My shipmates, who died being shot down in Vietnam, would give you a good argument. Schmuck.
Posted on 07/31/2008 4:30:10 AM PDT by Calpernia
(What makes someone a "decorated combat veteran?" Thurman Hart puts the question to us framed within the drama of a New Jersey Congressional race. From the diaries - promoted by Brandon Friedman)
I don't usually make a huge deal out of my six years of service in the US Navy. I went in when I was eighteen, spent four years as an electrician on the USS Saipan, and got out. I have a box on a shelf where I keep some spare bits of cloth and metal that the Navy gave me for various things, but it's really not a big deal. But, from time to time, something happens that really hits me--as a veteran. Those of us who have worn a uniform know how misleading a lot of military jargon is. "Friendly fire," of course, isn't friendly at all. And the majority of people who serve in a "combat zone" do not actually experience combat.
So I took interest when I saw Republican candidate Chris Myers repeatedly identify himself as a "decorated combat veteran". Like me, Myers is a Navy vet. And--I don't think I'm breaking major news here--Navy personnel generally have a fairly low chance of engaging in direct combat. This is especially true when compared to the Marine Corps and Army.
So I did some checking. Mr. Myers served aboard the USS Bunker Hill during Desert Shield/Storm. His claim of being seasoned by combat appears to be tied to the award of the Combat Action Ribbon to his ship. But, as I discovered, the award was given under a waiver of the traditional definition of "combat". Basically, to get the Combat Action Ribbon, his ship should have had to take damage from the mines in the area where it operated - as the Tripoli and Princeton did. Myers has claimed that the Bunker Hill had several "near misses" - but I don't recall awards being given for "almost being in combat". Hence, the waiver.
The other claim of combat comes from the V designor on his Navy Commendation Medal. Normally referred to as a "combat V", it is given for particularly valiant or notable service in combat. The award letter notes that Mr. Myers was responsible, in effect, for air traffic control during ground operations (combat). The Bunker Hill fired twenty-four missiles in support of the ground troops.
Again, this is not the traditional understanding of naval combat. It is, technically, a "combat support" operation. Words matter.
It doesn't mean that Mr. Myers didn't serve honorably. He did. It doesn't mean that he is lying about his awards. He isn't. But it does mean that he has the experience to know that he was not in combat and is chosing to inflate the public perception of his resume by misrepresenting his experience.
I believe that all veterans, even those such as myself who were never in combat, should be honored for the service they have given. After all, if I had been called on to enter combat while in uniform, I would have. But we should be satisfied with the honor we deserve, and those whose lives were endangered by direct enemy fire, in my opinion, deserve an extra measure of respect - as do those who have been injured in battle, those who were killed in action, and prisoners of war.
It is not denigrating other service to say that the sacrifices called for by these experiences require more than the normal measure of honor. It is merely stating what should be obvious. "Combat" means actual combat. At least, it should.
Since Mr. Myers has nothing else upon which to base his campaign, he reacted strongly. He sent out a press release and held a press conference attacking me for pointing out that he was stretching the public record.
Mr. Myers claimed that I was trying to "swiftboat" him. That group, however, claimed that the official record of John Kerry's service was somehow falsified. I claim the official record is right, but Myers doesn't want the whole thing to be known. But, since he brought it up, there is no record of him condemning the Swiftboat Lyers for their actions.
He has also claimed that I was "coordinated" with his opponent, who is not a veteran. When asked for substantiation of this serious charge, he simply said, "I have no proof of it." The truth is that I left the military because I don't like to take orders - not even from someone I hope wins office. I am not working for anyone.
Throughout the whole thing, Mr. Myers has denounced me as a "liberal blogger" while finding a way to neglect mentioning that I am a veteran and my ship even spent several months operating in the same waters as the Bunker Hill. As a result of his strategic omissions, and of his coordinated email efforts, commenters in serveral local newspapers have derided me as a crack-pot who doesn't know anything (here and here, for examples). To me, this is simply more of the same old GOP gameplan of running a veteran (me) - except this time it is a veteran who is doing it.
Is it a fine hair to split? I suppose so. But it is an important one. We all know that American voters love a veteran - and they tend to turn off their filters when someone claims veteran status. Those of us who know the difference have to stand up to protect those who have and are currently serving in combat. But we also have to speak up and protect the voters from a politically ambitious cynic who is more concerned with winning an election than with telling the truth about his service. Myers hopes that this will make people forget that he said that the important thing in Iraq is to make it "look like we've won".
If it is not a hair worth splitting; then why put so much effort into destroying my public reputation? If it is a hair worth splitting; then why raise a fuss when a person insists that the public record should be told in its entirety?
If you feel strongly enough about this, you can pass a donation along to Myers' opponent, State Senator John Adler. If you think I'm wrong, you're certainly free to say so. That is, after all, one of the reasons all of us wore the uniforms that we did.
I don’t believe a Combat Action Ribbon is a personal decoration in any event.
I believe Mr. Hart did clarify that in his editorial.
Well, although the writer makes some decent points, he calls the Swiftboat vets the “Swiftboat Lyers(sic).” So IMHO, he’s a dick.
That part did bother me too.
Funny that he claims he wants to “stand up to protect those who have and are currently serving in combat.”
Then he calls HIGHLY decorated combat vets, POWs, and at least one MOH recipient “Lyers(sic).” Spit.
My shipmates, who died being shot down in Vietnam, would give you a good argument. Schmuck.
I have one.
Did you know a Corpsman named John Lesko?
He was in 3rd Mardiv - I thought with 3rd Marines.
What this guy is saying in the article is true. CARs (Combat Action Ribbons) are supposed to be given out when you individually take enemy fire. I don’t know the story of the U.S.S. Bunker Hill in Desert Storm to know whether they took fire or not.
I actually have a CAR with a star from the Gulf and Beruit. However, what’s funny about that is that when I was in Somalia we took a lot of fire and sometimes returned fire but were not awarded CARs there. We were told that it was because we were on a humantarian mission. Go figure.
Anyways, my point is that I agree with him that the word war hero gets thrown around way too often nowadays. I say this because I have had the priviledge of meeting real war heros. I got the priviledge of hearing MSgt Pittman speak and nearly break down in tears while re-telling how he received the CMH in Viet Nam.
I would consider what John McCain did while being a POW qualifies as a genuine war hero. However, this guy does seem to be puffing up the ole record. He’s not unique though. All politicians puff up the ole record, be it war record or community organizer record. I think that the writer of this article is probably more concerned with having a Democrat elected to office than he is that some Republican is puffing up his war record.
An ex-Navy friend and I (retired Air Force) have had a similar conversation (and disagreement) for decades. He served on an aircraft carrier off the coast of ‘Nam. I served in country (though not in combat). He believes he should be entitled to same level of respect as people who were on the ground (or in the air above) ‘Nam, and I disagree. I don’t disparage his service—however, I think there are distinct gradations in that service, from front-line combat (highest regard) to those who, for whatever reason, may never have left the CONUS (still entitled to respect, but in much less measure).
This issue is escalating though because, since Mr. Hart has pointed out the ‘puffing up the war record issue’, the puffing Republican is taking steps to report bloggers to the FEC as campaign violators.
The puffing republican just held a press conference on it too.
So, I thought I would start tracking this here. Because if he gets anywhere with his puffing, it will affect a large amount of websites/bloggers.
So what you are saying is that the Republican is trying to get people’s first amendment rights constrained? If that’s the case, then this guy can’t be trusted and should go down in flames. Sometimes its better to have an enemy (Democrat) than a psuedo friend (Country Club Republican) in office.
Red flag here, people.
Absolutely and bump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.