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
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.