.
And it?s kind of hard to reconcile all of these things. So it does sort of bring up focus that I don?t think we?ve had in the past.
SCARBOROUGH: Do you think it?s important for a president to have a war record or to be a veteran?
DOLE: I don?t know. I was asked that in ?96. You know, I said, ?Well, I think I learned a lot obviously being in the service.? I think if I?m John Kerry, I?m proud of my service. Some days he?s proud, other days he?s denouncing his service. But I was proud of my service. I thought people were proud of my service.
But it?s a very fine line you walk when you?re standing before a crowd of 5,000 or 6,000 people to make a speech because out in that audience, there are going to be a lot of men and women and mother, father, whatever, who make not have served or may not know much about service in World War II, Korea, Vietnam.
And so you don?t want to go out there and say, you know: ?Vote for me. I did this, this, this, this, this. I got all these medals. I got all these Purple Hearts.?
I think you can do it in a different way, John Kerry?s a friend of mine. I sent a signal about two or three months ago on television, ?John, back off. You know, cool it. Don?t make the Vietnam War the centerpiece of your campaign.?
But he?s got a problem, because he spent 20 years in the Senate and doesn?t have much to show for it.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, you sent a signal a few months back, and then, of course, a couple days ago you had this to say about John Kerry. Let me read the quote:
?Three Purple Hearts and never bled, that I know of. They?re such superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you?re out. I think Senator Kerry needs to talk about his Senate record, which is pretty thin. That?s probably why he?s talking bout his war record, which is pretty confused.?
Obviously, that?s a very strong statement. As a respected public figure, as a war hero yourself, that that statement was going to make news. What compelled you to make it?
DOLE: I don?t know. I?m not out trying to stir up a lot of trouble.
Wolf Blitzer is a friend of mine on CNN. He?d asked me three weeks in a row to come on the program. I ducked him. I finally said, ?OK, I?ll go.? I knew what he wanted to ask me.
But this is after we?d had somebody called Vice President Cheney a coward. They?ve called Bush ?a deserter? that he was AWOL, that he?s condoned torture, that he?s condoned poisoning of pregnant women. I mean, all these nasty, nasty, over-the-top attacks.
And they spent $65 million trying to defame President Bush. I told John Kerry on the telephone the next day. I said, ?John, President Bush is my guy. And when I see all the people dumping on him, and all the misstatements and?and untruths, it kind of riles me up a little.? So maybe I expressed that on Sunday.
SCARBOROUGH: So you spoke with John Kerry. Did he call you, or did you call him?
DOLE: He called me the next day and said ?I?m very disappointed.?
I said, ?Well, John, I?m disappointed, too, in all these undeserved attacks on President Bush. If you want to question Dick Cheney?s deferment, that?s fine. If you want to question the National Guard, that?s fine. But John, these other guys, these swift boat veterans are a lot of them that have a different view of what happened than you have, and they have a right to speak. We live in the United States of America. It?s a free country. You may not like what they say, but they have a right to say it.?
SCARBOROUGH: And what did Senator Kerry say to you in response?
DOLE: He said, ?I haven?t spent one dime in my campaign on a negative ad.?
Well, he doesn?t have to. He?s got George Soros, who put in $15 million. He?s got Harold Ickes up there cranking out millions of dollars of ads. He?s got his former campaign manager in Boston in another group called Bringing America Together.
President Bush to his credit, and I wish John Kerry would follow suit, said, ?Let?s stop all these so-called 527 ads, all these soft money ads that have been so critical. Let?s talk about the issues.?
And the American people, they like to know that you?re a veteran, or not a veteran?you know, they actually don?t like some of the negatives and all this. But they also like to know what?s going to happen next year, not what happened 30 or 35 years ago.
SCARBOROUGH: You know, Senator, we?ve been talking for the past week now about the fact that Harold Ickes was holed up in the Four Seasons in Boston with Democratic fundraisers and John Kerry?s top contributors for an entire week during the Democratic National Convention.
And yet, nobody wrote about his 527 ad and the $20 million that he raised for ACT. Nobody talked about the fact that John Kerry?s former campaign manager is running this Media Fund, which also is spending millions and millions of dollars.
You ran for president. It?s easy for me to talk about media bias, but did you see media bias in 1996? And if so, how widespread is it?
DOLE: It?s widespread. I mean, you look at the number of stories written about or on the three big networks at night and ?The New York Times,? ?The L.A. Times,? ?The Washington Post,? all the big newspapers. How many dozens of stories they?ve reported about George Bush and the National Guard, and now they had to rush to the defense of John Kerry.
?The New York Times? last Friday had a front-page story, trying to discredit all these other Vietnam veterans, some who?ve been wounded seriously, all of whom served honorably. And many were decorated. And they?re cast as a bunch of liars or paid off by the Bush people. And that?s the kind of coverage you would get from the so-called mainstream media.
President Bush is going to go out and rebut this, for the most part, with paid advertising. He doesn?t have ?The New York Times? every day. if you added up the value of all ?The New York Times? propaganda, it would probably be $3 or $4 million.
Watch the full interview on ‘Scarborough Country,’ Wednesday, 10 p.m. ET.
" If you want to question Dick Cheney?s deferment, that?s fine. If you want to question the National Guard, that?s fine. But John, these other guys, these swift boat veterans are a lot of them that have a different view of what happened than you have, and they have a right to speak. We live in the United States of America. It?s a free country. You may not like what they say, but they have a right to say it.? "
Talking with some of my collegues today, someone made an interesting point (someone that works for a Democrat no less). Bob dole, and Bob Kerrey, and John McCain, and Sen Inoye, Sam Johnston, have all served admirably, with much greater sacrafice than John Kerry. Those are distinguished Congressman from both sides of the aisle, who have greater right to present themselves as war heroes than Kerry will ever have, but they don’t. They understand the sacrafices they made to this country, the price they have paid, and did so willingly, and yet they refuse to make it a campaign issue for themselves. They choose to be more than their war experience, and yet Kerry does the exact opposite. He may very well be a war hero, but this isnt the NFL, you dont get respect by hopping on the TV and bragging about it. It makes Kerry seem like he was there only for what it would get him.
Exactly! Why stand behind the convention podium and say “reporting for duty.” What foolish thing to do, make the entire center piece of your campaign about your war record. Of course it will then be attacked.
See what I mean about this guy Kerry? He is not a good enough candadate to win!