The Logic or Ribbons and Medals - Part II

RCP ^ | 05/06/2004 | T. Bevan

[TomEwall]

THE LOGIC OF RIBBONS AND MEDALS - PART II: Be warned, this is an extremely long post. But it's time to finish off the thought I started last Tuesday: why did John Kerry throw his ribbons in protest in 1971 but not his medals?

Kerry's answer to this question - at least since 1984 - is that he didn't have time to go home and get them. That answer strikes me as two things: impossible to disprove and less than convincing.

We know that from 1971 to 1984 Kerry clearly wanted people to believe he'd thrown his own medals. We also know that Kerry agrees with the widely held belief that there is no distinction between ribbons (which are representations of the medals) and the medals themselves.

So back to the $64,000 question: why ribbons and not medals?

One clue comes from an email I received last week:

I'm a retired Navy Captain with several medals and ribbons awarded to me as well as experience on a 4 star Admiral's Awards Board, etc., so I know a thing or two about military medals and ribbons...

If you are an authorized patron or with an authorized patron (active or retired service member, their dependents, and certain others), you can walk into any Uniform Shop on any base and buy all the ribbons of any pattern (representing any award) that you care to.

But, the only way to get the actual medal is to have it awarded by the appropriate senior commander (usually a Flag Officer).

If you lose it, you must request a replacement from the appropriate military service headquarters giving ample and convincing justification for a replacement. This usually is hard to do successfully.

In other words, it turns out there is a striking difference between ribbons and medals: Ribbons are easily replaceable, medals are not.

It's probably fair to assume the military would not find throwing your medals away in protest as "ample and convincing justification for a replacement."

Clue number two comes in the form of Kerry's own behavior.

It is well documented that by the time John Kerry left Yale and shipped off to Vietnam, he was carrying with him not only the initials of John F. Kennedy but the political aspirations as well.

By that time Kerry had also expressed grave doubts about the war in Vietnam, most notably on June 12, 1966 when he said in an oration to his fellow students, "We have not really lost the desire to serve. We question the very roots of what we are serving."

Yet even though Kerry didn't believe in the political reasons for the war and was an outspoken critic of the tactics used to fight it, during his 4 1/2 month tour of duty Kerry was known for being an extremely aggressive commander - even to the point of being reckless.

More telling was Kerry's desire to document his exploits. Kerry was so interested in doing this he bought a movie camera that he even used during battle. In a profile of Kerry in The Boston Globe, October 6, 1996, reporter Charles M. Sennott wrote:

That Kerry took the trouble to film his war experience strikes many veterans, including some of his closest friends, as extraordinary -- even strange.

Kerry says he shot his war footage on a Super 8 camera he bought at the PX in Cam Ranh Bay. Asked how he filmed in the heat of battle, he demonstrated, gripping an imaginary ship's helm and thrusting his camera hand out to the side. "I'd steer, or direct, or fire my gun, and hold onto it when I could," Kerry says.

Indeed, after Kerry's swift boat was attacked on February 28, 1969 - an event in which Kerry's action led to his being awarded the Silver Star - Kerry returned to the scene of the incident the next day with his movie camera to re-enact exactly what had transpired - for the record.

Sennott described the footage of Kerry as a "young man so unconscious of risk in the heat of battle, yet so focused on his future ambitions that he would reenact the moment for film. It is as if he had cast himself in the sequel to the experience of his hero, John F. Kennedy, on the PT-109."

Sennott captured one other moment worth mentioning. Hours after his victory over William Weld in November, 1996, Kerry gathered a bunch of his fellow swift boat veterans together at his home where they watched his movies and reminisced fondly about Vietnam well into the morning. Sennott wrote:

[Fellow Vietnam veteran Thomas] Vallely teased Kerry about the films, which some have felt revealed that even as a young lieutenant, Kerry was so intent on his future political ambitions that he made sure he had his heroics captured on film. Kerry looked at Vallely over his bifocals and smirked.

Recent articles in the Boston Globe and elsewhere have detailed how persistent Kerry was in pursuing a citation for his first Purple Heart, despite questions about the severity of his injury and whether or not his boat actually took hostile fire on December 2, 1968.

There is no doubt Kerry served his country in Vietnam. But the record also indicates he had an intense focus on serving himself. Even among his fellow soldiers and shipmates Kerry was explicit about his ambition to become "the next JFK from Massachusetts," and he seemed conspicuously anxious about achieving (and documenting) personal recognition for his exploits in Vietnam.

I don't necessarily begrudge Kerry any of this, by the way. Vainglory doesn't disqualify a person from being President of the United States. But all of this does provide some additional background that makes the ribbons/medals controversy that much more troubling.

Because when Kerry returned home from Vietnam, first accused huge numbers of his fellow soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam on a daily basis and then used his ribbons as a public display against the war, he specifically told America - but especially his fellow soldiers - that the "perversion" of Vietnam "denied us the integrity those symbols [military medals and ribbons] supposedly gave our lives."

By keeping his medals after making such a statement John Kerry created a contradiction that remains irreconcilable to this very day. He publicly denounced the value and integrity of the ribbons, medals and service of all Vietnam veterans in 1971, but he continued to hold onto his medals and to use his service in Vietnam in future years as a reference point for his own personal integrity and a central tool for advancing his political career.

In the end, Kerry didn't throw his medals in 1971 for two reasons. The first is because he was proud of them - not because they symbolized the pride he had in his country at that time but for the pride he had in himself for winning them. The second reason is because Kerry knew there would come a day when he would not only want his medals but need them to fulfill his dream of becoming "the next JFK from Massachusetts."

[TomEwall]

I found the part about him operating a movie camera while in battle amazing!

[cvq3842]

I have heard it said that he was inordinately fond of photographing and filming during his time there. And that there are far more photos of him "in country" than there are of most veterans.

Everyone who puts on the uniform and goes into a war zone deserves our honor and thanks for that. But this guy has been calculating the whole time - using the experience as a springboard for his own political career, IMO. Opportunist. Sickening.

[TomEwall]

The article pointed out that he was unusually focused during battle. His future ambition must have served as a deterent against fear and other normal emotions one would have during the heat of battle.

[Ben Hecks]

" And that there are far more photos of him "in country" than there are of most veterans. "

The photo of Kerry in the jungle with a flak jacket, helmet and M-16 has been shown frequently. It's as if Kerry wanted to create the image that he was an Infantryman or Marine. Kerry's boat operated out of a secure island off the coast of Vietnam (some Army units used it for R&R) - I'll wager the nights that he spent sleeping in a non-airconditioned BOQ were small in number.

[TomEwall]

I thought this article was really interesting, so I'm going to bump it to give it one more chance.

[King Prout]

I, too, shall "bump" it.

[CharlesThe Hammer]

Thanks for the clear take on Mr. Kerry. The idea of filming himself "at the helm" does not really suprise me, because his narcissism and egocentricity are at the core of who he is. Additional evidence of the disconnect between his bombast about the "unjust war" and the cynical plan to use his decorations for advancement lies in his careful distinction of medals from ribbons. Kerry's immense hubris, nurtured in a lifetime of privilege, prep school and "Ivied" status, permits him to believe that it's "Perfectly OK to steer the boat with one hand while filming. I'm quite good at it Muffy!" It is this same arrogant pride that concocts the damnable lies about "atrocities" and "war crimes", all the while knowing that his service medals will come in handy when running for public office. Sure, defame your buddies, the cause, the service, even the country; even say, "Communism's not so bad, who are we to impose Democracy?". Mr. Kerry is all about grandiosity, hubris and unbridled ambition. He fancies himself an elite, an aristocrat, a patrician. He cannot be rebuked often enough...He is unworthy of the men he served with. He is a traitor to Vietnam Vets and purveyor of dirty calumny against them. He is a dissembler; a blasphemer to his own Catholicism; a hypocrite of the first order; a disciple of a drunken killer; a kept man; an equivocator; an opportunist and a crypto-communist. He is unctuous and indecisive, yet so sure of his entitlement. This Memorial Day, look into the dark mirror of the Vietnam Memorial, and remember what John Kerry did to his comrades, the way he lifted himself by lowering them, the way he spent their honor on himself.

[genghis]

was he proud of his service?
if yes, why did he throw the medals away?
was he proud of the atrocities he committed?
questions need to be answered.
He need to be held "accountable"