MLK, Jr assassinated. . . Where's Waldo?

[island911]

John Kerry, as Waldo, plays a game with us.

Per Kerry's speech commemorating Martin Luther King Day, Jan. 20, 2003:

I remember well April 1968--I was serving in Vietnam--a place of violence--when the news reports brought home to me and my crewmates the violence back home--and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of that unabashedly maladjusted citizen.

The thing is, Kerry did not serve in Vietnam until more than half a year later . . . November 1968. (See: JohnKerry.com, among others)

So . ..Where was Waldo? . . April 4th/5th, 1968.

I can't find him. The closest he could have been would be the Gulf on Tonkin. . . .That is hardly "serving in Vietnam" . . but at least he "remembers it well"

Seared, seared, I tell you. this guy is waaay funnier than Dan Quayle.

[jm951]

Just what Christmas was it again that K was in Cambodia? 1968? Hmm, I didn't know Nixon took office early. And what about them Khmer Rouge guys, like Back to the Future since they didn't take the field until about 1972.

[JTO]

Huh? "took the life of that unabashedly maladjusted citizen." Doesn't sound very nice if he's talking about King.
Troy

[island911]

LOL, Troy . . .I wondered about that one too.

. . .but that is what Kerry said.

TO clear this up; from earlier in his speech:
"Seven letters - Citizen—a word Dr. King loved because invested in it were our rights and responsibilities -- a calling to be involved. I will never forget - in particular - what Martin Luther King spoke of when he confessed to being what he called a “maladjusted” citizen."

[ubiquity0]

Ahh.... the old 'Vietnamese waters are not a part of Vietnam' logic

[island911]

Originally posted by ubiquity0
Ahh.... the old 'Vietnamese waters are not a part of Vietnam' logic
. ..

Thanks ubiquity. . .I was waiting for that.

First:
"I remember well April 1968--I was serving in Vietnam--a place of violence"

Do you not see the inference Kerry is making?
With his "I remember well ..." he sets up this reflection of his time serving in the violence, of Vietnam.

I'm not making word-play here. Clearly Kerrys intent was to suggest to the audience, he was immersed in the violence, of Vietnam. (I'll even give him credit for his crafty Clintonian speak.)

Secondly:
Where was he? Seriously! ("Where's Waldo" jokes aside) All I can find is the ship, he was on, remained in open waters (other than ports way-off in NewZealand and such) . . .that the ship never saw any combat, in that time.

[yetidave]

yawn

[island911]

So, you're saying that being 100+ miles off the coast of Vietnam, is "serving in Vietnam"

sheesh, If Bush gaffed like that . . .

[jm951]

I'd say that he was "in theater" but not immersed in combat action. By the standard of the libs and K, my brother in law was "in Vietnam" but all he did was refuel fighters on a carrier. I'm not saying he isn't a Vietnam vet, and I'll say that the flight deck is a very dangerous place, just let's be a bit more precise about when, where and doing what.

[techweenie]

Very lame, Island. it was what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin that got us officially at war with North Vietnam.

I can agree that Texas was not Vietnam, but the coastal waters of Vietnam will do just fine.

[ubiquity0]

Who placed Kerry 100 miles off of Vietnam's coast?
The 'Missile Frigate Vets Against Kerry' pulled out the ship's logbook?

Considering that Vietnam has 1 million square kilometers of territorial waters how are you showing that he was not in Vietnam? Maybe we should tell all the current Navy Personel serving/served off Iraq that 'you didn't really go to Iraq, so there!' ???

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by island911
Per Kerry's speech commemorating Martin Luther King Day, Jan. 20, 2003:
The thing is, Kerry did not serve in Vietnam until more than half a year later . . . November 1968. (See: JohnKerry.com, among others)

DOH!!!!

The Swift Boat Vets did it!

[Mulholland]

"Kerry, who served as commander of a Navy swift boat, has insisted he was wounded by enemy fire Dec. 2, 1968, when he and two other men took a smaller vessel, a Boston Whaler, on a patrol north of his base at Cam Ranh Bay.

But Douglas Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," for which Kerry supplied his journals and letters, indicates that as Kerry set out on a subsequent mission, he had not yet been under enemy fire.

While the date of the four-day excursion on PCF-44 [Patrol Craft Fast] is not specified, Brinkley notes it commenced when Kerry "had just turned 25, on Dec. 11, 1968," which was nine days after the incident in which he claimed he had been wounded by enemy fire.”



Now is your chance to prove WND is lying….come on libs….carpe diem!

For those of poor reading comprehension...Kerry was caught lying again...about, no less, his Purple Heart.

[techweenie]

Mul, there's a treatment record; there was a doctor visit. the wound was to put it mildly, superficial.

But he got a purple heart for it.

Here's a bulletin: wounds requiring medical attention in the theater of combat are sufficient for purple heart awards. In fact, a purple heart award is automatically triggered by medical treatment.

Just as a person killed by 'friendly' fire is still dead, a person wounded from an unknown source is still wounded.

The same people who are saying there was no enemy fire are also misrepresenting the wound (see Hibbard).

I don't know about the enemy fire issue. The alleged journal entry is puzzling, but it's all hearsay to date.

Here's a guy with a bit of credibility speaking on the issue:

--------------excerpt-----------
The awards system has always been fraught with abuse, but for anyone who has ever served in combat, the difference between earning a Purple Heart and death is, indeed, very slim.

Former Navy doctor Louis Letson clearly recalls treating Kerry and removing a small piece of metal from his arm with forceps, bandaging that wound and returning him to duty. And when Kerry was hit, he was certainly engaged with the enemy and in harm's way.

In fact, if the fragment Letson removed had been slightly larger and struck the lieutenant between the eyes, Kerry's award would no longer be a current-events issue — since he'd be planted in Arlington National Cemetery instead of campaigning to be the next occupant of the Oval Office nearby.

Medals were prized

Reports say Kerry was an aloof, gung-ho, super-ambitious, young stud whose eye was already on the White House and whose role model was Navy war hero Jack Kennedy. Like a lot of soldiers and sailors who valiantly served in Vietnam, he was eager to come home, but probably just as eager to scoop up the golden gongs that came his way. It's also worth noting that medals for officers were especially prized as magic steppingstones that could help propel the recipients onward and upward.

Under the circumstances, it wouldn't have made sense for Kerry to ask his commander to rescind the automatic orders for a Purple Heart — our country's first decoration. (It was instituted in 1782 and awarded originally only for bravery in combat. Subsequently, it was changed to honor our wounded and dead.)

On an earlier tour in Vietnam, one of my gallant soldiers, a draftee named Don Wallace, picked up seven Purple Hearts in less than a year without ever being hospitalized. Most of "Ole Magnet Butt's" wounds were easily patched up by "Doc" Holley, our battalion surgeon. But any one of them could have shut off his lights forever.

Jerry Sullivan, another trooper in the same "Hardcore Battalion," was wounded just once. He spent five years in hospitals and still lives in agony.

Whose Purple Hearts were more deserved? Should Wallace have measured his hits and turned down Purple Hearts for his smaller wounds? I don't think so.

But I do think that Kerry's Purple Heart wouldn't be considered problematic if he weren't a presidential candidate. The grousers, to a man, seem to be simply passing on secondhand bilge that they ought to stow in their sea bags and lay off.

David H. Hackworth

[island911]

Originally posted by ubiquity0
Maybe we should tell all the current Navy Personel serving/served off Iraq that 'you didn't really go to Iraq, so there!' ???

good one.

I expect that if one of our Navy cooks, serving food to our pilots (who are engaging the enemy in Iraq) runs for president one day, spinning how he "fought IN violent Iraq" (as opposed to "being in the Iraq war") that he get the same treatment that Kerry is getting here.

No offence to Navy cooks out there. . . just don't go bragging, and giving the impression that you were immersed in the violence of directly engaging the enemy. That only provides a dis-service to the real risk-takers.

There is a significant difference .. . especially when that Presidentail Nominee is using his "war experience" as a central part of his resume.

[island911]

Originally posted by techweenie
Mul, there's a treatment record; there was a doctor visit. the wound was to put it mildly, superficial.

But he got a purple heart for it.

Here's a bulletin: wounds requiring medical attention in the theater of combat are sufficient for purple heart awards. In fact, a purple heart award is automatically triggered by medical treatment.[/B]

Originally posted by Ralph Wiggum

I got a rock stuck in my nose.



. . .and all I got was a lolli-pop.

[911pcars]

Apparently we have folks who can conduct rigorous research and come up with exact events and time lines that occurred almost 40 years ago.

Then please tell us the exact date when GW and staff found hard evidence WMD's existed in Iraq? Shouldn't be too hard as it supposedly occurred relatively recently.

I'm not advocating their aren't any; just haven't been shown that there was any evidence (smoking gun-type) to support GWs case.

Sherwood

[Superman]

No one knows whether Mr. Kerry is using his combat (yes, combat)experiences as a marketing tactic, not even Island. In other words, if all these accusations intended to sully his reputation were to cease, I wonder if he'd leave it alone. we will never know. what we do know is that his hand is being forced. Accusations are being made and he cannot NOT respond. Perhaps there are other individuals or groups that should be encouraged to "...stow...their sea bags and lay off."

Also, had Kerry been a cook on a carrier at sea near VN, then I'd think words like "immersed in the violence of directly engaging the enemy" would be inappropriate. but here's a hot news flash: Lt. John Kerry was a swift boat skipper in VN, getting shot at and stuff.

And while I know you guys don't like folks raising questions about Dubya's ferocious wartime performance, I'm also wondering whether perhaps he might have sustained injuries in some of those drunken car wrecks he caused, while Liutenant Kerry was being shot at. Perhaps Dubya should have gotten purple hearts for those. Or perhaps he cut himself with a razor blade while.....oh nevermind. I digress. The focus should stay on the guy who actually fought a war, and who actually served throughout his military commitment. Carry on.....

[island911]

"Accusations are being made and he cannot NOT respond. "

Hey look, something we can agree on.
The Kerry Kamp made this the issue, sold the stories . . .and now the other in the story are saying "not so fast."

What I find so increadible here is the lack of media attention on the central question. "who is BS'n us?" The "response" seems to be limited to peripheral manutia like "republican who gave the republican party some money ALSO gave the SBVfT some money" Oh the outrage . .let's not look at moveon.org tho'

"Also, had Kerry been a cook on a carrier at sea near VN, then I'd think words like "immersed in the violence of directly engaging the enemy" would be inappropriate. but here's a hot news flash: Lt. John Kerry was a swift boat skipper in VN, getting shot at and stuff."

Well that "hot news flash" is just the point. . .. the point where his above speech would have made sense. But on April 4th 1968 he was that "cook" . .. .NOT the "swift boat skipper in VN, getting shot at and stuff."

[ubiquity0]

His special dish was humble pie