Could the Press Grow a Spine?

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

Show your evidence that Kerry didnt earn his third purple
heart, received in his second tour of duty.


I didn't say it was his third purple heart, I said he used an unearned
purple heart to get out of Vietnam after serving just a third of his tour.
I believe the award in question was the first one.

The following letter appeared in the USA Today "Letters" section on June
25th last, page 8A:



Criticism of Kerry's Purple Heart is just

Retired U.S. army colonel David Hackworth defends presidential
candidate John Kerry's Purple Hearts. He correctly notes that they are
awarded for a wound that necessitates treatment by a medical officer and
that is received in action with an enemy ('The meaning of a Purple Heart,"
The Forum, June 16).

I was the commanding officer to whom Kerry reported his injury on Dec.
3, 1968. I had confirmed that there was no hostile fire that night and that
Kerry had simply wounded himself with an M-79 grenade round he fired too
close. He wanted a Purple Heart, and I refused. Louis Letson, the base
physician, saw Kerry and used tweezers to remove the tiny piece of
shrapnel - about 1 centi*meter in length and 2 millimeters in di*ameter.
Letson also confirmed that the scratch was inflicted with our M-79.

We admire Col. Hackworth, but he, above all people, knows why it is
unac*ceptable to nominate yourself for an award. It compromises the basic
military principle that we survive together. To promote yourself is to
denigrate your team. I hope Col. Hackworth will rethink his characterization
of Kerry's swift-boat comrades as "grousers" passing on "secondhand bilge."
In our case, this is firsthand knowledge, and our integrity is unquestioned.

Kerry orchestrated his way out of Viet*nam and then testified, under
oath, be*fore Congress that we, his comrades, had committed horrible war
crimes. This tes*timony was a lie and slandered honor*able men. We, who were
actually there, believe he is unfit to command our sons and daughters.

Grant Hibbard, retired commander US. Navy, Gulf Breeze, Fla.

Louis Letson, M.D. Retired lieutenant commander Medical Corps, US. Navy
Reserve Scottsboro, Ala.



ALso,

Show your evidence that Bush didn't get out of Vietnam.


Evidence that Bush didn't get out of Vietnam? What the hell are you talking
about? Bush did not serve in Vietnam.



Show why any of that is more important than what both men have
done since.


I can't. I don't believe it is more important than what both men have done
since. But Kerry and the Democratic Party apparently do believe it is more
important than what they have done since. Since Kerry became the
frontrunner for their nomination Vietnam has been the key issue in their
campaign to defeat Bush. Note that Vietnam was not an issue when Howard
Dean, who spent much of the Vietnam war with a medical deferment for a bad
back but still managed to become a rather accomplished skier, was their
frontrunner.

Kerry's position on Vietnam has changed dramatically since early 1992, when
Bill Clinton, who avoided not just Vietnam but the military entirely, was
campaigning for the Democratic nomination for president:

" I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into
the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst
possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential
campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and
written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning."

"We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have
personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone
who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their
country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting
in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of
that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who
ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people
who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn
against the will of their own aspirations?"

Senator John Kerry, Jan 30, 1992

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
exit strategy. Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
to get our people out of that situation and the fact that
Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.


Exit strategy? Wasn't the exit strategy "do the job, then leave"? Clinton
changed the job and didn't give the troops the tools for the new one. GHWB
has no responsibility for the Somalia fiasco.



Wasn't is George Herbert Hoover Bush who began the mission with an
amphibious landing of Marines and SEALs in full cammy face paint and
weapons at the ready with CNN TV crews on the beach filming the start of
the "humanitarian" mission?

It sure didn't help matters to start off on the wrong foot.



--Mike

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net...

How can the Constitution remain intact if it is regularly violated?

The same way that lesser laws remain intact though they are routinely
violated.

--

FF

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ...
"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

(Snip)

What the Bush administration wanted was a direct violation of the UCMJ, under
the article covering assault. I don't have a copy of the UCMJ. I believe
they
said it was Art. 77.

Every military man should have a copy of the UCMJ available readily for his
personal reference. Here's yours:

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/.../mcm/blmcm.htm


WHen I was in High School one of my teachers told us that
the UCMJ was required reading once a year when he was in
the Army, circa 1950. The men sat in the mess hall while
someone read the entire UCMj to them out loud. He said most
of the guys slept. He took notes.

--

FF

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 24 Jun 2004 13:56:48 -0700, (WalterM140) wrote:


What part of Commander-in-Chief escapes you? Pick up a book on
Constitutional Law and you'll find that the "regulation of the armed
forces" applies to how the members of the force shall be governed and
treated. This is handled through the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
which is still in force. You may even note its application against the
criminals of Abu Ghraib.

The UCMJ is Federal law created by Act of Congress. Neither the
President nor his Secretary of Defense may authorize violations
of the UCMJ.

I am only infinitesmally less than certain that the list
of interrogation techniques Rumsfeld authorized includes acts
prohibited by the UCMJ.

Are you familiar with the doctrine of command responsibility?
If not applicable to the crimes a Abu Ghraib, it was never
applicable anywhere.

The current occupant of the White House has not been
charged with any felonies. Harder to say that about his predecessor.

No it is not. To my knowledge, none of his predecessors have ever
been charged with any felonies, certainly not while they held office
or afterwards.

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

The same way that lesser laws remain intact though they are routinely
violated.


What lesser laws?

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...


Got a message ID we can use to compare what you say he said
with what he said?

--

FF

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
(BUFDRVR) wrote in message
...

(Snip)

I don't remember exatly what Walt said but *I* blame GHB
for sending American Troops into Somalia without any
exit strategy. Clearly GHB was not concerned with how
to get our people out of that situation and the fact that
Clinton fell into the trap and made the situation worse
does nothing to exhonorate GHB of using our troops as
pawns to spite Clinton for wining the election.

At least some good did come of it. For a time, the
humanitarian relief effort was a success.

Unless my foggy memory is again playing tricks on me, I seem to recall that the
people who profited most from the relief supplies that we sent to that
unfortunate country were the very war lords who kicked us out of it. I seem to
recall that they sold the relief supplies we sent over there to whichever
starving Somalis had something of value to trade for those supplies.

Please feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong.


Note the caveat above 'for a time'. Even after, though the food
shipments were stolen, someone got to eat who previously
would have starved. I don't think they resold the food abroad.

--

FF

"Brett" wrote in message ...
"Fred the peabrain" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
.. .
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...


... McGovern the "subversive peacenik"
it was the news shots of his anti-war, anti-capitalist supporters
and
his
own campaign rhetoric at the Democratic convention and the many
campaign
rallies leading up to the election that November.

You say that like it was a bad thing.

Try again peabrain - your own editing achieved that goal, my original

What goal?

The editing addition of an opinion to an opinion free original comment.

You lost me here. But that's Ok, I was trying to be hip and the fact
is, I don't do hip very well.


comment was that Nixon didn't paint him up as the "subversive peacenik"
he
and his supporters did that and they didn't need any help in achieving
that
goal.

Do you say that like it was bad thing, or not?

It was how the McGovern campaign wanted to be viewed and it lost him the
election.

I'm not clear that it lost him the election. It is doubtful that
McGovern could do to win the election. Nixon was vunerable, but
he vulnerability was the myriad of criminal activities he had
engaged in while President, as are slowly being revealed as
previously suppressed tapes from the Nixon White House are
released but McGovern had no access to that knowledge.

I think that in truth, McGovern was a peacnik. I think that in
truth, being a peacnik is a good thing. And I think that it is
a good thing to present oneself truthfully to be damned for it
or not.

--

FF

"Fred the peabrain" wrote
"Brett" wrote in message
...
"Fred the peabrain" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message

..

Try again peabrain - your own editing achieved that goal, my
original

What goal?

The editing addition of an opinion to an opinion free original comment.

You lost me here. But that's Ok, I was trying to be hip and the fact
is, I don't do hip very well.


comment was that Nixon didn't paint him up as the "subversive
peacenik"
he
and his supporters did that and they didn't need any help in
achieving
that
goal.

Do you say that like it was bad thing, or not?

It was how the McGovern campaign wanted to be viewed and it lost him the
election.

I'm not clear that it lost him the election.

He was Nixon's dream opposition candidate because of them.

It is doubtful that
McGovern could do to win the election.

As I said in the previous post "he wasn't the best choice the Democrats had
available in 1972".