My sympathies for your computer problems.

It appears John Kerry inflated more than his Fitreps.

Records on medals spark questions
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040422-121900-7315r.htm

The military records that Sen. John Kerry posted on his Web site yesterday raise new questions about the actions he took to earn several prestigious war medals and whether he deserved them....

"The idea that John Kerry would have put in for three Purple Hearts during only four months in country is just ridiculous," said Mel Howell from Evansville, Ind., a retired Navy officer who flew helicopters in Vietnam. "Most of us came away with all kinds of scratches like the ones Kerry got but never accepted Purple Hearts for them."
Upon inspection of the government documents posted on the Massachusetts Democrat's Web site, other questions arise such as the conflicting descriptions in official records of the injuries Mr. Kerry sustained on March 13, 1969. It was the commendations he earned that day ? a Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart ? that let Mr. Kerry request a transfer out of Vietnam and into a desk job eight months before his tour expired.
The Personnel Casualty Report from that day says Mr. Kerry "suffered shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard" his boat.
But the citation for the Bronze Star that he was awarded for the same action described "his arm bleeding and in pain," saying nothing about arm bruises or shrapnel wounds anywhere.
"I don't want to say it's a lie, but it isn't true," said Charles Kaufman, a retired Air Force captain whose job once was to submit military award requests.
"His Bronze Star medal citation appears to be based on an injury he did not receive," said Mr. Kaufman, who now lives in Germany. "His arm was not bleeding. If the paperwork had said, 'Kerry had a bruised arm,' I wonder if he would have been given this medal for bravery?"

---
Outside View
By Stephen Crump
A UPI Outside View commentary

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040415-121454-3949r.htm

According to Kerry's own description in Douglas Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," the Dec. 2, 1968, mission behind what he has claimed to be his first Purple Heart was "a half-assed action that hardly qualified as combat."

William Shachte, who oversaw this ad hoc mission, was quoted by the Boston Globe as saying Kerry's injury, from whatever source, "was not a serious wound at all."

But Kerry met with his immediate superior officer, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, the next morning and requested a Purple Heart for his wound. Hibbard recalls that Kerry had a "minor scratch" on his arm and was holding in his hand what appeared to be a fragment of a U.S. M-79 grenade, the shrapnel that had caused the wound. "They didn't receive enemy fire," Hibbard said.

Since this was an essential requirement for the award, the commander rejected Kerry's request. Hibbard does not remember that Kerry received medical attention of any kind and confirms that no one else on the mission suffered any injuries.

Shortly thereafter, Kerry was transferred to Coastal Division 11 at An Thoi. Apparently, Kerry petitioned to have his Purple Heart request reconsidered. Hibbard remembers getting correspondence from Kerry's new division, asking for his approval. In the hurried process of moving to a new command himself, Hibbard thinks he might have signed off on the award. If so, "it was to my chagrin," Hibbard remembers. Kerry's second commander, Lt. Cmdr. G.M. Elliott, says he has no recollection of such an event ever occurring [the action for which Lt.(jg) Kerry put himself in for a Purple Heart].

There are no written records of Kerry's magical first Purple Heart on file at the Naval Historical Center in Washington, the nation's primary repository for such documentation. A Purple Heart normally is not requested but is awarded de facto for a wound inflicted by the enemy -- a wound serious enough to require medical attention. The Naval Historical Center keeps all documents connected to such awards to U.S. Navy and Marine personnel.

These typewritten "casualty cards" list the date, location and prognosis of the wound for which the Purple Heart is given, and they are produced by the medical facility that provides treatment for the combat wound at the hands of the enemy.

There are two such cards for Kerry -- for his wounds on Feb. 20 and March 13, 1969 -- but none for his December 1968 claim.

After receiving a Purple Heart for the March 13 incident, Kerry sought an early pass out of combat duty, invoking the informal Navy "instruction" known as 1300.39. According to the Boston Globe, 1300.39 meant an officer could request a reassignment from his superior officer after receiving three Purple Hearts. The instruction states that, rather than being automatic, the reassignment would "be determined after consideration of his physical classification for duty and on an individual basis."

Of the 138 servicemen and officers in Kerry's unit who received Purple Hearts during the time he was there, records indicate only two received more than two. These were Lt. (jg) Jim Galvin and a boatswain's mate named Stevens. Galvin said all three of his Purple Hearts were the result of shrapnel or glass shards. Such minor injuries were common on PCF boats with their glass windows and thin metal hulls, and, like Kerry's, Galvin's injuries were not serious enough to take him out of combat for more than a few days.

Unlike Kerry, Galvin elected to stay with his men.

...Johnson & Johnson could make a fortune if they ever decided to market "The John Kerry Purple Heart Bandaid". :)

John Kerry aint Chicken George, that's all the reason i need to vote for him i don't care if he picked up shrapnel and shoved it in himself.

Let us assume, for argument's sake, that what you say is true. We can choose between a pathological liar (Bush) who avoided anything remotely appearing to be similar to genuine military service or a statesman who has a clear and consistent record (the flip-flop stuff is all GOP BS, brought to you by the same pathological liars who gave us George Bush, who is both incompetent and a pathological liar) and who served with distinction in a combat zone.

Not a hard choice for me. But then I like men of honor and truth, and no matter what crapola you can dredge up from drudge about Kerry, Bush is the most incompetent, mendacious, and ignorant president ever to hold the office.

Hmmm. I post current news articles about John Kerry and his military record, links to websites where you can hear John Kerry lie before the Senate in his own voice, read the entire unedited transcript, see proof that the "VVAW" were mostly liars, posers, cowards, criminals, deserters, and Communist plants, post comments by Kerry's commanding officer and the man who actually commanded many of the missions Kerry claims credit for disputing much of what Kerry has claimed, etc., etc., etc., and I can post pages of more documented facts, and the response is unsupported Democrat talking points and attacks on Bush? What does anything Bush ever said or did have to do with the topic? ...another Democrat Kool Aid drinker, I presume.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this isn't the only lie John Kerry told in 1971.

Discarded Decorations
Videotape Contradicts John Kerry's Own Statements Over Vietnam Medals
By Brian Ross and Chris Vlasto
ABCNEWS.com

April 25, 2004 -- Contradicting his statements as a candidate for president, Sen. John Kerry claimed in a 1971 television interview that he threw away as many as nine of his combat medals to protest the war in Vietnam....

(I guess this will teach him not to lie to Peter Jennings on national TV.)

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Investigation/kerry_vietnam_medals_040425.html

Is this the man to lead the country during what is arguably the most dangerous period in our modern history?

Oh for a true statesman to step forward, and no, before someone suggests it, Hillary Clinton is not that person.

At this point I don't care what supposedly Kerry lied about. Ever heard of "war stories"? It's funny, how much we praise war vets when they agree with our views. If they disagree, people in this country go out of their way to trash them. Then they call themselves "patriots". I don't hold Kerry responsible for the actions of every veteran in every veterans group. I've talked with vets in VA hospitals who are still haunted by the things they did and saw. I didn't care if they were dems or repubs and I didn't ask. Years from now some vet(s) from Iraq or Afghanistan will run for office. The same troops that the repubs claim we must all support now. If any of those vets are dems I guarantee the same will happen as happened to Kerry. They will be lying, scumbag nuts. Oh sure, they served in combat; but did they behave perfectly throughout the entire experience? Well then, the repubs will say their service meant nothing at all.

P.S. The Washington Times is owned by Rev Moon who is an unabashed Repub/Bush supporter. He also says he's the messiah. His former editor quit. Why? He refused to slant/make up stories that agreed with Rev Moon's views. Consider the source. The ABC article has beenroundly debunked by other military members. If Bush feels Kerry is lying about throwing away his medals why isn't Bush doing the talking? Your fearless prez is hiding behing Karen Hughes and others. Where was Bush during 'nam? Dodging bullets? Saving lives? Even YOU can't claim that. No one's saying Kerry's perfect. But Bush never saw combat at all. He was removed from flying status. Hardly the portrait of a "great statesman". And what is it with you guys and Hillary? SHE'S NOT RUNNING! Get over it! P.P.S. Hillary started a special office to assist female veterans. Bush has closed it down. Who cares most about the troops?

Hmmmm. You say you don't care what Kerry lied about, but every thread I've seen is a variation of "Bush lied". So is it liars or just Bush that you don't like? War stories are one thing, lying before the U.S. Senate for the express purpose of building a political career on those lies at the expense of the reputations of 2.5 million sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines, promoting the enemy's propaganda, and undermining a war effort that results in defeat for the United States and its allies is quite another. If vets returning from Iraq come back and tell lies about atrocities that never happened and put their fellow soldiers in peril and give aid and comfort to the enemy, I hope the entire country scourges them. If war crimes are committed, they should be prosecuted -- like the Muslim Sgt. who fragged fellow soldiers and officers in Kuwait prior to their deployment into Iraq.

Can you cite some examples of where the ABC article has been debunked? If you saw "Good Morning America" on Monday, the only debunking done was by Mr. Gibson of Mr. Kerry's flip-flopping and trying to define medals and ribbons. He has given 5 versions of the event and why he did what. If they voted the night before to toss medals, why did he "foget" to bring his -- or was it that he left them in his apartment and it was too far to go back and get them, or was it that he just couldn't bring himself to toss the actual medals, or was it....? He was their leader. They voted to toss medals. Some of them had lost limbs and still tossed their Purple Hearts and other medals. Were his more precious to him than theirs were to them? Was he just a hypocrite? Some leader. It was the poorest performance since Bill Clinton tried to define the word "is". I have more than a dozen medals, and ribbons to match, and I certainly know the difference between them. I haven't asked anyone, but it seems obvious that Mr. Bush didn't raise the issue, Mr. Kerry did when he lied to Peter Jennings in a previous interview. This wasn't a group of Republicans, it was ABC, hardly a "right wing cabal". Mr. Jennings does not like to be lied to, and that may be why ABC is running with this story. Why is everything that happens on the planet Bush's fault? Not that it matters, but Bush was taken off flying status because the plane he was flying was being phased out, and it would not have been cost effective to send him through training for the replacement aircraft with less than 6 months left on his committment. That is standard practice in all branches of the military. A more revealing fact is that John Kerry put himself in for three Purple Hearts so he could shorten his tour in Vietnam when no one else in his unit did. Every officer interviewed so far said unless he was carried off on a stretcher and unable to return to his men, they would never leave their command voluntarily regardless of a technicality that allowed them to ask to be reassigned out of the combat zone. The officer who parked his boat next to Kerry's most of the time didn't even know Kerry had ever been wounded, let alone three times.

If the other newspapers would do their job of reporting the news instead of putting editorials on the front page, it really wouldn't matter who owned the paper. I guess Al Jazeera is also owned by a Bush supporter.

Did I say Bush lied? No you did. I'm guessing you're a vet. Why not stick up for a fellow combat vet as strongly as you do for the administration? I don't get it. As I said before, I never let my political views get in the way of standing up for a vet (war or peacetime). I listened. We may not have agreed on everything. I didn't care. Atrocities? Know about them. Lies and failures? Know about them. But the vets came before any current political party in power. Democrat or Republican. That's what I don't get. We'll rip a veteran apart for a particular leader or party. I can honestly say I've NEVER done that. I guess the loyalty only lasts as long as the uniform is on. I am still furious about how John McCain was treated because of his serivce. I am still furious about how Max Cleland was treated because of his serivce. I guess the loyalty ends with leaving the foxhole or the fire fight. That breaks my heart.

Looks like I'm having to answer a number of points at a time, so let me try it in this fashion. Abel, if you didn't say "Bush lied", you are one of the few besides myself who hasn't said it. You have an excellent point about "vets". Thanks for raising it. George Washington was concerned enough about vets to issue a famous quote cautioning future generations that those who might serve in the future would look at how veterans were treated and would be influenced by that treatment. We have the power to affect future armies positively and negatively by our treatment of today's veterans. My first exposure to "vets" was being placed on the lap of a Civil War "vet" at what was called an "Old Soldier's Home" at the age of 3 or 4 by my father, whose grandfather had served with Sherman, and who, himself, was a "vet" of WWI.

Benedict Arnold was a wounded, decorated "vet" before he turned coat and gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Being a wounded, decorated "vet" doesn't absolve one from accountability for slandering 2.5 million honorable airmen, sailors, marines, and soldiers before one's own Congress while promoting the enemy's progaganda and having that propaganda used to help torture fellow POWs into signing false confessions of war crimes. I am constantly defending honorable "vets". I even have a website dedicated to honoring Vietnam vets (url below). I loathe deserters, posers, turncoats, and enemy sympathizers like the VVAW. John Kerry chose to associate with them, so what does that say about both his judgment and his loyalty to his fellow "vets"? My argument with Kerry is not his service, although the hypocritical manner in which he uses it to strut before "vets" and then wax eloquent about his "anti-war" personna when talking to pacifists could be categorized as a "flip-flop" -- no, it should be called just what it is -- hypocrisy.

To the best of my ability to determine the facts, the criticisms of Kerry and of Max Cleland and even of John McCain have been for their voting records, not their service records. Most people consider that "fair game". It was the mainstream press that attacked Bob Kerrey for his service.

Vietnam Veterans are honored here:
http://www.opaobie.com/promisekept.html

The photo is of me in front of our operating location in Ubon, Thailand, in 1973.

heard about the visus, have not encountered such, got several warnings a prioir of it as well.

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams