Well another example of Rush says its true so it must be true.

I was true.  None of the examples that MMFA mentioned above demonstrate anything.

I think you are a moron.  I said it, therefor it must be true.

What's that you say?  I need to prove you are a moron?

No.  According to your logic, you need to prove that you aren't.

Go !

Most of you here seem to take the Clintons at their word.

I don't think you understand who has the burden of proof in most of these situations.  It lies with the accusers.  I suppose if anyone takes the Clintons' word for it, it is because that burden simply hasn't been met.

There is a certain element of fairness that is called the benefit of the doubt.

The Swifties never proved anything. They simply asserted things and those who hate war heroes who do not align in politics with them, believed them.

I am always struck by the hatred that right wingers have towards the military. They are props and not people. The moment they become people, people who may disagree with you, you attack them and despise their military service. The swifties showed that they devalue service, the devalue the military, and they would ruin the military (because they are calling the military liars) for political gain. Right wingers like Rush hate the military and they are not supporters of the military. They like props and care nothing for the actual people in the military. They make me sick.

Wonder why Rush doesn't talk about why he didn't go to Vietnam anyway? I say he can criticize John Kerry on any number of things, but taking him to task for his military service, when guys like Limbaugh stayed safely at home, is ridiculously stupid.

Aside from that, Limbaugh has been "swiftboating" the Clintons (all 3 of them) for years on end anyway, and it's what has essentially made him all of his money, and created his career. He should be thanking the Clintons for making his career. If Bill Clinton hadn't been elected President, we wouldn't have Rush Limbaugh and most of the other bloviating pretentious windbags that we have on the radio today.

Wonder why Rush doesn't talk about why he didn't go to Vietnam anyway?

Pimple right?

Something like that. I'm not sure it was just a pimple, but it wasn't anything that should have kept him out of service. He's a pretty repugnant individual that good old Rush Limbaugh.

I think it was a boil on his A**.Meanwhile him and his ilk smeared John Murtha and smeared Max Cleland and John Kerry people who are war heros who fought in Vietnam. As low as they come that Rush Limbaugh.

it could have been a pilonidal cyst.  But that doesn't excuse you from military service either

"it could have been a pilonidal cyst.  But that doesn't excuse you from military service either"

It was, and at the time, yes it could.  I'm no defender of Rush...but on this one he's taking flack (IF it's true of course!) for something that wasn't his decision.

 I had one of those myself and I have the *8* inch scar to prove it.  Back then a scar that long was taken as evidence of less than perfect health and yes, it did result in a 4F designation...which exempted the person from the draft AND from volunteering.

I'm sure that he fought it tooth and nail though... Probably not.

The other guy that gets me on this whole rah rah support the Iraq war is Ted Nugent. Now THAT guy is a piece of work, and a nice big ol' lump of fecal matter.

Ted Nugent is awesome (Not just because he is a fellow Detroiter). How can you not appreciate a guy who doesn't sugarcoat it. It's a refreshing change from typical politicians.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo

Do you appreciate his way out of the Vietnam war too?

Here it is pal, your chickensh_t, chickenhawk hero used probably the most drastic, yet effective way to dodge the draft that I've ever heard of:

[link to web.archive.org]

Ted Nugent is nothing more than a one hit washed up right wing nut job!

I like how none of you actually argue any of his points. Attacking the speaker is a classic liberal method to get out of having to actually debate fairly. Some of the posters here are better than that.

Taking a thread off-topic is a classic right wing-nut tactic to avoid the subject at hand.

The discussion is about Limbaugh, Kerry, The Swiftboat Vets and Vietnam.

Someone mentioned Nugent's lust for the current war and several posters, myself included, pointed out Ted's cowardly evasion of the War in Vietnam.

I'll address the video clip. He did nothing but give his opinion, which was just nonsense. All emotion and no thought whatsoever.

I have no problem with the second amendment. I do have a problem with people like Nugent, who love to parade around with guns and rant about how precious the second amendment is to them, yet refused to pick one up in the service of his country.

Don't wrap yourself in the flag and tell everyone how manly you are if you're nothing but a loud mouthed, draft dodging punk.

Ted Nugent doesn't bother me all that much.   I don't really expect mindblowing philosophical wisdom from him.  If people are expecting some sort of political guidance from Ted Nugent, they really need more help than anyone can give them

I still listen to a few of his songs occasionally.  He is a decent entertainer and I have some respect for that.

I have two issues with his story:

One, I have heard Rush use both the polinoidal cyst and a "football knee" on different occasions to explain the draft dodge.  This makes me suspicious of any aspect of his story when you have such wildly different accounts.  I will admit, though, that he may have invented the knee because he was embarrassed by the cyst. 

Two, I have heard others say that they had these cysts and were in the military.  I would imagine that the cyst would have to be in conjunction with a less-than-honest doctor's note to get you out of the draft, but I could be wrong.  

If you look at the link I posted below, you'll see that indeed, this type of cyst was very common in soldiers during WWII. I think it said something like 80,000 cases of it in soldiers during WWII. I'm sure that those guys didn't get to go home because of a butt cyst near your coccyx.

See, that makes sense.  I can't imagine people during Viet Nam going to extreme lengths like moving to Canada if they could get out by having a minor medical issue such as this.

Rush first had a college deferment, until he dropped out of college in his first term.  Then, suddenly he developed a boil on his ass which kept him out.  He has said that he had a football knee injury, but that has been disputed by his coach in high school.

Allow me to be the first to say it on this thread--Limbaugh is a CHICKENHAWK ! ! !

His father had the same condition and he served in the military. I am not saying you are wrong

Well...I *did* say IF it's true!  But it might also hinge on whether surger was needed or not.  My understanding is that the kind of surgery I had *would* have made my draft level 4F if I was male and of draft age at the time.

dbeden,

From what I've looked at, it looks to me like that the pilonidal cyst is indeed a reason to merit a medical deferment. 

Hope my link works this time:

True enough, and I do like me some Snopes action. They do a pretty good job. In the link you cited though, there is a Rush quote, where he said that he basically made no move to correct the issue that he was disqualified for, because he didn't want to go to Vietnam, which I can accept. There were lots of people who didn't want to go. I guess the point being, Rush being a cheerleader for all things WAR, as long one of 2 things don't happen:

1. He doesn't have to go.

and

2. As long as it is a republican who enters this country into war, he's OK with it. Anyone else, you can forget him supporting it.

Mag,

I see your point. However one can be against one war and for another. 

I missed being drafted out of college by four numbers. My best friend and older brother weren't so lucky. Fortunately my brother survived his Vietnam experience while my friend ended up in Germany. 

I was opposed to the war while I was in college and even participated in anti-war demonstrations. (However I never held anything but admiration for those who served.) I went to a MAC school, of which Kent State was one.  I can clearly remember defying the National Guard and walking through their baracades.  

Looking back and knowing what I know now, I deeply regret my lack of patriotism and not enlisting.  It may sound self serving since we all have our own stories. I remember my father's anguish when my older brother's college grades slipped to the point where he was draft eligible and then drafted. I remember the years he was over there and how we didn't talk much about it. My father served in WWII and his brother in Korea. Could I do it again, I would have enlisted. 

But what can one do now? Do I have to oppose all military involvement by the U.S. because I wasn't drafted and didn't enlist? 

It was a difficult time and at a young age I basically only heard Uncle Walter and my liberal professors who helped shape my opinion. 

Not at all. I think you can oppose one war, and support another, and my intent was not to bring your personal stories into this whole discussion. I thank you for your stories though. I, had no chance to be in the Vietnam war, since I was born in 1973, so... I guess I wasn't quite draft age yet. My dad served in Korea, and my grandfather served in WWII. When I was in high school, and Gulf War I was starting up, I was a senior, and I was scared that the war might drag onward, and that there might be a draft, and that I might have to go. I would have gone if that were the case, luckily, it wasn't. I opposed that war as well, but would have gone if called on to go, as my Dad did, and as my grandfather did as well.

My intent is to show that the actual chickenhawks in the media, and how they cheerlead for war, but were so unwilling to go themselves. Know what I mean? Rush is one of them. He could have gone, but didn't want to, at least that's what he said at one point in time, but he seems more than willing to put others on the line when he's not in danger of having to go himself.

As for this war, and now, I still oppose this war, and have from the start of things. If there were a draft today, and for some reason they wanted me, I'd still go, even though I oppose it.

I only brought up my story as I felt it helps explain some of the turmoil during that era. By the time I got to college, the war was very unpopular. Since there was a draft, very few enlisted. Had I been drafted, I too would have  served.

but to put it in perspective, if memory serves me, Kerry asked for and got five exemptions. I think he could not get any more. When it became clear he would be drafted he then enlisted in order to choose the Navy. (Which is a fine choice.)  I know his hero, whom he knew as a boy, was JFK so this is not surprising.  

I don't fault anyone for trying to avoid the draft during those times, even those who left the country. They acted out of conscience.   

I do believe Kerry spent his first tour on a freighter of some sort but am not sure. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe he also volunteered for the Swift Boats when they patrolled the coast. Again, that is fine by me. After getting his command, their mission changed. 

It doesn't change what actually occurred. It may sound fishy, but I applaud Kerry for the service he gave to our country as a combat veteran in a very hazardous assignment even if I find the SBVT's accusations credible.

Anyway, his time is over. This is all a moot point.  Thanks for the discussion! 

It is all a moot point.  Even though he has stated he didn't want to go to Vietnam, Limbaugh supported the Vietnam War (even blames the defeat on liberals who impeached Nixon - big surprise) and castigated Bill Clinton repeatedly as a "draft dodger".

It is entirely fair to point out Limbaugh's apparent hypocrisy.

LIMBAUGH: On Bill Clinton: "Never trust a draft dodger." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)REALITY: Although a supporter of the Vietnam War, Limbaugh used a minor physical impairment to avoid the draft (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/27/93).

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895

Hi AA -

I don't know if Kerry actually applied for a deferment for every year he was in school, but he clearly was exempt while he was a student.  I don't think it was "clear he would be drafted" when he decided to join the Navy, but the assumption that he would be draftable evidently underlay his choice to enlist.

He did have a tour on a destroyer that spent a short amount of time off the coast of VN as part of its Pacific cruise.  Then he did volunteer for VN, and Swift Boat duty. 

Yep, swift boats were doing coastal patrols and interdiction (?) when he volunteered, but his second choice of billet was for PBRs, which had dangerous river duty at the time.

 [link to homepage.mac.com] />

AA,

I appreciate your story as well.  However, I will disagree with you on your definitions.  You said that you had a "lack of patriotism" by not fighting.  I think you have the wrong term there.  Fighting a war that one doesn't believe your country should not be involved in does not make one a patriot.  Fighting for the causes that you think the country ought to fight for makes you a patriot.  Picking up a gun and blindly following the orders of someone who you believe is not taking the country in a good direction is not patriotic, but conformist.  Fighting for what one believes are the ideals of the country is patriotic.

I am not sure I understand your regret in not fighting though.  I believe that you are being genuine, but it is an easy thing to say now and I wonder if a Democratic presidential candidate made the same remark if you would cut him the same slack (My dad, a Vietnam vet, rolls his eyes at Romney's "regret.").  I believe you are entitled to the same opinion as anyone else who has an opinion on this war, but I think you should reserve some judgment (as I think you have shown) towards those who are eligible to be in the military who choose not to fight this conflict and I hope you understand their hestitancy to take your opinion as legitimate in this case because, when confronted with a similar situation, you made the choice to sit out.  Does that make sense?

I've lost count of the times people have said to me that they regretted not going to Vietnam or that they wished they could have gone.

I've also heard the line about being misguided by professors, etc., and I don't buy it. Take responsibility for yourself.

Live up to what you've done or haven't done. Be a man. A lot of men evaded Vietnam. To them it was a matter of conscience. They should be proud for having the courage of their convictions.

Others went, either because they believed in the war, or had no other way out. They should also be proud for serving their country and for putting their asses on the line .

But please, if someone wanted to go, no one would have stopped them if they were able to meet the physical requirements.

In my comment above, I was agreeing with you and your dad and disagreeing with the people like Romney.

I meant that people like Mitt should take responsibility for their actions or inactions.

Sorry if I confused you Fried. I loved your post.

Thanks for the link, AA.

On the linked page I found another link to the New Hampshire Gazette  Chickenhawk database. It's one of my favorite sites and it's been down for most of the year. I'm glad to see it's back up again.

All Ted Nugent fans should check it out.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070204051625/www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/ 

I believe it was a pilonidal cyst, or as someone called it, a boil gone wrong. He got out of his service due to a boil.

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/pilonidal_cyst/article_em.htm

All you want to know about Rush's affliction, you could probably find in the above link.

Let's not forget that they did this in order to get a draft-dodger elected president.

(When 50,000 men die in the jungles of Vietnam while you're fighting communism in the skies over Texas, YOU'RE A DRAFT DODGER.)

Don't buy that? OK...  How about Bush's own shoddy service redord?  No one's disproven what Rather alledged either.  They just discredited one source of the info, whne there were many more.

Actually, unlike Rather's story, the swift boaters were thouroughly debunked. Some examples:

The SBVT statements were accompanied by sworn affidavits, although one affiant, Al French, later admitted he had no firsthand knowledge of what he had sworn to.

The first SBVT ad was contradicted by the statements of several other veterans who observed the incidents, by the Navy's official records, and, in some instances, by the contemporaneous statements of SBVT members themselves.

The ABC television show Nightline traveled to Vietnam and interviewed Vietnamese who were involved in the battle for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. These witnesses disputed O'Neill's charge that there "was little or no fire" that day; they said that the fighting was fierce.

No question about it, they were debunked.

I do not see anybody disputing the charges that Kerry wrote these after action reports himself. From what I've read, these reports were the basis of the official recomendations. 

The Kerry Silver Medal was, (as were the others,) based on the after action report. From what I've been able to gather the report was for shooting a wounded Vietnamese while the man was fleeing the scene after Kerry beached his boat in a counter attack and jumped out and pursued him around a hut.

An unexplained mystery is why are there three citations for the same medal, the last 10 years after the war and signed by the then Secretary of Navy.

Kerry's website also showed a document regarding the Silver Star with V citation. The V citation is never used with the Silver Star.  

I think (which means I don't know for sure) that most of the time, after action reports are written by the officers who were there at the time, or the enlisted men, if there were no officers. It is my understanding that if it is deemed there might be a medal awarded to someone for action during combat, then this claim is investigated, independently, and then the medal is awarded if the investigation shows that what was claimed was actually the case. And in any case, Kerry could not put himself up for a medal, someone else has to do that. Then the story is verified independently.

I am not sure what the procedure is. From what I've been able to gather, the officers from Zumwalt on down, were very "liberal" in awarding medals. 

As for Thurlow, one has to judge for one's self.

"It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case," Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."

Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't under fire," he said. He speculated that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation.

In a telephone interview Tuesday evening after he attended a Swift Boat Veterans strategy session in an Arlington hotel, Thurlow said he lost his Bronze Star citation more than 20 years ago. He said he was unwilling to authorize release of his military records because he feared attempts by the Kerry campaign to discredit him and other anti-Kerry veterans.

The Post filed an independent request for the documents with the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, which is the central repository for veterans' records. The documents were faxed to The Post by officials at the records center yesterday.

Thurlow and other anti-Kerry veterans have repeatedly alleged that Kerry was the author of an after-action report that described how his boat came under enemy fire. Kerry campaign researchers dispute that assertion, and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the argument. As the senior skipper in the flotilla, Thurlow might have been expected to write the after-action report for March 13, but he said that Kerry routinely "duked the system" to present his version of events.

For much of the episode, Kerry was not in a position to know firsthand what was happening on Thurlow's boat, as Kerry's boat had sped down the river after the mine exploded under another boat. He later returned to provide assistance to the stricken boat.

Thurlow, an oil industry worker and former teacher in Kansas, said he was angry with Kerry for his antiwar activities on his return to the United States and particularly Kerry's claim before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that U.S. troops in Vietnam had committed war crimes "with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

" 'Upset' is too mild a word," said Thurlow, a registered Republican, of his reaction to Kerry then. "He did it strictly for his own personal political gain, and it directly affected every single one of us as we were trying to put our lives together."

Two other Swift boat skippers who were direct participants in the March 13, 1969, mine explosion on the Bay Hap, Jack Chenoweth and Richard Pees, have said they do not remember coming under "enemy fire." A fourth commander, Don Droz, who was one of Kerry's closest friends in Vietnam, was killed in action a month later.

 http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html

Larry Thurlow, who says he commanded a third Swift Boat that day, says "Kerry fled while we stayed to fight," and returned only later "after no return fire occurred."

A serious discrepancy in the account of Kerry's accusers came to light Aug. 19, when the Washington Post reported that Navy records describe Thurlow himself as dodging enemy bullets during the same incident, for which Thurlow also was awarded the Bronze Star.

JezuzCryst AA, now you're just being partison.  Many troops who had nothing to gain by telling their stories have disputed the Swift Boat Liars.  Two of them recanted their lies about Kerry.

I'm no huge John Kerry fan (I'd love to see a President Wesley Clark), but these guys are as dirty as it gets.  They pop up every time Kerry is campaigning, smear him with their ever-evolving stories about John Kerry the 'war criminal' then move on after cashing their checks from the RNC.

There is not one thing that they have said in public about Kerry that has ever held water. Republicans do this because it works on the weak minded.  If you want to believe it, do ahead and display your gullibility.  On this issue, I'll take the Navy at it's word.

The Rick,

I've seen your defense before. However saying it has all been disproved is not the same as disproving it.

The argument that I haven't seen disproven is that the after action reports were actually written by Kerry.  

Also nobody, as far as I know, has come forward to explain the three citations for the Silver Star. The last being 10 years later except that they were reissued to change some of the facts in those citations.  Kerry was in politics by then, (I'm not sure if he was a Senator,) but those citations add to Kerry's credibilty problem.

That, his actions after coming home, and his refusal to release his military records to the general public helped the SBVT's case.

As always, people of good will can disagree.

You are correct.

And in Kerry's case, his former commanding officers - and SBVT members - Elliott and Lonsdale insisted that they thoroughly investigated awards, including getting corroboration from eyewitnesses.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E5DF163EF933A1575BC0A9629C8B63

Add to say they said so in 1996, before they had an ax to grind.

That was a typo there is no such thing his bronze star got the V. Kerry never claimed otherwise himself.

AA, a few comments if I may . . . .

First of all, there are people who dispute that Kerry was the author of the after action reports. However, when it comes to the Silver Star incident, I could care less who wrote it, as it is detailed and accurate. No one there that day (24 people in addition to Kerry) has disputed anything that is in it.

Kerry received the award for more than just shooting that VC, but even that isn't quite what it seems. Not only were that guy's wounds not serious, he was in a position to do serious damage to Kerry's boat, should he have wished to do so. We will never know, because Kerry killed him before he had the chance.

The fact that he has three citations isn't quite the mystery that it seems to be. The first one, as I said, was detailed and accurate. So much so that it was too long -- way too long -- over one page. It was rewritten and shortened to fit the usual one-page format.

Correct on the "V". That was on Kerry's DD-214. It was nothing more than a typo by the clerk who wrote that document up. Such errors are common. Mine had the incorrect birthdate. Unless people are going to suggest that Kerry was right there directing the clerk to put the "V" there, it's no big deal. Oh, and the DD-214 is something no one would typically see. It's not a document a person would put on his wall, but that doesn't stop the  Kerry haters (not sayin' you're one) from going ape***t over this simple typo.

 But back to the incident itself . . . . don't you think that if anything was fishy, at least one person out of those 24 -- perhaps the one and only member of the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" -- would have objected to Kerry receiving the Silver Star?

 Doug Reese

Doug - I see that you have admirably answered  these questions, a lot more succinctly than I did.  I should have read yours before posting.

 Seems like this info has been repeated a few times around here, yes?

Doug,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.

I don't dispute at all the facts of the citation regarding the Silver Star. However, if the original citation was too long, why wasn't it rewritten before the citation was issued?  (BTW, do you have a copy of the original?)

Why was the citation reissued, (I don't know if that is the correct word,) ten years later?

Your explanation of the V sound reasonable enough to me.

ps. I know you served as a Swifty, but my memory fails if you served with Kerry.

Just for the sake of discussion, where did you learn that the wounds to Viet Cong(?)  were not that serious.

Hope I haven't offended you with my posts on this subject.

AA -- I wasn't a Swifty, but an Army advisor. I was involved in the Silver Star incident, and was on Bill Rood's boat.

I have often said that if I had known it was going to be such a big deal, I would have taken notes, as I saw the body of the VC Kerry killed. Other than a vague recollection of a leg wound when Kerry mentioned it, I couldn't say more than that. At that point I had been in Vietnam almost a year, and taking note where someone had been killed and/or the location of wounds wasn't something I would take all that much notice of.

 However, the VC had run some distance from the boat before Kerry killed him, which is to say far enough to be able to say he didn't crawl to where he was killed. And a guy on Kerry's boat that day, life-long republican LtJg Charles Gibson remembers the killing wound well, as that was the first dead body he ever saw. The killing wound, as Kerry had alluded to all these years, entered the left side and went out the right side. Which is to say that the VC was either looking over his left shoulder to see if anyone was coming after him, or he was preparing to fire his B-40 back at the boat.

Kerry's actions prevented us from ever knowing which, something for which is crew is forever grateful.

Doug Reese

AA -- Go to the website EECEE has used as a reference a number of times. The one with "chinesemac" in the address. That will answer a number of your questions. It has a link to the after-action report, and I believe the original citation.

I think I can answer why it was too long. Admiral Zumwalt was in a big hurry to issue the award. Kerry received it something like six days after the incident. All this is to say that it (probably) wasn't issued by the same administrative office that usually handles awards, so it zeroed in on the details (a whole heck of a lot of them), and didn't contain too much of what you could call "citation-speak", typical of what you'd typically find in a valor award write-up. . . . . . anyway, with all this being done in six days, and by people who usually aren't involved in the process, the length of the citation write-up wasn't something they would have noticed.

EECEE has talked about (and I think that comes from the previously mentioned website) about why it was re-issued 10 years later. All I can say about that is it sounds reasonable to me.

Keep in mind that if you read any info that originates from the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth", you should take it with a (big) grain of salt. If they really were for the truth, instead of the "truth", I wouldn't say that. But I know from firsthand experience that when the truth comes from them, it is purely coincidental.

Doug Reese

I do not see anybody disputing the charges that Kerry wrote these after action reports himself. From what I've read, these reports were the basis of the official recomendations. 

Actually, there is no evidence that Kerry wrote any of the after action reports upon which any of his medals were based.

In fact, the evidence points the other way on the March 13 incident for which he won the Bronze Star:

http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/part1.html#bronze

As the OTC for the February 28 mission, he would have been the likely author or coauthor of the after action report upon  his Silver Star was based - but only the likely author - but nothing in that report has been disputed by a single eyewitness.  In fact, eyewitness Bill Rood wrote much the same information in the press release he authored just a couple of days later.

As a matter of fact, SBVT doesn't even dispute what's in the after action report.

--------------------------------------------------

The Kerry Silver Medal was, (as were the others,) based on the after action report. From what I've been able to gather the report was for shooting a wounded Vietnamese while the man was fleeing the scene after Kerry beached his boat in a counter attack and jumped out and pursued him around a hut.

The report described the entire action, only a small part of which was Kerry's pursuit of the VC.  And his medal citation reflects that - that it was based on his leadership throughout the action. 

------------------------------------------------ 

An unexplained mystery is why are there three citations for the same medal, the last 10 years after the war and signed by the then Secretary of Navy.

Not unexplained at all.  

The Navy inspector general's report pointed out that the second citation was the "official version, signed by the delegated award authority, ADM Hyland, CINCPACFLT."  It was an edited version of the earlier  "COMUSNAVFOR Vietnam version, signed by VADM Zumwalt"... and shortened to fit the required one page format.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/jknavydocs.pdf

(screen #10) 

That much the Slow Boaters could have figured out by searching the codes and regs.

The third citation?  Look at screen #7 of the inspector general's report.  It mentions the "duplicate" citations for all medals that were issued in 1985 and points out that they were issued after "considerable correspondence indicating efforts over the years to chase down various citations" plus the fact that the ones under Lehman's name were signed by machine.

Of course the Slow Boaters could have just called the Navy and found out, like this reporter for the Washington Times did:

"A third charge: Mr. Kerry got his Vietnam War medal citations reissued in the 1980s because he was stripped of them for misconduct.

   Navy officials say that there is no evidence that Mr. Kerry's Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts were ever rescinded and that there is no evidence of misconduct in his records.

   He did receive new medal citations in the mid-1980s. Officials say the Navy receives scores, and perhaps hundreds, of such requests each year from veterans who want a second copy or have lost the originals.

   The citations are simply put through a machine that implants the signature of the current Navy secretary. John Lehman's signature, via a machine, appears on Mr. Kerry's new citation for his Silver Star.

[link to nl.newsbank.com]

----------------------------------------------- 

Kerry's website also showed a document regarding the Silver Star with V citation. The V citation is never used with the Silver Star. 

It wasn't Kerry's website.  It was his DD214, posted at his website.

It's a clerical error.  

Silver Stars are never awarded with a V device because it would be redundant - a Silver Star is only awarded for combat bravery.

So it's not like someone's claiming they were in combat when they weren't.   

Not to mention that Kerry's has never claimed he earned a Silver Star with a V device, and his campaign never claimed it on his behalf. 

Thanks for taking the time to respond!  As I am going back and reading in the order displayed, my questions to Doug above may have been answered here.

I'd be interested to see if there were any further comments from the SBVT's regarding your explanation.

Thanks for your interest AA.  You seem willing to do real research, which puts you lightyears ahead of most of the Slow Boaters.

Don't count on any of 'em responding, at least with any substantive point.  They are known to run away when confronted.

Has Kerry ever released all of his war time files?  If not why?

Yes, he has.

If you don't think he has, why don't you tell us exactly which records SBVT needs to prove its claims or disprove Kerry's record cannot be accessed by submitting a FOIA request  or going through the military archives?

Coward more likely. Rush has repeatedly shown his utter contempt for soldiers.

These far right nut jobs will never admit to being wrong about anything.

That's part of the game plan: deny, deny, deny.

All you can do is keep calling them on their bs.

Deny, lie, smear and change the subject that is what they are good at.

So"You know, Swift boats are when Republicans lie about Democrats." but "All Swift-boating is, by the way, is telling the truth about somebody -- generally, telling the truth about a Democrat." 

 NO, we're fighting Eastasia today! Eurasia has always been our ally. 

Might I suggest that scum like Limbaugh, who chose to evade a war they supported, let those who fought that war, guys who live with it every day of their lives, settle this between themselves.

Anyone who would judge someone else's conduct, might do better, examining their own.

Wasn't that the Republican Natl Convention where Republicans wore purple heart bandages in an effort to ridicule and minimize Kerry's military service? 

Please tell me what these 'supreme and only supporters of the military' meant by wearing that.

Rush Limbaugh mocked Kerry's military service, with riffs about Kerry hallucinating that he was "General [sic] Kurtz," the insane Green Beret colonel in the film "Apocalypse Now."

Please tell me what this 'troop loving saint of the military" meant by that.

Since what Rush says and what he means are entirely different, according to his supporters, someone who speaks and understands Limboenesse, please tell me what this means.

It was at the Republican convention where they wore Purple Hearts on a background of a band-aid, or something of that nature to make fun of Kerry. while no doubt most, if not all of them (Bush, Cheney, et all) were dodging military service to the best of their ability, while at the same time here talking about being so pro-military that they bleed Army green.

Again, as I've said before, and I'll say again. These folks like Limbaugh, and our President even, are pro-miltiary, as long as you agree with them on everything that they're doing militarily wise. The second you disagree, you're a partisan hack who has been hired by the democratic party to smear George W. Bush and the republican party, and you "deserve" to be attacked personally for it.

This is HOW they operate.

Thanks for sharing your private thoughts. However I do believe you are over generalizing about one of the two major parties. 

:-)  

Let me re-state:

That is how the republicans at that convention acted towards a purple heart winner. Now, that' being said, I'd say that the republican national convention is a pretty decent reflection of the party as a whole. Wouldn't you agree? I'm not saying that all republicans were, or are like this, but...

"...In fact, most of the allegations the Swift Boat Veterans made about Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam War service during the 2004 presidential campaign have been thoroughly discredited..."<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

Media Matters is far too generous.  In fact, ALL the allegations made by the Swift Boat liars were false, and were known to be false by the "journalists" who uncritically repeated them.

Sourcewatch.

This is what I saw that day.

John Kerry saved my life.  Now his heroism is being questioned.

John Kerry starts by showing the entry in a log he kept from 1969:  "Feb 12:  0800 run to Cambodia."

That article by Rood was very powerful.

What's interesting is that all of the wingnuts who cite the Swiftboat stooges as reliable sources on completely unrelated topics in order to attack Kerry are strangely absent on these threads directly debunking the SBVT .

Don't worry, they'll be along to claim that MMFA is a Clinton/Soros conglomeration, meant to further Hillary's ambition to be President, and that everything that the SBVT stated, and represented were 100% factually correct, because Rush told them so.

Justice and Truth in the USA -  FACT CHECK:

After reviewing the evidence it has been proven that Rush Limbaugh did indeed have a polonoidal cyst that prevented him from serving in our esteemed army.

It was a close call, but I have to call this one for Rush Limbaugh.

- justicetruthus8276 / Thursday November 8, 2007 07:25:35 PM EST

Umm, hey Truthiness

That was never in question as to how and why Rush got out of his duty.

I fooled ya! It was me!

Darn you!

I have to read the bottom more carefully.

JT, I'd guess you had as close a view of that cyst as anybody, so I'm going to have to call it for the head up Rush's *ss.

Your posts seem to be taking a new direction, as if you're pretending you were doing satire all along.I liked them better when you were serious. Like Rush, much funnier when you're not trying to be in on the joke.

fooled you too! Made it look real, didn't I?

Almost, Snoop. I just needed a dose of the real deal, and thought that might bring out another gem. And there it is!

The Oxymoron hasnt told them what to think about it yet.

Even better:

http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/truth.html 

**THE REAL AND GENUINE**

Justice and Truth in the USA - FACT CHECK:

If John Kerry (who spent 6-7 weeks in 'Nam, suffered a few minor scratches, got 'medaled-up, and flew out of 'Nam at the first opportunity he had to scram) believed that the Swiftboat Vets "lied" about him he could have sued them.

Since Kerry decided NOT to bring a lawsuit I can only make one conclusion which is to decide IN FAVOR of Rush & Swiftboat Vets for Truth.

Six or seven weeks in Vietnam could seem like a lifetime.

Who the f__k are you to judge anyone's service? 

But it wasn't 6 or 7 weeks, it was 4 months +.

I know. I was just trying to point out to our newest decider that a few weeks is plenty time to be killed, wounded or to have your head permanently rewired.

I tried to keep it simple since I was dealing with a simple minded poster.

Hahahahahahhaha! Republicans now saying that lawsuits prove validity? You guys hate lawyers...

Very good satire from Justus. 

It is a very common logical fallacy.  Just for the geeks like me that like logic, I am refering to Argumentum ad Ignorantium:

a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.

I think JustUs knows this and it is all a part of his gag to make real conservatives look stupid.  He is getting a little too convincing lately though.

Fact check for you:

"

If John Kerry (who spent 6-7 weeks in 'Nam, suffered a few minor scratches, got 'medaled-up, and flew out of 'Nam at the first opportunity he had to scram) believed that the Swiftboat Vets "lied" about him he could have sued them.

Since Kerry decided NOT to bring a lawsuit I can only make one conclusion which is to decide IN FAVOR of Rush & Swiftboat Vets for Truth"

This has nothing to do at all with Kerry not bringing a lawsuit against the SBVT, and that doesn't mean that they weren't lying. You see, when you are a public persona, such as Senator Kerry, it is very hard to bring these types of lawsuits against people, because essentially, a lot of the time, they will get thrown out, and only take time and money. It's easier to defeat the lies in the public medium, which Kerry did when these lies were trotted out against him. The fact that he didn't file a lawsuit against them means guess what? Absolutely nothing at all. You keep holding onto that mantra, it just doesn't mean anything.

Point 2. John Kerry went to Vietnam, and served, and was decorated for his service there. You, and others like you, try to make it sound like he gave those medals to himself. There is a process, and reviews that take place before medals are bestowed onto soldiers.

The criteria for the Purple Heart call for its award for any injury received during combat requiring treatment by a medical officer; the military makes no distinction regarding the severity of the injury. Under military regulations, the Purple Heart is awarded for "friendly fire" wounds in the "heat of battle", so long as the fire is targeted "under full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment."

John Kerry also served in the Navy from 1966-1970, with his last tour in Vietnam being 4 months, not the 4-6 weeks you claim, better check your facts.

It may be hard to bring a lawsuit, but it is not impossible as shown when Carol Burnett brought a successful lawsuit against the National Enquirer in 1981.

All I want to know is WHY?  Why didn't John Kerry call the Swiftboat Veterans out?  There are only two possible reasons.

A. The Swiftboat vets were telling the truth - in which case Kerry did not belong in the White House.  

B. The Swiftboat Vets were lying and Kerry was too much of a coward to bring the lawsuit.  Again, if this is true, then again, Kerry did not belong in the White House.

So which is it? A or B? 

 Argumentum ad Ignorantium appetizer, followed by a false dichotomy entrée. What's for dessert?

"A. The Swiftboat vets were telling the truth - in which case Kerry did not belong in the White House.  

B. The Swiftboat Vets were lying and Kerry was too much of a coward to bring the lawsuit.  Again, if this is true, then again, Kerry did not belong in the White House."--JuTru

There are other reasons Kerry might not have sued:

C. The Swiftboaters were lying, and Kerry may have won a suit, after which, another bogus front group would be started by Rove and Co.  spouting the same lies refering to the SVT liars.

D. The Swiftboaters were lying, but a lawsuit would have brought more attention to the BS subject, possibly misinforming more who hadn't heard the BS.

E. The Swiftboaters were lying, but they worried that the right would spin the suit as though Kerry was trying to benefit from Nam war vets.

F. The ... hell, I could fill the rest of the alphabet with reasons not to sue.  Your hypothosis is flawed beyond all reason.

Well, actually, there's one very simple answer for this.

Prove that a single claim the Slow Boaters made about Kerry's military service was true.

A single one. 

Doles first purple heart was for just such a minor wound which was self inflicted according to his OWN biography. You are also forgetting that was during Kerry's SECOND Naval tour in Vietnam. I have to call this one for you being an idiot

JT,

Since you seem to be an arbiter of some sort, please go through the items of a slander claim and discuss how Kerry would have fought them.  Please include how much more difficult it is for a "public person" to win such a claim.

Also, since the Bushes have not sued Kitty Kelly does that prove that Laura Bush was a drug dealer or that "W" was a coke head?

Lack of a lawsuit indicates truth?  Cool.

Since he never sued Al Franken I guess that means that Rush really truly is a "big, fat idiot." 

Well said, and I'd say Al had a slam dunk case.

Great demonstration of the logical fallacy here.

Well, it's already been pointed out that Kerry served longer than that.

But according to your logic, we should assume George Bush was snorting coke at Camp David because he's never sued Kitty Kelley.

all this pilonidal cyst stuff is irrelevant. If you didn't put your life in harm's way for this country, you can't try to demean the service of those who did. period. their political lives are fair game, but not their military service. that's like me saying mccain's a coward for not fighting his way out of captivity...

Here's Limbaughs Selective Service Classification Record I received thru a FOIA:  Rush Hudson Limbuagh,III 

Selective Service Record Number. 23-16-51-18

02-24-69    1SH  "Student deferred by statue-(H) high school"

11-23-69    2S    "Registrant deferred because of activity in study."

This is were Rush's BS stars to rear it's head! When Rush graduated from HS he should have notified the Draft Board he wasn't a high school student anymore. Unless he could have shown that he was enrolled in College, his butt would have been 1-A, which more than likely means he'd have been cannon-fodder in Nam before the year was out! But he waits till Nov 23,1969 to inform the Draft Board he's taking some type of study group, it wasn't college study because if it was he would have received a deferment of;  "1-SC- Student deferred by statue- (H) high school; (C) college"  where was he, and what was he studying? He couldn't have been in college!

11-24-70      "1-Y  Registrant qualified for service in time of war or national emergency"   Seems like there's something wrong with Gunga Din Rush, what is it one asks? What's this in the "Remarks Column?" "We have found "no record" (my emphasis) which provides the "specific reason" the registrant was found conditionally acceptable for service."  But also note:  "The 1-Y classification was abolished Dec 10,1971. Local Boards were subsquently instructed to re-classify all 1-Y registrants, by administrative action. There are no records to be found on any board actions."

Oops, no record can be found to back up Rush's claim for a zit on his arse! No Board records for any actions taken on both the 1-Y and 4-F classifications can be found! How convienant Rush!

02-21-72      4-F   Registrant not qualified for military service

 So from the time Rush registered as a high school student on 02-24-1969 until 02-21-72, all his deferments seem to be real questiontable! No mentions of zits on his face or arse to be found in any records, but with local boards handing out the deferments, one only has to imagine favoritism shown to the grandson of a Judge? That's just my opinion!

Did anyone ever disprove the allegation that the junkie Limbaugh obtained Viagra for sex parties with children overseas where child prostitution is common?  That he is never happier than when molesting a child?  That he is a raging queen who only really enjoys little boys - but will settle for little girls in a pinch?

Just wondering. 

Why did Kerry try to fight the Viet Nam war again. Clinton showed us that Viet Nam service was not relevent. Kerry shot his self in the foot by trying to make service in Viet Nam relevent again. He lost big time

You can't argue with the Right Wing Morons here, who clearly believe that Kerry was a Coward because he served "only" six months and was "only" wounded a few times, while True Patriots like Limbaugh and Bush and Cheney didn't serve at all.  Like Ross Perot criticizing Al Gore for being "stationed way behind the front lines in Vietnam" in 2000 while endorsing GW Bush, who of course was stationed quite a bit further away from the front lines than Gore was.

<blockquote>The affidavit French signed declared, "I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge or belief" (emphasis added).</blockquote>

<blockquote>The SBVT statements were accompanied by sworn affidavits, although one affiant, Al French, later admitted he had no firsthand knowledge of what he had sworn to.</blockquote>

Nonse