If you're not a military guy -- as I'm not -- you may be interested in this (ugly) chart of American military awards in order of importance. Included are the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, which were the main impetus behind my search, since John Kerry wants me to vote for him based on his possession of those two awards.
Update:
John Callender reminds me that John Kerry also has a Silver Star.
Oh, you were never going to vote for him anyway... so why would you care?
I don't necessarily think Kerry should've made them such an important part of his campaign, but when Dubya and his team.. as well as conservatives in general.. are making you look soft on defense, you've gotta do something.
If you were Kerry, what would you have done?
I'm perpetually irritated by this idea.. probably concocted by none other than Karl Rove.. that if you don't vote for Bush, America is going to lose the war on terrorism or is going to be less successful. That is pure Republican propaganda.
Geroge Bush got elected in part by making a big deal of his record as governor. Only thing is, he left his successor Rick Perry a big financial mess, and his accomplishments as governor were very modest.
I found that site interesting, and had no idea what the range of medals were. It would be nice to see some profiles of winners of the various medals, with a quick synopsis of what they did to earn them - it's a little vague to understand just what deed or action earns what medal.
Interesting. You omitted mentioning Kerry's highest military award, the Silver Star. Quoting from the site you link to:
"For distinguished gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States or while serving with friendly forces against an opposing enemy force.
The Silver Star is the third highest military award designated solely for heroism in combat. "
And you shouldn't vote for Kerry just because he was a hero in battle. You should vote for him because by _any_ objective measure (except, I guess, Republicanism per se) his qualifications for the job vastly exceed Bush's.
JC: You're right, I forgot about the Silver Star for some reason; thanks. However, other than his service in Vietnam, I'm not sure what qualifications he has. His 20 year Senate career appears to be particularly undistinguished. He's managed to marry a billionaire, which is something, although I doubt such a strategy will work for America as a whole.
Yes, I've heard the "20 years in the Senate with no accomplishments" talking point already. I find it unpersuasive for the following reasons:
1. It's being promoted by the same people who have demonstrated a willingness to lie shamelessly in order to damage Kerry's reputation.
2. Kerry has, in fact, accomplished a good deal in his life, including during his time in the Senate. See the list toward the bottom of http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/archives/002321.html, for the Kerry team's take on this. Even making allowance for their pro-Kerry bias, there seems to be some substance there.
3. The big thing: Kerry isn't running against some standard of legislative excellence. He's running against George W. Bush. George Bush's accomplishments during the time when Kerry was captaining a Swift boat, being cited for heroism in battle, playing a leading role in the antiwar movement, getting elected to the US Senate and serving with a fair degree of distinction (albeit not a degree of distinction that would satisfy an anti-Kerry partisan like yourself): being an alcoholic, using family influence to jump to the head of the National Guard line, then failing to complete his commitment without some string-pulling from daddy to get the record fudged; failing at a number of business ventures, and generally being the lackwit ne'er-do-well son of a wealthy and prominent family.
Game, set, match, presidency: Kerry.