<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Wow, a political discussion on the Service academy threads! Who’da thunk it? :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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”.<br>
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
). 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?</p>