MILITARY AWARDS: EARNED OR NOT, WAS THE CRITERIA MET?

FakeWarriors.com ^ | Thursday, February 05, 2004 | Gerald F. Merna, 1st Lt, U. S. Marine Corps (Retired)

[kabar]

I wouldn't begin to speculate on his reasons for joining the Naval Reserve. Whatever his motivation it is the act of joining the reserve that should be the focus, and, it's an admirable act.

An admirable act or a calculated one? It fits the pattern of Kerry being on both sides of the issue. I believe he joined the reserves to further his political career. It doesn't make much sense to leave the service in Jan 1970 and join up again in 1972, especially after denouncing the military leadership as supporting attrocities as a matter of policy.

The Treaty of Paris was a forgone conclusion as early as mid-1972. It was the administration's recalcitrance and bickering over the seating and shape of the Paris Peace Talks table that cost more lives at the end of that tragic exercise than those stupid protesters ever did.

A non-sequitar. We lost the war politically, not militarily. Kerry aided the Communist regime in North Vietnam by his actions the same as Jane Fonda did. The hundreds of thousands of boat people, the millions placed in reeducation camps, and the millions that died in Cambodia and Laos were the legacy. I was stationed at Naval District Washington during Kerry's anti-war demonstrations. I was revulsed by him then and now. He was using the war to advance his political ambitions--clear and simple.

I too spent some time in SEA, 30-plus months, and I had serious reservations about the conduct of the war. Not the war itself mind you, but the restrictive manner of our Rules of Engagement and the waiting for targeting approval from the White House.

I spent 8 months offshore (part of a 10 month WESTPAC tour on an LPH) and 12 months in-country. I agree it was a micromanaged war by Johnson primarily. I don't regret my service just the fact that we were the first American military in modern times to lose a war despite that we never lost a major battle. I was in Danang during Tet, a great victory for us that was portrayed as a defeat.

Why should it concern anyone that Sen. Kerry was a part of the Riverine Force for only several months vis-a-vis a complete year? Is there any question that he actually received the combat related wounds for which he recieved the Purple Hearts? Does anyone really doubt the action which resulted in his Silver Star? (I sort of discount the Bronze Star since virtually every officer anywhere near the bulltes flying got one of them. I still don't know why I got one.).

Kerry initiated the request to leave according to what I have read. Although I have no proof, I would posit that it is not beyond the pale for one or two of the wounds to be self-inflicted, especially by someone who seemed to know the rules by putting in a request to leave four days after receiving the third wound. I won't go into any sea stories, but some folks would do some less than honorable things to get a medal. Kerry is such a self-promoter, I wouldn't put anything past him. Re the Silver Star, I would like to see the citation and how the award was vetted. I saw some pictures with captions that Kerry had the medal pinned on in Vietnam. Sounds rather fast approval process to me. I received a medal with a combat V, but I didn't receive it until I was several months at my next billet.

And what is the beef about his applying for reassignment under a regulation that is well-known to every combatant; thrice wounded and you get a ticket out of the dust-up?

I guess I have a problem with the reassignment request not being in line with the spirit and intent of the regulation. Three minor wounds, none requiring hospitalization, with no missed duty. I find it odd. Hell, he could have cut his arm falling against a bulkhead in a sharp turn and claimed he had been wounded. In a more general context, I question Kerry's veracity based on his record after leaving the Navy. He seems to be on both sides of an issue pandering to whomever he wants to impress.

Do you really want to compare Sen. Kerry's accomplishments in Vietnam--even the fact that he volunteered for the service and assignment, to that of the President?

No. Kerry wants us to make that comparison because it is to his advantage. He is trying to frame the debate. McAwful has stated as much with conjuring up the image of Kerry the true hero with the chest full of medals against the draft dodger who hid out in the National Guard. The Dems are also trying to defuse the issue of Kerry's anti-war activities.

How did recent Yale graduate Bush jump over hundreds of applicants to get into the Texas Guard? How did he get a flight school assignment and not get follow-up orders to a combat ready unit? How, if the Texas Air Guard unit was tasked to be an active component of the Air Defense Command and guard the Gulf Coast, did he avoid the air-to-air combat qualification course for the F-102?

I don't doubt that political influence probably played a part. However, flying a high performance jet aircraft is not exactly hiding out. I am sure your son feels the same way. I gather the Air National Guard switched to another aircraft, which Bush was not qualified on. We can scrutinze Bush's service and make the invidious comparisons the Dems want us to make. The bottom line is that Bush served honorably but not in combat. He belongs to the vast majority of military personnel that support the tip of the spear.

And speaking of flying, I cannot imagine any self-respecting flier not wearing his wings on a flight suit. Did you notice that when the president trapped on the carrier last May 1st, he was wearing a Navy flight suit with gold wings?

Without knowing the circumstances, I couldn't comment. They probably just took a flight suit and put the President's name on it for the photo op. Bush took off the flight suit to make his speech on the flight deck. I have been on a number of Presidential advance teams. A lot is choreographed without the President being involved. Maybe somebody forgot that detail.

I would say to the American public, were this my campaign: "Yes, I chose the Texas Air Guard because it was a lawful and available method to avoid service in Vietnam while, at the same time performing the necessary service of air defense against Cuba and her Soviet allies. The gulf coast was the soft underbelly of our airspace and the Russians could have launched an attack from Cuba against the USA similar to the crisis that occurred in 1963. Had I not gotten into the air guard, I would have joined the active air force. etc., etc.---If I had it to do over again, knowing what I now know, I would not succumb to the impulse of youth and see my duty differently. I have spent most of my adult life trying to benefit the American public notwithstanding that singular poor youthful decision."

LOL Right come clean and say that your service was not honorable. You are asking GWB to commit political suicide for doing something that he should not be ashamed of. Would you have recommended the same thing to Clinton, who really was a draft dodger? We shouldn't let the Dems set the framework for this discussion. Bush and his advisors are smarter than that. They go out of their way to say that Kerry's service in Vietnam was commendable and beyond reproach. It is the Dems that are tossing out names like deserter, draft dodger, etc. and trying to tout Kerry as the war hero. It didn't work for the Reps with Clinton and it won't work for the Dems with Bush, especially given Kerry's vulnerability on a host of issues.

[middie]

Okay, find out his record. However, what you've done comes right out of Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, -----------------"First the sentence, then the verdict." From the ideological disdain of Kerry comes the suggestion; the suggestion takes on a life of its own as though it was given fact. After that the "fact" becomes an issue for discussion in which some dispute and others recite it repeatedly as self-proof of its accuracy. It's like the party game where someone starts a whisper and passes it on. By the time it becomes public the whispered sentence is unrecognizable, that's what we have here.

What is the basis for your cynical remark of the "miraculous" appearance of the sailor he saved? Do you doubt it happened? Is the former enlisted man lying? Wasn't the even documented at the time? Why is that any more reprehensible than President Bush 41 standing by the survivors of his aircrew who heaped praise on their pilot during that fateful mission over Niji Jima when they were shot down? The only difference is the ideological pole at which each stands and has nothing to do with the nature of the endorsement by former mates.

[Just mythoughts]

IDEOLOGICAL? Yes now we are getting somewhere.

That does explain him pretending to toss his medals. Hooking us with the likes of Jane Fonda. You bet I question what JFKerry claims and his dark accusations and dark voting record in that "HOLY" Senate.

JFKerry has displayed he is not honest, nothing more than a user and want-a-be leader. He votes for a "war" and then refuses to vote to fund that "war" cause it politically expedient for himself. This happen all within this past year.

Making himself appear to be the best friend to Veterans is a fraud based upon his voting record.

By the way he did demand a closer look in himself with "BRING IT ON".

[middie]

By all means take him up on his challenge to "bring it on." But in your case, as with most who author similar sentiments, the verdict is already decided before the analysis that should be part of 'bringing it on has even begun. It is indeed ideological and those, like you, who find his ideology anathema merely route-step through the exercise and announce their hostile findings irrespective of what the documented facts demonstrate.

Lewis Carroll is a rich source of quick witted wisdom. He offered some insight that is applicable to the type of inquiry you and your similar thinking posters anticipate:" first the verdict, then the trial."

I expect the inquiry to show that the awarding of his medals and citations are within the criteria of Navy regulations, documented by eye witnesses, written up for recommendations by superior officers and approved by the legitimate chain of command. I also expect those facts to mean absolutely nothing to you and others who will continue to condemn with innuendo and dark, sinister suggestions loaded with suggestions of a cabal of lies and conspiracies in 1971 that foresaw Sen. Kerry as a presidental candidate in 2004 and planted the lies to assist his campaign.

Talk about bizarre conduct that defies logic and common sense.....!!!

[Just mythoughts]

So you work for the JFKERRY campaign.

Your words "I also expect those facts to mean absolutely nothing to you and others who will continue to condemn with innuendo and dark, sinister suggestions loaded with suggestions of a cabal of lies and conspiracies in 1971 that forsaw Sen. Kerry as a presidental candidate in 2004 and planted the lies to assist his campaign."

"Talk about bizarre conduct that defies logic and common sense.....!!"

I will use your words "cabal of lies and conspiracies in 1971......" JFKerry has not been bragging about that period now has he? Oh no not a word about testifying before Congress and his busy work with Jane Fonda.

What I do know about JFKerry's presentation of himself has a record and he has not been honest. Now I heard that 1 Republican being interviewed about how he came to be at JFKErry's side in IOWA and it does not pass the smell test. So again based upon the accusations, and actions done by JFKERRY it raises questions about the veracity of what is claimed.

JFKerry wants to be President, and somehow his time in Vietnam is the only thing he is using to give himself credibility. So if his ideology is based upon a "cabal of lies" for whatever purpopse, then that is what is, and who he is.

By the way questioning the veracity of a claim is not the same as a "verdict".

[middie]

my reference to the cabal and conspiracy theories was to those who recommended the awards and those who approved them up the Lt.'s chain of command. They obviously foresaw what is taking place today more than 30 years after their conspiracy---I must say, that's some very good planning, right out of the "Manchurian Candidate."