Admiral speaks out, disputes Kerry's account of 1st wound

[adios]

This account seems to jibe with what was written in Kerry's authorized biography "Tour of Duty" regarding his entry about not being under enemy fire written 9 days after the "wound" for which he received his first Purple Heart occurred. Time for the die hard Kerry supporters to trash another veteran.

Admiral speaks out, disputes Kerry's account of 1st wound (http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-nws-novak27.html)


Admiral speaks out, disputes Kerry's account of 1st wound

August 27, 2004

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST



NEW YORK -- Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. said Thursday in his first on-the-record interview about the swift boat veterans dispute that "I was absolutely in the skimmer" in the early morning on Dec. 2, 1968, when Lt. (j.g.) John Kerry was involved in an incident that led to his first Purple Heart.



"Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 [grenade launcher]," Schachte said in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C. He said, "Kerry requested a Purple Heart."

Schachte, also a lieutenant junior grade, said he was in command of the small boat called a Boston whaler or skimmer, with Kerry aboard in his first combat mission in the Vietnam War. The third crew member was an enlisted man, whose name Schachte did not remember.

Two enlisted men who appeared at the podium with Kerry at the Democratic National Convention in Boston have asserted that they were alone in the small boat with Kerry, with no other officer present. Schachte said it "was not possible" for Kerry to have gone out alone so soon after joining the swift boat command in late November 1968.

Kerry supporters said no critics of the Democratic presidential nominee ever were aboard a boat with him in combat. Washington lawyer Lanny Davis has contended that Schachte was not aboard the Boston whaler and says the statement that Schachte was aboard in Unfit for Command undermines that critical book's credibility.

Schachte until now has refused to speak out publicly on this question and agreed to give only two interviews. One was a television interview with Lisa Meyers of NBC News, for broadcast Thursday night. The second was a print interview with me, for publication today.

Schachte described the use of the skimmer operating very close to shore as a technique that he personally designed to flush enemy forces on the banks of the Mekong River so that the larger swift boats could move in. Around 3 a.m. on Dec. 2, Schachte said, the skimmer -- code-named "Batman" -- fired a hand-held flare. He said that after Kerry's M-16 rifle jammed, the new officer picked up the M-79 and, "I heard a 'thunk.' There was no fire from the enemy," he said.

Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis are the two enlisted men who said they were aboard the skimmer and did not know Schachte. However, two other former officers interviewed Thursday confirmed that Schachte was the originator of the technique and always was aboard the Boston whaler for these missions.

Grant Hibbard, who as a lieutenant commander was Schachte's superior officer, confirmed that Schachte always went on these skimmer missions and said, "I don't think he [Kerry] was alone" on his first assignment. Hibbard said he had told Kerry to "forget it" when he asked for a Purple Heart.

Ted Peck, another swift boat commander, said, "I remember Bill [Schachte] telling me it didn't happen" -- that is, Kerry getting an enemy-inflicted wound. He said it would be "impossible" for Kerry to have been in the skimmer without Schachte.

"I was astonished by Kerry's version" [in his book Tour of Duty] of what happened Dec. 2, Schachte said Thursday. When asked to support the Kerry critics in the swift boat controversy, Schachte said, "I didn't want to get involved." But he said he gradually began to change his mind when he saw his own involvement and credibility challenged, starting with Davis on CNN's "Crossfire" on Aug. 12.

The next time he saw Kerry after the first Purple Heart incident, Schachte said, was "about 20 years" later on the U.S. Senate subway in the basement of the Russell Senate Office Building. "I called, 'Hey, John.' He replied, 'Batman.' I was absolutely amazed by his memory." He said they "talked about having lunch" but never did it.

Schachte said he never has been contacted by or talked to anybody in the Bush-Cheney campaign or any Republican organization. He said he has been a political independent who votes for candidates of both parties.

[cardcounter0]

President Bush said for the first time on Thursday he made a "miscalculation of what the conditions would be" after U.S. troops went to Iraq.

Remember after the invasion when the troops were not greeted with flowers? Rumsfield, Cheney, Rove, Wolfawitz, etc. all would do the old nudge-nudge wink-wink "all is going according to plan" we have superior knowledge, this was all accounted for, we knew this ahead of time, etc., etc., etc.

Well, I guess it was all hooey. In fact, it was all as big a lie as this "miscalculation" statement. In order to "miscalculate" it means there would have had to have been some sort of calculation or planning in the first place.
/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[SossMan]

So what, now Kerry wasn't injured enough?. Does Bush really want to bring this up as an issue, considering his service record, or lack thereof?

[cardcounter0]

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Friday that the country will face "abrupt and painful" choices if Congress does not move quickly to trim the Social Security and Medicare benefits that have been promised to the baby boom generation.

Didn't Bush think that there was too much money in the Treasury when he came into office? His number one priority was how to give it away as fast as possible. Of course, now that he and his cronies have all stuffed their pockets full of taxpayer money, I guess every body between 30 and 50 is going to have to work longer and get less. Thanks, Bush.

[MaxPower]

I believe him. Robert Novak usually has excellent sources. After all, he knew about Valerie Plame.

There is nothing about this incident on Kerry's website, so I wouldn't be suprised if he was not too proud of it.

This doesn't explain why they gave him a medal that they didn't think he deserved. Does this make him a massive traitor and bad soldier?

Kerry might be a medal grubbing weasel but so what? He can still be a good President and a patriot.

What is Kerry's version of this event in "Tour of Duty"?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe him. Robert Novak usually has excellent sources.

[/ QUOTE ] ?????
This admiral may be telling the truth, but don't base it upon what Novak writes. He is a major partisan who outed a CIA agent for political gain. In the words of John Stewart "Robert Novak is such a douche bag!".

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't explain why they gave him a medal that they didn't think he deserved. Does this make him a massive traitor and bad soldier?

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry got a quick ticket home due to his 3 Purple Hearts. If he didn't deserve them and promoted himself for them then the implication is that he had planned an early exit. As far being a bad soldier, Is fibbing about getting a medal you didn't deserve proper conduct for a soldier?

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry might be a medal grubbing weasel but so what? He can still be a good President and a patriot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again we're ignoring the point that Kerry has promoted his Viet Nam service as a reason that he should be elected. If he's a medal grabbing weasel well then his service in Viet Nam isn't a very good reason. This is something Kerry has made an issue of.

[ QUOTE ]
What is Kerry's version of this event in "Tour of Duty"?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm referring to are his accounts in his journal that state he did not come under enemy fire until 9 nine days after the injury that resulted in his Purple Heart.

Those that say Kerry didn't deserve the medal state that his wound was self inflicted and he only needed band aid to repair the wound.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
So what, now Kerry wasn't injured enough?.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is whether or not Kerry promoted himself for the Purple Heart and perhaps lied about what he stated and whether or not he was deserving of a Purple Heart. Three Purple Hearts got him out early.

[ QUOTE ]
Does Bush really want to bring this up as an issue, considering his service record, or lack thereof?

[/ QUOTE ]

Too late Kerry's already made it an issue. He's promoted his Viet Nam service as a reason he should be elected.

[cardcounter0]

Obviously he should have done the honorable thing.

Instead of following military regulations, and allowing them to award him with purple hearts, he should have just left, enrolled in Harvard Business School, and then have them retroactively excuse him from the rest of his military obligations.

It might have helped if he didn't show up for duty a bunch of times, not shown up for physicals, and otherwise neglected his duties in the meantime also.

[MaxPower]

OK. From what I can tell what this guy is saying is perfectly consistent with Kerry's account.

In this account Kerry does not claim to br under enemy fire. Those on his boat were firing and he may have been injured by shrapnel from one of his crewmates or from his own gun. Neverless they were involved in enemy action.

So his injury fits the requirements for purple heart. If his superiors did not think he deserved one they should not have approved it.

Another thing I find interesting is that this Louis Letson remembers treating John Kerry for such a minor wound 35 years ago. Why would he remember such a trivial wound that happened so long ago? He tries to provide some rational that he heard that Kerry was the next JFK, but that is all heresay. Besides, there is no proof that Letson even treated Kerry, since his name is not on the paperwork.

Unfortunately, in politics your don't have to prove your accusations beyond a reasonable doubt.

I realize that both Brinkley and Novak are not objective sources, but they are both saying the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
John Kerry's first Purple Heart
With questions lingering over President Bush's service in the Guard, conservatives hope to diminish Kerry's Vietnam heroics -- but they can't erase his real battle record.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Douglas Brinkley



April 17, 2004 | It was Dec. 2, 1968, and Lt. j.g. John Kerry was on a special nighttime covert mission in Vietnam. He had been ordered into a Viet Cong-infested peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay to disrupt a smuggling operation. His vessel was a Boston Whaler, a boat that could float after taking 1,000 rounds of automatic weapons fire. Much of the evening was spent apprehending fishermen in a curfew zone. At approximately 2 a.m., however, they proceeded up an inlet with wild jungle on both sides of the boat. As they approached a bay, Kerry's whaler fired flares into the air. To their horror, not far from them, were a startled group of Viet Cong smugglers trafficking in contraband.

"We opened fire," Kerry told me in a Jan. 30, 2003, interview. "The light from the flares started to fade, the air was full of explosions. My M-16 jammed, and as I bent down to grab another gun, a stinging piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell. By this time one of the sailors had started the engine and we ran by the beach strafing it. Then it was quiet."


Kerry and crewmates blew up the smugglers' beached sampans and then headed back to Cam Ranh Bay. "I never saw where the piece of shrapnel had come from, and the vision of the men running like gazelles haunted me," Kerry continued. "It seemed stupid. My gunner didn't know where the people were when he first started firing. The M-16 bullets had kicked up the sand way to the right of them as he sprayed the beach, slowly walking the line of fire over to where the men had been leaping for cover. I had been shouting directions and trying to un-jam my gun. The third crewman was locked in a personal struggle with the engine, trying to start it. I just shook my head and said, 'Jesus Christ.' It made me wonder if a year of training was worth anything." Kerry, never trying to inflate the incident, called it a "half-ass action." Nevertheless, the escapade introduced Kerry to the V.C. and earned him his first Purple Heart.

As generally understood, the Purple Heart is given to any U.S. citizen wounded in wartime service to the nation. Giving out Purple Hearts increased in 1968 as the United States Navy started sending swift boats up rivers in the Mekong Delta. Sailors -- no longer safe on aircraft carriers or battleships in the Gulf of Tonkin -- were starting to bleed, a lot. Vice Adm. Elmo Zumwalt himself would pin the medal on John Kerry at An Thoi about six weeks after the doctor at the Cam Ranh base took the shrapnel out of the young officer's right arm. "He called me in New York to tell me he had been wounded," his then girlfriend and later wife, Julia Thorne, remembered. "I was worried sick, scared to death that John or one of my brothers was going to die. He reassured me that he was OK."

Now it is 2004, John Kerry is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, and a couple of reporters are bringing into question whether he deserved a Purple Heart for that daring action. The Boston Globe and the New York Post have run hurtful stories quoting Kerry's commanding officer that evening, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, now a retiree in Gulf Breeze, Fla., grouching that Kerry's wound wasn't large enough. Hibbard was not even on the Boston Whaler when the firefight erupted. Nevertheless, the New York Post quotes Hibbard -- a proudly registered Republican -- as griping Kerry's injury "didn't look like much of a wound to me."

In the wake of the controversial Bush National Guard story, reporters today, anxious to break a headline, are combing through Kerry's Vietnam past. The name of the game is to find a conservative ex-Vietnam hand to say something negative about Kerry. It's an automatic newsmaker, guaranteed to get picked up by Newsmax.com, the Weekly Standard, Rush Limbaugh, the New York Post and other conservative outlets. At issue is an attempt to downgrade Kerry's Vietnam War heroism. The major anti-Kerry Vietnam War Internet complaint, it seems, echoes Hibbard: that his minor wounds weren't big enough to warrant Purple Hearts. Unfortunately neither the Boston Globe nor New York Post takes the time to explain to readers that Purple Hearts are not given out to soldiers/sailors for the size of the wound. Only by the grace of God did the hot shrapnel that pierced Kerry's arm not enter his heart or brain or eye.

For the record, Purple Hearts are given for the following enemy-related injuries:


a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel or other projectile created by enemy action.

b) Injury caused by enemy-placed mine or trap.

c) Injury caused by enemy-released chemical, biological or nuclear agent.

d) Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire.

e) Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy-generated explosions.

Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

a) Frostbite or trench foot injuries.

b) Heat stroke.

c) Food poisoning not caused by enemy agents.

d) Chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy.

e) Battle fatigue.

f) Disease not directly caused by enemy agents.

g) Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.

Given the hurly-burly circumstance of Dec. 2, 1968, Kerry -- and the other men on the mission -- are not sure whether they were hit by enemy fire or if shrapnel from one of the other men on the Boston Whaler injured Kerry. It could have even been Kerry's own M-16 backfiring that caused the shrapnel wound. It doesn't really matter. The requirement makes it clear that you are awarded a Purple Heart for "Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel or other projectile created by enemy action." Does anybody dispute that Kerry's wound was created by enemy action? As the stipulation also makes clear, Kerry would have been awarded a Purple Heart even if he never bled, if, for example, he had suffered a concussion from a grenade. So to set the record straight: Kerry deserved his first Purple Heart -- period. To say otherwise is to distort the reality of the medal.

Unfortunately, the Boston Globe and New York Post stories omit fully reporting the bylaws. They present Hibbard at face value, downplaying the fact that he is a Republican criticizing a fellow veteran hoping to cause him public embarrassment. According to the Globe, Hibbard -- in classic blowhard fashion -- said Kerry "had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel." Adding further verbal insult, Hibbard apparently claimed: "I've had thorns from a rose that were worse." The straight-faced Globe reporter, in fact, claims that Hibbard told him that Kerry's wound resembled a "scrape from a fingernail." Not included in either newspaper account, however, is Kerry's medical report from the incident. He shared it with me last year when I was writing "Tour of Duty." It reads: "3 DEC 1968 U.S. NAVAL SUPPORT FACILITY CAM RANH BAY RVN FPO Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl. Bacitracin. Ret. to duty." Is shrapnel removed from an arm really like a "scrape from a fingernail"? Or a thorn prick? The answer, of course, as any sensible person can surmise, is no.

Which raises the question: Why the medical record omission? Why the cruel attempt publicly to mock Kerry for his wound? Why the media need to play "gotcha" with something as sensitive as a war injury? This Dec. 3 medical report is proof that Kerry had shrapnel taken from his arm. According to Kerry, who should know, the doctor wrapped a clean white bandage around his arm. After the procedure he rightfully put in for a Purple Heart. Kerry clearly met the requirements -- as listed above -- for deserving one. From the hospital room Kerry returned to duty. That's apparently when he held the shrapnel out in his palm for Hibbard to see.

The Globe, however, let Hibbard off the hook, no serious questions asked. On the one hand he claimed Kerry was holding his shrapnel and then he also claims it was a scratch. Are we to believe that following his surgical procedure Kerry went to Hibbard and ripped off his battle dressing to show him the wound that looked like a "scrape from a fingernail"? Or is Hibbard simply surmising it was a thorn prick? Worse still, Hibbard now claims that he was opposed to Kerry being awarded the Purple Heart. Really? Then why didn't he fight against it harder? His superficial answer can be found in the Globe: "I do remember some questions, some correspondence about it. I finally said, 'Ok, if that's what happened ... do whatever you want.' After that I don't know what happened. Obviously, he got it. I don't know how." Does this sound like a reliable source? Is that fuzzy-mindedness worth reporting as serious news? Why wasn't Hibbard asked why he stayed quiet for 35 years?


Let me offer Hibbard an answer to his question. The U.S. Navy chose to award Kerry a Purple Heart because he qualified for it. Only a fool -- or an exceedingly modest man -- wouldn't apply for a Purple Heart that was due him. Kerry was neither. But Kerry did not receive it because, as the Post claims, he had "strong ties to the Kennedy machine in Massachusetts (Bobby Kennedy speechwriter Adam Walinsky wrote Kerry's famous 1971 antiwar Washington speech)." Kerry's only tie to the "Kennedy machine" was that as a college student he slapped a "Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate" bumper sticker on his VW and campaigned for a summer around Cape Cod. As for Walinsky writing Kerry's famous April 22, 1971, speech/testimony -- it's utter nonsense. Walinsky has consistently denied the rumor. At his Boston home Kerry has a file brimming with his various drafts of the speech/testimony. He, in fact, had delivered parts of the speech months beforehand. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that Kerry -- like thousands of other Vietnam Vets -- was awarded a Purple Heart as a small token of appreciation for risking his life for his country?

Back in 1964 Bob Dylan wrote a lyric for the song "It's Alright Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)." At one point in it he asks whether nothing in American life is "really sacred." When retired U.S. naval officers, 35 years after the fact, start whining to the press that a war wound wasn't big enough to warrant a Purple Heart -- and the Boston Globe goes along for the ride -- you realize Dylan's prophecy. Today the tabloids truly are king. Call me naive, or too pro-veteran, but it seems to me we should be thanking every Purple Heart recipient for their duty to country, not demanding of them explanations for why their wounds weren't bigger or fatal. Ridicule Kerry on his liberal Senate record, or so-called aloofism, or even his outspoken Vietnam Veterans Against the War protests, but leave his old battle scars alone.






[/ QUOTE ]

[adios]

From the article I posted:

[ QUOTE ]
Schachte described the use of the skimmer operating very close to shore as a technique that he personally designed to flush enemy forces on the banks of the Mekong River so that the larger swift boats could move in. Around 3 a.m. on Dec. 2, Schachte said, the skimmer -- code-named "Batman" -- fired a hand-held flare. He said that after Kerry's M-16 rifle jammed, the new officer picked up the M-79 and, "I heard a 'thunk.' There was no fire from the enemy," he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the what you quoted in your post:

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, Purple Hearts are given for the following enemy-related injuries:

a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel or other projectile created by enemy action.

b) Injury caused by enemy-placed mine or trap.

c) Injury caused by enemy-released chemical, biological or nuclear agent.

d) Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire.

e) Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy-generated explosions.


[/ QUOTE ]

to which you commented in your post:

[ QUOTE ]
In this account Kerry does not claim to br under enemy fire. Those on his boat were firing and he may have been injured by shrapnel from one of his crewmates or from his own gun. Neverless they were involved in enemy action.

So his injury fits the requirements for purple heart. If his superiors did not think he deserved one they should not have approved it.


[/ QUOTE ]

To which I reply huh?

From a) of the criteria

enemy bullet, shrapnel or other projectile

From b) of the criteria

enemy-placed mine or trap

From c) of the criteria

enemy-released chemical, biological or nuclear agent

From d) of the criteria

vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire

From e) of the criteria

enemy-generated explosions

Where in Schachte's account do any of these criteria apply?

Where was the

-- enemy bullet, shrapnel or other projectile created by enemy action

or the

-- enemy-placed mine or trap

or the

-- enemy-released chemical, biological or nuclear agent

or the

-- vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire

or the

-- enemy-generated explosions ?????????

[theBruiser500]

It seems to me it's impossible to tell what's bullshit from what isn't in this debate. There is so much bullshit coming from everywhere, and so many ads that are just to win voters not to tell the truth that this whole thing is just BULLSHIT.

I don't know too much about the specifics (and I'm not even going to try and figure it out because people in this debate aren't really trying to get the truth out, just win the argument), but even going by the worst accounts of what Kerry did in Vietnam (what do the worst accounts say, that he got medals he didn't deserve?) this is orders of magnitude better than what Bush did during the Vietnamese war. And really, stepping back for a moment to look at the debate over Kerry's Vietnamese record, it is mostly nuances we are debating.

So in conclusion, this whole thing is stupid.

[cardcounter0]

Here's how Dole described the incident that earned him his first Purple Heart: "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."

[adios]

Charges of fraud in being awarded medals are nuances? Puhleze. Kerry has stated that he committed atrocities in Viet Nam and you call this an order of magnitude better than what Bush did during the Viet Nam war?

[MaxPower]

Brinkley was referring to this part

[ QUOTE ]
a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel or other projectile created by enemy action.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted this the other day.

http://neds.nebt.daps.mil/Directives/1650/1650_1g.pdf

[ QUOTE ]

e. Determination of Eligibility. During World War I,
and World War II, and Korea, an individual must have been
wounded as a direct result of enemy action. During subsequent
conflicts (Vietnam and Operation DESERT STORM), the individual
must have been wounded as a result of enemy action (direct or
indirect).



[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry's unit was firing at the enemy and he was injured in the course of this action. It doesn't matter whether the enemy is firing back according to the regulations.

If he was hit by friendly fire than he would qualify.

[cardcounter0]

charges of being AWOL DESERTER are just nuances? Puhleze.
Bush has stated he would have went to Canada if he had to in order to avoid going to Vietnam. You call this an order of magnitude better than what Kerry did during the Viet Nam war?

[adios]

From Schachte's account:

Schachte described the use of the skimmer operating very close to shore as a technique that he personally designed to flush enemy forces on the banks of the Mekong River so that the larger swift boats could move in. Around 3 a.m. on Dec. 2, Schachte said, the skimmer -- code-named "Batman" -- fired a hand-held flare. He said that after Kerry's M-16 rifle jammed, the new officer picked up the M-79 and, "I heard a 'thunk.' There was no fire from the enemy," he said.

You wrote:

Kerry's unit was firing at the enemy and he was injured in the course of this action. It doesn't matter whether the enemy is firing back according to the regulations.

Again huh?

Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel or other projectile created by enemy action

Where was the enemy bullet?

Where was the enemy shapnel?

Where was the enemy projectile?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry's unit was firing at the enemy and he was injured in the course of this action. It doesn't matter whether the enemy is firing back according to the regulations.



[/ QUOTE ]

Under the current regulations you are correct. However the Navy regulations in place then stipulated that the wound must be inflicted “from an outside force or agent.” No after-action hostile report was filed and no crewman reported any enemy fire.

In addition his CO at the time Commander Grant Hibbard declined Kerrys application for a purple heart for that time. Three months later when Kerry was reassigned he reapplied under a different commander and got his "get out of Nam free card". He then requested he be reassigned to stateside duty and was.

[cardcounter0]

The doctor at the Cam Ranh base took the shrapnel out of his arm.

Medical report reads: "3 DEC 1968 U.S. NAVAL SUPPORT FACILITY CAM RANH BAY RVN FPO Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl. Bacitracin. Ret. to duty."

I'm not sure what happened to the shrapnel after that.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]

Under the current regulations you are correct. However the Navy regulations in place then stipulated that the wound must be inflicted “from an outside force or agent.” No after-action hostile report was filed and no crewman reported any enemy fire.



[/ QUOTE ]

Good try Wake Up CALL. The words you are quoting are taken from the link I posted and are still in the regulations. That is simply the definition of a wound. It has no relevance.

Anyway, shrapnel is an "outside force or agent." Are you telling me that the shrapnel came from within John Kerry's body?

[MaxPower]

I'm not sure what it is that you don't understand.

Novak left out of his article the fact that Kerry and his crewmates were firing at the enemy. He had to be firing. How could his rifle jam if he wasn't firing it? He was wounded indirectly as a result of enemy action.

It does not have to be enemy shrapnel. In Dole's example the shrapnel came from his own grenade.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Under the current regulations you are correct. However the Navy regulations in place then stipulated that the wound must be inflicted “from an outside force or agent.” No after-action hostile report was filed and no crewman reported any enemy fire.



[/ QUOTE ]

Good try Wake Up CALL. The words you are quoting are taken from the link I posted and are still in the regulations. That is simply the definition of a wound. It has no relevance.

Anyway, shrapnel is an "outside force or agent." Are you telling me that the shrapnel came from within John Kerry's body?

[/ QUOTE ]

The words may be in your link but that is not where I quoted them from. Outside force or agent, not a frigging idiot liberal firing his weapon into the air with no enemy in sight. Get real Max.

[MaxPower]

Where did you quote from? Rush? Your imagination? I love these quotes you come up with that are attributed to nobody.

Here are the regulations:
http://neds.nebt.daps.mil/Directives/1650/1650_1g.pdf

You don't need to quote anything else.

I am done responding to you. adios is at least a reasonable person who argues thoughtfully for his point of view. I don't know what motivates you, but if Limbaugh ever retires you would make a great replacement

[cardcounter0]

"I don't know what motivates you, but if Limbaugh ever retires you would make a great replacement"

I didn't know Wake_up_CALL was a junkie. Has he done the cosmetic short stay drug rehab thing yet?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what motivates you

[/ QUOTE ] Just the truth Max, the truth. When I see dis-information being diseminated whether in innoncence or intentionally I offfer another perspective. Whether or not you like my attitude is irrelevant but it appears you dislike being properly corrected. Why you would insist your link is applicable to the war in Vietnam is difficult to understand unless you did not realize the qualifications for gettin a purple heart from the Navy have changed.

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
Charges of fraud in being awarded medals are nuances? Puhleze. Kerry has stated that he committed atrocities in Viet Nam and you call this an order of magnitude better than what Bush did during the Viet Nam war?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends how bad the fraud was. If he completely made some story up and wasn't in Vietnam that would be terrible. If he just fabricated something, that is not so bad.

As far as committing atrocities goes, I'm not sure what exactly he said here, could someone provide a quote please? I think it is couragoues really, he goes to war and tries to serve his country and maybe commits atrocites (the impression I get is that a lot of people who were there were comitting atrocities) which is bad but how can we judge what it was like in Vietnam. Plus, he admitted it, of his own free will right? We weren't there, and he was younger, his intentions were good.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as committing atrocities goes, I'm not sure what exactly he said here, could someone provide a quote please?

[/ QUOTE ]

Previous Thread About Kerry Admitting He Committed Atrocities (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=959482&page=0&view=co llapsed&sb=5&o=93&fpart=1#959482)