bulletandpima

69, you have made it very clear numerous times, to ALL OF US, that you are quite a strong advocate of the "Stolen Valor Act". You even referenced it to to me concerning the Admiral Boorda situation. Can it be that perhaps some of these guys who wear medals they didn't earn might have "official records" of their medals, making it seem like the were legitimately awarded by their Chain of Command? Shouldn't we question them when the facts just don't add up or are under "suspicious circumstances"?

Some of these cases have been discovered by those who "hadn't served" (again, the Boorda situation, where it was a reporter who noticed the discrepency and was about to epxose him for it). It was someone without the "credentials" you feel are required who brought the situation to light.

So, which is it? Ask the questions that might expose those who dare to wear medals they didn't earn legitimately, or just let it slide everytime because "what do we know, we're just civilians" or "we weren't there, so he gets a pass everytime"?

JustAMomOf4

Bulletandpima - you are mixing apples and oranges here.

It is absolutely proper to expose someone who has "Stolen Valor". These folks claim to have earned medals for which there is no military record. Some claim to be veterans when they never served. These folks are imposters in the truest sense of the word.

What USNA69 is rightfully opposed to - is for people to scrutinize military records and attempt to revisit history (in some cases rewrite history) of military personnel who earned medals and awards while they served.
Once someone has earned a medal or award and that citation is on their military record it is improper for anyone (especially those who weren't there) to scrutinize that honor and make the claim it was not deserved. Those who are awarded medals are not imposters.

Luigi59

Some were.

And thus some need to be questioned.

ANY candidate who leans on his military record in a run for public office deserves to have that military record scrutinized.

Politics is rough. Those wishing to play in that arena better put on their big-boy pants, it's not a place for the squeamish.

USNA69

And what signal do you think it is sending to those who have honorably served and earned similar awards to see their fellow service members dragged through the mud by those who don't have a clue what they are doing, except playing by the "politics is rough, put on their big-boy pants" game. Truly despicable.

Bullet

Especially a candidate who, upon his return from service, goes in front of Congress and lied to them about what he saw and the actions of his fellow service members in theater. Thank you, John Kerry, for adding to the American public's misconception of the Vietnam Vet: a brute, liar, and murderer with no morality, a deranged outcast just a spilt cup of coffee from "snapping" and eating the neighbors kids. Exactly what kind of signal was Kerry (someone who was there and knew exactly waht he was doing) sending to the servicemen who honorably served in Vietnam when he lableled them the way he did, dragging the entire generation of men who served there through the worst kind of mud?
I salute Kerry's choice to go and serve his country, and I respect his actions while he was there. I will not go down the path of questioning his time there; in my eyes he get a pass for that short period in his life. But he loses all credit with me (and a lot of other servicemen I know) for the actions he took upon his return. Don't renounce your service by theatrically and symbollically throwing away your medals, don't throw your brother servicemen under the bus with deceitful and disengenous testimony to the civilian leaders of this country, and then expect your fellow servicemen to accept you as a geniune "war hero" when everything you stood for upon your return was a slap to the face of your fellow servicemen.

The true story here was the Democratic Party's attempt to hold Kerry up as their "war hero" as part of his run for the Presidency (something they thought, IMO correctly, that the American public thought they were weak on). In my opinion (emphasis on opinion), he gets a pass from me for his service, and I really don't need to scrutinize his war achievements. There is no need because his actionsAFTER the war erased all the good he did over there in my book (and in the same book of most of the veterans, from numerous conflicts, I know).
The actions by the Swift Boat Veterans were an attempt on their part to ensure he didn't get away for HIS truly despicable attempts to pass himself off as someone honored by his service, rather than the someone he became who DISHONORED it.

69, as a Vietnam vet yourself, I'd be surprised if you don't have similar feelings about what Kerry did afterwards. Can you at least understand that the Swifties held such disgust for him that they would question everything? Maybe wrong, I'll grant you, to question his achievements, but I hope you can understand their motives.

coachjohn

Thank you for granting that that it was wrong to question John Kerry's achievements. I hope the democrats can keep to a higher standard and not question the record of Senator McCain.

The medals and citations earned in time of war should be honored, respected and applauded but never judged for validity. The award is the end of the discussion.

Anyone who chooses to question the medal, questions our military and should be held accountable for the disrespect of the question. Regardless of their motives.

usna09mom

Senator McCain contemplates young American soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq for the next hundred years. However, if the Vietnam War had lasted a hundred years, he might still be languishing in a North Vietnamese prison. The irony is that John Kerry and many other intrepid American voices spoke out against the nightmare of Vietnam, thus ending the war and mounting loss of American lives. So who is the true patriot, the one who exercises his First Amendment rights and speaks the truth, the POW, or both?

Senator Jim Webb recently stated that when the mothers of Harvard are screaming about their sons and daughters being sent to war, American adventurism will end. Talk is cheap. Now Republican lawmakers aren't even willing to send U.S. combat veterans to college.

Bullet

Wow, a political discussion on the Service academy threads! Who'da thunk it?

Please don't equate ANYTHING John Kerry said or did after the war with anything anyway closely resembling "the truth". What John Kerry was "exercising" were not his First Amendment rights, but his disengenuity and blatant disregard for the actual facts. No, Kerry isn't even close to being a "patriot" here.

Feel free to defend his medals, he earned them (I think ). But what coachjohn ignores is what Kerry did upon his return. His despicable, dishonorable Congressional testimony and theatrics to denounce his service. He lost all credibility as a bonafide "war hero" because of those actions. I wonder why the people who yell the loadest about the evils of "swiftboating" tend to ignore the most glaring and biggest issue on Kerry's "war hero" record?

OK, enough for me on these particular forums. I'll gladly take it to the Parent Cafe here on CC. Much better forum for political discussions there.

USNA69

No, I do not understand their motives. You are attempting to mix apples and oranges. This discussion is not about what individuals did after they left the service, but the validity of the awards they received.

I agree that Kerry’s post Vietnam duty actions should perhaps have precluded him running for President as a "war hero", but as a BTDT, he had every right to appear before congress as he did. And, guess what, his testimony was probably mostly all true. Riverine warfare in the Delta was a very nasty business. Trust me, I know. I was there riding the rivers shortly after Kerry was there. On a river 100 yds wide, up ahead the bushes are moving. Vietcong or mamasan doing the laundry? A couple of quick bursts with the .50 cal. and no one will ever know for sure. Sampan crossing the bow at 200 yds. Again, Vietcong or farmer and family going to market? A quick burst of the grenade launcher. Sampan sunk. We will never know. Line up the boat crew 40 yrs later. Half will claim two life-or-death contacts with the enemy. The other half will claim war crimes. The free fire zones were a joke. The peasants, with nowhere to go, moved out simply because we declared them such? Sure. However, we shot anything that moved. Riding a boat for a year in a narrow river or canal as a sitting duck where the initial contact is always retaliatory does things to one’s survival instincts. Most had a primary instinct of returning alive.

This is Kerry’s actual statement:.


How Do You Ask a Man to Be the Last Man to Die in Vietnam?

Or to paraphrase:

Thank you bullet, pima, Luigi, for adding to the American public’s misconception of the Vietnam Vet: A liar with no morality who was in Vietnam simply to gain all the awards and medals possible, whether he earned them or not.

And I am still awaiting my previous question. What are your credentials to question the validity of these awards? And there are those on this "military" forum who feel that it is right to question the appropriateness of properly awarded medals, no matter what that person chooses to do later in life. Inappropriate, I think.

USNA69

Don't kid yourself. He is being two faced.

See for yourself the results of the Swifties smear as compared to the truth:

snopes.com: John Kerry's Service Record

Bullet

And I appreciate that. In fact, if you (or Kerry) went in front of Congress and told about what you saw, and the stories about your actions that you refernce above, I would support it 110%. No, instead Kerry went to Congress and told stories that he knew at the time were exxagerations and out-right lies, where his examples were meant to generalize all the actions of the Vietnam serviceman. He implied that the American fighitng man was the equiviliant of Ghangis Khan's hordes (his words you referenced), with it's sick connotations that we were there just to rape, pillage, and do what hordes generally tend to do.

You're right, he has every right to testify to Congess, and if his words were "While in Vietnam, I raped, tortured and killed innocent civilians", I would have admired him for his honesty (and probably would have been morally supporting him at his Court Martial if I was old enough). But his testimony to Congress was HEARSAY, INNUENDO, and GOSSIP about what he heard "others" had seen or participated in, intended to flame passion against the war. Testimony which would not have stood up in any court of law as actual evidence, and should have found him in trouble for perjury.

Again, you miss the point, and insult me by saying my feelings that I don't question his actions IN THEATER as "two-faced". I want to state unequivocally that I honor and respect ALL the Vietnam vets for their service, they had a tough time and did an honorable job while there. No, the only one my posts show me to consider as a liar with no morality is Kerry. And you know what, I'm not going to lose ANY sleep over what I said about his inappropriate actions AFTER he returned.

I'm not about to get into the "The Swifties lied about his record, so we should ignore their feelings about Kerry's lies to Congress" debate. Both sides have chosen what they want to believe, and it's just a waste of typing time to try to convince either side other wise. Both sides have Giga-bytes of references posted throughout the web on both sides of the political spectrum, and we can get into a tedious game of "my web reference is better than your web reference". Again, most of these sites have their own agenda to sell.

But I will go back to your question on credentials concerning the awarding of medals. Having authored, reviewed, processed, and approved for the forwarding of literally HUNDREDS (over 450 while I was in Iraq) of citations and award packages, I can safely say that I know what I'm talking about when I say that we are a military in danger of getting close to "little league mentality" when it comes to awarding medals, where everyone gets one "just for playing". At least that is the trend I'm witnessing in the AF; maybe the other services treat the awarding of medals and citations with greater respect. There are countless examples of individual acts of heroism, sacrifice and duty that deserve all the accolades and recognition we can give them in this current war., and I will be the first to salute them at the ceremony. But from what I've witnessed, we degrade the legitimate recipients when they get the same medal as those who "just did their job, but over THERE".
Pima credentials? Well, she was there at my side (or on the receiving end of an e-mail or phone patch from a distant land) when I and my fellow collegues vented our frustrations about the system in place. She might not have "first hand knowledge" as she wasn't in the action with us, but she has listened, and saw for herself as the system has become nearly a joke. THAT was what her post was about, not an attack on Kerry's record, but a legitmate opinion about the situation, with some examples. Was her information on BSM versus Meritorious Medals incorrect. Yes, but a minor detail, and not the meat of the matter you have been harping on.

No attacks about Kerry's war record by either of us. In fact, I think I emphasized it quite often in previous posts (and this one) that he earned them. Perhaps a joke about it that was "lost in translation", but the truth none-the-less. It was his actions back home that lost my respect for him.

USNA69

Thank you.

Again, you choose to miss the point of my request. My request was that of the credentials of someone choosing to question a specific award to a specific individual, countering the recommendations of his chain of command at the time.

Bullet

Well, in the Swifties case, we could use the arguement that some of them were there and knew more of the details about some of the events not included or mis-stated in Kerry's award package, details that the commander may not have. However, this is ALL speculation, and actually I find it as distasteful as you. He got recognized for actions he was a part of, by the people who commanded him, and the people there with him collaborated his accounts. That's the end of that story in my book.

But Kerry also made claims about his service in areas that he wasn't a part of, and NOT awarded a medal for. Things like his memories of his Christmas time in Cambodia, ordered there by President Nixon. Only he NEVER was in Cambodia, and Nixon wasn't even President during the time he claims he was there. A mistatement or a memory fogged by time? Perhaps. But it can also be seen as a trend towards a disregard for the truth on his part to add to his desire to paint the Vietnam war as immoral, especially when taken with his lies to Congress about what he saw. Something that gets people's attention when the man runs on a platform of "war hero"; something that may perhaps cause them to dig a little deeper into ALL of his claims, even the ones that have legitimacy and proof. Rightfully so? Again, I don't beleive so, but I can understand how their anger lead them down this path. I just don't approve of it.

The search into Bush's service record as part of the Air National Guard comes to mind as a similar example, also argued along political lines. And you would be right to say that the side which was so intent on trying to expose Kerry's war record as false were just as offended when the shoe was on the other foot in regards to the efforts to disprove Bush's war records. You can't have it both ways, my friends.

This seems to me to be a typical political arguement, where each side will refuse to acknowledge the others opinions. That happens, and it's something I can live with (and something I am willing to die for to protect the right of). However, I do agree with you; you usually need some legitimacy yourself if you're about to research and question a medal honorably earned in combat. I think some of the Swifties fit this requirement, but their motives are biased based on the anger they feel in this case (anger I agree with, as you can see by my posts, but I still remain uncomfortable by the methods they chose to pursue). But I also think that in a free society, when you get inconsistencies and evidence of a history of falsehoods, it should open up the criteria so EVERYONE has the right to question the rest of the story.

shogun

Let the games begin......

USNA69

What I am hearing you saying here is that you honor and respect all awardees unless they happen to be of the opposing political party, not be able to instantly recall who was President fifty years ago, get confused about which side of a border they were on, or some other rationalization fitting for the occasion, and then, instead of being subject to the normal award process which you have so eloquently described as being a part of, they should be subject to a popularity contest convened by their perhaps prejudiced peers. That's not the way things are done in MY Navy. It also just happens to be my definition of ‘two-faced” unless you have a better term.

Our soldiers and sailors earned their awards under the rules and regulations in place at the time of the award. What they do or don't do for the rest of their lives should not detract from that service. I am extremely disappointed that a serviceman of 20 years is having a problem with this.