August 22, 2004

Bob Dole knows Purple Hearts
Posted by Dale Franks

Former presidential candidate Bob Dole is now piling on to John Kerry.

Dole told CNN's "Late Edition" that he warned Kerry months ago about going "too far" and that the Democrat may have himself to blame for the current situation, in which polls show him losing support among veterans.

"One day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons," Dole said. "The next day he's standing there, `I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran.' Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam," said Dole, whose World War II wounds left him without the use of his right arm.

Dole added: "And here's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out."

Dole is always such a tactful guy, huh?

Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton said: "It's unfortunate that Senator Dole is making statements that official U.S. Navy records prove false. This is partisan politics, not the truth."

That's a pretty fair amount of spin, since the entire controversy about the medals is whether or not the official Navy records are an accurate reflection of what happened. Of course, the Kerry campaign can't show any wiggle room on that. Their position has to be that the Navy records are canonical.

TrackBack

Comments

God Bless Bob Dole.

Posted by: dan at August 22, 2004 10:42 PM

Indeed. And after we're done God Blessing Bob Dole, perhaps we should focus our attention to something a bit more meaningful (not to trivialize Bob Dole or anything, but...)

God Help Us All

Posted by: Becky at August 22, 2004 11:19 PM

If Kerry would sign DOD FORM 180, we could all decide for ourselves what the Navy records prove.

Posted by: Joel (No Pundit Intended) at August 22, 2004 11:30 PM

Sorry. It's Standard Form 180 - It IS a DOD form, however.

Posted by: Joel (No Pundit Intended) at August 22, 2004 11:32 PM

Huh. Dole's first purple heart was for a scratch (not the second, of course, where he was crippled). Also, Kerry does still have shrapnel inside his body -- maybe just a tiny piece, I don't know, but still, it must have bled some.

This whole thing is crazy, really, on a number of levels:

1) Do we really want be doing this? When there are so many pressing issues, I don't want to have to be looking up a crippled WWII vet's war record in order to deprecate it, you know? Is this really where we want the national debate to be going?

2) Up until now, there was kind of a rule... you know, a guy serves in combat, gets his medals or service ribbons or whatever, honorable discharge... generally speaking, you respect that. Absent fraud, you don't drag people's war service through the mud. Decency aside, it's not good for recruitment and morale in the long run.

3) The President joined the Guard, but has a statement on record that strongly implies that, if he hadn't been able to do that, he would have fled to Canada or mutilated himself to avoid service... The Vice President is on record as saying he had "other priorities" than serving the country. Now, my question is, is that really SO much better than Kerry's war record? Partisanship aside, do we REALLY want to be holding up the Bush and Cheney (and Clinton etc too) approach to national service in time of war as the BETTER model? Because, de facto, that is what is being done.

I'm just saying.

Posted by: Herostratus at August 23, 2004 12:27 AM

Nice try, Herostratus, but you're overlooking a couple of points.

1) Do we really want be doing this? When there are so many pressing issues, I don't want to have to be looking up a crippled WWII vet's war record in order to deprecate it, you know? Is this really where we want the national debate to be going?

Senator Kerry has the power to redirect the debate by: 1) authorizing the complete release of his records; and 2) stop running on his Vietnam record as the sole qualification from his career.

2) Up until now, there was kind of a rule... you know, a guy serves in combat, gets his medals or service ribbons or whatever, honorable discharge... generally speaking, you respect that. Absent fraud, you don't drag people's war service through the mud.

The Swift Boat Veterans are alleging exactly that in a couple of instances: fraud. By your own standards, that makes this an issue for discussion -- and for refutation, if Senator Kerry cares to release records that refute their sworn affidavits.

3) The President joined the Guard, but has a statement on record that strongly implies that, if he hadn't been able to do that, he would have fled to Canada or mutilated himself to avoid service... The Vice President is on record as saying he had "other priorities" than serving the country. Now, my question is, is that really SO much better than Kerry's war record? Partisanship aside, do we REALLY want to be holding up the Bush and Cheney (and Clinton etc too) approach to national service in time of war as the BETTER model? Because, de facto, that is what is being done.

No, that's just where you'd like to redirect the debate. The 250 Swift Boat Veterans are standing up for the honor of the military. That's great for recruitment.

Posted by: UML Guy at August 23, 2004 02:53 AM

I'd actually really like to see proof of this "shrapnel" in Kerry's body. I'm no doctor, but it would seem to me shrapnel being left in someones body would be the result of a serious injury. Shrapnel left in a wound doesn't just sit there pretty; it festers, becomes infected, causes problems. Not too many docs leave shrapnel in a body either, unless its in a place where it can't be reached or would cause more damage if it was taken out. Injuries like this usually require significant hospital care. And we all know Kerry reportedly never spent over an hour in the hospital in Vietnam.

I could be wrong. But given Kerry's record for truth and the exaggeration of such, I'm pretty skeptical.

Posted by: Chris at August 23, 2004 03:02 AM

Heheh, I think Herostratus might have taken this right off the Dem Talking Points:

1) Do we really want be doing this? When there are so many pressing issues, I don't want to have to be looking up a crippled WWII vet's war record in order to deprecate it, you know? Is this really where we want the national debate to be going?

Its kinda their response to any criticism or allegation: search through the persons record to discredit (or deprecate) it.

I don't know if that was intentional, but I did find it amusing.

Posted by: Chris at August 23, 2004 03:05 AM

Damn, I keep adding stuff here, but:

I think it was also a "rule" that you didn't come back from war and slander your comrades.

I think it was also a "rule" that you didn't hunt for Purple Hearts based on frivolous wounds. Many enlisted men have refused PHs because they didn't feel their injury warranted the honor associated with a PH.

I think it was also a "rule" that you didn't boast about your PHs or any other medals. I've had friends who's Dads have gone to the grave without telling anyone about the circumstances of their medals, only that they had them.

I'm sure there are many other "rules" Kerry has neglected. Perhaps this is why so many Vets don't like him?

Posted by: Chris at August 23, 2004 03:10 AM

Josh Marshall comments:

Today Bob Dole suggested that one or more of John Kerry's Purple Hearts may have been fraudulent in some way because they were for "superficial wounds."

Dole knows better.

In a 1988 campaign-trail autobiography, here's how Dole described the incident that earned him his first Purple Heart: "As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg — the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart."
Chris writes,
I think it was also a "rule" that you didn't boast about your PHs or any other medals. I've had friends who's Dads have gone to the grave without telling anyone about the circumstances of their medals, only that they had them.
You don't remember Bob Dole's campaigns, do you?

Posted by: Raven at August 23, 2004 03:24 AM

Hmmm.

Actually Kerry has signed Standard Form 180. Only problem is that he's authorized only 6 of 100+ pages to be released.

Amazing eh?

Posted by: ed at August 23, 2004 06:11 AM

Is it just me, or does it strike you guys as intersting that Kerry after expending so much energy calling the Military liars, and accusng them of committing and then officially covering up attrocities, is now calling what is in the oficial record, 'the truth'?

Posted by: Bithead at August 23, 2004 08:12 AM

"Do we really want be doing this?"

It was the left that stirred the sleeping bear,
Bob Dole, when the Boston Globe, a subsidiary of the
New York Times, came to Kerry's "rescue" (Waka, waka!)
by noting that WWII war hero and former Senator
Robert Dole was once given the Purple Heart for a
"leg scratch".

"...When there are so many pressing issues..."
Yes, like Kerry's inability to tell the truth.
The only way to put this to rest is for Kerry
to truthfully answer the serious questions raised.

Why did Kerry lie about Christmas in Cambodia?
Why does Kerry falsely claim that he has released
all his military records?
Why did Kerry say he threw his medals away then
say he didn't?
Why won't Kerry address question about his medals
that he couldn't help but mention every two or
three sentences just a month ago?

Posted by: George at August 23, 2004 09:26 AM

Interesting how the Navy records are gospel when they support Kerry's position, but the ANG's honorable discharge of President Bush is assumed to be bogus...

Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at August 23, 2004 09:52 AM

Senator Kerry has the power to redirect the debate by: 1) authorizing the complete release of his records; and 2) stop running on his Vietnam record as the sole qualification from his career.

It's not fair to say the Kerry is running on his war record as his sole qualification. He went to war, that part of his biography. He was also hella good prosecutor, lieutanant governor, and a long-term (if only middling) US Senator. As for releasing the full records, I don't know about that. I thought they were all public, but if not, yeah he should. But if he does and there's no smoking gun there, can we get an apology and move on here?

No, [Bush's/Cheny's war record is] just where you'd like to redirect the debate. The 250 Swift Boat Veterans are standing up for the honor of the military. That's great for recruitment.

Nah, I don't care about Bush/Cheney's war record. I know some Democrats do kick that around, but enh it was all 30 years ago, we have lots more recent and important stuff to talk about.

I dunno, I think the SwiftVets are politicizing a man's military record, you know? Mainly, I think, because they're pissed about his anti-War activities. Which they have a right to be, but they should say THAT, not attack his combat record. As far as Kerry comitting fraud... I mean egregious and fairly incontravertible fraud. There hasn't been anything said about this for 30 years, until now, so I kind of doubt there's much to it. Even when Nixon wanted to bring down Kerry he didn't attack his WAR record, you know? And Nixon wasn't shy about using material if he had it...

I think it was also a "rule" that you didn't come back from war and slander your comrades.

Again, different issue. Attack him for THAT all you want to.

I think it was also a "rule" that you didn't hunt for Purple Hearts based on frivolous wounds. Many enlisted men have refused PHs because they didn't feel their injury warranted the honor associated with a PH.

Dunno that one. If you say. Anybody know this rule?

I think it was also a "rule" that you didn't boast about your PHs or any other medals. I've had friends who's Dads have gone to the grave without telling anyone about the circumstances of their medals, only that they had them.

Yes, I know what you mean. However, the fact is that if you run for very high office nowadays, you practically have to shout about every good thing you've ever done.

I think that Bob Dole was quite reluctant to talk about his brave and honorable service, but his advisors basically decided that he had to.

In the way old days (pre-FDR) you were even supposed to pretend that you didn't care if you got the nomination, and you didn't really run for President as we do now. Over the decades that kind of reticence has been washed away (not just from politics, but from everything.) Can't blame that on Kerry.

Again... if people want to attack Kerry for his ANTI-WAR activities, that's fair game. I think a lot of points could be scored on his throwing his ribbons over the fence... It'd be tough, but fair, politics to hammer on that. Because, after all, he did do that. The war service though... It just doesn't feel right to be be going after that at this late date.

Posted by: Herostratus at August 23, 2004 10:45 AM

I think the SwiftVets are politicizing a man's military record, you know?

Kerry was doing that long before the Swift Vets had made any public statements. The notion that Kerry hasn't used his brief combat experience to attempt to counter his long legislative record of being weak on defense and on the wrong side of the major foreign policy debates of the last two decades is to deny the history of his last 18 months of campaigning.


Mainly, I think, because they're pissed about his anti-War activities. Which they have a right to be, but they should say THAT, not attack his combat record.

His combat record is fair game if he's been lying about it.

Posted by: Lance Jonn Romanoff at August 23, 2004 01:14 PM

The left had no problem inventing scurrilous rumors about Dole's service when he running against Clinton.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200408230910.asp

WW2 was supposed to be the "good" war. Funny how suddenly we are not allowed to question Kerry's record which was the left's bete noire where the bad guys were the US.

Posted by: capt joe at August 23, 2004 01:52 PM

Great discussion. I was searching for information about Sen. Dole's medals and how he got an easy one like Sen. Kerry. You guys provided the information I needed with the quote from Dole.

Here's your reward:

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/150/view.html?ad_id=2967

Enjoy!


Posted by: Mark King at August 27, 2004 06:58 AM

Mark, why don't you kick a dead horse again? We all know Hussan had chemical weapons that he used against the Iranians and the Kurds to ultimately kill hundreds of thousands of civies. If you want to bring up that debate, I've got a better video.

Click here for WMD video

Posted by: eat-pez at August 28, 2004 08:58 AM

Nope, no WMDs here.

Posted by: G love at August 28, 2004 09:26 AM