Kerry and Bush supporters. A question for y'all.
- Thread starter Elwood Blues
- Start date
What I find amazing about McClellan's comment is that when Kerry, after weeks and weeks of being bombarded with these ridiculous allegations finally says he's had enough and if Bush want's to go toe to toe on military records to "bring it on", Kerry is out of control and losing his cool.
But, when the President of the United States stands up and says to the terrorists of this world, go ahead, hit us with your best shot...he's being forceful, taking charge, showing leadership.
This gets more disgusting with each passing day.
<center><IMG width="150" SRC="http://homepage.mac.com/colonelpanic/DU_Photos/web-content/IwoBush.jpg"></center>
Saffron
Palm Tree Hugger
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2001
- Messages
- 8,454
Elwood Blues said:
Elwood? You mean Kerry got his medals because of his after action reports, since you're correct, Eillot wasn't there to see what happened, he has to go by after reports.
Well now, so .......... if that's the case, if that's how one gets medals, by their own after reports, and no corroberating evidence, was Thurlow, the SBVT who was given the Bronze Star for the same battle Kerry was in that day, lying then or now?
If Elliot based his recommendation for medals on the after reports of the soldiers, and Elliot's recommendation for Thurlow clearly states ""all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks", and you believe that the men are awarded their medals from their own after reports, was/is Thurlow lying then or now, since Thurlow now says they were never under fire that day!
Tsk tsk, either way, seems like the SBVT got themselves a lying little swiftie! Either Thurlow lied in his after reports that day, or he's lying now. Hmmm. 
Oh, and Rassman, the man Kerry plucked out of the water under enemy fire, recommended Kerry for the medal. I guess that was a little more corroberating evidence for Elliot, along with Kerry's after report, Thurlow's after report, and the other after reports that day.
Elwood? You mean Kerry got his medals because of his after action reports, since you're correct, Eillot wasn't there to see what happened, he has to go by after reports.
Well now, so .......... if that's the case, if that's how one gets medals, by their own after reports, and no corroberating evidence, was Thurlow, the SBVT who was given the Bronze Star for the same battle Kerry was in that day, lying then or now?
If Elliot based his recommendation for medals on the after reports of the soldiers, and Elliot's recommendation for Thurlow clearly states ""all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks", and you believe that the men are awarded their medals from their own after reports, was/is Thurlow lying then or now, since Thurlow now says they were never under fire that day!
Tsk tsk, either way, seems like the SBVT got themselves a lying little swiftie!
Either Thurlow lied in his after reports that day, or he's lying now. Hmmm. Oh, and Rassman, the man Kerry plucked out of the water under enemy fire, recommended Kerry for the medal. I guess that was a little more corroberating evidence for Elliot, along with Kerry's after report, Thurlow's after report, and the other after reports that day.
How does that possibly make any difference as to the reason why Kerry is out of control when he says bring it on and Bush inviting terrorists to try and attack us a wise thing to say?
<center><IMG width="150" SRC="http://homepage.mac.com/colonelpanic/DU_Photos/web-content/IwoBush.jpg"></center>
Originally posted by Saffron
Elwood Blues said:
Elwood? You mean Kerry got his medals because of his after action reports, since you're correct, Eillot wasn't there to see what happened, he has to go by after reports.
Well now, so .......... if that's the case, if that's how one gets medals, by their own after reports, and no corroberating evidence, was Thurlow, the SBVT who was given the Bronze Star for the same battle Kerry was in that day, lying then or now?
If Elliot based his recommendation for medals on the after reports of the soldiers, and Elliot's recommendation for Thurlow clearly states ""all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks", and you believe that the men are awarded their medals from their own after reports, was/is Thurlow lying then or now, since Thurlow now says they were never under fire that day!
Tsk tsk, either way, seems like the SBVT got themselves a lying little swiftie!
Oh, and Rassman, the man Kerry plucked out of the water under enemy fire, recommended Kerry for the medal. I guess that was a little more corroberating evidence for Elliot, along with Kerry's after report, Thurlow's after report, and the other after reports that day.
Maggie, maybe I can clear up this confusion. And I will admit I'm not exactly sure I have this right, and I don't have time to go back and check, but it's my understanding that the Purple Heart can, in fact, be awarded by the soldier actually putting in for them, while the other medals, the Silver Star and the Bronze Star, ect, come from the recommendation of someone else.
Anyone here in the military, do I have this correct?
Saffron
Palm Tree Hugger
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2001
- Messages
- 8,454
It doesn't matter. Any medal needs corroberating evidence. Yes, the soldiers can request a Purple Heart, but they have to have corroberating evidence. Do you question those medals Bet, any of them? I thought you said you read the documents that Kerry released? Is there any doubt in your mind why they were rewarded, any or them, be they the Purple Heart, the Silver or Bronze star?
Maggie, I'm sticking by my earlier statement. I'm just trying to tell you what I've heard and read, about how the medals are awarded. But I could certainly be wrong.
It's my understanding that the Purple Heart does not need coroberating evidence, other than the medical report of the wound.
But if anyone can clear this up, please chime in.
It's my understanding that the Purple Heart does not need coroberating evidence, other than the medical report of the wound.
But if anyone can clear this up, please chime in.
I guess I misunderstood your definition of cooroberation evidence. In your post to Elwood, you were focusing on the recommendations of other Swiftboat vets. I was simply pointing out that Kerry didn't need another sailor to put in a report for his purple hearts.
Yes, I've read the documents Kerry has released, and all the Swiftboat stuff that's available (can't get the book yet). Based on what I've read, Kerry earned his medals.
Yes, I've read the documents Kerry has released, and all the Swiftboat stuff that's available (can't get the book yet). Based on what I've read, Kerry earned his medals.
I'll add one other thing though. I'm assuming you've looked at the documents on Kerry's website, right?
Well, there's one thing that I found odd, but I've never seen anyone else mention it, in the media, or on the web, so I just figure there's some obvious explaination that I'm just too dumb to figure out.
He links to two of the "spot reports" on his Purple Hearts.
Why only two? Why are there not three?
And please don't jump all over me and say I'm questioning medals. I'm not. Like I said, there's probably some reason for that that I just haven't read about or picked up on, but I'd like to know what it is.
Well, there's one thing that I found odd, but I've never seen anyone else mention it, in the media, or on the web, so I just figure there's some obvious explaination that I'm just too dumb to figure out.
He links to two of the "spot reports" on his Purple Hearts.
Why only two? Why are there not three?
And please don't jump all over me and say I'm questioning medals. I'm not. Like I said, there's probably some reason for that that I just haven't read about or picked up on, but I'd like to know what it is.
Saffron
Palm Tree Hugger
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2001
- Messages
- 8,454
<center>The Purple Heart</center>
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.".
(b) 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.
(b) Injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap.
(c) 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.
(b) Heat stroke.
(c) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) 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).
(b) 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.
(C) 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.
And no Bet, I've never been to Kerry's site, not once. I've read all of the documents he released, and all the documents Bush released, at Find Law.com
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.".
(b) 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.
(b) Injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap.
(c) 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.
(b) Heat stroke.
(c) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) 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).
(b) 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.
(C) 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.
And no Bet, I've never been to Kerry's site, not once. I've read all of the documents he released, and all the documents Bush released, at Find Law.com
Saffron
Palm Tree Hugger
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2001
- Messages
- 8,454
Anyone can follow this link. They're to all three of Kerry's Purple Heart citations and certificates, from Find Law. com.
Link.
Kerry is entitled to them, not rewarded them, nor is any soldier rewarded them, according to the rules and regulations governing the Purple Heart. The soldier must meet the criteria set forth in the rules governing the medal.
Link.
Kerry is entitled to them, not rewarded them, nor is any soldier rewarded them, according to the rules and regulations governing the Purple Heart. The soldier must meet the criteria set forth in the rules governing the medal.
Abracadabra
Mouseketeer
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Messages
- 272
A flash from the Sludge ... oops, I mean, Drudge Report ...
Of course, there's no corroboration from any other news source nor from Kerry's campaign web site.
kbeverina
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 25, 1999
- Messages
- 3,106
In other words, "I still think you're lying". Gotcha. Kind of like being shown you were wrong when you called Teejay a liar, but you won't say so unless she asks you to say so. Very nice.
I guess the freeper conspiracy is a much more logical conclusion than the idea that Kerry's 527 guys and proven lyin'-advisors would be the first thing to pop into someone's head when the Kerry campaign is complaining about 527 guys working for the Bush campaign. No one would even think about that unless they'd read the freepers and been advised as to how to counterattack.
Fortunately, you are right on top of them.
Big media....will they continue to stick their heads in the sand until they become irrelevant?
Big media's big mistakes
Tony Blankley (archive)
August 25, 2004
In light of the current torrent of public discussion about John Kerry and his Vietnam record, it can't be too long before the barons of the established mainline media will be dragged into a people's court for a show trial in which they may feel the urge to confess to their insufficiently inquiring journalistic minds. Luckily for them, this is America, and after their confessions there will be no gulags in their future -- only the re-write desk.
Mark the calendar. August 2004 is the first time that the major mainline media -- CBSNBCABCNEWYORKTIMESWASHINGTONPOST
L.A.TIMESNEWSWEEKTIMEMAGAZINEASSOCIATED
PRESSETC. -- ignored a news story that nonetheless became known by two-thirds of the country within two weeks of it being mentioned by the "marginal" press.
It was only after a CBS poll showed that Kerry had lost a net 14 percent of the veteran's vote to Bush -- without aid of major media coverage or substantial national advertising -- that the major media outlets began to lumber, resentfully, in the vague direction of the story. And even then, they hardly engaged themselves in the spirit of objective journalism.
According to Editor and Publisher, the respected voice of official big-time journalism: "Chicago Tribune managing editor James O'Shea tells Joe Strupp the Swift Boat controversy may be an instance of a growing problem for newspapers in the expanding media world -- being forced to follow a questionable story because non-print outlets have made it an issue. "There are too many places for people to get information," says O'Shea. "I don't think newspapers can be gatekeepers anymore -- to say this is wrong, and we will ignore it. Now we have to say this is wrong, and here is why."
Now, there are two revealing statements there. First, it is odd to see Mr. O'Shea, an official, credentialed seeker of truth, complaining about "too many places for people to get information." He sounds like a resentful old apparatchik glaring at a Xerox machine in the dying days of the Soviet Union.
The second noteworthy statement is the hilarious complaint that they can no longer merely think a story is wrong and ignore it: "Now we have to say this is wrong, and here is why." It apparently escaped his thought process that if he hadn't yet investigated the story, it might not be "wrong." A seeker of truth in a competitive environment might have phrased the sentence: "Now we will have to report it to determine if it is right or wrong."
While Mr. OShea's confessions seem unintentional, the statement of New York Times deputy national editor Alison Mitchell is straightforward. Ms. Mitchell is one of the very best political reporters in the country. When I was Newt Gingrich's press secretary, we were covered regularly by her. While she was tough and unrelenting -- she was also impeccably fair and thorough. It therefore didn't surprise me to see her quoted in Editor and Publisher with the bluntly honest statement: "I'm not sure that in an era of no-cable television we would even have looked into it."
While she should be commended, as ever, for her unblinking honesty, what does that say about the mainline media? A candidate for president premises his campaign on his military record. Then 200 of his fellow officers, including almost his entire chain of command come out against him as unfit to command and appear to cite chapter and verse in support of their shocking judgment. And the newspaper of record would not "even have looked into it."
In light of developments, I wonder if the press barons are re-considering their prior news judgments. After all, even though big media has done exactly what Chicago Tribune Editor O'Shea said they would do -- try to prove the Swift Boat critics wrong; the record is, at best, mixed.
In fact, Fox News reported Monday that the Kerry campaign has said it is possible his first purple heart was awarded for an unintentionally self-inflicted wound -- just as the Swift Boat critics alleged in their book.
Even Mr. Kerry's people have admitted the Swift Boat critics were right about Christmas in Cambodia. Nor has big media yet been able to disprove the assertion of the critics that Kerry's purple heart wounds were mostly immaculate. As Senator Bob Dole, who spent a couple of years in hospital after his ghastly W.W. II wounds, said: "Three purple hearts and never bled that I know of."
The remaining allegations of non-combat are supported and contested by inconclusive but substantial evidence on both sides. Surely it was insufficient of big media to have decided, before investigating, that the charges were "wrong."
Some of the honorable members of big media are now doing some solid reporting on the subject. The Washington Post's David Broder in this week's column reported: " In a 2002 conversation, Kerry told me he thought it would be doubly advantageous that "I fought in Vietnam and I also fought against the Vietnam War," apparently not recognizing that some would see far too much political calculation in such a bifurcated record." Indeed, some of us would think that sounded remarkably like "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
If big media returns to its duty to report even-handedly on this presidential campaign for the remaining two months, there may be no need to ship them off to show trials and re-education camps.
Big media's big mistakes
Tony Blankley (archive)
August 25, 2004
In light of the current torrent of public discussion about John Kerry and his Vietnam record, it can't be too long before the barons of the established mainline media will be dragged into a people's court for a show trial in which they may feel the urge to confess to their insufficiently inquiring journalistic minds. Luckily for them, this is America, and after their confessions there will be no gulags in their future -- only the re-write desk.
Mark the calendar. August 2004 is the first time that the major mainline media -- CBSNBCABCNEWYORKTIMESWASHINGTONPOST
L.A.TIMESNEWSWEEKTIMEMAGAZINEASSOCIATED
PRESSETC. -- ignored a news story that nonetheless became known by two-thirds of the country within two weeks of it being mentioned by the "marginal" press.
It was only after a CBS poll showed that Kerry had lost a net 14 percent of the veteran's vote to Bush -- without aid of major media coverage or substantial national advertising -- that the major media outlets began to lumber, resentfully, in the vague direction of the story. And even then, they hardly engaged themselves in the spirit of objective journalism.
According to Editor and Publisher, the respected voice of official big-time journalism: "Chicago Tribune managing editor James O'Shea tells Joe Strupp the Swift Boat controversy may be an instance of a growing problem for newspapers in the expanding media world -- being forced to follow a questionable story because non-print outlets have made it an issue. "There are too many places for people to get information," says O'Shea. "I don't think newspapers can be gatekeepers anymore -- to say this is wrong, and we will ignore it. Now we have to say this is wrong, and here is why."
Now, there are two revealing statements there. First, it is odd to see Mr. O'Shea, an official, credentialed seeker of truth, complaining about "too many places for people to get information." He sounds like a resentful old apparatchik glaring at a Xerox machine in the dying days of the Soviet Union.
The second noteworthy statement is the hilarious complaint that they can no longer merely think a story is wrong and ignore it: "Now we have to say this is wrong, and here is why." It apparently escaped his thought process that if he hadn't yet investigated the story, it might not be "wrong." A seeker of truth in a competitive environment might have phrased the sentence: "Now we will have to report it to determine if it is right or wrong."
While Mr. OShea's confessions seem unintentional, the statement of New York Times deputy national editor Alison Mitchell is straightforward. Ms. Mitchell is one of the very best political reporters in the country. When I was Newt Gingrich's press secretary, we were covered regularly by her. While she was tough and unrelenting -- she was also impeccably fair and thorough. It therefore didn't surprise me to see her quoted in Editor and Publisher with the bluntly honest statement: "I'm not sure that in an era of no-cable television we would even have looked into it."
While she should be commended, as ever, for her unblinking honesty, what does that say about the mainline media? A candidate for president premises his campaign on his military record. Then 200 of his fellow officers, including almost his entire chain of command come out against him as unfit to command and appear to cite chapter and verse in support of their shocking judgment. And the newspaper of record would not "even have looked into it."
In light of developments, I wonder if the press barons are re-considering their prior news judgments. After all, even though big media has done exactly what Chicago Tribune Editor O'Shea said they would do -- try to prove the Swift Boat critics wrong; the record is, at best, mixed.
In fact, Fox News reported Monday that the Kerry campaign has said it is possible his first purple heart was awarded for an unintentionally self-inflicted wound -- just as the Swift Boat critics alleged in their book.
Even Mr. Kerry's people have admitted the Swift Boat critics were right about Christmas in Cambodia. Nor has big media yet been able to disprove the assertion of the critics that Kerry's purple heart wounds were mostly immaculate. As Senator Bob Dole, who spent a couple of years in hospital after his ghastly W.W. II wounds, said: "Three purple hearts and never bled that I know of."
The remaining allegations of non-combat are supported and contested by inconclusive but substantial evidence on both sides. Surely it was insufficient of big media to have decided, before investigating, that the charges were "wrong."
Some of the honorable members of big media are now doing some solid reporting on the subject. The Washington Post's David Broder in this week's column reported: " In a 2002 conversation, Kerry told me he thought it would be doubly advantageous that "I fought in Vietnam and I also fought against the Vietnam War," apparently not recognizing that some would see far too much political calculation in such a bifurcated record." Indeed, some of us would think that sounded remarkably like "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
If big media returns to its duty to report even-handedly on this presidential campaign for the remaining two months, there may be no need to ship them off to show trials and re-education camps.
Elwood Blues
"We're going to take things away from you on behal
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,964
Saffron, thank you for posting the requirements for the purple heart. After reading through it (although not all of it), I found this under the section that lists actions that do not qualify for one.
"Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action"
Apparently throwing a grenade into a rice stockpile and getting rice "shrapnel" in ones buttocks does not meet the requirement.
(this is the account I heard of how he got one of his injuries)
You can yell at me all you want about his "valor" and "he volunteered" and....
HOLD THE PHONE!!!!
I heard today that Kerry (and I heard this before but forgot) applied for a deferment to go to France (of all places) to study(or something like that) AND that he originally applied for the Navy reserves. It appears that regular Navy service was not his first choice. I will look the sources of this (could this be part of his record that's not been released yet?). But I know you will say that it doesn't matter because he went anyway. Right?
To me it does. It goes to show his character. And it should. I would feel the same way if Bush applied for a deferment but then had to go into the guard as his next best choice.
"Accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action"
Apparently throwing a grenade into a rice stockpile and getting rice "shrapnel" in ones buttocks does not meet the requirement.
(this is the account I heard of how he got one of his injuries)
You can yell at me all you want about his "valor" and "he volunteered" and....
HOLD THE PHONE!!!!
I heard today that Kerry (and I heard this before but forgot) applied for a deferment to go to France (of all places) to study(or something like that) AND that he originally applied for the Navy reserves. It appears that regular Navy service was not his first choice. I will look the sources of this (could this be part of his record that's not been released yet?). But I know you will say that it doesn't matter because he went anyway. Right?
To me it does. It goes to show his character. And it should. I would feel the same way if Bush applied for a deferment but then had to go into the guard as his next best choice.
I have little time - but I want to add to what Elwood just posted.
First however, I re-iterate - Kerry served honorably - anyone who went to Vietnam and did their duty deserves respect. It is only what Kerry has done to embellish his record that brings dishonor on him, most of it done after he returned.
As to Kerry's "volunteering for hazardous duty." In actuality, he did just the opposite. He volunteered for Swift Boat duty, because at the time he applied for it, it was the safest assignment possible. Swift Boats were patrolling offshore far from any conflict. In fact, he stated that the reason he chose Swift Boat service was because he would not have to face combat situations.
This does not detract at all from his service - there is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of in that scenario. But what IS dishonorable is for him to NOW proclaim that he "volunteered for the most hazardous duty possible." That claim is just false - and it brings dishonor to him for making it. It is a fact that the mission of the Swift Boats was suddenly changed, almost immediately after he joined that service, and he DID get sent to a dangerous area. IF he left the record that way, there would be no question about his honor.
About the media bias - anyone who tries to claim that the media is NOT biased toward whatever points the DNC puts out daily is just not living in the real world. The media reports as FACT any OPINION expressed by the DNC operatives. The media ROUTINELY ignores anything that casts a bad light on the democrat party. IF there is a bad story about a democrat official, you have to read the entire story to find out party affiliation. When something bad comes out about a GOP you will find the party label in the headline, or in the first sentence.
It is a waste of time to argue with someone about media bias. Those who contend the media is NOT biased are either lying or they are ignorant. Neither characteristic makes for good argument potential.
I am amazed at the reasoning, or lack thereof, posted in this forum when the Kerry supporters just automatically label the SBVT veterans as liars - and then use defamatory rhetoric to demean their motives and means.
These men must be viewed as just as credible as Kerry for anyone who was not on the scene. They were there. They served with the man. They watched him in action. They knew him well. The fact that they have not risen up before now to publish their views on him is not at all surprizing. We all know some nerd from high school that we would just as soon not talk about. If we were to learn that that nerd were running for president on the basis that he was the high school football hero, we might be motivated to call up our old classmates to discuss what to do about it.
These SBVT veterans are heroes to the same extent as Kerry is a hero. Their message is just as credible as is Kerry's. And their message describes a man who fits the picture they draw of him. For the past thirty years he has done little but put forth an image of being an ego-driven opportunist. He accomplished absolutely nothing in the Senate over his career - he is a less competent senator than was Dan Quayle. In fact, Dan Quayle's senate record stands head and shoulders about John Kerry's.
As for me, I look at what both sides of this issue say. I expect inconsistencies from both camps. The "fog of war" makes almost any inconsistency more a realization of the surrealistic situation of wartime conflict than it does about the veracity of the people who have the recollections. However, what one publicizes, after having time for reflection, can be judged. When one finds that a person uses this reflection time to embellish his actions - to transform himself from a participant into a hero - that is when he earns the "nerd" title from me.
First however, I re-iterate - Kerry served honorably - anyone who went to Vietnam and did their duty deserves respect. It is only what Kerry has done to embellish his record that brings dishonor on him, most of it done after he returned.
As to Kerry's "volunteering for hazardous duty." In actuality, he did just the opposite. He volunteered for Swift Boat duty, because at the time he applied for it, it was the safest assignment possible. Swift Boats were patrolling offshore far from any conflict. In fact, he stated that the reason he chose Swift Boat service was because he would not have to face combat situations.
This does not detract at all from his service - there is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of in that scenario. But what IS dishonorable is for him to NOW proclaim that he "volunteered for the most hazardous duty possible." That claim is just false - and it brings dishonor to him for making it. It is a fact that the mission of the Swift Boats was suddenly changed, almost immediately after he joined that service, and he DID get sent to a dangerous area. IF he left the record that way, there would be no question about his honor.
About the media bias - anyone who tries to claim that the media is NOT biased toward whatever points the DNC puts out daily is just not living in the real world. The media reports as FACT any OPINION expressed by the DNC operatives. The media ROUTINELY ignores anything that casts a bad light on the democrat party. IF there is a bad story about a democrat official, you have to read the entire story to find out party affiliation. When something bad comes out about a GOP you will find the party label in the headline, or in the first sentence.
It is a waste of time to argue with someone about media bias. Those who contend the media is NOT biased are either lying or they are ignorant. Neither characteristic makes for good argument potential.
I am amazed at the reasoning, or lack thereof, posted in this forum when the Kerry supporters just automatically label the SBVT veterans as liars - and then use defamatory rhetoric to demean their motives and means.
These men must be viewed as just as credible as Kerry for anyone who was not on the scene. They were there. They served with the man. They watched him in action. They knew him well. The fact that they have not risen up before now to publish their views on him is not at all surprizing. We all know some nerd from high school that we would just as soon not talk about. If we were to learn that that nerd were running for president on the basis that he was the high school football hero, we might be motivated to call up our old classmates to discuss what to do about it.
These SBVT veterans are heroes to the same extent as Kerry is a hero. Their message is just as credible as is Kerry's. And their message describes a man who fits the picture they draw of him. For the past thirty years he has done little but put forth an image of being an ego-driven opportunist. He accomplished absolutely nothing in the Senate over his career - he is a less competent senator than was Dan Quayle. In fact, Dan Quayle's senate record stands head and shoulders about John Kerry's.
As for me, I look at what both sides of this issue say. I expect inconsistencies from both camps. The "fog of war" makes almost any inconsistency more a realization of the surrealistic situation of wartime conflict than it does about the veracity of the people who have the recollections. However, what one publicizes, after having time for reflection, can be judged. When one finds that a person uses this reflection time to embellish his actions - to transform himself from a participant into a hero - that is when he earns the "nerd" title from me.
-
Disney's Not-So-Spooky Spectacular Returns to Magic Kingdom
-
New Disneyland 70th Soundscape for Your Next Planning Sesh
-
10 Years Later, Is the Hocus Pocus Villain Spelltacular Still a Must See Show?
-
Mickey's Not-So-Scary Halloween Party Map 2025
-
Disney's Boo-To-You Halloween Parade 2025 Opening Night & Tips
-
Disney Debate: Why Don't the US Parks Embrace Drone Shows?
-
Overview of the 2025 Mickey's Not-So-Scary Halloween Party
Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
