To: kattracks; VaBthang4; 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub; Blueflag; Travis McGee; aristeides; SpookBrat; ...
contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close to his boat on March 13, 1969.
Is a contusion a bruise?
If so, do they award purple hearts for bruises? I've NEVER heard of that before. Ever. Anyplace. Has anyone else?
112 posted on
04/20/2004 6:55:03 PM PDT by
xzins
(Retired Army and Proud of It!)
To: P-Marlowe
ping to #112
119 posted on
04/20/2004 6:56:37 PM PDT by
xzins
(Retired Army and Proud of It!)
To: xzins
A contusion is a bruise - no more no less.
To be fair, though, in this case the arm contusions were the same "incident" as the butt shrapnel.
The Purple Heart was probably for the butt shrapnel, and the bruises on his arms were the result of diving headfirst into the bushes, leaving the butt as the primary shrapnel target.
131 posted on
04/20/2004 7:03:13 PM PDT by
EllaMinnow
("Pessimism never won any battle." - Dwight D. Eisenhower)
To: xzins
Contusion: injury to tissue usually without laceration : BRUISE
Never heard of a purple heart for a bruise either! Some hero -- not! How he could possibly accept a Purple Heart for a bruise is beyond my comprehension when so many soldiers were killed or hurt really bad. I find Kerry even more slimey then I did before.
198 posted on
04/20/2004 7:31:25 PM PDT by
PhiKapMom
(AOII Mom -- Support Bush-Cheney '04 -- Losing is not an Option!)
To: xzins
John F'n Kerry is a lying traitor ~ Bump!
We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ trolls, terrorists, democrats and the mainstream media are sad ~ very sad!
~~ Bush/Cheney 2004 ~~
420 posted on
04/21/2004 6:55:52 AM PDT by
blackie
(Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
To: xzins
If so, do they award purple hearts for bruises What does it matter? if he was wounded in the same attack? This wasn't a Frank Burns "shell fragment in eye" Purple Heart, it was for shrapnel in his tuchis, and the medical record also notes contusions, as medical records commonly do.
In any case, quibbling over Kerry's Purple Hearts is 100% counter-productive and plays into his hands unless there is "gotcha" evidence that is not only indisputable, but a bombshell revelation, or unless we can show a pattern of consciously using Vietnam service as a stepping stone to power. It's like quibbling over Benedict Arnold's combat record instead of criticizing his treason. Whether Kerry was a "hero" in Nam is questionable. Whether he was a treasonous scumbag when he came back, and a threat to our troops safety ever since, is 100% indisputable. Use the big guns--Hit Benedict Arnold for treason, not for exagerrating his wounds at Montreal and Saratoga.
442 posted on
04/21/2004 12:06:30 PM PDT by
Mr. Silverback
(Dave Chapelle for UN Ambassador!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson