If we use the term war hero too loosely it starts to lose it's special meaning. However, if Cleland took enemy fire for this country, I have no problem if one of the terms used to describe him is war hero. Since John Kerry unquestionably took enemy fire on behalf the USA, I consider him a war hero, regardless of whatever else he is.
You stopped making sense after your first sentence.
Cleland was injured during an accident. Hero is not the word.
I served in the military and "took fire" but there is absolutely no way in hell I would ever, ever, ever apply the word heroic to me.
Kerry is a fraud and liar. Read the book "Unfit for Command" and details and testimonies of his contemporaries. These facts are indisputable.
You've contradicted yourself. A lot of people have taken enemy fire, and while that is an unquestionably brave thing to do, attributing that alone to being a hero makes the word hero exactly what you described - "it starts to lose it's special meaning."
On the other hand, a small few have done extraordinarily valorous things while they are bravely withstanding enemy fire. Those are the people we call heroes, and to whom we award heroic medals.