Posted on 08/07/2004 10:20:44 PM PDT by Merry
....Most surprisingly, John Kerry himself (while falsely reporting to the Navy and public that he suffered a shrapnel wound from a mine explosion so as to get a third Purple Heart and go home) reflected in his own journal that his buttocks' wound came, not from any mine but, rather, from a grenade tossed into a rice cache by himself or friendly troops (in the absence of any enemy fire). "I got a piece of small grenade in my ass from one of the rice bin explosions." Exhibit 15, Tour, at 313; see also Exhibit 15, Tour, at 317. "Kerry . . . also had the bits of shrapnel and rice extracted from his backside." See also the sworn statement of participants that there was no hostile fire (Exhibits 6, 7, and 10). It also should be noted that the rice extracted from Kerry's backside could hardly be the result of an underwater mine, as Kerry claimed in his operating report.
"In any case, 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. All agree that rice was being destroyed that day on the assumption that it otherwise might feed Viet Cong fighters."
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
See Exhibit 26.
The Christmas in Cambodia story of John Kerry was repeated as recently as July 7, 2004 by Michael Kranish, a principal biographer of Kerry from The Boston Globe. On the Hannity & Colmes television show, Kranish indicated that Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia was a critical turning point in Kerry's life.
The story is a total preposterous fabrication by Kerry. Exhibit 8 is an affidavit by the Commander of the Swift boats in Vietnam, Admiral Roy Hoffmann, stating that Kerry's claim to be in Cambodia for Christmas Eve and Christmas of 1968 is a total lie. If necessary, similar affidavits are available from the entire chain of command. In reality, Kerry was at Sa Dec -- easily locatable on any map more than fifty miles from Cambodia. Kerry himself inadvertently admits that he was in Sa Dec for Christmas Eve and Christmas and not in Cambodia, as he had stated for so many years on the Senate Floor, in the newspapers, and elsewhere. Exhibit 27, Tour, pp. 213-219. Sa Dec is hardly "close" to the Cambodian border. In reality, far from being ordered secretly to Cambodia, Kerry spent a pleasant night at Sa Dec with "visions of sugar plums" dancing in his head. Exhibit 27, p. 219. At Sa Dec where the Swift boat patrol area ended, there were many miles of other boats (PBR's) leading to the Cambodian border. There were also gunboats on the border to prevent any crossing. If Kerry tried to get through, he would have been arrested. Obviously, Kerry has hardly been honest about his service
ping!!
Thanks. It's quite a blog.
You might want to drop an email of support to them:
Latch@SwiftVets.com
I understand we are in the same boat..I would point out to them that Kerry had no need to lie but he did....why? Also looking at this description the friendly fire must have taken place while directly engaged in armed conflict.....weapon fire...maybe he did not qualify without the lie...what is the true regulation where did they get their info?
10 USC Sec. 1129 01/05/99
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART II - PERSONNEL
CHAPTER 57 - DECORATIONS AND AWARDS
Sec. 1129. Purple Heart: members killed or wounded in action by friendly fire
-STATUTE-
(a) For purposes of the award of the Purple Heart, the Secretary concerned shall treat a member of the armed forces described in subsection (b) in the same manner as a member who is killed or wounded in action as the result of an act of an enemy of the United States.
(b) A member described in this subsection is a member who is killed or wounded in action by weapon fire while directly engaged in armed conflict, other than as the result of an act of an enemy of the United States, unless (in the case of a wound) the wound is the result of willful misconduct of the member.
(c) This section applies to members of the armed forces who are killed or wounded on or after December 7, 1941. In the case of a member killed or wounded as described in subsection (b) on or after December 7, 1941, and before November 30, 1993, the Secretary concerned shall award the Purple Heart under subsection (a) in each case which is known to the Secretary before such date or for which an application is made to the Secretary in such manner as the Secretary requires.
(Added Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title XI, Sec. 1141(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1756; amended Pub. L. 105-85, div. A, title X, Sec. 1073(a)(18), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1901.)
AMENDMENTS
1997 - Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 105-85 substituted ''November 30, 1993,'' for ''the date of the enactment of this section,'' and ''before such date or'' for ''before the date of the enactment of this section or''.
http://www.amervets.com/phmedl.htm#phm
BUMP!!!
BTTT for later digestion!! Thank you for posting it.
seems they left out a few words....
from your site also:
(5) Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:
(g) Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.
(h) Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.
(6) It is not intended that such a strict interpretation of the requirement for the wound or injury to be caused by direct result of hostile action be taken that it would preclude the award being made to deserving personnel. Commanders must also take into consideration, the circumstances surrounding an injury, even if it appears to meet the criteria. Note the following examples:
" 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 above A physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.
There was no casualty report or after action report filed on Kerry's first PH, which he somehow got approved three months from the date of the injury (Dec 2) and after his transfer to another unit.
Good pick up.
haha ! Good pic, KK !And welcome to FreeRepublic.com .....
love it! they can't have it both ways...
Personally, I'd have both pics on both sides, so folks don't miss seeing them both. Besides that picture, there are SO many around here to choose just one or two. I think this sums Kerry's fellow VN vets' opinions up pretty good. What kind of protest is it you're going to? You mentioned PETA - I think that's a whole 'nother ballgame.
bump
" His lawyer training should have taught him "once you ring the bell you can't unring it counsel." Even worse is he didn't checkout in disclosure that there weren't more and better witnesses out there to discredit what he was saying. As I said; This is leaving one hell of a huge black and blue and sickly green bruise Dems."
===
I sure hope so, SandRat!!! I just fear that since this whole thing peaked on Friday, by Monday no one (but a few) will care enough to report on it. By late Friday, pretty much all media was reporting George Elliott took back what he said. NOT TOO MANY FOLLOWED THROUGH, though where he took back his statement; and I don't think many will pick it back up on Monday.
See here: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040806/us_nm/campaign_kerry_vietnam_dc_6
That's BARELY mentioned - no wait - it's not EVEN mentioned mainstream press I've see that he changed his mind back again and said he DID NOT DESERVE what he received.
Even so called Fair and Balanced FOX didn't say it, as far as I saw. Never said he went back to his ORIGINAL claim. (Gotta wonder, just who was pressuring George Elliott in the first place, don't ya? In my mind's eye, I was having a very weird view.) LOL. Then he came back to his senses, in my estimation. I really think this needs to get hammered big time --- that Vietnam Veteran Elliott WENT BACK TO HIS ORIGINAL STATEMENT. This message is fading fast!
I had not seen this. Thanks for the ping, reading now.
Prairie
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.