If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#225
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message om... The same way that lesser laws remain intact though they are routinely violated. What lesser laws? |
#227
|
|||
|
|||
|
#228
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#229
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#230
|
|||
|
|||
"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". |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
30 Jan 2004 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 31st 04 03:55 AM |
11 Nov 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | November 11th 03 11:58 PM |
04 Oct 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 4th 03 07:51 PM |
FS: Aviation History Books | Neil Cournoyer | Military Aviation | 0 | August 26th 03 08:32 PM |
07 Aug 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 8th 03 02:51 AM |