OT Stolen from Rec.Backcountry

Wayne Knight writes:

Tim and Richie said it best. And they're on your side.

My retired CPO Father disagrees significantly with your viewpoint. And
he wasn't there either. So you being a retired CPO does not make you
all knowing of this issue nor does it my father. I would tend to put
more stock in what his immediate shipmates say than what others state
or postulate but I was not there and did not live the military life as
stated in many previous posts.
'
Most vets I know share my views. It isn';t so much what he did in Nam, but
what he did when he returned. None of that was honorable. He threw away his
medals and then lied about his brothers who were still fighting in Nam. And
all for what -- political recognition.

Whatever you believe about the man it does not matter, he didnt' win
the election. I personally think you're wrong and approaching libel
with your disdain for Kerry. You think otherwise. But if those wounds
were self inflicted,

No "IF about it, Wayne. His own men have said there was no enemy contact when
he got his first scratch. None. NO enemy contact. He fired a grenade
launcher and it exploded near enough to him for him to pick up a very small
pice of its shrapnel. Even the treating doctor said it was US shrapnel. And,
you get rice removed from your ass only because you threw a grenade into the
rice pile and didn't get away quick enough.

it would have come up long before this past
election.


It did. In his Senate races. The Boston Globe did an expose about your boy,
including his generousity toward others less fortunate than he, and receiving
free apartments and cars from Boston businessmen.

While I have the same disdain for W that you have for Kerry,
unfortunately his campaign strategy was better and he won the election,
so we've got to live with it.

His campaign strategy was based on lies from day one. Given that 70% (number
from recent press articles) of those that voted for him did so ONLY because
they were voting against Bush, that leaves him with a very pathetically small
league of followers.

But I curious, if as you state, Kerry doesn't deserve a purple heart,
what about "friendly fire" deaths and wounds?

Apples and oranges. Self inflicted wounds do not count. I believe friendly
fire wounds would because you are engaging the enemy and mistakes are made. It
is not the fact that he received self inflicted wounds (unintentionally), but
the fact that he tried to take advantage of it. It says much about his
character.

Are those wounded and
dead military members any more or less deserving of medals and
acknowledgement because they were wounded as the result of an accident?

No.

Do we tell the families that the boys and girls shouldn't have been
there because our side was shooting there? While I'm told there is
sometimes military discipline for repeated or negligent instances, we
don't hear too often of the folks making the mistaken shots getting
court martialed and sentenced for homicide?
Inquiring minds want to know.

I would like to know also. But none of your last remarks apply to Kerry. If
he received superficial self-inflicted wounds, he shouldn't have tried to get
a PH for them. Getting a few grains of rice removed from you buttocks is not a
combat wound, especially when you fired the grenade. People are killed
accidentially in war. A neighbor's USMC son was killed in a helicopter
accident. There was no PH.

More than 100 pages of Kerry's military records have never been released. He
refused to have them released. On the one item that he did release, his
discharge, the date is stamped long after he got out, and states he got a
discharge after a "review by a board of officers". Uh, it don't work that way.
A board of officers has nothing to do with your discharge, and it is dated at
the time of your discharge, not two years later.

Read, Ken, read. Few of those that served with him backed up his version. And
others in boats with him on patrol didn't see the stuff that he "saw". Why
won't he release the remaining 100 pages of his military records, including a
*valid* discharge, not one reviews by a board of officers and signed by Jimmy
Carter two years after his discharge.

Like I said, get the 7 iron out of your eyesight and perhaps you'll be able to
see better.

Dave LaCourse wrote:
Read, Ken, read. Few of those that served with him backed up his version.

I don't know what in the hell you're reading, but whatever it is,
it's demonstrably false.

Like I said, get the 7 iron out of your eyesight and perhaps you'll be able to
see better.

I can see and read just fine and I make it a discipline to read
opposing views and opinions like those in The National Review and
The Weekly Standard regularly. The lying crap you've been spreading
around here does not come from reputable sources and only a fool
would believe that nonsense or state it as fact in a public forum.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On 06 Dec 2004 21:56:32 GMT, irate (Dave LaCourse) wrote:

Read, Ken, read. Few of those that served with him backed up his version. And
others in boats with him on patrol didn't see the stuff that he "saw". Why
won't he release the remaining 100 pages of his military records, including a
*valid* discharge, not one reviews by a board of officers and signed by Jimmy
Carter two years after his discharge.

Like I said, get the 7 iron out of your eyesight and perhaps you'll be able to
see better.

Since Tim has graciously given his blessing for Richie speaking for himself, he
will...

Whether you're serious or just "tooling the liberals," you're making a fool of
yourself. Whatever else Kerry may or may not have done - and I'm pretty sure
I'd side with you as to many of his actions - he was _undisputedly_ in combat,
in a war zone, and at least some of those _under his direct command_ support
him, and go so far as to call him a hero. AFAIK, no one participating in this
silly-assed thread or even reading this was there, but also AFAIK, while there
might be some iffiness as to his puffing his record, cowardice and/or
dereliction of duty never entered into it. I have no idea if you have seen the
horror that is war, no matter how justified that war might be, but if you have,
you need to take your computer and a shovel into the yard, dig a hole, bury the
computer and burn the shovel. If you haven't, you need to shut the **** up
about this and move on.

Really, I hope this helps - really.
Richard...er, Richie...

Dave LaCourse wrote:

Most vets I know share my views. It isn';t so much what he did in
Nam, but
what he did when he returned. None of that was honorable. He threw
away his
medals and then lied about his brothers who were still fighting in
Nam. And
all for what -- political recognition.

Amazing the company we keep, Most folks I know in NC and Florida voted
differently then where their state ended up.

No "IF about it, Wayne. His own men have said there was no enemy
contact when
he got his first scratch. None. NO enemy contact. He fired a
grenade
launcher and it exploded near enough to him for him to pick up a very
small
pice of its shrapnel. Even the treating doctor said it was US
shrapnel. And,
you get rice removed from your ass only because you threw a grenade
into the
rice pile and didn't get away quick enough.

Treating doctor said no such thing according to documentation. The
citations are there in plain sight. Or are you saying the military
lied? Like that never happens eh?

His campaign strategy was based on lies from day one.

Oh he based it on security, and invasions of sovereign nations based on
faulty intelligence? You don't have to answer that.

Apples and oranges. Self inflicted wounds do not count. I believe
friendly
fire wounds would because you are engaging the enemy and mistakes are
made. It
is not the fact that he received self inflicted wounds
(unintentionally), but
the fact that he tried to take advantage of it. It says much about
his
character.

I just wanted to hear what you thought on it. Background more than
anything else. Been reading the Washington Post take on that former
football player's death in Afghanistan?

You have no business assaulting his character based on the garbage
you've posted and then claiming character. At least Tim posted a
rational explanation for his reasons, not that he had to, you alluded
to something with the post war protests, fine and dandy reasons. But
you need to quit believing all this bull**** Dave unless you are
prepared to state that the US Military lied in it's documentation of
Kerry's record. Everything written thus far contradicts everything
you've posted.

More than 100 pages of Kerry's military records have never been
released. He
refused to have them released. On the one item that he did release,
his
discharge, the date is stamped long after he got out, and states he
got a
discharge after a "review by a board of officers". Uh, it don't work
that way.
A board of officers has nothing to do with your discharge, and it is
dated at
the time of your discharge, not two years later.

I find it very hard to believe that if in the unreleased documents,
there was somethign which contradicted everything else released,
someone would have got their hands on it and leaked it to someone.
Especially in this presidential election.

As if I needed proof of your rapid hatred and spewing of misinformation
on this issue, you just gave it. Of the released records you speak of,
there is a 1966 enlistment contract for a six year committment. A 1970
letter requesting early release from active duty to run for public
office. A 1970 letter releasing him from active duty to run for public
office and transferring him to the active reserves for the remainder of
his committment. A 1972 Letter discharging him from the active reserves
and moving him to inactive reserve and a 1978 letter discharging him
from the inactive reserve.

Without going back and re-reading, I think you have his 1972 discharge
letter and the 1970 correspondence confused. Now i have no knowledge
nor looked to see if he did any active reserve duties in that 2 year
period but the paper trail is in order.

Unlike Tim, RW, and Kenny, I like apologies on ROFF. Show some honor
and admit your hatred.

Wayne Knight wrote:
snip
Unlike Tim, RW, and Kenny, I like apologies on ROFF. Show some honor
and admit your hatred.

What's to like about apologies on roff ? Hell, if there's
anything emptier than a liquor bottle at the end of a 'Clave
it's a roff "apology."

--
Ken Fortenberry

Wayne Knight writes:

Unlike Tim, RW, and Kenny, I like apologies on ROFF. Show some honor
and admit your hatred

I admit to hating Kerry's *actions* both on the field and off the field after
he returned home. I owe no one an apology, however. Kerry is no better than
George Gehrke claiming he flew F-86 Sabres over the Yaloo River in 1954, the
year he graduated from highschool, and a year after the war ended. Can you
explain why his discharge has the words "board of officers"? No one I know in
the military now or in the past knows what that is about, *except* the
possibility of his discharge being changed. That is the only possible reason
for the "board of officers".

Wayne Knight wrote:

you need to quit believing all this bull**** Dave unless you are


should be spewing not believing. You can believe anything you want.

On 06 Dec 2004 21:53:30 GMT, irate (Dave LaCourse)
wrote:

And
all for what -- political recognition.


You are lying.

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:37:38 -0500, GregP wrote:

On 06 Dec 2004 21:53:30 GMT, irate (Dave LaCourse)
wrote:

And
all for what -- political recognition.


You are lying.

Actually, that is certainly debatable, and probably true.