Michael Moore

Brino

Banned
georges said:
It prouves enough. Kerry is a liar.Three months on the field is ridiculous. He asked for his medals.What a sign of weakness!When you are brave the medals are given to you because you desserve to them.

You obviously dont know shit about the Military! Guess what georges you can't ask for medals thus Kerry couldnt have asked for his medals! The military decides whether you get a medal not you! The military saw fit to give Kerry medals so everytime you say Kerry lied about his medals your saying that the military lied about the reasons they gave kerry those medals!
 

Brino

Banned
Dolman said:
Come on....Focus on what HAPPENED, not what he promised. Promising like that is like a guideline. SHIT happens.

example:

Your out of town. You call your girlfriend "Honey, I'll be home in two hours" The meeting you were in lasted longer than you expected, bad traffic, maybe some accidents happened, maybe you got pulled over. You end up getting home in 3 1/2 hours. Should your girlfriend break up with you, because you didnt come through perfectly with what you promised?

Bush did not expect 911, along with a slew of other things.

He's been making promises like that for four years and never have they been fulfilled! I can understand that happening once or twice but every sngle month for four years!? C'mon, he's not going to keep making mistakes like that unless he's totally incompetent or lying! Take your pick!
 

Brino

Banned
Dolman said:
HAHAH, right..... wanna give some examples?

I dont need to! To my knowledge foxfilm already did give you some examples!

AGAIN, can you read brino? I know about the seperation of church and state. I am saying, that they will ALWAYS be intermingled. THEY ARE NOW, AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE.

Example, you ask?

Sure.

You and I both vote. MY religion effects what I vote for. YOUR religion, or lack thereof, effects what YOU vote for. To tell me otherwise would be a bold lie.

Now like I said its nice to think they stay seperate, but they aren't. If you are asking people opinions, then right there you are asking people who are all effecting by different religions and beliefs.
THAT is why this gay marriage thing has been a big deal.

When I talk about the seperation of Church and State I'm talking about government policy not government opinion! Ofcourse government officials are going to have their own opinions based off of their beliefs but government policy doesnt have an opinion based off of a religons belief nor is it supposed to! It is for this reason that you can not alter the constitution to fit your religious belief, and thats why the policy of the U.S. should be that gays are allowed to get married regardless of whether we want them to or not!

Ok, then how about this. We legalize that people can marry animals. Next we say large groups of people can all be married as one. How would you feel?(maybe a bad example, but I'm trying to think of something that you personally, would be against....as some are with gay marriage)

You know, this is what I dislike the most about your argument! Gay marriage is not going to lead down a slippery slope that ends up in people getting married to animals or something like that! Theres several reasons why it wont! First of all, gay marriage is already legal in many parts of the world (including Canada I believe) and guess what, nothing else happened, no slippery slope! It didnt lead to people getting married to animals or anything else like that and the armageddon didnt come! Second, if it's this hard to get gay marriage legalized then it would be impossible to get animal marriage legalized. :rofl:

1- I do not think homosexuality is right/moral. Im not going to ridicule someone because they are gay, but it IS MY OPINION to think its wrong

2- THEY want to change something that 'my' kind have established. That makes me feel like my kind are having to conform to fit THEIR needs. Civil unions are fine with me, so why do they need the term 'marriage' ?

1- Yes it's your right to think gay marriage is wrong but it's not your right to prevent them from getting married!

2- I dont believe "your kind" established marriage! Marriage or something similiar was around long before Christianity arose so you dont have sole right to the term marriage!

It is my opinion that it is. To my knowledge it hasn't been proved wrong either.....

How am I supposed to have a logical disagreement with somebody who thinks the Bible is 100% truthful!? I suppose you also think that evolution is just one big lie! :D

Ya know....here is what I find funny. I admitted to you guys that I knew about jack shit about economics. I have honestly only been interested/learning about politics the last 3 weeks of my life. So I told you that, yet STILL, the main, and practically only thing you guys can come up with in your favor is the economy.(which i still didn't believe you on totally, and rightfully so I think....)

You know I dont know much about the economy either but I do know that it was better under Clinton than under any other president in the past 20 years! But it's late and I'm tired so I'm not going to dig up the statistics for you right now, but dont worry I'll be back with all the info and statistics you can handle!

Stay Tuned! :wave2:
 
Brino said:


You know, this is what I dislike the most about your argument! Gay marriage is not going to lead down a slippery slope that ends up in people getting married to animals or something like that! Theres several reasons why it wont! First of all, gay marriage is already legal in many parts of the world (including Canada I believe) and guess what, nothing else happened, no slippery slope! It didnt lead to people getting married to animals or anything else like that and the armageddon didnt come! Second, if it's this hard to get gay marriage legalized then it would be impossible to get animal marriage legalized. :rofl:




Actually gay mariage is legal in a few provinces, but not in all Canada... i have to check on that...
 

Brino

Banned
Here we go Dolman, This is a copy of what another board member posted in another thread! Enjoy!

Here's a graph of the average private-sector hourly earnings since 1964. This is all adjusted to 1982 dollars to eliminate inflation.



This comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics website, right here:

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ce

You can get all kinds of statistics there. You have to check the box for whatever report you want. Then you'll have the option to set the years you want and get a plot. It's pretty cool.

So, looking the plot we can see:

- Steady wage growth during the Johnson and early Nixon administrations (1964-72; unfortunately the data only goes back to 1964).

- A major spike during Nixon's second term and the Ford administration (1973-76). Consumer prices were shooting up at this time as well; this was called a "wage-price spiral".

- A second wage-price spiral during the Carter administration, followed by a major drop in wages. (1977-80)

- More or less stagnant wages during the Reagan administration, with a slight overall decline. (1981-88)

- Sinking wages during the Bush Sr. administration (1989-92).

- Flat wages during Clinton's first term (1993-96).

- A sharp increase during Clinton's second term, flattening out towards the end (1997-2000)

- Modest growth during Bush Jr'.s administration.


So, there you have it. One thing to remember is that this plot covers a period when a large number of married women entered the workforce. So even though wages remained steady, most families have seen their standard of living go up over the last thirty years because they now have two earners instead of just one.
 

Brino

Banned
Here's the graph:
 

Attachments

  • graph.jpg
    graph.jpg
    20.7 KB · Views: 94

georges

Moderator
Staff member
Brino said:
Every ounce of news I get is from CNN or some other Cable news network! Thats where I found out that the jobs created were well below expectations! But if you need proof then I'll find it for you even though you wont believe the proof I give you! So stayed tuned for yet another shred of evidence you can call a lie!

Some medias are biased like Michael Moore films in which you believe like holy graal. Biased medias will always equal bullshit for me.If it was coming from an official source i would believe it but while it is not the case i don't give a flying fuck about the infos they can give.
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
Brino said:
You obviously dont know shit about the Military! Guess what georges you can't ask for medals thus Kerry couldnt have asked for his medals! The military decides whether you get a medal not you! The military saw fit to give Kerry medals so everytime you say Kerry lied about his medals your saying that the military lied about the reasons they gave kerry those medals!
Please keep stop talking childish useless bullshit Brino. I know more about you when it comes to us military.You don't know what is the air national guard, do you? Have you ever heard of the f102 delta daggers and f106 delta darts??? Probably never because you don't care about how was composed the us army at that time. There were not only the marines and the gis but all the air force, navy, usmc and ang support helping marines and gis to kill the viets.
Bush was in the ang and he was one of the best pilot in the ang, he was flying the f102 one of the most dangerous planes at its time.To be a pilot you need to have a brain and a lot of physical resistance.
ANG squadrons were always on alert, some of them entered in action in vietnam, the people who flew delta daggers were highly experienced pilots.

here is a repost
ok, since we are being shown kerry's war record, let's go back and look at Bush's...

A 1971 ANG evaluation said Bush had the potential to "promote well ahead of his contemporaries" and added, "Lt. Bush's main strengths are his eagerness to participate in the unit's activities and his ability to work harmoniously with others." A 1970 letter recommending him for a promotion from second to first lieutenant called him "a dynamic outstanding young officer." Perhaps you mean the letter from the then Lt. Col Jerry Killian saying "Lt. Bush is possessed of sound judgment, yet is a tenacious competitor and an aggressive pilot. He is mature beyond his age and experience level."?
I am aware of the controversy once he requested transfer to equivalent duty with the 187th, and understand that people have questions. However, I would would question the assertaitions stated elswhere that he recieved poor evaluations and was frequently AWOL.
It has been said that Bush joined the ANG to skirt duty. But if you're trying to skirt combat duty, there are safer ways of doing it that volunteering for flight training in a fighter jet that is known to be extremely dangerous (the F102 killed over 70 pilots in that time period), in a guard unit known to depoy fighters to shadow MiGs in Vietnam, and then excel at being a pilot (which would guarantee you a tour flying in combat).
AerospaceWeb.org, which is an apolitical, non-profit aerospace education and information site, did some research into the role of the F-102 in Vietnam, and the role of Bush's ANG unit during the period. Here are some excerpts:
.......................................................
It really bothers me that a coward like George W. Bush spent the Vietnam War training to fly old and useless planes in Texas while John Kerry was heroically risking his life in combat and got three purple hearts!
- Jennifer Braun
We normally shy away from the world of politics, but we get variations of this kind of question regularly and feel it necessary to clarify some information. We'll do our best to avoid bringing our own political biases into this article since we are more interested in defending an "old and useless" aircraft than any particular politician! George W. Bush's military service began in 1968 when he enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard after graduating with a bachelor's degree in history from Yale University. The aircraft that he was ultimately trained to fly was the F-102 Delta Dagger. A number of sources have claimed that Bush sought service in the National Guard to avoid being sent to Vietnam, and that the F-102 was a safe choice because it was an obsolete aircraft that would never see any real combat. However, those perceptions turn out to be incorrect, as will be seen shortly.
It is a common misconception that the Air National Guard was a safe place for military duty during the Vietnam War. In actuality, pilots from the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group [Bush's unit], as it was called at the time, were actually conducting combat missions in Vietnam at the very time Bush enlisted. In fact, F-102 squadrons had been stationed in South Vietnam since March 1962. It was during this time that the Kennedy administration began building up a large US military presence in the nation as a deterrent against North Vietnamese invasion.
F-102 squadrons continued to be stationed in South Vietnam and Thailand throughout most of the Vietnam War. The planes were typically used for fighter defense patrols and as escorts for B-52 bomber raids. While the F-102 had few opportunities to engage in its primary role of fighter combat, the aircraft was used in the close air support role starting in 1965. Armed with rocket pods, Delta Daggers would make attacks on Viet Cong encampments in an attempt to harass enemy soldiers. Some missions were even conducted using the aircraft's heat-seeking air-to-air missiles to lock onto enemy campfires at night. Though these missions were never considered to be serious attacks on enemy activity, F-102 pilots did often report secondary explosions coming from their targets.
Even in peacetime conditions, F-102 pilots risked their lives on every flight. Only highly-qualified pilot candidates were accepted for Delta Dagger training because it was such a challenging aircraft to fly and left little room for mistakes. According to the Air Force Safety Center, the lifetime Class A accident rate for the F-102 was 13.69 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours, much higher than the average for today's combat aircraft. For example, the F-16 has an accident rate of 4.14, the F-15 is at 2.47, the F-117 at 4.07, the S-3 at 2.6, and the F-18 at 4.9. Even the Marine Corps' AV-8B, regarded as the most dangerous aircraft in US service today, has a lifetime accident rate of only 11.44 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots. [I wonder what the statistics were for PCF skippers, pro-rated for serving 1/3 the required length of the standard tour?]
Nevertheless, we have established that the F-102 was serving in combat in Vietnam at the time Bush enlisted to become an F-102 pilot. In fact, pilots from the 147th FIG of the Texas ANG were routinely rotated to Vietnam for combat duty under a program called "Palace Alert" from 1968 to 1970. Palace Alert was an Air Force program that sent qualified F-102 pilots from the ANG to bases in Europe or southeast Asia for periods of three to six months for frontline duty. Fred Bradley, a friend of Bush's who was also serving in the Texas ANG, reported that he and Bush inquired about participating in the Palace Alert program. However, the two were told by a superior, MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were not yet qualified since they were still in training and did not have the 500 hours of flight experience required.
[contrast this with Kerry's volunteering for PCF duty while it was assigned to non-hazardous coastal patrols. Riverine duty wasn't assigned until AFTER Kerry volunteered for the program]
Furthermore, ANG veteran COL William Campenni, who was a fellow pilot in the 111th FIS at the time, told the Washington Times that Palace Alert was winding down and not accepting new applicants.
The point of this discussion is that the military record of George W. Bush deserves a fair treatment. Bush has been criticized for avoiding service in Vietnam, though the evidence proves that the Texas Air National Guard and its F-102 pilots where serving in Vietnam while Bush was in training. Bush has been criticized for using his family influence to obtain his assignment, but the evidence shows that he successfully completed every aspect of the more than two years of training required of him. Bush has been criticized for pursuing a safe and plush position as a fighter pilot, but the evidence indicates the F-102 was a demanding aircraft whose pilots regularly risked their lives. Bush has also been criticized for deserting the Guard before his enlistment was complete, but the evidence shows he was honorably discharged eight months early because his position was being phased out.
.......................................
Yes, Bush never actually SW combat, but that's because *after* he finished training, the military started to phase out ANG fighter operations (not before). That was a calculation entertained by most draft eligible men of that generation. You join up to do what you like most or dislike least before you get picked to do what you like least/hate most. Bush apparently wanted to be a fighter pilot, and this was a quick way to become one.

So before you say something brino, back up your arguments.
Bush was in ANG.You probably never heard of it. You maybe don't care of the miltary of your country but many others do.
 
Last edited:

Brino

Banned
georges said:
Some medias are biased like Michael Moore films in which you believe like holy graal. Biased medias will always equal bullshit for me.If it was coming from an official source i would believe it but while it is not the case i don't give a flying fuck about the infos they can give.

It doesnt matter whether a media outlet is biased or not! Their not going to lie or they would lose their jobs!
 

Brino

Banned
georges said:
Please keep stop talking childish useless bullshit Brino. I know more about you when it comes to us military.You don't know what is the air national guard, do you? Have you ever heard of the f102 delta daggers and f106 delta darts??? Probably never because you don't care about how was composed the us army at that time. There were not only the marines and the gis but all the air force, navy, usmc and ang support helping marines and gis to kill the viets.
Bush was in the ang and he was one of the best pilot in the ang, he was flying the f102 one of the most dangerous planes at its time.To be a pilot you need to have a brain and a lot of physical resistance.
ANG squadrons were always on alert, some of them entered in action in vietnam, the people who flew delta daggers were highly experienced pilots.

You know about weapon systems yes but you obviously dont know about military policy if you think Kerry asked for his medals! Again I say Kerry couldnt have asked for his medals, that's not how the military works, if it were then every soldier who ever fought in a war would have a purple heart, but they dont! Why!? Bcause you dont decide whether you get a medal or not, the military does! What dont you understand about that georges!?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact of the matter is that Bush never saw combat, ever, period! He was also missing during a portion of his stint in the Air National Guard, period! His dad got him a job in the Guard when other people (like Kerry) were volunteering to actually fight in Vietnam, period! Regardless of what planes he was flying and regardless of the potential to see combat the fact of the matter remains that he didnt see combat when Kerry did, period!
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
Brino said:
It doesnt matter whether a media outlet is biased or not! Their not going to lie or they would lose their jobs!

Many medias are full of hypocrisy and biased.You are too naive if you think that the medias are all honest.
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
Brino said:
You know about weapon systems yes but you obviously dont know about military policy if you think Kerry asked for his medals! Again I say Kerry couldnt have asked for his medals, that's not how the military works, if it were then every soldier who ever fought in a war would have a purple heart, but they dont! Why!? Bcause you dont decide whether you get a medal or not, the military does! What dont you understand about that georges!?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact of the matter is that Bush never saw combat, ever, period! He was also missing during a portion of his stint in the Air National Guard, period! His dad got him a job in the Guard when other people (like Kerry) were volunteering to actually fight in Vietnam, period! Regardless of what planes he was flying and regardless of the potential to see combat the fact of the matter remains that he didnt see combat when Kerry did, period!

I know many more things than you about military policy than you.
Kerry asked for his medals a neverseen thing ever in the navy, that now the navy investigates how kerry was given these medals.Kerry had self inflicted wounds.Being three months on the filed is ridiculous.
Flying an f102 delta dart required courage, physcial resistance and brain because this plane was one of the most dangerous planes at its time.Bush was in the best pilots in its promotion.
Volunteering or not Kerry is now asked about how he was given his medals by the Navy and he has troubles.
Have you ever heard the story of thoresness and johnson??.They were two of the best pilots on the f105f thunderchief plane. They killed a lot of migsand sams sites.On days their plane were hit by a missile.Thornessness was made prisoner and johnsson was declared Missing. When the Paris Peace treaty were signed Thoresness was freed and recieved the medal of honor from the hands of Nixon.
Another story can be told about the best rf101 voodo pilot "lt colonel john "red bull" stirling" .He was the pilot who was never hit by a mig.After more than a 100 of very high risky recognition and photography missions he was sent to home.
 
Last edited:

Brino

Banned
georges said:
Many medias are full of hypocrisy and biased.You are too naive if you think that the medias are all honest.

Your changing the fucking point! :mad: It doesnt matter how biased a media outlet is they cant lie about something like that because it's a matter of public record! If they'd lied they'd get caught! Anybody could proof read what they said by looking it up themselves! FoxNews even said that the job numbers were well below expectations except they put a positive spin on it!

You cant keep up this argument that every news outlet is biased against Bush goerges! Your like a fucking conspiracy theorist who thinks the world is out to get him! It's Bullshit!
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
Brino said:
Your changing the fucking point! :mad: It doesnt matter how biased a media outlet is they cant lie about something like that because it's a matter of public record! If they'd lied they'd get caught! Anybody could proof read what they said by looking it up themselves! FoxNews even said that the job numbers were well below expectations except they put a positive spin on it!

You cant keep up this argument that every news outlet is biased against Bush goerges! Your like a fucking conspiracy theorist who thinks the world is out to get him! It's Bullshit!
Bullshit from you Brino.That is typical.You are like a conspiracy because for you all what does Bush is bad and all what does Kerry is good.When Kerry is attacked you whine like a little child. You are the only one who post comic photos of Bush, right like a little child??? I don't believe in what you say. 4years ago you were a teenager and you knew shit to politics you were only 16. Not everybody could prouve that only liberals or democrats who are angry against Bush.On other boards where i am member especially (car boards) most of the liberals persons are these 16-19 teenagers of who many don't have a clue what is real life.
Your a fucking childish teenager, please stop being blinded by what medias say and try to think by yourself.
 

Brino

Banned
georges said:
Bullshit from you Brino.That is typical.You are like a conspiracy because for you all what does Bush is bad and all what does Kerry is good.When Kerry is attacked you whine like a little child. You are the only one who post comic photos of Bush, right like a little child??? I don't believe in what you say. 4years ago you were a teenager and you knew shit to politics you were only 16. Not everybody could prouve that only liberals or democrats who are angry against Bush.On other boards where i am member especially (car boards) most of the liberals persons are these 16-19 teenagers of who many don't have a clue what is real life.
Your a fucking childish teenager, please stop being blinded by what medias say and try to think by yourself.

It sounds like your describing yourself georges!
 

Brino

Banned
georges said:
I know many more things than you about military policy than you.
Kerry asked for his medals a neverseen thing ever in the navy, that now the navy investigates how kerry was given these medals.Kerry had self inflicted wounds.Being three months on the filed is ridiculous.
Flying an f102 delta dart required courage, physcial resistance and brain because this plane was one of the most dangerous planes at its time.Bush was in the best pilots in its promotion.
Volunteering or not Kerry is now asked about how he was given his medals by the Navy and he has troubles.
Have you ever heard the story of thoresness and johnson??.They were two of the best pilots on the f105f thunderchief plane. They killed a lot of migsand sams sites.On days their plane were hit by a missile.Thornessness was made prisoner and johnsson was declared Missing. When the Paris Peace treaty were signed Thoresness was freed and recieved the medal of honor from the hands of Nixon.
Another story can be told about the best rf101 voodo pilot "lt colonel john "red bull" stirling" .He was the pilot who was never hit by a mig.After more than a 100 of very high risky recognition and photography missions he was sent to home.


I'm not to happy about having to post this again georges so maybe this time you'll actually read it!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brino said:
SBV CLAIM ON LEGITIMACY OF KERRY'S FIRST PURPLE HEART:

...The following morning, John Kerry arrived at the office of Coastal Division 14 Commander Grant Hibbard to apply for a Purple Heart. Having already been informed by Schachte that Kerry's injury was self-inflicted rather than the result of hostile fire, Commander Hibbard told him to "forget it." Hibbard recently said of Kerry's minor scratch, "I’ve seen worse injuries from a rose thorn." Nevertheless, John Kerry managed to obtain his coveted Purple Heart for this incident nearly three months later after being transferred to Coastal Division 11.

FACT
(i) Kerry could NOT have gotten his Purple Heart without his Commander's recommendation. Indeed, regulations do not allow combatants to nominate themselves Purple Hearts or award it to themselves.
(ii) The severity of the injury is irrelevant to the award of a Purple Heart. The injury had to be sustained due to an outside force or in action against an enemy or hostile foreign force - or even from friendly fire. So SBV's claims are outrageous and without merit.


REFERENCES
Thomas Lang, CamPaign Desk:

Lt. Mike Kafka, a spokesman with the Navy Office of Information (CHINFO) in Washington D.C., told us three pertinent facts:

1 -- No soldier determines if he is eligible for a Purple Heart; only his commander can determine that specific U.S. Navy criteria have been met for the award. Hibbard told the Globe that while he was skeptical at the time as to whether Kerry came under enemy fire and whether he was even wounded, at the time he dropped the matter and told Kerry "do whatever you want." But that's not enough for any soldier to be awarded a Purple Heart; that requires the recommendation of a commander; and Hibbard was the commander. It is unclear as to whether another commander stepped in or Hibbard finally signed on to the Purple Heart.

2 -- The severity of the injury, which the Chicago Tribune dwells upon, apparently does not bear on whether a soldier qualifies for a Purple Heart. Paragraph 4 of the "Purple Heart Criteria for U.S. Navy" states that "a wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed in paragraph 2 [in 1968, those were: in action against the enemy, or as a result of action by "any hostile foreign force"]. A physical lesion is not required; however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer..." Kerry's wound was treated by a medical officer, who removed the shrapnel and applied an antiseptic.

3 -- Whether the injury is related to enemy fire, which the Times chose to emphasize, is germane to the question at hand. Enemy fire is essential for any soldier to receive a Purple Heart. A training accident doesn't qualify. Paragraph 3 of "Purple Heart Criteria for U.S. Navy" defines "enemy-related injuries" as those incurred when a solider is "struck by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action."


Thomas Lang, Campaign Desk:

Alas, today, the Washington Times' fatally-wounded coverage of Kerry's newly-released service records makes yesterday's various media bloopers look like journalism at its finest.
...
Hurt quotes one Mel Howell, a retired Navy officer who flew helicopters in Vietnam, but who apparently never served with Kerry, as saying, "Most of us came away with all kinds of scratches like the ones Kerry got but never accepted Purple Hearts for them."

As Lt. Mike Kafka, a U.S. Navy spokesman, told us yesterday, in line with official U.S. Navy documentation, wounded combatants neither nominate nor award themselves Purple Hearts. The Purple Heart is awarded only after a commander determines that a soldier or sailor has incurred a wound inflicted by the enemy and forwards a recommendation to his superiors.
...
One veteran, Ray Waller, is identified as "a combat medic in the Marines" who "was responsible for determining whether injuries warranted Purple Hearts."
...
However, as noted above, Navy medics neither award Purple Hearts nor recommend others for a Purple Heart. Commanders do that based on, as US Navy guidelines put it, confirmation of medical treatment by "the doctor that provides medical care."

The expansive Waller goes on to tell Hurt that he had "never heard of" a shrapnel injury so minor that it did not require a tetanus shot and time off which had led to a Purple Heart. As Lt. Kafka notes, however, the written "Purple Heart Criteria for the U.S. Navy" does not list either a tetanus shot or time off due to injury as a requirement for receiving a Purple Heart.


FactCheck.org:

...even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a 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," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart.

SBV CLAIM ON KERRY'S TRUTHFULNESS REGARDING HIS FIRST PURPLE HEART:

[Louis Letson]: I know John Kerry is lying about his first purple heart, because I treated him for that injury.

[via FactCheck.org]: Letson says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted and does not merit a purple heart...Grant Hibbard, Kerry’s commanding officer at the time...says that he “turned down the Purple Heart request,” and recalled Kerry's injury as a "tiny scratch less than from a rose thorn."


FACT
Letson was NOT the doctor who signed Kerry's sick call sheet and was not a Kerry crewmate


REFERENCES
FactCheck.org:

...even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a 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," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart.
...
medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the “person administering treatment” for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 . The medical officer who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm.

In his affidavit, Letson says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted and does not merit a purple heart. But that's based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that. Letson says “the crewman with Kerry told me there was no hostile fire, and that Kerry had inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade.” But the Kerry campaign says the two crewmen with Kerry that day deny ever talking to Letson.

Also appearing in the ad is Grant Hibbard, Kerry’s commanding officer at the time. Hibbard’s affidavit says that he “turned down the Purple Heart request,” and recalled Kerry's injury as a "tiny scratch less than from a rose thorn."

That doesn't quite square with Letson's affidavit, which describes shrapnel "lodged in Kerry's arm" (though "barely.")

Hibbard also told the Boston Globe in an interview in April 2004 that he eventually acquiesced about granting Kerry the purple heart.

Hibbard: I do remember some questions on it. . .I finally said, OK if that's what happened. . . do whatever you want

Kerry got the first purple heart after Hibbard left to return to the US.


Information cited at John Kerry.com:

Letson Offers NO PROOF He Treated Kerry.
Despite Letson's claims to have treated Kerry, he is not listed on any document as having treated Kerry after the 12/2/68 firefight. Offering only an account of dates and places-which is readily available in Kerry's biography and media accounts-Lester has produced nothing to verify his treatment of Kerry.

Letson Didn't Record His Memories of Vietnam Until Kerry's Emergence in 2003.
"Letson says that last year, as the Democratic campaign began to heat up, he told friends that he remembered treating one of the candidates many years ago. In response to their questions, Letson says, he wrote down his recollections of the time." [National Review Online, 5/4/04]

Read it this time!

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0820041kerry1.html
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
Brino said:
It sounds like your describing yourself georges!
You are the only one who posted bush with several comical pictures aren't you?So stop lying.
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
We will see what the navy has to say about these medals. I am very suscpicious about Kerry and i don't trust him.
 
Last edited:
Top