Here are the answers to your questions. Again.
Q. how extensive were Mr. Kerry's wounds?
A. Not extensive at all. In two cases, so unextensive that he didn't even have to take a day off. In one case, only two days of lost combat time were involved. The answer, therefore, is: Not extensive.
Q: Do you know how extensive Mr. Kerry's wounds were, how they were treated and the time lost due to those injuries?
A. What is going on with you? You posted the same question twice in the same post. The answer is, according to Mr. Kerry and the article I posted describing his heroic military service and bravery under fire, his wounds were slight enough so that only one of them required that he not go right back into battle. Extensiveness: Not extensive at all. Minor, as witness time: Time: 0 days, 0 days, 2 days.
What's your problem?
Oh yes,
Q. "how were they treated?"
A. Cleaned, antiseptic applied, then bandage of some sort. Just a guess. Leeches are out of fashion, as are herbs and roots. I suppose they could have called in an acupuncturist. No, I'll go with the antiseptic and a bandaid.
You're humiliated at Bush's record of "service to his country." Kerry risked his life in service of extreme danger. What did Bush do? Tell me about it. |
