keydet

I find myself somewhat surprised to be agreeing with USNA69 on a posting- but on this one he is on target. I really dislike John Kerry for his actions after he left uniform and his actions as a politician since then. But we should give him his due- at one point in his life he was awarded medals for valor which were validated by the chain of command on the scene at the time. If we all start accepting the validity as a part of political discourse of after-the-fact questioning of awards made in a comat situation- which and whose awards are really valid? To buy into the "swift boats for truth" line of reasoning is really to question all medals- because there is always someone willing to second guess after the fact for some reason- and if this keeps going on we just allow everyone's awards to be challenged- and they will be any time it is advantagous to do so. Fraud is one thing (falsely claiming awards that were never given) but this is completely different and I think that it is dishonest and disrespectful to be arguing over awards that were legitimately awarded using the criteria in place at the time. The people doing so aren't just questioning that person's award- they really are questioning the entire award approval system and the chain of command that approved those awards.
Parts of a service record are certainly valid topics of discussion for what they tell us about an individuals character and competence- ie... levels of responsibility, trustworthiness, decision making under pressure etc. But to reopen awards for valor that were duly researched and approved at the time of award seems flat out wrong. John McCain has a 30 year service record and another 25 years in office to target- and I'm certain that those so inclined will do so. After the fact questioning of his medals for valor would be absolutely uncalled just as it was in 2004 with Kerry.