Re: Good Kerry gotcha - but not mine...

"A.Melon" <juicy@melontraffickers.com> wrote in message
news:646b9a3e3aacce36aaee1533a2bd9aa2@melontraffic kers.com...
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:38:13 +0000, BllFs6 wrote:
>
> > "What sort of idiot would make the centrepiece of his presidential
campaign
> > four months of proud service in a war he's best known for opposing?"
> >
>
> Unlike the incumbent, Kerry is capable of learning.
>
> Unlike the incumbent, Kerry was actually there.
>
> That war was so wrong that the U.S. wouldn't declare it.

Was Korea so wrong as well? I'd imagine the folks in South Korea would
disagree.
After all, they don't have to eat grass.

>
> Kerry recognised it for what it was and told the truth.

And yet, did not submit for a war crimes trial.
And yet, protected war criminals by not stating who they were.

Any reason why y'felt the need to post that 3 times?

Dennis

"Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message
news:DYGWc.29576$5s3.14580@fe40.usenetserver.com.. .

> Any reason why y'felt the need to post that 3 times?

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040...5753-2062r.htm

'Trying to acquire Purple Hearts'

By Martin L. Fackler

John Kerry has presented his Vietnam record as his major qualification to be
president of the United States. It is, therefore, the duty of the American
public to scrutinize that record carefully. And it is the duty of candidate
John Kerry to facilitate that scrutiny. If all the senator's claims about
his four months in Vietnam are factual, it would be to his great advantage
to facilitate such scrutiny.

Before we get to his record in Vietnam, however, we should examine the
widespread misconception about how he got to Vietnam. The oft-repeated claim
that Mr. Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam misleads: He apparently
volunteered only after the draft deferment he had applied for was turned
down - thus allowing him to choose service in the Navy to avoid being
drafted into the Army.

I served as a combat surgeon in DaNang, (U.S. Naval Support Hospital) from
Dec. 10, 1967, through Dec. 11, 1968. While there, I evaluated and treated
hundreds of severely wounded combatants.

During my year in DaNang, a few combatants urged me to verify small
abrasions as "wounds" so they could get a Purple Heart. Each freely admitted
trying to acquire Purple Hearts as rapidly as possible to take advantage of
the policy allowing those with three Purple Hearts to apply to leave Vietnam
early. I refused them. But some went shopping for another opinion.
Unfortunately, we had some antiwar physicians in Vietnam who were happy to
become accomplices in these frauds. Most with valid Purple Hearts didn't
need to apply to leave Vietnam: The seriousness of their wounds demanded it.

Lt. John Kerry's collecting three Purple Hearts within 100 days - all for
wounds too minor to require hospitalization - recalls the distasteful
memories of having to deal with those few miscreants in DaNang. More
disturbing is the revelation that crewmen on Mr. Kerry's boat denied they
had received any gunfire from shore at the time when Lt. Kerry claimed such
gunfire had caused his wound. The doctor who disapproved Lt. Kerry's
application for his first Purple Heart for that wound agreed that the tiny
metal splinter sticking in the skin of his arm was inconsistent with enemy
gunfire from shore. His crewmates claimed that Lt. Kerry, himself, had fired
a grenade launcher from the boat striking a rock on the nearby shore - and
his wound was from a metal splinter from the grenade that ricocheted back,
striking him in the arm.

Is there any way we can determine who was telling the truth about this first
Purple Heart? Yes, there is. The type of wound can reveal much about the
weapon that caused it. The tiny sliver of metal and its very superficial
penetration is typical of fragments from explosive devices - like grenades.
It would not have resulted from the most likely gunfire from shore - small
arms rifle fire. The AK 47 rifle, used by the enemy, fires a 30-caliber
bullet, which is 50 times or more as heavy as the sliver of metal sticking
in Lt. Kerry's skin. Such a bullet would have passed through any part of his
body it struck, and certainly no part of it would have remained sticking in
his skin.

In the absence of the medical records that Mr. Kerry apparently declines to
make public, the only details we have about his second and third Purple
Hearts are that he also based them on wounds too minor to require
hospitalization. My reason for refusing to verify insignificant wounds as
the basis for a Purple Heart was the regulation covering Purple Heart
awards. In Part B, Paragraph 2, of the Army Purple Heart Regulation
(600-8-22 of 25 February 1995), we find "the wound for which the award is
made must have required treatment by a medical officer."

Dr. Louis Letson was entirely correct in turning down Lt. Kerry's first
Purple Heart - even if the wound had been the result of enemy action. Can
there be any doubt that the tiny metal sliver could have been removed
easily, and safely, by a Navy corpsman? It certainly did not "require"
treatment by a medical officer (an MD).

Purple Hearts are not supposed to be awarded for self-inflicted wounds, nor
for wounds too minor to require treatment by a physician. So where and how
did Lt. Kerry eventually obtain a Purple Heart for his first wound? Nobody
seems to know. Only his medical records will tell - and the American public
needs that information to evaluate candidate Kerry's qualifications and
candor.

The highly unlikely occurrence of being wounded three times within 100 days,
in the very beginning of a tour of duty, and all three wounds being so minor
that none required hospitalization, would seem sufficient cause for further
investigation.Addingthe inconsistencies surrounding Lt. Kerry's first Purple
Heart should make mandatory a thorough scrutiny of his medical records by
someone highly qualified to interpret military medical records, and familiar
with the regulations on the qualifications for the Purple Heart Medal, to
determine if the wounds for which Lt. Kerry was awarded the Purple Heart
Medal were serious enough to "require" treatment by a medical officer, as
called for by the Purple Heart regulation.

Mr. Kerry has made his Vietnam War record the centerpiece of his campaign.
This demands a thorough objective evaluation of his medical records to
determine if the three Purple Hearts that allowed him to leave Vietnam after
only four months of duty were justified. This evaluation needs to be done
before the election.

Dr. Martin L. Fackler served as a combat surgeon in Vietman in 1968. A
fellow of both the American College of Surgeons and the American Academy of
Forensic Sciences, he also is an author, expert witness and lecturer on
wound ballistics and surgery, and former director of the Wound Ballistics
Laboratory at Presidio.

"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:10j1t7j2jjlvh59@corp.supernews.com...

> 'Trying to acquire Purple Hearts'
>
> By Martin L. Fackler

Martin Fackler is a gun-nut Republican flack. So what else is new? Before
defending Bush, Fackler testified in the the Menendez brothers' defense.
He'll apparently lie for any scumbag.


"Former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes said he is 'more ashamed at myself
than I've ever been' because he helped President Bush and the sons of other
wealthy families get into the Texas National Guard so they could avoid
serving in Vietnam.

"Bush joined the National Guard in 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War,
and served until 1973. He has said he received no special treatment."

-- AP 8/28/04

"Almost half in a poll taken this week say they think the president's
campaign is behind the ads that try to undercut Kerry's medals for heroism
while just over a third think the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is an
independent group, the National Annenberg Election Survey found." -- AP
8/28/04

"Bob J. Perry didn't appear to be at his suburban Houston home and didn't
answer three doorbell rings by several veterans wanting to hand-deliver a
letter asking him to stop supporting the group. 'We deeply resent what he's
doing to the veterans,' said Richard Zaner, 70, a Korean War veteran who
lives in the same suburb as Perry, a wealthy homebuilder." -- AP 8/28/04

"Retired Chief Petty Officer Robert E. Lambert, of Eagle Point, Ore., got a
Bronze Star for pulling his boat commander - Lt. Larry Thurlow - out of the
Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969. Thurlow had jumped onto another swift boat
to aid sailors wounded by a mine explosion but fell off when the
out-of-control boat ran aground. Thurlow, who has been prominent among a
group of veterans challenging the Democratic presidential candidate's
record, has said there was no enemy fire during the incident. Lambert,
however, supports the Navy account that says all five swift boats in the
task force "came under small arms and automatic weapon fire from the river
banks" when the mine detonated." -- AP 8/27/04

So more Swiftie lies exposed. What else is new?

Sorry I'm late with all this. Just got back from Seattle & Tacoma where our
next president has been addressing the loyal Democrats of Washington.

Greg Mossman wrote:

> "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:10j1t7j2jjlvh59@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>>'Trying to acquire Purple Hearts'
>>
>>By Martin L. Fackler
>
>
> Martin Fackler is a gun-nut Republican flack. So what else is new? Before
> defending Bush, Fackler testified in the the Menendez brothers' defense.
> He'll apparently lie for any scumbag.
>
>
> "Former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes said he is 'more ashamed at myself
> than I've ever been' because he helped President Bush and the sons of other
> wealthy families get into the Texas National Guard so they could avoid
> serving in Vietnam.
>
> "Bush joined the National Guard in 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War,
> and served until 1973. He has said he received no special treatment."
>
> -- AP 8/28/04
>
> "Almost half in a poll taken this week say they think the president's
> campaign is behind the ads that try to undercut Kerry's medals for heroism
> while just over a third think the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is an
> independent group, the National Annenberg Election Survey found." -- AP
> 8/28/04
>
> "Bob J. Perry didn't appear to be at his suburban Houston home and didn't
> answer three doorbell rings by several veterans wanting to hand-deliver a
> letter asking him to stop supporting the group. 'We deeply resent what he's
> doing to the veterans,' said Richard Zaner, 70, a Korean War veteran who
> lives in the same suburb as Perry, a wealthy homebuilder." -- AP 8/28/04
>
> "Retired Chief Petty Officer Robert E. Lambert, of Eagle Point, Ore., got a
> Bronze Star for pulling his boat commander - Lt. Larry Thurlow - out of the
> Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969. Thurlow had jumped onto another swift boat
> to aid sailors wounded by a mine explosion but fell off when the
> out-of-control boat ran aground. Thurlow, who has been prominent among a
> group of veterans challenging the Democratic presidential candidate's
> record, has said there was no enemy fire during the incident. Lambert,
> however, supports the Navy account that says all five swift boats in the
> task force "came under small arms and automatic weapon fire from the river
> banks" when the mine detonated." -- AP 8/27/04
>
> So more Swiftie lies exposed. What else is new?
>
> Sorry I'm late with all this. Just got back from Seattle & Tacoma where our
> next president has been addressing the loyal Democrats of Washington.
>
>

Why would Bush be adressing Democrats and why would you be there? You
becoming a right-thinking person, Greg?

"Greg Mossman" wrote ...
> He'll apparently lie for any scumbag.

Hmmm... Sounds like a lawyer... I suspect you'd get along with him rather
well, Greg... <snicker>

"Grumman-581" <grumman581-YYYY-MM@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10j416pspo47nce@corp.supernews.com...
> "Greg Mossman" wrote ...
> > He'll apparently lie for any scumbag.
>
> Hmmm... Sounds like a lawyer... I suspect you'd get along with him rather
> well, Greg... <snicker>

Kerry's bullshit is coming apart like a cheap suit:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/27741.htm

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=14774

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect...ws-lips28.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/polit...e/TheNote.html

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...ws/8181098.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/docume...0408280010.asp

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

"He wrote to his local recruitment board seeking permission to spend a
further 12 months studying in Paris, after completing his degree course at
Yale University in the mid-1960s."

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/...0408270856.asp

http://www.videopa.com/kerry/warner.asx

http://large-regular.blogspot.com/20...-seems-to.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Aug6.html

"Grumman-581" <grumman581-YYYY-MM@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10j416pspo47nce@corp.supernews.com...
> "Greg Mossman" wrote ...
> > He'll apparently lie for any scumbag.
>
> Hmmm... Sounds like a lawyer... I suspect you'd get along with him rather
> well, Greg... <snicker>

Lawyers don't do the lying themselves. They pay "expert witnesses" like
Fackler to do the lying for them. We're just the middlemen.

"Greg Mossman" wrote ...
> Lawyers don't do the lying themselves. They pay "expert witnesses" like
> Fackler to do the lying for them. We're just the middlemen.

So, the person who pays someone else to kill someone would not be guilty of
homicide?

"Grumman-581" <grumman581-YYYY-MM@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10j4hvnp8hjbucf@corp.supernews.com...
> "Greg Mossman" wrote ...
> > Lawyers don't do the lying themselves. They pay "expert witnesses" like
> > Fackler to do the lying for them. We're just the middlemen.
>
> So, the person who pays someone else to kill someone would not be guilty
of
> homicide?

It's really the client that does the paying. The lawyer acts as a 'referral
source', by acting in the client's behalf to hire the hitman. Probably more
like accessory to homicide rather than the real thing. You could probably
throw a conspiracy charge in as well as it's usually the lawyer's strategy.

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote:

> "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:10j1t7j2jjlvh59@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > 'Trying to acquire Purple Hearts'
> >
> > By Martin L. Fackler
>
> Martin Fackler is a gun-nut Republican flack. So what else is new? Before
> defending Bush, Fackler testified in the the Menendez brothers' defense.
> He'll apparently lie for any scumbag.

Marty is very well respected within his field of expertise, which is
traumatic medicine. "For better or worse", he's not at all shy about
expressing his opinions in areas that may be outside of his field.
However, this doesn't mean that he's a "lying scumbag": he's just
expressing what his opinions and perceptions are on the topic at hand.


In the case of the whole Vietnam Era controversy surrounding Kerry and
Bush, its my personal opinion that it can be summarized as follows:

Neither one really wanted to be shot at, and both of them
"worked the system" to try to minimize their time over there.


We often talk about risk management in diving; apply it to this subject.


-hh