That report states that the VC got up after he was shot in the leg by a .50 cal, and ran off.
absolute BS; a .50 at close range would have taken the whole leg off. there was no running option. The kid was mortally wounded at the least, and most likely flat out dead.
The wounds are relative scratches. When hit in the leg, he wasn't knocked over, and didn't even stumble.
The right arm was hit twice, and even after the second hit, it was good enough to pull a man out of the water alone?

This raises more questions than it answered.
And, yes, I have standing to question his story.

Good stuff!

"As generally understood, the Purple Heart is given to any U.S. citizen wounded in wartime service to the nation." -- snopes, quoting ...

I should have a couple of them, then, to go with my service-connected disability, but I don't. Training accident. Not worried about it.

Lots of medals were "easy" or inflated for some Navy folk then, as they (or their supervisors?) were feeling left out of the ribbon parade.

Nice article today in the NY Post about the US military. exerpt: "The American soldier is a historical anomaly - not a grasping conqueror, but a man or woman of courage and good heart who wishes only to do what must be done, and then go home. Our troops are inspiring in ways that no campaign speech or campus rally will ever rival. They live the virtues - courage, patriotism, love of freedom, self-sacrifice, honor - of which their critics are embarrassed to speak.

They have a wicked sense of humor. They're exuberantly politically incorrect. They're part of the most thoroughly integrated, representative American institution - our military. And when the American people and our leaders stand behind them, they can do any job on earth."

link: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/18812.htm

for snopes to use ONLY whitewash sources (Boston Globe and his pet campaign commercial book) on Kerry's record is despicable, and contrary to their usual fine research.

from here on, I have that much less faith in snopes for anything

There is MORE than enough evidence to refute this paltry PC revisionist history

Kerry is a patriotic American, a lot like a flag, some days he waves to the right and sometimes to the left . all depends on the winds. I think you can catch the sarcasm in this statement.
And I served 24 years 1 month and 4 days, and while i won't question his military service it IS what happened after and it IS a mater of record, and it IS a NOT getting my vote

I'm glad you're doing this Greyhawk. I thought it was amusing that the left got on their high horses about the Snopes "rebuttal" of my post, not even noticing that it quoted exactly the same Boston Globe piece I did :) to supposedly refute the charges that Kerry's heroism and medals were a tad inflated. People just don't bother to read carefully. The Snopes piece was sloppy and didn't even go to the point of the charges made against Kerry - that his wounds didn't merit early release from duty (technically he didn't do anything wrong, but ethically...that's a different question). And it didn't address the fact that there are men who were seriously wounded over there who didn't receive Purple Hearts.

And getting a Silver Star for rescuing one of your own guys who fell overboard is OK but it seems that he was doing his job - he was supposed to transport the guy, and if he fell overboard, you go back and pick him up. My father in law got a Bronze Star under similar conditions for going in under fire to pick up downed pilots (not his guys - they just picked up a radio signal). You explain the difference? There may have been more personal heroism in Kerry's case.

It is common knowledge that medals weren't handed out equitably in all cases over there - there were guys who did amazing things and never got recognized. I didn't see the Snopes article refuting anything except perhaps the charge that he couldn't have been wounded 3 times in 4 months, which I didn't take seriously anyway as a charge.

Hugh complained about no Blogopoly gamepiece and then acknowledged receiving one.

How does any of this make W Bush a better choice? Is his pitiful record of to be regarded as superior or a reason to vote for him? Nothing that happened to either man 35 years ago has any business being a part of that decision . Both men have changed, Bush was a drunken frat boy who grew up and Kerry got waxed by Boston Pols his first time out and became a prosecutor to earn his political strips. Iraq has become a mess and Afghanistan needs attention and why are were writing $75,000 tax refund checks to billionaires while borrowing money to finance the war?

I was an 11B with the 101st in 69-70-- they were both REMFs to us. I'm older now and just want some goddam answers about what's important now. I'd like to have McCain or Chuck Hegal in the White house but I don't have that choice.