Color Me Reassured
It's always nice to know that some of the big-dog pundits agree with me.
...[R]eal heroes don't call themselves heroes. Honorable soldiers or sailors don't brag. They let their deeds speak for themselves. Some of the most off-putting words any veteran can utter are "I'm a war hero."
I wonder if Mr. Peters read what I wrote here?
Riiiiiiiiight....
Posted by Russ at 01:03 PM, August 24, 2004 in Politics
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.emersons.net/mt/mt-pingback.cgi/581
Comments
I've heard a lot of other people call Kerry a war hero, even John Edwards called him a war hero, but I've yet to hear Kerry call himself a war hero.
By the way, if the Swift boat liars are telling the truth then how is it the Navy gave Kerry and several of those speaking against him all those medals? After all, you claim to have been in the military so you should know that your commanding officer has to recommend you for citations, right?
You can't put yourself in for purple hearts and battlestars. It has to go up the Military chain of command. If you could then every veteran would have one.
Wasn't one of the Swifties above Kerry in the chain of command?
Posted by: BILLY THE BLOGGING POET at August 24, 2004 09:54 PM
I've heard a lot of other people call Kerry a war hero, even John Edwards called him a war hero, but I've yet to hear Kerry call himself a war hero.
What does he have to do? Stand up with a megaphone and proclaim it in those exact words?
By the way, if the Swift boat liars are telling the truth
Then they aren't liars, are they?
then how is it the Navy gave Kerry and several of those speaking against him all those medals?
Medals are given out based on various criteria. The Medal of Honor, for instance, requires incontestible proof of the performance of the service. Any doubt whatsoever about the action will result in a lesser award. That's why teams are formed to investigate incidents for which the MOH is recommended.
"Lesser" medals have less strict criteria for being awarded. For instance, upon reading an official report after the occurrance of some event, the reported-to officer may decide that individual actions detailed in the report are medal-worthy.
After all, you claim to have been in the military
I don't just "claim to have been in the military." I actually was in the military.
so you should know that your commanding officer has to recommend you for citations, right?
For anything other than a Purple Heart, yes.
Well, no, actually that's not technically true. The fact is that any individual can recommend an award for any other individual, if they were there to witness the conduct. Otherwise, the higher echelons have to rely on reports from the field. No C.O. can be everywhere to witness everything.
You can't put yourself in for purple hearts
Unlike all other U.S. military awards, one is entitled to a Purple Heart if one meets the criteria. Chain of command doesn't enter into it.
That's how Kerry - after initially having his request for his first Purple Heart turned down - was able later to game the system and go to an officer outside his unit to claim a Purple Heart for an unintentionally self-inflicted scratch.
and battlestars. It has to go up the Military chain of command. If you could then every veteran would have one.
No. Only self-aggrandizing officers who write their After Action Reports in such a way as to put the best possible light on their own activities.
Wasn't one of the Swifties above Kerry in the chain of command?
Sure. But Kerry wrote the After Action Reports himself; it was on the basis of that report that his commander recommended and Kerry received his medal.
Of course, I could write a novel-length analysis of the matter, but I don't have to. George already did: http://armor.typepad.com/bastardsword/2004/08/kerry_part_lxvi.html
Posted by: Russ at August 24, 2004 11:38 PM
So basicly, you're saying that Kerry's Commander-- one of the lying swifties-- was guilty of deriliction of duty for allowing Kerry to recieve at least one of his citations.
After all, it is the commander's responsibility to read and sign-off on the reports his jr. officers give to him. Now either Kerry's commander was lying in Vietnam or he is lying today. Which is it?
Either way, I wouldn't put much stock in a group that did not serve with Kerry aboard either of his boats, and claim to know what he did while he was there. It was Rassman (the soldier Kerry fished out of the river) that recommended Kerry for his battle star on the day questioned, and it was Kerry's CO. and the Navy chain of command that decided that Kerry was worth of the citation.
Posted by: Billy The Blogging Poet at August 25, 2004 07:14 AM
So basicly, you're saying that Kerry's Commander-- one of the lying swifties--
You'd like to believe that, wouldn't you? What evidence do you have that the SBVT are lying?
was guilty of deriliction of duty for allowing Kerry to recieve at least one of his citations.
Nice try. It is not "dereliction of duty" to believe the reports written by one of your subordinates. In military tradition, officers are presumed to be gentlemen, who do not lie to their superiors, equals, or subordinates.
After all, it is the commander's responsibility to read and sign-off on the reports his jr. officers give to him. Now either Kerry's commander was lying in Vietnam or he is lying today. Which is it?
Now you're blaming Kerry's lies on his C.O. Typical.
It is not a lie to repeat what you believe to be the truth. It might be an error, but it's not a lie.
I've noticed a problem with a lot of people. Clinton lied - intentionally, under oath - and you don't have a problem with it. But someone else tells what they believe to be the truth, and you call it a lie. This demonstrates to me that quite a few people have problems with logic, the truth, or both.
Either way, I wouldn't put much stock in a group that did not serve with Kerry aboard either of his boats, and claim to know what he did while he was there.
I suppose you wouldn't be satisfied unless one of these folks turns out to have been mind-melded with Kerry, 24/7.
It was Rassman (the soldier Kerry fished out of the river) that recommended Kerry for his battle star on the day questioned, and it was Kerry's CO. and the Navy chain of command that decided that Kerry was worth of the citation.
Actually, the chain of command had little to do with it. For a Bronze Star, the higher echelons usually just sign off on the paperwork with a minimum of involvement.
But the issue at hand is not just a Bronze Star. It's Kerry's conduct then and now. Then he was a self-aggrandizing liar who put himself in a position to make himself look good. Most of the other officers didn't like writing daily reports, but Kerry did. The Swift Boat Vets didn't know what Kerry had written in those reports, or in his diary, until his biography was published. The lies therein were what prompted them to form up and defend themselves.
Ask yourself - qui bono? Who benefits?
The SBVT would all rather be peacefully retired than in the spotlight. They stand to gain nothing by lying. Kerry, on the other hand, stands to gain the Oval Office. So who has the motive to lie?
Posted by: Russ at August 25, 2004 10:39 AM
Imperial Department of Hegemony By Force
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.emersons.net/mt/mt-pingback.cgi/581
Comments
I've heard a lot of other people call Kerry a war hero, even John Edwards called him a war hero, but I've yet to hear Kerry call himself a war hero.
By the way, if the Swift boat liars are telling the truth then how is it the Navy gave Kerry and several of those speaking against him all those medals? After all, you claim to have been in the military so you should know that your commanding officer has to recommend you for citations, right?
You can't put yourself in for purple hearts and battlestars. It has to go up the Military chain of command. If you could then every veteran would have one.
Wasn't one of the Swifties above Kerry in the chain of command?
Posted by: BILLY THE BLOGGING POET at August 24, 2004 09:54 PM
What does he have to do? Stand up with a megaphone and proclaim it in those exact words?
Then they aren't liars, are they?
Medals are given out based on various criteria. The Medal of Honor, for instance, requires incontestible proof of the performance of the service. Any doubt whatsoever about the action will result in a lesser award. That's why teams are formed to investigate incidents for which the MOH is recommended.
"Lesser" medals have less strict criteria for being awarded. For instance, upon reading an official report after the occurrance of some event, the reported-to officer may decide that individual actions detailed in the report are medal-worthy.
I don't just "claim to have been in the military." I actually was in the military.
For anything other than a Purple Heart, yes.
Well, no, actually that's not technically true. The fact is that any individual can recommend an award for any other individual, if they were there to witness the conduct. Otherwise, the higher echelons have to rely on reports from the field. No C.O. can be everywhere to witness everything.
Unlike all other U.S. military awards, one is entitled to a Purple Heart if one meets the criteria. Chain of command doesn't enter into it.
That's how Kerry - after initially having his request for his first Purple Heart turned down - was able later to game the system and go to an officer outside his unit to claim a Purple Heart for an unintentionally self-inflicted scratch.
No. Only self-aggrandizing officers who write their After Action Reports in such a way as to put the best possible light on their own activities.
Sure. But Kerry wrote the After Action Reports himself; it was on the basis of that report that his commander recommended and Kerry received his medal.
Of course, I could write a novel-length analysis of the matter, but I don't have to. George already did: http://armor.typepad.com/bastardsword/2004/08/kerry_part_lxvi.html
Posted by: Russ at August 24, 2004 11:38 PM
So basicly, you're saying that Kerry's Commander-- one of the lying swifties-- was guilty of deriliction of duty for allowing Kerry to recieve at least one of his citations.
After all, it is the commander's responsibility to read and sign-off on the reports his jr. officers give to him. Now either Kerry's commander was lying in Vietnam or he is lying today. Which is it?
Either way, I wouldn't put much stock in a group that did not serve with Kerry aboard either of his boats, and claim to know what he did while he was there. It was Rassman (the soldier Kerry fished out of the river) that recommended Kerry for his battle star on the day questioned, and it was Kerry's CO. and the Navy chain of command that decided that Kerry was worth of the citation.
Posted by: Billy The Blogging Poet at August 25, 2004 07:14 AM
You'd like to believe that, wouldn't you? What evidence do you have that the SBVT are lying?
Nice try. It is not "dereliction of duty" to believe the reports written by one of your subordinates. In military tradition, officers are presumed to be gentlemen, who do not lie to their superiors, equals, or subordinates.
Now you're blaming Kerry's lies on his C.O. Typical.
It is not a lie to repeat what you believe to be the truth. It might be an error, but it's not a lie.
I've noticed a problem with a lot of people. Clinton lied - intentionally, under oath - and you don't have a problem with it. But someone else tells what they believe to be the truth, and you call it a lie. This demonstrates to me that quite a few people have problems with logic, the truth, or both.
I suppose you wouldn't be satisfied unless one of these folks turns out to have been mind-melded with Kerry, 24/7.
Actually, the chain of command had little to do with it. For a Bronze Star, the higher echelons usually just sign off on the paperwork with a minimum of involvement.
But the issue at hand is not just a Bronze Star. It's Kerry's conduct then and now. Then he was a self-aggrandizing liar who put himself in a position to make himself look good. Most of the other officers didn't like writing daily reports, but Kerry did. The Swift Boat Vets didn't know what Kerry had written in those reports, or in his diary, until his biography was published. The lies therein were what prompted them to form up and defend themselves.
Ask yourself - qui bono? Who benefits?
The SBVT would all rather be peacefully retired than in the spotlight. They stand to gain nothing by lying. Kerry, on the other hand, stands to gain the Oval Office. So who has the motive to lie?
Posted by: Russ at August 25, 2004 10:39 AM