As Democratic hopeful John Kerry whines about the Swift Boat Veterans questioning his Vietnam “war service,” more revelations have surfaced which challenge the legitimacy of his first Purple Heart. The Senator claims that that medal was received because of enemy fire he took, but his own personal diary contradicts that assertion. While the Senator’s supporters tried unsuccessfully to portray President Bush as being “AWOL” during the Vietnam War, they won’t address the fact that Kerry tried to defer his military service at that time for 12 months. And what would Kerry and his friends say about the fact that his campaign has spent $149 million on advertising compared with the $81 million spent by Bush et al? It just doesn’t add up.

According to yesterday’s Washington Times,

A primary claim against Mr. Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans is that Mr. Kerry's first Purple Heart — awarded for action on Dec. 2, 1968 — did not involve the enemy and that Mr. Kerry's wounds that day were unintentionally self-inflicted.

They charge that in the confusion involving unarmed, fleeing Viet Cong, Mr. Kerry fired a grenade, which detonated nearby and splattered his arm with hot metal.

Mr. Kerry has claimed that he faced his "first intense combat" that day, returned fire, and received his "first combat related injury."

A journal entry Mr. Kerry wrote Dec. 11, however, raises questions about what really happened nine days earlier.

"A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky," wrote Mr. Kerry, according the book "Tour of Duty" by friendly biographer Douglas Brinkley.

If enemy fire was not involved in that or any other incident, according to the Military Order of the Purple Heart, no medal should be awarded.

But even before this event in Vietnam, Kerry was trying to avoid war service. From Britain’s Telegraph,

Senator John Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate who is trading on his Vietnam war record to campaign against President George W Bush, tried to defer his military service for a year, according to a newly rediscovered article in a Harvard University newspaper.

He wrote to his local recruitment board seeking permission to spend a further 12 months studying in Paris, after completing his degree course at Yale University in the mid-1960s.

The revelation appears to undercut Sen Kerry's carefully-cultivated image as a man who willingly served his country in a dangerous war - in supposed contrast to President Bush, who served in the Texas National Guard and thus avoided being sent to Vietnam.

Have people forgotten that it was Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Terry McAuliffe who started this war service argument? According to the Washington Times,

Mr. McAuliffe leveled his AWOL charge against Mr. Bush on the Feb. 1 broadcast of ABC's "This Week" when he said he looked forward to a debate between Mr. Kerry, "a war hero with a chest full of medals," and Mr. Bush, "a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard."

"George Bush never served in our military and our country," Mr. McAuliffe said.

These are pretty strong words from the top Democratic official in the U.S., despite the fact that,

The White House released 400 pages of documents Friday from Mr. Bush's time in the Air National Guard that show he reported for duty in Alabama. Two men who served with Mr. Bush at the time also have vouched for him.

And finally, let’s talk about all the money being spent on election advertising. According to the Chicago Tribune,

Groups backing Sen. John Kerry spent more than twice as much on advertising as did President Bush's campaign during the week following the Democratic National Convention, continuing an advantage held much of the spring and summer. …

In the week after the convention in Boston, which ended July 29, the Democratic National Committee and the Media Fund, a Democratic advocacy group, spent a combined $11.1 million on pro-Kerry and anti-Bush ads in 21 states. …

Bush's campaign spent an estimated $4.4 million from Aug. 1 through Aug. 7 and received almost no advertising help from outside groups. …

Since early March, an estimated $149 million has been spent on advertising by Kerry and groups backing him, compared with about $81 million for Bush.

Poor, impoverished Democrats. They’re outspending the “fat cat” Republicans. By opening the “war record” can of worms, they’re doing a good job of endangering Kerry’s chances of being the next U.S. president. After all, the hoo-ha about Bush’s Vietnam record was laid to rest, but the story about Kerry’s 4 ½-month “military service” is just starting to unravel.