"SHOP AT TARGET -- THEY SUPPORT LGBTQ FAMILIES" (Heads up Barf Alert)

You should recuse yourself from these threads. You cannot possibly be objective regarding Target.

You're serious?

...and only non-Christians should discuss on threads with Christian-related subjects-- Christians can't possibly be objective and should recuse themselves.

Calm down. No official Freeper policy is being decided here, and I'm not trying to sell anyone anything.

I'm not claiming to be objective. Never have. What I'm claiming to have is a specific point-of-view, which frankly, you should welcome.

Heh. As I write this, I get an email from Target saying that all Holiday Trees and other decorations shall adhere to safety regulations, blah, blah... They're CHRISTMAS TREES, DAMMIT!

Sigh.

Trisexual - as in he'll try anything...

Polysexual - (parrot name for a trisexual), as in Poly Wanna Try A Sexual...

LIAMB - Lesbian In A Man's Body...

That article is hardly the reason for claiming that the Snopes couple are leftists. They defend their biases by saying that "true/false/indeterminate" depends on the framing statement.

They are still unwilling to call Hillary a liar for claiming that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Instead they slouch and say that perhaps her mother lied to the little girl Hillary.

Leave us not forget

WMD=walking mass of disease.

You're serious?

Oh yes, certainly.

...and only non-Christians should discuss on threads with Christian-related subjects-- Christians can't possibly be objective and should recuse themselves.

Hardly..."recuse" has a connotation to it you seem to be missing here, see bold below:

The Code of Ethics provides that public officials and employees must file a statement of conflict of interest, or recusal form, concerning matters where he or she may have a conflict of interest in the discharge of his or her official duties. A conflict of interest may exist if an official/employee can reasonably expect that his or her official conduct will directly result in a financial benefit to him/herself, family, business associates, employers, or businesses that the official represents. The conflict need not be certain to occur, but the probability must be greater than "conceivably".

You obviously have a financial incentive in the discussion on this thread. Thus you should recuse yourself from it.

Am I speaking partly tongue in cheek? Oh, yes, of course! This thread is not a legal proceeding.

But do I want others to realise you have a financial stake in this? Why, of course! Only then may they properly evaluate your numerous posts on these threads, and thus give them the weight, or lack thereof, they truly deserve.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp

Claims: Multiple — see below.

Status:
The Target Corporation does not contribute to veterans' causes: False.
The Target Corporation is French-owned: False.
The Target Corporation provides corporate grants only for 'gay and lesbian causes': False.
The Target Corporation does not contribute to the U.S. Marines 'Toys for Tots' program: False.
The Target Corporation does not allow reservists called to active duty to continue their health benefits: False.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002]

TARGET STORES DO NOT SUPPORT VETERANS!!!
Subject: Vietnam vets not worthy?

Vietnam Veterans Not Worthy Of Target's Help?
By Dick Forrey, Vietnam Veterans Association.

We asked our local Target store to be a sponsor of the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial Wall during our spring recognition event. We received back a reply from Target management that "veterans do not meet our area of giving. We only donate to the areas of arts, social actions and education."

My thought: If the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall and the Vietnam veteran himself, does not meet the criteria of these areas, something is wrong at Target. We were not asking for thousands of dollars, not even hundreds, but simply sponsorship endorsement for a "memorial remembrance".

As follow-up, I e-mailed the Corporate Headquarters and their response was the same. Personally, I will NOT be buying anything at Target Stores again. If the Vietnam Veteran does not meet their area of giving then why should I as a Vietnam veteran, spend my hard earned money in their stores?

Please pass this on to as many people as you know. Maybe Target and other businesses will get the message.

Origins: As
Strother Martin's character wryly commented in Cool Hand Luke, "What we've got here is failure to communicate."

Dick Forrey, a member of the Indiana-based Howard County Vietnam Veterans organization, penned the above message in March 2002 after failing to secure a $100 sponsorship for a travelling Vietnam Veterans' Memorial Wall exhibit from his local Target store. Mr. Forrey was rebuffed, because Target does not give out cash donations through local stores; they donate money only at the corporate level, and only through grants to organizations falling within their defined general areas of giving:

We want to clearly and completely apologize for any misunderstanding regarding Target's support of the Vietnam Wall and our corporate giving program. Giving back to the communities where our stores are located is something we're proud to do. In fact, nationwide, Target Corporation gives more than $2 million a week to the communities in which we serve.

In March of 2002, a veteran approached one of our stores seeking a $100 donation for a display of the "moving wall" in his area. Target does support events in the communities in which our stores are located. While each store determines which events to sponsor, any contribution is limited and is made in the form of a gift card. The stores are not able to give cash contributions to any organization. Stores are also able to donate volunteer hours to community events and projects.

Our corporate giving program that does incorporate cash donations is handled through a process called grants. Unfortunately, the veteran and his organization were not provided the proper information to facilitate consideration of a grant from either the store or our corporate office. The initial response of the team member at the store and the reply from our corporate office are inconsistent with the respectful manner in which we want all of our guests to be treated. We are truly sorry for this oversight and the resulting confusion that has taken place.

We accept all applications for grants from January 1 to September 30 of each calendar year. Any guest can request a grants application brochure at their local store, called "Grant Guidelines." Veterans programs may be considered for grants if the subject matter falls into one of our three general areas of giving: education, arts and family violence prevention.

Guests can also access a grant application at our web site.

This is certain: Target appreciates the dedication and service of all our veterans. Thank you again for your interest.

Sincerely,

Daniel Cleland
Group Team Leader
Guest Relations

Granted, Target deserves a small share of criticism for initially failing to explain their policies clearly to Mr. Forrey when he approached them, but the stance presented in the message quoted above — that a company which won't financially contribute to someone's pet project doesn't "support" whatever cause is being represented and should therefore be boycotted by all like-minded people — is a selfish one, and in this case a grossly unfair one. The Target Corporation donates a tremendous amount of money to charitable causes every year, and in both 2002 and 2003 they topped Forbes magazine's list of "America's Most Philanthropic Companies." Among the many organizations to which Target donates are veteran-related causes, including exhibits like the one for which Mr. Forrey was seeking a contribution:

In the Greater Cleveland area alone, Target has recently donated more than $95,000 to such worthwhile causes as the Museum of Art, the Rape Crisis Center, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, and the Cleveland Reads literacy program.

The company has been no less generous toward veterans. Not only did Target contribute to the World War II Memorial and sponsor the 2003 tour of "The Wall that Heals" — the same exhibit for which Forrey was soliciting donations — but it also donated to the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association in New York, the Hays County veterans in Texas, and the Disabled American Veterans Auxiliaries in Michigan and California.
As the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) noted on their website:

Although there has been a resurgence of patriotism and support for our nation’s veterans, there have been various messages posted on the Internet that would lead people to believe that corporate America, specifically retail department stores, are falling short in supporting our nation's veterans.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars would like to remind all that the Internet culture weaves rumors and misinformation. Simply put, don't believe everything you read. For example, an e-mail message urging veterans to boycott Target has been circulating on the Internet because a solicitation request to support "The Moving Wall" was denied.

Target has a long-held corporate policy regarding donations. And in all fairness, Target contributes more than $2 million weekly to charitable causes and is one of the corporate sponsors for the 2003 tour of the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial Fund's "The Wall That Heals." "The Wall That Heals" is a traveling Vietnam Veterans memorial and museum that has a strong educational component for schools and serves to honor all our veterans.
Dick Forrey, the man who started the anti-Target brouhaha, has since admitted his mistake:

I made a mistake on this one, and I've learned a hard lesson — that's for sure. What started out as a message for the members in our organization has turned into a hate-type thing. I never wanted to start any national boycott. I just wish it would all stop.

Some people have used my words and perpetuated lies. It's sad that some of these people would use veterans as a way to push their own political views. I've sent out a retraction, and no one pays any attention.
Since the antiTarget message first began to circulate, several other claims have been tacked onto it by those seeking to make Target look bad: that Target responds to charitable requests by stating they only support 'gay and lesbian causes,' that Target is French-owned, and that Target does not contribute to the Toys for Tots program sponsored by the U.S. Marine Corps, and that Target refused to allow reservist employees who had been activated to continue their health benefits:
Target's stated policy is that they provide grants at the corporate level for programs involving the arts, education, and family violence prevention, and donates at the local level to a variety of charitable causes. The line about Target's responding to inquiries by stating that they provide corporate grants only for 'gay and lesbian causes' is a falsity added to later versions of the message.

The Target Corporation (which now also includes the Mervyn's and Marshall Field's chains of department stores) is a publicly held U.S. firm which has been based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, since it began as the Dayton Dry Goods Company in 1902. Target is not now, nor has it ever been, foreign-owned.

Although Target stores do not directly participate in the in-store collection of toys for the Toys for Tots charity sponsored by the U.S. Marine Corps, the Target Corporation contributes to that charity by giving discounts to groups who buy toys for it, and through collecting toys at their chain of Marshall Field's stores, one of the National Corporate Sponsors of the Toys for Tots program.

Target Corporation has been recognized by the National Committee for Employer Support of the National Guard and Reserve (ESGR) as an "Outstanding Employer" which has "gone above and beyond the requirements of the law in support of their National Guard and Reserve employees." Target employees who are activated for military service and were participating in optional dependent coverage at the time of their deployment are eligible to continue these benefits if they so choose. Target Corporation also allows any Target team member to continue benefits as provided by the 1986 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA).
Last updated: 17 December 2003

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/207209.html

Snopes is not to be trusted:

Claim: John Kerry's Vietnam War service medals (a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts) were earned under "fishy" circumstances.

Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet 2004]

This was written by a retired admiral and Annapolis graduate. The item offers no direct testimony about Kerry, but it does provide informed background useful in assessing what Kerry seems to have claimed for himself. It confirms information I have received from other sources.

Our media should be demanding that Senator Kerry open his service records in the same way they demanded that of President Bush regarding his NG service.

I was in the Delta shortly after he [Kerry] left. I know that area well. I know the operations he was involved in well. I know the tactics and the doctrine used. I know the equipment. Although I was attached to CTF-116 (PBRs) I spent a fair amount of time with CTF-115 (swift boats), Kerry's command.

Here are my problems and suspicions:

(1) Kerry was in-country less than four months and collected, a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three purple hearts. I never heard of anybody with any outfit I worked with (including SEAL One, the Sea Wolves, Riverines and the River Patrol Force) collecting that much hardware so fast, and for such pedestrian actions. The Swifts did a commendable job. But that duty wasn't the worst you could draw. They operated only along the coast and in the major rivers (Bassac and Mekong). The rough stuff in the hot areas was mainly handled by the smaller, faster PBRs.

(2) Three Purple Hearts, but no limp. All injuries so minor that no time lost from duty. Amazing luck. Or he was putting himself in for medals every time he bumped his head on the wheel house hatch? Combat on the boats was almost always at close range. You didn't have minor wounds. At least not often. Not three times in a row. Then he used the three purple hearts to request a trip home eight months before the end of his tour. Fishy.

(3) The details of the event for which he was given the Silver Star make no sense at all. Supposedly, a B-40 was fired at the boat and missed. Charlie jumps up with the launcher in his hand, the bow gunner knocks him down with the twin .50, Kerry beaches the boat, jumps off, shoots Charlie, and retreives the launcher. If true, he did everything wrong.

(a) Standard procedure when you took rocket fire was to put your stern to the action and go balls to the wall. A B-40 has the ballistic integrity of a frisbie after about 25 yards, so you put 50 yards or so between you and the beach and begin raking it with your .50's.

(b) Did you ever see anybody get knocked down with a .50 caliber round and get up? The guy was dead or dying. The rocket launcher was empty. There was no reason to go after him (except if you knew he was no danger to you just flopping around in the dust during his last few seconds on earth, and you wanted some derring do in your after-action report). And we didn't shoot wounded people. We had rules against that, too.

(c) Kerry got off the boat. This was a major breach of standing procedures. Nobody on a boat crew ever got off a boat in a hot area. EVER! The reason was simple. If you had somebody on the beach your boat was defenseless. It coudn't run and it couldn't return fire. It was stupid and it put his crew in danger. He should have been relieved and reprimanded. I never heard of any boat crewman ever leaving a boat during or after a firefight.

Something is fishy.

Here we have a JFK wannabe (the guy Halsey wanted to court martial for carelessly losing his boat and getting a couple people killed by running across the bow of a Jap destroyer) who is hardly in Vietnam long enough to get good tan, collects medals faster than Audie Murphy in a job where lots of medals weren't common, gets sent home eight months early, requests separation from active duty a few months after that so he can run for Congress, finds out war heros don't sell well in Massachusetts in 1970 so reinvents himself as Jane Fonda, throws his ribbons in the dirt with the cameras running to jump start his political career, gets Stillborn Pell to invite him to address Congress and Bobby Kennedy's speechwriter to do the heavy lifting, winds up in the Senate himself a few years later, votes against every major defense bill, says the CIA is irrelevant after the Wall came down, votes against the Gulf War, a big mistake since that turned out well, decides not to make the same mistake twice so votes for invading Iraq, but oops, that didn't turn out so well so he now says he really didn't mean for Bush to go to war when he voted to allow him to go to war.

I'm real glad you or I never had this guy covering our flanks in Vietnam. I sure don't want him as Commander in Chief. I hope that somebody from CTF-115 shows up with some facts challenging Kerry's Vietnam record. I know in my gut it's wildy inflated. And fishy.

Origins: In

Vietnam, Lieutenant John Kerry served aboard 50-foot aluminum boats known as PCFs (from "patrol craft fast") or "Swift boats" (supposedly an acronym for "Shallow Water Inshore Fast Tactical Craft"). Despite the implications contained in the piece quoted above ("that duty wasn't the worst you could draw"), Swift boat duty was plenty dangerous:

. . . two weeks after [Kerry] arrived in Vietnam, the swift boat mission changed — and Kerry went from having one of the safest assignments in the escalating conflict to one of the most dangerous. Under the newly launched Operation SEALORD, swift boats were charged with patrolling the narrow waterways of the Mekong Delta to draw fire and smoke out the enemy. Cruising inlets and coves and canals, swift boats were especially vulnerable targets.

Originally designed to ferry oil workers to ocean rigs, swift boats offered flimsy protection. Because bullets could easily penetrate the hull, sailors hung flak jackets over the sides. The boat's loud engine invited ambushes. Speed was its saving grace — but that wasn't always an option in narrow, heavily mined canals.

The swift boat crew typically consisted of a college-educated skipper, such as Kerry, and five blue-collar sailors averaging 19 years old. The most vulnerable sailor sat in the "tub" — a squat nest that rose above the pilot house — and operated a pair of .50-caliber machine guns. Another gunner was in the rear. Kerry's mission was to wait until hidden Viet Cong guerrillas started shooting, then order his men to return fire.

It

was not at all unusual that a Swift boat crew member might be wounded more than once in a relatively short period of time, or that injuries meriting the award of a Purple Heart might not be serious enough to require time off from duty. According to a Boston Globe overview of John Kerry's Vietnam experience:

Under [Navy Admiral Elmo] Zumwalt's command, swift boats would aggressively engage the enemy. Zumwalt, who died in 2000, calculated in his autobiography that these men under his command had a 75 percent chance of being killed or wounded during a typical year.

"There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts — from shrapnel, some of those might have been M-40 grenades," said George Elliott, Kerry's commanding officer. "The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes. Kerry, he had three Purple Hearts. None of them took him off duty. Not to belittle it, that was more the rule than the exception."

And according to Douglas Brinkley's history of John Kerry and the Vietnam War:

As generally understood, the Purple Heart is given to any U.S. citizen wounded in wartime service to the nation. Giving out Purple Hearts increased as the United States started sending Swifts up rivers. Sailors — no longer safe on aircraft carriers or battleships in the Gulf of Tonkin — were starting to bleed, a lot.

John Kerry was wounded in his first significant combat action, when he volunteered for a special mission on 2 December 1968:

"It was a half-assed action that hardly qualfied as combat, but it was my first, and that made it very exciting," [Kerry said]. "Three of us, two enlisted men and myself, had stayed up all night in a Boston Whaler [a foam-filled-fiberglass boat] patrolling the shore off a Viet Cong-infested peninsula north of Cam Ranh . . . Most of the night had been spent being scared shitless by fisherman whom we would suddenly creep up on in the darkness. Once, one of the sailors was so startled by two men who surprised us as we came around a corner ten yards from the shore that he actually pulled the trigger on his machine gun. Fortunately for the two men, he had forgotten to switch off the safety . . ."

As it turned out, the two men really were just a pair of innocent fisherman who didn't know where one zone began and the other ended. Their papers were perfectly in order, if their night's fishing over. The fear was that they were VC. Allowing them to continue might have compromised the mission. For the next four hours Kerry's Boston Whaler, using paddles, brought boatloads of fisherman they found in sampans, all operating in a curfew zone, back to the Swift. It was tiring work. "We deposited them with the Swift boat that remained out in the deep water to give us cover," Kerry continued. "Then, very early in the morning, around 2:00 or 3:00, while it was still dark, we proceeded up the tiny inlet between the island and the peninsula to the point designated as our objective. The jungle closed in on us on both sides. It was scary as hell. You could hear yourself breathing. We were almost touching the shore. Suddenly, through the magnified moonlight of the infrared 'starlight scope,' I watched, mesmerized, as a group of sampans glided in toward the shore. We had been briefed that this was a favorite crossing area for VC trafficking contraband."

With its motor turned off, Kerry paddled the Boston Whaler out of the inlet into the beginning of the bay. Simultaneously the Vietnamese pulled their sampans up onto the beach and began to unload something; he couldn't tell what, so he decided to illuminate the proceedings with a flare. The entire sky seemed to explode into daylight. The men from the sampans bolted erect, stiff with shock for only an instant before they sprang for cover like a herd of panicked gazelles Kerry had once seen on TV's Wild Kingdom. "We opened fire," he went on. "The light from the flares started to fade, the air was full of explosions. My M-16 jammed, and as I bent down in the boat to grab another gun, a stinging piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell. By this time one of the sailors had started the engine and we ran by the beach, strafing it. Then it was quiet.

"We stayed quiet and low because we did not want to illuminate ourselves at that point," Kerry explained. "In the dead of night, without any knowledge of what kind of force was there, we were not all about to go crawling on the beach to get our asses shot off. We were unprotected; we didn't have ammunition, we didn't have cover, we just weren't prepared for that . . . So we first shot the sampans so that they were destroyed and whatever was in them was destroyed." Then their cover boat warned of a possible VC ambush in the small channel they had to exit through, and Kerry and company departed the area.

The "stinging piece of heat" Kerry felt in his arm had been caused by a piece of shrapnel, a wound for which he was awarded a Purple Heart. The injury was not serious — Brinkley notes that Kerry went on a regular Swift boat patrol the next day with a bandage on his arm, and the Boston Globe quoted William Schachte, who oversaw the mission and went on to become a rear admiral, as recalling that "It was not a very serious wound at all."

Kerry earned his second Purple Heart while returning from a PCF mission up the Bo De River on 20 February 1969:

One of the mission's support helicopters had been hit by small-arms fire during the trip up the Bo De and the rest had returned with it to their base to refuel and get the damage inspected. While there the pilots found that they wouldn't be able to return to the Swifts for several more hours. "We therefore had a choice: to wait for what was not a confirmed return by the helos [and] give any snipers more time to set up an ambush for our exit or we could take a chance and exit immediately without any cover," Kerry recorded in his notebook. "We chose the latter."

Just as they moved out onto the Cua Lon, at a junction known for unfriendliness in the past, kaboom! PCF-94 had taken a rocket-propelled grenade round off the port side, fired at them from the far left bank. Kerry felt a piece of hot shrapnel bore into his left leg. With blood running down the deck, the Swift managed to make an otherwise uneventful exit into the Gulf of Thailand, where they rendezvoused with a Coast Guard cutter. The injury Kerry suffered in that action earned his his second Purple Heart.

Brinkley noted that, as in the previous case, "Kerry's wound was not serious enough to require time off from duty."

Kerry earned his Silver Star on 28 February 1969, when he beached his craft and jumped off it with an M-16 rifle in hand to chase and shoot a guerrilla who was running into position to launch a B-40 rocket at Kerry's boat. Contrary to the account quoted above, Kerry did not shoot a "Charlie" who had "fired at the boat and missed," whose "rocket launcher was empty," and who was "already dead or dying" after being "knocked down with a .50 caliber round." Kerry's boat had been hit by a rocket fired by someone else — the guerrilla in question was still armed with a live B-40 and had only been clipped in the leg; when the guerrilla got up to run, Kerry assumed he was getting into position to launch a rocket and shot him:

On Feb. 28, 1969, Kerry's boat received word that a swift boat was being ambushed. As Kerry raced to the scene, his boat became another target, as a Viet Cong B-40 rocket blast shattered a window. Kerry could have ordered his crew to hit the enemy and run. But the skipper had a more aggressive reaction in mind. Beach the boat, Kerry ordered, and the craft's bow was quickly rammed upon the shoreline. Out of the bush appeared a teenager in a loin cloth, clutching a grenade launcher.

An enemy was just feet away, holding a weapon with enough firepower to blow up the boat. Kerry's forward gunner, [Tommy] Belodeau, shot and clipped the Viet Cong in the leg. Then Belodeau's gun jammed, according to other crewmates (Belodeau died in 1997). [Michael] Medeiros tried to fire at the Viet Cong, but he couldn't get a shot off.

In an interview, Kerry added a chilling detail.

"This guy could have dispatched us in a second, but for . . . I'll never be able to explain, we were literally face to face, he with his B-40 rocket and us in our boat, and he didn't pull the trigger. I would not be here today talking to you if he had," Kerry recalled. "And Tommy clipped him, and he started going [down.] I thought it was over."

Instead, the guerrilla got up and started running. "We've got to get him, make sure he doesn't get behind the hut, and then we're in trouble," Kerry recalled.

So Kerry shot and killed the guerrilla. "I don't have a second's question about that, nor does anybody who was with me," he said. "He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." Asked whether that meant Kerry shot the guerrilla in the back, Kerry said, "No, absolutely not. He was hurt, other guys were shooting from back, side, back. There is no, there is not a scintilla of question in any person's mind who was there [that] this guy was dangerous, he was a combatant, he had an armed weapon."

Another member of the crew confirmed Kerry's account for the Boston Globe and expressed no doubt that Kerry's action had saved both the boat and its crew:

The crewman with the best view of the action was Frederic Short, the man in the tub operating the twin guns. Short had not talked to Kerry for 34 years, until after he was recently contacted by a Globe reporter. Kerry said he had "totally forgotten" Short was on board that day.

Short had joined Kerry's crew just two weeks earlier, as a last-minute replacement, and he was as green as the Arkansas grass of his home. He said he didn't realize that he should have carried an M-16 rifle, figuring the tub's machine guns would be enough. But as Kerry stood face to face with the guerrilla carrying the rocket, Short realized his predicament. With the boat beached and the bow tilted up, a guard rail prevented him from taking aim at the enemy. For a terrifying moment, the guerrilla looked straight at Short with the rocket.

Short believes the guerrilla didn't fire because he was too close and needed to be a suitable distance to hit the boat squarely and avoid ricochet debris. Short tried to protect his skipper.

"I laid in fire with the twin .50s, and he got behind a hootch," recalled Short. "I laid 50 rounds in there, and Mr. Kerry went in. Rounds were coming everywhere. We were getting fire from both sides of the river. It was a canal. We were receiving fire from the opposite bank, also, and there was no way I could bring my guns to bear on that."

Short said there is "no doubt" that Kerry saved the boat and crew. "That was a him-or-us thing, that was a loaded weapon with a shape charge on it . . . It could pierce a tank. I wouldn't have been here talking to you. I probably prayed more up that creek than a Southern Baptist church does in a month."

Charles Gibson, who served on Kerry's boat that day because he was on a one-week indoctrination course, said Kerry's action was dangerous but necessary. "Every day you wake up and say, 'How the hell did we get out of that alive?'" Gibson said. "Kerry was a good leader. He knew what he was doing."

Although Kerry's superiors were somewhat concerned about the issue of his leaving his boat unattended, they nonetheless found his actions courageous and worthy of commendation:

When Kerry returned to his base, his commanding officer, George Elliott, raised an issue with Kerry: the fine line between whether the action merited a medal or a court-martial.

"When [Kerry] came back from the well-publicized action where he beached his boat in middle of ambush and chased a VC around a hootch and ended his life, when [Kerry] came back and I heard his debrief, I said, 'John, I don't know whether you should be court-martialed or given a medal, court-martialed for leaving your ship, your post,'" Elliott recalled in an interview.

"But I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that," Elliott said. A Silver Star, which the Navy said is its fifth-highest medal, commends distinctive gallantry in action.

Asked why he had raised the issue of a court-martial, Elliott said he did so "half tongue-in-cheek, because there was never any question I wanted him to realize I didn't want him to leave his boat unattended. That was in context of big-ship Navy — my background. A C.O. [commanding officer] never leaves his ship in battle or anything else. I realize this, first of all, it was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there. On the other hand, on an operation some time later, down on the very tip of the peninsula, we had lost one boat and several men in a big operation, and they were hit by a lot more than two or three people."

Elliott stressed that he never questioned Kerry's decision to kill the Viet Cong, and he appeared in Boston at Kerry's side during the 1996 Senate race to back up that aspect of Kerry's action.

"I don't think they were exactly ready to court-martial him," said Wade Sanders, who commanded a swift boat that sometimes accompanied Kerry's vessel, and who later became deputy assistant secretary of the Navy. "I can only say from the certainty borne of experience that there must have been some rumbling about, 'What are we going to do with this guy, he turned his boat,' and I can hear the words, 'He endangered his crew.' But from our position, the tactic to take is whatever action is best designed to eliminate the enemy threat, which is what he did."

Indeed, the Silver Star citation makes clear that Kerry's performance on that day was both extraordinary and risky. "With utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets," the citation says, Kerry "again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only 10 feet from the Viet Cong rocket position and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy . . . The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lt. Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission."

Kerry was injured yet again on 13 March 1969, in an action for which he was awarded both a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. According to Kerry's Bronze Star citation (signed by Admiral Zumwalt himself):

Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as an Officer-in-Charge of Inshore Patrol Craft 94, one of five boats conducting a Sealords operation in the Bay Hap River. While exiting the river, a mine detonated under another Inshore Patrol Craft and almost simultaneously, another mine detonated wounding Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in the right arm. In addition, all units began receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry discovered he had a man overboard, he returned upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both banks. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain and with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return to and assist the other damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

According to the Boston Globe, this was the only one of Kerry's three Purple Heart injuries that caused him to miss any days of service:

Kerry had been wounded three times and received three Purple Hearts. Asked about the severity of the wounds, Kerry said that one of them cost him about two days of service, and that the other two did not interrupt his duty. "Walking wounded," as Kerry put it. A shrapnel wound in his left arm gave Kerry pain for years. Kerry declined a request from the Globe to sign a waiver authorizing the release of military documents that are covered under the Privacy Act and that might shed more light on the extent of the treatment Kerry needed as a result of the wounds.

Back in 1969, Navy regulations specified that any soldier wounded in combat three times be automatically reassigned away from a combat zone to an assignment of his choosing (unless the thrice-wounded soldier specifically requested to stay). Four days after Kerry took his third hit of shrapnel, Commodore Charles F. Horne, an administrative official and commander of the coastal squadron in which Kerry served, forwarded a request on Kerry's behalf to the Navy Bureau of Personnel asking that Kerry be reassigned to "duty as a personal aide in Boston, New York, or Washington, D.C." Soon afterwards Kerry was transferred to Cam Ranh Bay to await further orders, and within a month he had been reassigned as a personal aide and flag lieutenant to Rear Admiral Walter F. Schlech, Jr. with the Military Sea Transportation Service based in Brooklyn, New York.

Kerry served with Admiral Schlech until the end of 1969, when he requested an early discharge from the Navy in order to run for a Massachusetts congressional seat. Admiral Schlech approved the request, and on 3 January 1970 Kerry received an honorable discharge, six months early.

Last updated: 19 February 2004

WMD=walking mass of disease

I know men who rule out dating certain women if they can play "six degrees of separation" between that woman and a certain bartender.

I mean no disrespect, but I honestly don't have the time to take multiple reading assignments from you. I like snopes and have used it many times in order to avoid looking like a fool by forwarding the latest e-mail nonsense to everyone I know. I seriously doubt that I agree with them on everything, as I also doubt that I agree with you on everything. It's really not a big deal to me. Apparently it is to you. I admire your persistence, and I sincerely wish God's blessings on you and your family this Christmas.

I recognize the dilemma that Target is in, and I really can't bring myself to blame them for the decision they've made.

This is precisely what is wrong with the American male. The younger generation has become too sensitized to the pain of others. It's considered the mark of an enlightened mind to see the good in everyone regardless of their actions and those who see the world in black and white are labeled boorish neanderthals.

You say you can't blame Target's management for the decisions they've made, but who gets the blame at your house when you make a bad decision? Or do you try to avoid responsibility? Your homepage says you have a young son. My wife and I have raised three sons and let me tell you they watch you like a hawk. If they see that daddy is something of a chameleon when it comes to questions of character and morality, then chances are that the child will grow to be just the same.

Being dogmatic about something when you know it is right is not a sign of ignorance as so many in the world today would tell you.

For more on Snopes' questionable and repeated spinning re Kerry, go to http://www.snopes.com/ and simply search "Kerry."

I no longer trust anything at Snopes.

bump

It is sad to see that too many are all too quick to accept Snopes as the final answer these days. As the example I showed WITH THE TARGET messages, they will distort and claim "untrue" to much more complicated matters.

Target did deny the man's request. The people at Target told him that Veterans were entirely unsuitable for their charity (meaning that it would be unlikely for him to get approved on a local level). Snopes claimed that the man made a "mistake" in ever bringing up the matter. And the only time that Target gave to the charity was AFTER THE FACT (and they have continued to do so).

Squeaky wheel gets the grease. If he hadn't bitched about the treatment he personally received from Target (it was not a "rumor"), the Veterans' wall project may still not have received a dime (it is hard to say in the absence of any negative press).

A recent episode of 'Smallville' did a real serious 're-write' on Mxyzptlk a few weeks back.

I don't know if I've seen any episodes of that series.

I saw one Superboy series that had young Clark fighting witches and demons for what seemed like every episode because of the "suspense" involved since Superman's not invulnerable to the "occult".

Sounds like a ripoff of the audience for Buffy The Vampire Slayer and similar shows or an unimaginative screenwriter staff. "Let's get this guy who is invulnerable to everything except Kryptonite and magic and put him up against those two things every week."

Maybe my recall is wrong. There are some series that you only ever catch a couple episodes of but every time you try to give them another sample, you catch the episode you've seen before (that didn't do it for you).

Since Egon is self-identified as having a "Target bias," I see no need to lecture him about the morality of recusing himself from the debate -- unless, of course, you or others need to have a "managed debate."

You need to check into www.johntaylorgatto.com and see what he thinks about what's wrong with this country (and not just in the so-called education arena).

I saw one Superboy series that had young Clark fighting witches and demons for what seemed like every episode because of the "suspense" involved since Superman's not invulnerable to the "occult".

That sounds like the old "FOX" series that ran in the late 80's. "Smallville" currently runs on the WB network...no costume, but lots of comic tie-ins for geek fan boys. (Recently used the Bart Allen "Impulse" character as the "Flash"...'Smallville' has featured younger versions of Perry White and Lois Lane. Krypto is coming up in a few weeks. Mikhail Mxyzptlk was an exchange student who was able to control the laws of probability. Fun show.)

I am not going to boycott Target because they do so many good things for St Judes Children's Hospital and other charities.
They employ Americans at their stores and to boycott would have an adverse effect on their sales and could result in firing honest employees that need a job.
Target pays taxes and contributes a per cent of their online sales back into charities.
NO way I would ever boycott them.

This is precisely what is wrong with the American male. The younger generation has become too sensitized to the pain of others.

Yeah, how horrible, people with empathy. Real men laugh at the misery of others, right O.C.?