Demosophia

just a point of information
one of the requirements for getting the "three wounds and you're out" is that you have to be wounded by the enemy (or perhaps in an engagement against the enemy).

from section 6b of Paragraph 2-8, Army Regulation 600-8-22

(b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment.

Jimbob:

I assume that also applies to "self inflicted wounds?" In other words, the issue either concerns whether the infliction was "in the heat of battle, with the intent of damaging the enemy," or whether it was merely "a scratch," regardless of intent. Is that correct? Since he never spent a day on sick leave it's hard to imagine that he was ever seriously wounded, yet he has three purple hearts. I mean, without even knowing any of the details that alone tells me he was "gaming."

I mean, without even knowing any of the details that alone tells me he was "gaming."

not claiming to have any insight into your thought process or anything...just a suggestion here... maybe you are more likely to see him as 'gaming' something without knowing the details *because* you already have a low opinion of him. its kinda using an already existant opinion to justify that opinion.

i initially had the same curiousity re: medals vs days off, so i looked around for details some time ago

"There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts — from shrapnel, some of those might have been M-40 grenades," said George Elliott, Kerry's commanding officer. "The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes. Kerry, he had three Purple Hearts. None of them took him off duty. Not to belittle it, that was more the rule than the exception."

and Elliot is one of the guys supposedly attacking kerry's service.

further, i just don't know that it makes any logical sense. why 'game' the system to get out of vietnam when he volunteered? might have made more sense to 'game' the system the way the other candidate this year did. blatently.

not claiming to have any insight into your thought process or anything...just a suggestion here... maybe you are more likely to see him as 'gaming' something without knowing the details *because* you already have a low opinion of him. its kinda using an already existant opinion to justify that opinion.

Basic definition of ideology. The issue with me is that I was a progressive Democrat for most of my life, but the "blame America first" perspective that was voiced by many in the party, and especially by the progressive-left convinced me that there was just something basically wrong with the way they were thinking. And every iteration of the policy dilemmas have reinforced that impression. I have yet, for instance, to see anyone on that side recognize that Soros is spending ten times the amount of the Texas backer of John O'Neill... which seems awfully relevant.

But you make a reasonable case there there was nothing unusual about taking advantage of a technicality to get out of service in Vietnam. And I couldn't really fault Kerry for that, if that's what he did. That sort of "gaming" is far more acceptable than the gaming involved in exaggerating his status as a war hero. And frankly, the most convincing evidence to me involves the "Christmas in Cambodia" stuff, because it dramatizes as aspect of his service that was used to specifically undermine policy positions he opposed and was completely fabricated. It's extremely doubtful that any swiftboats were involved in mission in Cambodia, and there's virtually no evidence of it other than Kerry's contentions.

So, am I allowed to infer that lack of judgment in one area carries over into another? It seems valid to me.

Again, I have no problem with Kerry as a human being. But that sort of removes the tu quoque innoculation against bad judgment in other areas that is typical of his career. I don't really think the Kerry campaign can afford to let that innoculation go, which is why they're fighting tooth and nail for it. But it's a losing battle. In fact, it's already lost due to that "Cambodia thang." It may be a small droplet of acid, but it drips, drips, drips on the sandcastle, and will eventually disolve it. The other stuff is pretty much a side issue. I mean, there's really no way to prove "gaming" one way or another with regard to that stuff.

dunno. just as dangerous as accepting an ideology....is accepting an anti-ideology.

the two candidates this year almost strike me as a really bad joke that somebody hasn't let me in on yet. in both instances, you can look to their pre-political life and find crappy details. in their political life, you can find crappy decisions from both. i'm really hoping you aren't giving credit for 'judgement points' based on either of these two politician's past. be kinda hard to notice the potholes in only one direction.

the odd thing is, while both of them suck, neither are as bad as the folks on the other side of the fence portray them to be. doesn't seem like this '527' shit is doing us any favors...unless you prefer government choices based on jerry-springer-mentality advertisement smear campaigns.

just as dangerous as accepting an ideology....is accepting an anti-ideology.

Well Mannheim's solution was the "wandering intellectual," who just poked his nose into things and whose curiosity always gets the better of his ideology. I've known a few of those folks, actually. They started out as one thing, and their research led them to another. Of course 90% of academia are social democrats, or even further left. I guess I just come accross the successful failures.

As for whether the two candidates are equivalent, I don't think that's the case. Bush has enough animation and depth that he has specifically repudiated his own father's foreign policy. Woodward thought it odd that he hadn't discussed the Iraq decision with his dad, but I don't find it surprising. He doesn't think his dad had a clue.

The large decisions he has made are pretty good, and precisely what I'd have done. They also square pretty well with Victor Davis Hanson's overall position, and with the classics apparently. Bush isn't very good on the details, which bothers me alot, and he's also not a very good politician, which also bothers me. Bush is about a "C" politician, but Kerry is closer to a "D" or even an "F." The way he has handled this swiftvet thing is stunningly bad, and that's with every ounce of help the media can apparently give him.

I guess it's possible that maybe Kerry isn't as bad as I think he is, but it's also possible that he's even worse. I've said before that he has the sort of concentration and intensity of purpose that it takes to climb a precipice, and lord knows I don't care all that much if a politician is a liar. It's almost a qualification for the job. The problem with Kerry is that I'm not even sure he sees the precipice. He could end up just walking around it for four years, and then wonder where all the time went.

As for the 527 stuff, my estimation of the Moveon people is so awful that nothing they say really makes any impact on me. I just assume it's crap. On the other side, it looks like some of the stuff the swiftvets are saying will stick. Did Kerry write his own action report? Yeah, he probably did. Was the engagement on the Mekong where the SF guy was rescued "under fire?" Well, no one was wounded by enemy fire, and there were no bullet holes in the boats, even though there were in the position for 90 minutes. The only damage was to the 3 boat that hit the mine. This is according to affidavits signed by 12 men who were there as eyewitnesses. One fellow even changed his affidavit in minor ways to better reflect the incident, which was characterized by Kerry's people as a major retrenchment. And every time Kerry yells out that he still carries a piece of shrapnel in his leg it just sounds like self promotion to me. I think "Yeah, but you never even spent a day in hospital for it, so how bad could it be?" And if it wasn't bad enough to warrant a hospital stay, why the hell are you bragging about it?

Yeah I'm biased, but I'm also sufficiently curious that I could probably resist my ideological leanings for the sake of that curiosity. Well, we'll see what happenes I guess. I think Kerry will get clobbered though. I don't think there's a single instance of a government any time in history willingly giving over to a more pacifist leadership in the middle of a war. Hasn't even happened once. This could be the first time, but I just don't see it.

well, i can kinda jive.

i just see *both* moveon and the swift vote folks as little more than shitslingers... i just don't see much 'sticking' when their own story is typically more full of hooey than what they are trying to attack.

more over, i guess i just really don't understand the situation we're in with the 527's...there are plenty of good, factual reasons to do 'smears' on both candidates, but what you see instead is he-said-she-said, jerry springer mentality, fling-it-all-and-be-happy-anything-sticks maneuvering...instead of anything even *close* to the issues. my only guess is this is actually effective...which is really a sad comment, in any event.

re 'willingly turn over to a more pacifist leadership'... nixon running on ending the war in vietnam in 68 comes to mind.... but honestly, i don't know that kerry is the 'pacifist' in comparison, at least by any tremendous magnitude. he's plainly said he'd have done the same thing, just bitched that bush did it poorly. being as that's a debatable issue, i'm just gonna clarify what i'm trying to say...bitching about it being done poorly (right or wrong, whichever side you find yourself on w/ that one) isn't exactly pacifist.

i just see *both* moveon and the swift vote folks as little more than shitslingers... i just don't see much 'sticking' when their own story is typically more full of hooey than what they are trying to attack.

You understand that a number, perhaps even the majority, of the swiftvets are decorated combat veterans, nearly all with more time in combat than John Kerry? Some were prisoners of war who suffered directly from statements made by Kerry as part of the "winter soldier" testimony? Furthermore moveon spends something like 100 times as much as the swiftvets, and have far more connections to the Kerry campaign than does the swiftvet organization to Bush. There's a profound asymmetry that the rhetoric of the Kerry folks are deliberately downplaying.

Moreover, the real rapier to the heart of the Kerry campaign does not concern the medals. It concerns, first of all, the uncontested allegation that John Kerry misrepresented his soujourn into Cambodia for years, and for political gain. It is not only demonstrably true that his Christmas adventure never happened, but so far there absolutely no evidence that he was ever in Cambodia. The significance of this is that it was a fabricated experience primarily to serve the purpose, like his other statements during the '70s, of an anti-war and anti-military argument so profound that it shocked the nation into paralysis. The price of this paralysis is that it was a powerfur contribution to the conviction on the part of terrorists that the US would simply not respond if attacked. It led, in a fairly direct way, to the loss of American lives.

Now, contrast this fact, which can't reaaly be contested in light of what Kerry himself has said on the record, with the fact that his war service record is more central to his campaign than any other Presidential candidate in history. He makes more of his "bloody shirt" experiences than did anyone else, including people who were famous for their military service long before they ran for office.

I find the allegations about his medals not out of character with the rest of his life, which is not, and can't be, contested by anyone. That's all. I think the phrase "unfit for command" about covers it, regardless of whether he shot an unarmed kid in a loincloth, or a Vietcong soldier dressed in conventional attire carrying a loaded mortar. You understand?

hmmm...i understand you are more willing to swallow smears that flow in the direction you'd have them flow.

i understand that the swift boat veterans are ....by definition....veterans. i also understand that in several instances, the few people that actually had any dealings with kerry have a very different story on record at different points in time. the same guy who labeled kerry a tremendous asset to the navy in late '69 calls him unfit for command today. if you don't see politics as the deciding factor for the change in mood...i dunno. ya might as well get your facts from a michael moore movie. if you can recognize the poo flying out of moveon.org, apply the same poo-o-meter to svft. in both instances, words are twisted, stories are crafted, and facts don't matter.

re: 'winter soldier testimony'...i don't know that i can jive on what you are saying. i realize the source of bitterness driving many of these folks comes back to the winter soldier testimony, but at the same time, i can't help but filter it thru with the advantage of hindsight. when siagon fell, did the other dominoes come tumbling after it? we were in vietnam for 4 more years beyond that testimony for what essentially comes down to 'trying to get out of a war without losing'. that means 4 more years of prisoners being captured. i'm at a loss to see the use of kerry's words against prisoners as more important than the decision to keep sending people to a battle where they could end up as prisoners. i mean, fer frigs sake, the VC used spiro agnew and nixon's words as well...oddly enough, i think there *is* reason to be pissed at them...not for words that could be used against captives, but because of *actions* that put them in that position.

hmmm...i understand you are more willing to swallow smears that flow in the direction you'd have them flow.

As Michael Barone points out, there isn't a single shred of evidence anywhere, other than Kerry's claims, that he was ever in Cambodia. Not on Christmas or Christmas Eve in 1968 and not in Jan., Feb., or March of 1969. So that, at least, isn't a "smear" is it?

And remember that the people involved in this "smear campaign" include a great many people with military credentials that vastly exceed those of John Kerry, including former Admirals who were in his chain of command. While I'm sure there are mistakes, vague memories, and political motivations on both sides, I see no reason to simply presume that the testimony of the Swiftvets are smears until the merits of what they have to say have been vetted. As I said, they already have one major strike against Kerry, and it does go to character.

Perhaps Kerry has an explanation for the Cambodia thing, but I wouldn't hold your breath. They seem to think the way to deal with this is to hide behind their NYT "front" while claiming that the Swiftvets are a "front" for Bush, because a prominent Texas attorney happens to know some Republicans who don't like John Kerry very much. Wow.

the same guy who labeled kerry a tremendous asset to the navy in late '69 calls him unfit for command today.

And as he stated on one of the cable channels today, at the time he didn't know that Kerry had received a Silver Star or a Bronze Star, so knew none of the details that later led him to repudiate Kerry.

Kerry's words in the Winter Soldier testimony, as well as the other Vets against the War, led directly to the Congress refusing to provide funds for the prosecution of the war, which ultimately led to the fall of Saigan. This, according to the testimony of a number of people, in spite of the fact that "Vietnamization" was finally beginning to work. I don't think the Winter Soldier testimony was any more truthful than his statements about his Cambodia Christmas. I think he, and others, just made most of that crap up.

But there is an alternate John Kerry who could've won my vote.

Update: Virginia Postrel has a plausible explanation for the Kerry story. The weak link is still some corroboration that such missions took place at all, but given that the details about "Christmas" might well signify "Tet" which was on February 17, 1969.

1) Kerry has refused to release his Military records surrounding the incidents in question
2) Kerry has refused to allow his own book "The New Soldier" to be printed
3) According to the swift boat veterans and common sense Kerry's 4 months in Vietnam were at worst, fictionalized, and, at best, far less heroic than his medals would imply.
4) Kerry spent the immediate post war time making vicious statements against: the US, the military, its soldiers (baby killers, etc.) , and anti-communism.
5) Kerry spent the remaining 25 years as one of the most liberal politicians in the country voting against the military more so than almost any other politician.
6) As a presidential candidate and prospective commander-in-chief during war he had little or no credibility given this history. The polls continue to show this.
7) Kerry, despite being a presidential candidate, has taken no position on the current War on Terror
8) Kerry's deceptive strategy given the above history is to pretend that he is now "reporting for duty" as if he is well qualified and eager to be commander-in-chief.
9) Something like 65% of Americans don't believe he would be a willing or effective commander-in-chief given his history but despite their huge dissatisfaction with Bush.
10) Kerry's response in addition to silence, refusal to release is records or book, or state a war policy, has been to accuse the Bush campaign of sponsoring the swift boat veterans.
Some vague connections have been demonstrated which is no surprise given that they all seem to hate Kerry having served with him. But certainly the idea that Bush campaign somehow made all 250 of them lie is purely absurd.
My personal point of view is that Kerry's ultra liberal 25 years after the war, when he could not have been elected to dog catcher anywhere in America except Massachusetts is far more important than the 4 months in Vietnam. But still, when 250 of the guys who served with him and under him in Vietnam write a book saying he largely falsified his entire Vietnam experience you have to consider that even that tiny 4 month period is a meaningful indictment of a prospective commander-in-chief in time of war.

alternative vocational middle school http://alternativeavms.haotronic.info/
murder suitcase 1995 johannesburg http://murderms1j.addforge.info/
bloomberg forms legal http://bloomberg-forms-legal.adambrodey.info/
free bingo site for prize http://freebsfp.acspeed.info/
arizona vacation lodging http://arizona-vacation-lodging.hawgster.info/
dodge neon forum http://dodge-neon-forum.activashow.info/
handmade jewelry http://handmade-jewelry.haoisu.info/
samsung hln5065w http://samsung-hln5065w.actorr7.info/
empire poker room http://empirepr79.acgresale.info/
car donation services walnut creek http://carcdswc.activashow.info/
free online poker yahoo http://freeopy.acgresale.info/
used diamond rings http://used-diamond-rings.addotta.info/
best multiplayer poker site http://bestmps.acgresale.info/
ems ltd machine tools http://emselmt.adasink.info/
taormina sicily ceramics http://taormina-sicily-ceramics.haotronic.info/
bars on sanibel island http://barsbosi.actology.info/
dodge ram 50 trucks http://dodgedr5t.haoxihuan.info/
muratec fax machines http://muratec-fax-machines.adipurnama.info/
air force gucci one shoes http://airafgos.harpmri.info/
hotel vancouver bc http://hotel-vancouver-bc.addapad.info/
someone with virus chronic fatigue syndrome http://someoneswvcfs.acuition.info/
violence in video games http://violencevivg.adjoe.info/
maternity clothing apparel sales http://maternitymcas.acyspalace.info/
daltrocanto festival 1 maggio 2005 http://daltrocantof1m2.adcarton.info/
caf babel la rivista europea attualit politica e analisi in http://cafblreapeai.adam-paros.info/