A new low has been achieved.
It's one thing to attack a candidate for his actions, unfortunate but expected in the modern politcal climate.
But to lump all those who have been decorated for injury in service to their country, by parodying this medal... it's disgusting.
And the right calls people who question their actions and decisions unpatriotic?
How DARE YOU.
Then again, we're talking the same mindset which allows for the torture and humiliation of human beings to be written off as "the same as a college prank"... I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.
Oh no... we're simply mocking Kerry and his war record.
Well folks, at least he has one.
(a bit later)
Okay some clarification after speaking with a veteran of Gulf War I...
A purple heart can be given out for just about anything - like say a guy skins his fingers peeling potatoes on KP duty. Bada bing purple heart time.
The difference is - the recipient still got injured in service to their country. That guy on KP still nicked himself after answering the call to duty, and sacrificed his time and freedom for the greater good. He did that so you can sit at home and watch "Friends" without too much fear...
It ain't what they got it for, it's what they were doing that put them in the position to get that injury. In short - serving their country.
Something very few (if any) people in the current administration can claim to have done.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
4 comments:
apparently conservative humor is not meant for thin-skinned liberals.
The problem with the purple heart band-aids is that it just isn't funny. When you consider the time and expense to produce the joke to the small return of a slight smirk or a raised eyebrow, it does not make good comic sense. And perhaps it's in bad taste. I agree with much of what Steve said in his post. Ultimately, though, it's not offensive. Anyone who sees that on a lapel in a convention knows it's aimed at Kerry and not all veterans. You're only offended if the Swifties have already offended you with their freedom of speech. Mat gives them too much credit. I would venture to guess that more vets feel a deeper more profound hurt at the memory of Kerry's '71 testimony.
And nice to see you living up to the republican image there Jeff, When criticized for the hypocrisy and stupidity of your party and political leanings' actions - you attack the person criticizing you.
Well, speaking as the "thin-skinned" liberal in question, and having read Kerry's testimony - I would say that it's still a cheap shot and total lack of empathy for anyone who has served this country.
And which part of Kerry's testimony would that be that Vietnam veterans feel betrayed by?
And the offense at the SBVFT isn't their exercise of their freedom of speech, it's the fact that they are outright lies. Which last time I looked, slander wasn't covered under the 1st amendment.
Funny - for a party lead by a man who claims to be a "compassionate conservative" this act is showing very little understanding of the word "compassion". Hrmmm... much like in my experience the people who often most loudly proclaim themselves to be christian, are the least.
I read Kerry’s testimony, too, and have watched it a few times on CSPAN. There’s plenty in it that would’ve felt like a stab in the back to his fellow vets. I know you refuse to believe that there is an iota of genuineness among the Swiftboat vets, but their second ad with Kerry’s oft repeated words from that testimony about generally ravaging the country-side, etc. makes it plain that many vets took offense to that. Certainly it did so with the Swifties. Consider the line in the ad from the POW who that Kerry gave the enemy for free what fellow POWs refused to give them after torture. That may sound like BS to you, but it resonates to some vets. The point that Mat made, that the purple heart band-aids somehow damaged the notion of patriotism more than Kerry’s persona is what I was refuting.
Regarding the credibility of the Swift Boat charges:
To date, Kerry’s campaign has backed off his seared claims that he was in Cambodia Christmas 1968 – betrayed by a president that hadn’t yet taken office. Now his campaign says that he was in Cambodia is January. I suspect that if Kerry ever decides to address that charge seriously, he’ll have some more backing away to do. None of his supporting crewmates have even backed up his claim that he was ever in Cambodia. In fact, according to the third ad, one fellow shipmate has gone on record saying that they never went on a secret mission to Cambodia ever, not December or January.
If you want to talk about the medals – his campaign has gone on record to suggest that the injury resulted in the first purple-heart was “possibly” due to a self-inflicted wound. Perhaps Chris Matthews should apologize to Michele Maulkin over that.
The questions about his bronze star have yet to be settled. I’ve heard claims and counter claims that there was enemy fire and that there wasn’t enemy fire; that three boats stayed by the #3 boat and Kerry went a mile ahead before returning and that he was the first to aid the #3 boat; there were bullet holes in the boat from that engagement and those bullet holes were from the day before. There’s too much dust in the air for someone to credibly proclaim one side true and the other side false.
Kerry wants to dismiss the Swifties as outright liars and avoid addressing the many of the charges or releasing his logs – that’s his call. Part of the skills necessary for a president is to be able to handle broadsides like this one. I suspect that if the Swifties were as full of as much crap as you think they are, Kerry could have turned the issue into his favor. Instead, he says that they are Bush stooges, end of story. Do the math: check their site. Remember that photo that Kerry used to use in his campaign? Find out who in that photo actually support him….
http://swift2.he.net/~swift2/index.php
Post a Comment