Kerry admits that his first Purple Heart was fraudulent

Here’s a story which the mainstream media hasn’t picked up on yet: John Kerry’s campaign has admitted that his first Purple Heart was fraudulent.

opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005520

More:
captainsquartersblog.com/mt/ … 002317.php

[quote]a Kerry campaign spokesman has acknowledged on Brit Hume’s Fox news show that John Kerry’s wound on 2 December 1968 came from an unintentionally self-inflicted wound – an accident, in other words.

Here’s the link . . . Towards the end, Garrett talks about the first Purple Heart:

[/quote]

That’s lovely. Now when is Bush going to admit that half of his National Guard service was fraudulent?

[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]That’s lovely. Now when is Bush going to admit that half of his National Guard service was fraudulent?[/quote] For those who didn’t get the memo…

Did President Bush “desert” the military, as radical filmmaker Michael Moore insists he did?
Presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark suggested during New Hampshire’s presidential debate Thursday night that the facts of whether Bush ran out on his National Guard unit in 1972 and 1973 are in dispute.

But in the months before the 2000 presidential election, the New York Times pretty much demolished this Democratic Party urban legend, a myth that first surfaced in its sister paper, the Boston Globe.

“For a full year, there is no record that Bush showed up for the periodic drills required of part-time guardsmen,” the Globe insisted in May 2000, in a report Mr. Moore currently cites on his web site to rebut ABC newsman Peter Jennings’ debate challenge to Clark that the story is “unsupported by the facts.”

“I don’t know whether [Moore’s desertion charge] is supported by the facts or not,” Clark replied “I’ve never looked at it.”

The Times did, however, look at it, and found that Bush had indeed served during the part of the time the Globe had him AWOL - and later made up whatever time he missed after requesting permission for the postponement.

In July 2000 the Times noted that Bush’s chief accuser in the Globe report, retired Gen. William Turnipseed, had begun to back way from his story that Bush never appeared for service during the time in question.

“In a recent interview,” said the Times, “[Turnipseed] took a tiny step back, saying, 'I don’t think he did, but I wouldn’t stake my life on it.” In fact, military records obtained by the Times showed that Turnipseed was wrong and that the Globe had flubbed the story.

“A review by The Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared for duty in late November 1972 at least through July 1973,” the paper noted on Nov. 3, 2000.

The Times explained:

“On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery [Alabama] ‘for the months of September, October and November,’” so Bush could manage the Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount.

“Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5.”

After the Bush AWOL story had percolated for months, Col. Turnipseed finally remembered another glitch in his story: the fact that National Guard regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter.

And, in fact - according to the Times - that’s what Bush did.

“A document in Mr. Bush’s military records,” the paper said, “showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May.”

The paper found corroboration for the document, noting, “The May dates correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10.”

Yet another document obtained by the Times blew the Bush AWOL story out of the water.

It showed that Mr. Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973 - “a period of time questioned by The Globe,” the Times sheepishly admitted.

Well, they seem to have drawn real blood here. We can only see if the media picks up on this. f this is indeed what happened, it puts Kerry in an extremely bad light.

People will no more distinguish between Kerry and Bush-bashing websites than they have between Bush and the SwiftBoats. If this story has traction, then Kerry will be condemned for slandering Bush and misrepresenting his own record. Will hurt with independents. Who will get out of bed to vote for this guy?

MaPoSquid, it really gets tiresome to have to correct you when you quote to blogs that simply have the facts wrong. Major Garrett is not a Kerry spokesman. He’s a Fox News correspondent.

mediamatters.org/items/200408130007 has an interesting report on Garrett’s screwy coverage of the smearboaters for Fox.

However, if you had even bothered to check Fox’s own website, you can see his bio and know that even Fox acknowledges that Garrett works for them. foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60317,00.html

“Major Garrett is a general assignment reporter for FOX News Channel (FNC). He joined FNC in 2002 and is based in Washington, D.C.”

I guess when Republicans don’t have facts, they just rely on making shit up…

Both sides are at this game. Both sides…

Do you have any links that refute the suggestion that Kerry’s personal diary contradicts his first purple heart award? Would be interested to see them.

It seems a bit fakey that MaPoSquid has to claim that Garrett is a Kerry spokesman when both the Opinionjournal and the Captainsquarter blog say Garrett works for Fox News. Did he really need to make it up out of wholecloth?

One might as well take Michael Moore quotes and attribute them to a “spokesman for the Bush campaign”.

[quote=“mofangongren”]It seems a bit fakey that MaPoSquid has to claim that Garrett is a Kerry spokesman …

One might as well take Michael Moore quotes and attribute them to a “spokesman for the Bush campaign”.[/quote]

Quite right.

But what about the substantive part of the posts. You have lambasted several posters for what you see as their lack of regard for facts. What of the claims that Kerry’s own journal contradicts his purple heart awrd? I would be interested to see if you have any links that refute this accusation.

I have not found any refutation. Perhaps you can.

Can you tackle this one head on?

A report that has not been given any real credibility yet by the mainstream media will probably require a bit more time to respond to. For that matter, it may take a Republican a bit of time to prove that Bush hasn’t met with space aliens.

Thanks, however, for acknowledging the falseness of MPS’s effort to say that this nugget has come straight from the Kerry campaign. Bet that MPS thinks “Major” is the guy’s military title…

It looks like the problem is with Kerry’s recently published official biography. The ‘smear campaign’ merely pointed out the inconsistency in Kerry’s own story. So, credibility is an issue only to the extent that you have confidence in the accuracy of Kerry’s own account.

I cannot see how the mainstream media can in all conscience fail to cover the story.

We shall see.

oh good! more side shows! guess we’ll never get around to discussing anything that matters.

hmm…the blue blood prick from new england or the blue blood prick from new england who poses as a cowboy. nice choice.

while we keep rubbernecking at the roadside carnage they’ll keep building shoddy roadways and dangerous cars. please, return to your consuming. use oil, use ketchup, doesn’t really matter what brand, but keep on consuming. alot like US pres. politics.

Actually, it appears this news is not too fresh. i am surprised I had not heard more about it.

This is a fairly detailed piece from April.

insightmag.com/news/2004/04/ … 6749.shtml

[quote=“skeptic yank”]oh good! more side shows! guess we’ll never get around to discussing anything that matters.

[/quote]

discuss something that matters? shoe size would become a major issue before that happened.

Incidentally, KERRY LIED.

looks like the swiftboaters have built up quite a bit of credibility now. they appear to be proven right about cambodia and now kerry’s first purple heart is pretty suspect. all this time kerry spokesman have been saying “senator kerry has been carrying shrapnel in his leg for so-and-so years!” now it looks like it was self-inflicted. ouch.

2 down. how many more to go?

MaPoSquid,

Those 2 links go to Kerry opponents claiming Kerry lied. I don’t see Vets for Kerry spokesman John Hurley agreeing with their claim at either site. Actually the second link quotes him disputing the claim.

Also John Hurley is not a member of the Kerry campaign. Vets for Kerry is a separate group.

So the title of this thread is not true.

Regarding Kerry’s diary, it doesn’t necessarily contradict his first Purple Heart. He wrote that he hadn’t been shot at. His wound was from shrapnel. If I am reading correctly, his 1st Purple Heart account is that he was wounded by a US grenade, meaning by friendly fire. Lots of combat wounds unfortunately come from friendly fire. It seems it was a pretty superficial wound. And I guess he did push to be awarded the purple heart.

Really who cares. This was a long time ago. I personally think it’s not worth anyone’s time to debate it. But as long as people are going to, remember Kerry fought in Vietnam. He killed people in battle and he was wounded. Maybe he is lying, who knows. But show some respect and wait for the evidence.

If the swift boaters are so credible I would like to know why John McCain, who is campaigning against Kerry, has asked Bush to specifically condemn their ad.

hm, bush calls for an end to 527 advertising.
but the swift boat 527 was employing… bush’s chief outside counsel

‘hey i thought you said nobody would know i was involved’

Looks like a deliberate fabrication to me. How did you mix up the phrase “Fox News correspondent” with “Kerry campaign spokesman”?

Again. I looked at the source materials you put forth. and I find it hard to see how you made the mistake.

And she told two friends, and they told two friends, and so on… still doesn’t cover your trying to say that a Fox News correspondent is a Kerry spokesman.

I don’t know what to say about your being too cheap to have good computer equipment. However, the fact that I had to check and correct your information for you is still right there. How much research is it really necessary for me to do for you? Given your sad track record in this thread, I wouldn’t be surprised by much… please in the future provide facts and links.

I am simply accusing you of misrepresenting a Fox News correspondent as a spokesman for the Kerry campaign. That should be plain enough. Looks like I touched a nerve, as you probably don’t appreciate being caught out for all to see as a lying loser. However, I tend to think that internet discussions work better when we don’t try to distort information. I think I was right to point out that most Republicans would not appreciate it if I misrepresented Mike Moore as being a “Bush campaign spokesmen.” :unamused:

Profanity is the refuge of the ignorant. Thank you for spending time online to ream yourself. You have no credibility with me.

Gents, please stop the profanity and snide remarks.

Thank you,
Rascal
Moderator

Yeah that went beyond snide. I flamed the post in question, although the words live on in the form of quotes. Thank you mofangongren, for not responding to invective in kind.