Kerry's wounds

[siceone]

WASHINGTON – Two of John Kerry's Purple Hearts were for self-inflicted wounds, charges a new book by two of the presidential candidate's Vietnam comrades.

In "Unfit for Command," scheduled for release Aug. 15, John O'Neill, who took over Kerry's swift-boat command, and his co-author Jerome Corsi say two of Kerry's three Purple Heart decorations resulted from self-inflicted wounds, not suffered under enemy fire, according to the DrudgeReport.

All three of Kerry's Purple Hearts were for minor injuries, not requiring a single hour of hospitalization, as O'Neill has previously explained.

The book reportedly relates how Kerry turned the tragic death of a father and small child in a Vietnamese fishing boat into an act of "heroism" by filing a false report on the incident.

SPONSORED LINKS

The New York Times - as Low as $2.90

Get world-class reporting and coverage you can't find anywhere else of local, national and world news for as little as $2.90 a week with The New York Times. Get started now.

www.nytimes.com/sb-subscription

Magazine Subscriptions at Great Prices

Stay informed with one of over 1500 discount magazine subscriptions offered by Discount Magazine Publications. From world news to fashion, we have what you need to stay current in today's trends.

www.shopmags.com

During the Vietnam War, a searing image in the anti-war movement was one of American GIs torching huts with cigarette lighters. It turns out, according to "Unfit for Command," that Kerry did just that – entering an abandoned Vietnamese village, slaughtering domestic animals and burning down their homes with his Zippo lighter.

As O'Neill has reported on Joseph Farah's WorldNetDaily Radioactive in several appearances recently, it was Kerry's reckless behavior that convinced his colleagues he had to go – becoming the only Swift Boat veteran to serve just four months.

O'Neill tells of a joke circulated among his colleagues that Kerry "left Vietnam early not because he received three Purple Hearts, but because he had recorded enough film of himself to take home for his planned political campaigns."

The book charges "Kerry would revisit ambush locations for re-enacting combat scenes where he would portray the hero."

Kerry ended up playing some of that film at the Democratic National Convention last week.

O'Neill, an attorney, is spokesman for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a coalition of more than 200 vets familiar with Kerry's service who oppose his candidacy for president based on their judgment of his character. As WorldNetDaily reported, O'Neill's organization stated last month Kerry was a "loose cannon" in Vietnam and is unfit to be commander in chief.

Most of the veterans in this 1969 photo don't want John Kerry to use it in his presidential campaign.

The group includes the entire chain of command above Kerry during his tenure in Southeast Asia, as well as enlisted men.

The group has called on Kerry to stop unauthorized use of their images in national campaign advertising.

Only two of 20 officers in one photo Kerry has used support him, they say.

[BRIANC1046]

a purple heart is only given to someone who is wounded by "an instrument of war in the hands of the enemy" as taken directly from purpleheart.org ..

questioning the credibility of John Kerry's purple heart involves questioning the US Army not John Kerry.. The U.S army awarded it to him.. He was the skipper of a swift boat, one of the most dangerous positions a soldier could have in Vietnam.. and he got wounded.. three different times.. One of the hearts involved a mine detonating on his boat, wounding his right arm, while guerrillas started firing from bushes on the shoreline..

You can question the extent of his wounds and even take away the purple heart.. but.. the simple fact is the man is brave.. he risked his own life for our country, while George W. was out getting wasted..

[sobeton]

good Read from a Vet posted on John Kerry's site. the writer obviously favors Kerry, however it is what he says which I found rather intriguing.

Having read the companion articles "Vietnam complexities resurface with Kerry" and "Records detail heroic actions" in the April 22, 2004 edition of the Albany, New York Times Union, I have to wonder exactly who these un-named "conservatives" are that the Times Union cites as having some as-yet undefined authority to question the "validity" of John Kerry's Purple Hearts because, in their opinion, his wounds were not serious enough to merit the award of a Purple Heart because he didn't go to the hospital. Based on such outlandish statements as these, as a combat veteran from the Viet Nam conflict with two Purple Hearts, I have to wonder at their knowledge of much of anything at all, and especially heroism while under hostile fire, as though right in the heat of combat, when one is wounded, all of a sudden everything stops, and one is whisked away from the field of battle by angels to a modern surgical hospital where doctors and nurses are just standing around waiting for the opportunity to treat the one who has just been wounded. I was wounded in the back of the head and neck by RPG-7 fragments in Viet Nam in March of 1969, for which I was awarded the Purple Heart, and I never went to the hospital. Instead, I was simply left for dead. My best friend Steve Belsley was also awarded the Purple Heart, and he never went to the hospital, either. Instead, he bled to death of his wounds while the rest of us could nothing to save him, and the fire fight went on and on and on. That is the way things really work in combat, but then, not many would actually know that from first-hand experience, since out of every twelve or more veterans who actually even set foot in Viet Nam, only a fraction or even one of that twelve was ever outside a base camp barbed wire in real hostile territory and further experienced the actual face-to-face combat required to produce wounds such as John Kerry suffered, and where acts of heroism such as those exhibited by John Kerry in Viet Nam were performed. John Kerry was wounded in combat. That is where the matter begins and ends. He was not injured in a fracas at the Officer's Club or while shaving or reading magazines at a National Guard base in Alabama; he was outside the wire in a combat zone, and he was doing his job honorably when wounded. For that, he is eligible for the Purple Heart, at least according to the regulations governing such awards in Viet Nam that I am aware of, and being a bit of a conservative myself, it is those regulations which govern in this matter of John Kerry's integrity under hostile fire in Viet Nam, and not the opinions of these so-called no-name "conservatives" in the Times Union who are apparently afraid to put their own names and war records in print as individuals in order to lend some support and credibility to their collective criticism of the award of the Silver Star and Purple Hearts to John Kerry. If the policy in force in the Navy at that time was that one went home after three Purple Hearts from wounds suffered in actual combat, then John Kerry deserved to come home. That is again where the matter begins and ends, and there is no debate on the subject unless, of course, these so-called no-name "conservatives" can make a demonstration with some credible evidence that the actual Navy policy on awards of the Purple Heart in effect at that time required some proof of degree of s*****ty of wounds accompanied by actual hospital time. Absent such evidence, of course, the opinions of these so-called "conservatives" concerning John Kerry's entitlements to the Silver Star and Purple Hearts can be dismissed out-of-hand as plain old sour grapes, jealousy and un-patriotic meanness of spirit. Any discussion among these so-called "conservatives" as to whether John Kerry's wounds were the worst there ever was, or the least there ever was, in their alleged knowing opinion, to warrant his coming home after being wounded in combat three times is simply absurd on its face, and it is indeed surprising that an alleged mainstream newspaper like the Times Union, a Hearst publication, would even deign to give any ink or space in print to these patently absurd maunderings by these un-named, so-called "conservatives". So too, with John Kerry's right to protest the war when he came home. Who better to speak out against that war than one who actually saw some of it first-hand. Of all these "conservatives" who decry John Kerry's use of his First Amendments right to speak freely on topics of his choice once he returned from Viet Nam, I wonder if any of these knows from first-hand experience what a "free-fire" zone really was in Viet Nam, and why John Kerry was so right to speak out against that policy and practice by our forces and government during the Viet Nam conflict. Given that we did not prevail in that conflict, and given that precious few Americans were ever outside the wire and actually on the ground to witness that war first-hand and thus bring its real lessons home, one can argue with more than a little persuasion that it would have been much wiser for Congress and the Senate at that time to be listening to the word of a John Kerry, who had just returned from Viet Nam, rather than the uninformed opinions of these no-name "conservatives" in the pages of the Albany Times Union who would have us all believe that John Kerry's achievements in actual combat in Viet Nam on behalf of this country and in defense of its Constitution, are now somehow less than honorable because he has dared to challenge George W. Bush for the presidency of this Great Nation, or simply because he is not a Republican. What absolute hogwash, but of course, that is just one more combat veteran's opinion, and what do we really know of such things, after all? Sincerely, Paul R. Plante RVN "69

[mrmatas2277]

a purple heart is only given to someone who is wounded by "an instrument of war in the hands of the enemy" as taken directly from purpleheart.org ..

that is not necessarily true though...my father almost got a purple heart b/c he had the flu in Vietnam ...and it is much in the realm of possibility that he (Kerry) could have inflicted wounds on himself, this DID happen many times in Vietnam, just so the soldier could be sent to a field hospital for evaluation...

[sobeton]

Editor's Note: The following criteria governs award of the Purple Heart in ALL branches of service, not just the United States Army. The text here is taken directly from AR 600-8-22, 25 February 1995 and Public Law 104-106 - Feb. 10, 1996

(sub-paragraphs have been indented to ease reading)

AR 600-8-22 / 25 February 1995

SEC. 571. PURPLE HEART TO BE AWARDED ONLY TO MEMBERS OF

THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL.--(1) Chapter 57 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

"§ 1131. Purple Heart: limitation to members of the armed forces

"The decoration known as the Purple Heart (authorized to be awarded pursuant to Executive Order 11016) may only be awarded to a person who is a member of the armed forces at the time the person is killed or wounded under circumstances otherwise qualifying that person for award of the Purple Heart.".

(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

"1131. Purple Heart: limitation to members of the armed forces.".

( EFFECTIVE DATE.--Section 1131 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to persons who are killed or wounded after the end of the 180-day period beginning on (18 Nov 1997) the date of the enactment of this Act.

2-8. Purple Heart

The Purple Heart was established by General George Washington, at Newburgh, New York, on 7 August 1782, during the Revolutionary War. It was reestablished by the President of the United States per War Department General Orders 3, 1932 and is currently awarded pursuant to Executive Order 11016, 25 April 1962, Executive Order 12464, 23 February 1984 and Public Law 98-525, 19 October 1984.

a. The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force or any civilian national of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded

(1) In any action against an enemy of the United States.

(2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged.

(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

(4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces.

(S) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force.

(6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed Services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack.

(7) After 28 March 1973, as a result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.

b. While clearly an individual decoration, the Purple Heart differs from all other decorations in that an individual is not "recommended" for the decoration; rather he or she is entitled to it upon meeting specific criteria.

(1) A Purple Heart is authorized for the first wound suffered under conditions indicated above, but for each subsequent award an Oak Leaf Cluster will be awarded to be worn on the medal or ribbon. Not more than one award will be made for more than one wound or injury received at the same instant or from the same missile, force, explosion, or agent.

(2) 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.

(3) When contemplating an award of this decoration, the key issue that commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused the injury. The fact that the proposed recipient was participating in direct or indirect combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but is not sole justification for award.

(4) Examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

(a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action.

( Injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap.

© Injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological or nuclear agent.

(d) Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire.

(e) Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions.

(5) Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

(a) Frostbite or trench foot injuries.

( Heat stroke.

© Food poisoning not caused by enemy agents.

(d) Chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy.

(e) Battle fatigue.

(f) Disease not directly caused by enemy agents.

(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.

(i) Post traumatic stress disorders.

(j) Jump injuries not caused by enemy action.

(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) In case such as an individual injured while making a parachute landing from an aircraft that had been brought down enemy fire; or, an individual injured as a result of a vehicle accident caused by enemy fire, the decision will be made in favor of the individual and the award will be made.

( Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the 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.

© Individuals injured as a result of their own negligence; for example, driving or walking through an unauthorized area known to have been mined or placed off limits or searching for or picking up unexploded munitions as war souvenirs, will not be awarded the Purple Heart as they clearly were not injured as a result of enemy action, but rather by their own negligence.

c. A Purple Heart will be issued to the next of kin of each person entitled to a posthumous award. Issue will be made automatically by the Commanding General, PERSCOM, upon receiving a report of death indicating entitlement.

d. Upon written application to Commander, ARPERCEN, ATIN.- DAR-P-VSEA, 9700 Page Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63132-5200, award may be made to any member of the Army, who during World War 1, was awarded a Meritorious Service Citation Certificate signed by the Commander in Chief, American Expeditionary Forces, or who was authorized to wear wound chevrons. Posthumous awards to personnel who were killed or died of wounds after 5 April 1917 will be made to the appropriate next of kin upon application to the Commanding General, PERSCOM.

e. Any member of the Army who was awarded the Purple Heart for meritorious achievement or service, as opposed to wounds received in action, between 7 December 1941 and 22 September 1943, may apply for award of an appropriate decoration instead of the Purple Heart.

f. For those who became Prisoners of War after 25 April 1962, the Purple Heart will be awarded to individuals wounded while prisoners of foreign forces, upon submission by the individual to the Department of the U.S. Army of an affidavit that is supported by a statement from a witness, if this is possible. Documentation and inquiries Should be directed to Commander, PERSCOM, ATTN: TAPCPDA, Alexandria, VA 22332-0471.

g. Any member of the U.S. Army who believes that he or she is eligible for the Purple Heart, but through unusual circumstances no award was made, may submit an application through military channels, to Commander, PERSCOM, ATTN: TAPC-PDA, Alexandria, VA 22332-0471. Application will include complete documentation, to include evidence of medical treatment, pertaining to the wound.

PUBLIC LAW 104-106 - FEB. 10, 1996

SEC. 621. AWARD OF PURPLE HEART TO PERSONS WOUNDED WHILE HELD AS PRISONERS OF WAR BEFORE APRIL 2G, 1962.

(a) AWARD OF PURPLE HEART.—For purposes of the award of the Purple Heart, the Secretary concerned (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code) shall treat a former prisoner of war who was wounded before April 25, 1962, while held as a prisoner of war (or while being taken captive) in the same manner as a former prisoner of war who is wounded on or after that date while held as a prisoner of war (or while being taken captive).

( STANDARDS FOR AWARD.—An award of the Purple Heart under subsection (a) shall be made in accordance with the standards in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act for the award of the Purple Heart to persons wounded on or after April 25, 1962.

© ELIGIBLE FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR.—A person shall be considered to be a former prisoner of war for purposes of this section if the person is eligible for the prisoner-of-war meda1 under section 1128 of title 10, United States Code.

[sobeton]

if the wounds where self -inflicted, and there is no proof of the same it calls for pure speculation. which I’m sure is the intent of "Unfit for Command", fortunately, I doubt anyone with a shred of common sense would equate this book as anything more then election year nonsense. with the intent to gain free publicity, and discredit someone without providing any type of evidence. IMO the implications sound desperate, pathetic, and should be an insult to anyone who has fought for this country.

[mrmatas2277]

yea but tony, there are countless testimonies of soldiers in Vietnam infliciting injuries to themselves...hell there are also many incidents of soldiers killing other soldiers during the heat of battle ("Fragging them" aka throwing a grenade near them)...like i said, self inflicted wounds by Kerry is well within the realm of possibility...i really dont care one way or the other...but that it DOES happen and DID happen countless times in Vietnam is undeniable...but i def. agree that is book is "political", its obvious...if u run to the Presidency i guess this is the price u have to pay, sad....

[sobeton]

Jesse,

I understand that. in fact the writer of one the posts I put up states that. my dad also told me about things that happen on the battlefield; which where pretty shocking to me. what I’m saying is if there is no proof, then it is pure speculation. which means basically, you can call into question anyone’s purple heart.

both Bush and Kerry served their country honorably. people need to put this nonsense to bed, and focus on other issues which are far more important.

[mrmatas2277]

people need to put this nonsense to bed, and focus on other issues which are far more important.

AMEN....

[igloo]

if the wounds where self -inflicted, and there is no proof of the same it calls for pure speculation. which I’m sure is the intent of "Unfit for Command", fortunately, I doubt anyone with a shred of common sense would equate this book as anything more then election year nonsense. with the intent to gain free publicity, and discredit someone without providing any type of evidence. IMO the implications sound desperate, pathetic, and should be an insult to anyone who has fought for this country.

"Speculation" and "Election year nonsense"...interesting selection of words and phrases.........would you apply to the other side.....funny how Bush haters like to selectively use that, and tend to ignore facts and instead apply conspiracy theories and reckless speculation to everything Bush does...and take the word of those as gospel who make a career out of doing just that

Like I have said, if Kerry wants to answer every question with "three purple hearts" and stand on is Vietnam service, he can't simply ignore or expect others to ignore what happened afterwards...

You mention also that .."should be an insult to anyone who has fought for this country"........did you ever stop to think that to some, what Kerry is doing or has done in the past is "an insult to those who fought for their country"..

"Perhaps some are insulted by what he said: "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, (blew) up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam ... "

Here is what some have said:

Lieutenant Commander George Elliot: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Ensign Al French: "He's lying about his record."

Lewis Letson, lieutenant commander, medical center: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury."

Gunner's mate Van Odell: "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. I know. I was there. I saw what happened."

Lt. Jack Chenoweth: "His account of what happened and what actually happened is the difference between night and day."

Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman: "John Kerry has not been honest."

Cmdr. Adrian Lonsdale: "He lacks the capacity to lead."

Lt. Larry Thurlow: "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry."

Lt. Bob Elder: "John Kerry is no war hero."

Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard: "He betrayed all his shipmates. He lied before the Senate."

Lt. Shelton White: "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam."

Gunner's mate Joe Ponder: "He dishonored his country, he most certainly did."

Lt. Bob Hildreth: "I served with John Kerry. John Kerry cannot be trusted."

I don't like teh fact that someone who volunteered to serve his country gets attacked, but he also can;t have it both ways....

BTW--is the media and the Dems done "speculating" about Bush's National Guard dental records yet?....

[sobeton]

"Speculation" and "Election year nonsense"...interesting selection of words and phrases.........would you apply to the other side.....funny how Bush haters like to selectively use that, and tend to ignore facts and instead apply conspiracy theories and reckless speculation to everything Bush does...and take the word of those as gospel who make a career out of doing just that

Like I have said, if Kerry wants to answer every question with "three purple hearts" and stand on is Vietnam service, he can't simply ignore or expect others to ignore what happened afterwards...

You mention also that .."should be an insult to anyone who has fought for this country"........did you ever stop to think that to some, what Kerry is doing or has done in the past is "an insult to those who fought for their country"..

"Perhaps some are insulted by what he said: "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, (blew) up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam ... "

Here is what some have said:

Lieutenant Commander George Elliot: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Ensign Al French: "He's lying about his record."

Lewis Letson, lieutenant commander, medical center: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury."

Gunner's mate Van Odell: "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. I know. I was there. I saw what happened."

Lt. Jack Chenoweth: "His account of what happened and what actually happened is the difference between night and day."

Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman: "John Kerry has not been honest."

Cmdr. Adrian Lonsdale: "He lacks the capacity to lead."

Lt. Larry Thurlow: "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry."

Lt. Bob Elder: "John Kerry is no war hero."

Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard: "He betrayed all his shipmates. He lied before the Senate."

Lt. Shelton White: "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam."

Gunner's mate Joe Ponder: "He dishonored his country, he most certainly did."

Lt. Bob Hildreth: "I served with John Kerry. John Kerry cannot be trusted."

I don't like teh fact that someone who volunteered to serve his country gets attacked, but he also can;t have it both ways....

BTW--is the media and the Dems done "speculating" about Bush's National Guard dental records yet?....

as I stated it is nothing more then speculation and election year nonsense. if John Kerry lied to get his Purple Hearts, then if I am not mistaken he broke military law... if the people claiming his wounds where self-inflicted had evidence; then why not file a complaint with the DOD?? when Kerry decides to make a run for the Presidency, some 20 years after serving in the senate. in a highly contested race. the allegations surface. I’m sure none of this would strike you as odd.

Kerry’s anti war stance obviously would be an insult to some vets, conversely there are quite a view Vets who support his stance. it is one thing to disagree with someone’s position, not support their election bid and state the same. however, it is quite different to accuse someone of something which amounts to what I belief to be a criminal offense. then provide no evidence to support the same.

with regard to disputes over who‘s military record is better, and attacking the same. both parties need to just put it to sleep. both Bush and Kerry served it’s documented, and it’s time to move on.

[igloo]

as I stated it is nothing more then speculation and election year nonsense. if John Kerry lied to get his Purple Hearts, then if I am not mistaken he broke military law... if the people claiming his wounds where self-inflicted had evidence; then why not file a complaint with the DOD?? when Kerry decides to make a run for the Presidency, some 20 years after serving in the senate. in a highly contested race. the allegations surface. I’m sure none of this would strike you as odd.

Kerry’s anti war stance obviously would be an insult to some vets, conversely there are quite a view Vets who support his stance. it is one thing to disagree with someone’s position, not support their election bid and state the same. however, it is quite different to accuse someone of something which amounts to what I belief to be a criminal offense. then provide no evidence to support the same.

with regard to disputes over who‘s military record is better, and attacking the same. both parties need to just put it to sleep. both Bush and Kerry served it’s documented, and it’s time to move on.

I agree with you on your last statements...but you are ignoring one thing: Kerry is running on his Vietnam service as a platform, a central one.....it was the true core of his DNC speech as his testament to be fit as CIC and the war on terror.....and if he is going to do so, you can't expect other side to sit back and ignore what happened afterwards...esepcially those who have served...

I would say the same thing if the roles were reversed........

And your election year nonsense, speculation, and accusations without proof has certainly been done on your side, would you agree.....look no further to the "What Bush knew about 9/11" campaign, the "Bush lied about WMD" campaign, the new "terror alerts" are frauds campaign, Michael Moore and Howard Dean, period, Bush and Cheney are responsible for Enron campaign, Bush and Cheney are responsible for high gas prices, Bush is responsible for Sharon Stone not kissing Halle Berry in Catwoman.....to name a few

[sobeton]

I agree with you on your last statements...but you are ignoring one thing: Kerry is running on his Vietnam service as a platform, a central one.....it was the true core of his DNC speech as his testament to be fit as CIC and the war on terror.....and if he is going to do so, you can't expect other side to sit back and ignore what happened afterwards...esepcially those who have served...

I would say the same thing if the roles were reversed........

And your election year nonsense, speculation, and accusations without proof has certainly been done on your side, would you agree.....look no further to the "What Bush knew about 9/11" campaign, the "Bush lied about WMD" campaign, the new "terror alerts" are frauds campaign, Michael Moore and Howard Dean, period, Bush and Cheney are responsible for Enron campaign, Bush and Cheney are responsible for high gas prices, Bush is responsible for Sharon Stone not kissing Halle Berry in Catwoman.....to name a few

let's stick to the issue at hand. one can disagree with Kerry’s position on vietnam, state it and not support him based on the same. particularly when he is using his service as the foundation of his campaign. regardless of what side it comes from. accusing someone of criminal activity, and then not providing evidence of same amounts to slander IMO.

[igloo]

let's stick to the issue at hand. one can disagree with Kerry’s position on vietnam, state it and not support him based on the same. particularly when he is using his service as the foundation of his campaign. regardless of what side it comes from. accusing someone of criminal activity, and then not providing evidence of same amounts to slander IMO.

This is the issue at hand:

Bush is responsible for Sharon Stone not kissing Halle Berry in Catwoman.....

IMO--accussing The President of lying in the manner that has taken place, and accusing the President of issuing false alerts is slander as well ...

[mursa]

goes Igloo and nothing concrete comes out of his/her mouth ....always with the drudge report /ann couter sources .

fucking mongoloid for real !

[igloo]

goes Igloo and nothing concrete comes out of his/her mouth ....always with the drudge report /ann couter sources .

fucking mongoloid for real !

Wow....good one ...what intellect