Replies

Sorry: I may have already answered this reply of yours in passing by including you in another post. I'll answer it directly here.

It is my understanding that sKerry decided to get some kind of replacement copy of these citations so he could display these on the wall. I would assume that he claimed they had been lost. Now, we see that not only had they not truly been lost, but that the replacement citation has been altered.

In fact, not only has it been altered, but it has been altered in a way that is NOT clearly the intent of the writer. (I spent some time composing such citations when I was squadron exec officer - I agonized over every word I recommended to my commander for these things)

Your placing in front of us, Post#496, shows that there are clear "boilerplate-type" examples people who write these things typically use, and all of us who have done so were familiar with. Certain phrases were specifically EXCLUDED from sKerry's cite. If you read these and compare to sKerry's, you are clearly left with an impression that something was left out of the final sentence of sKerry's citation - it was a minimal impact statement.

I know you may not believe it, but I think that was very clearly intentional on the part of the original author. Whoever altered this from the very bland "his actions were in keeping with the highest traditions of the US Naval Service" (I think was same sentence with Bronze, by the way) to the far more powerful: "By his brave action, bold initiative and unwavering devotion to duty Lieutenant Kerry reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the US Naval Service" knew exactly what they were doing.

That materially alters the document, and its emotional impact.
.

there are clear "boilerplate-type" examples people who write these things typically use, and all of us who have done so were familiar with. Certain phrases were specifically EXCLUDED from sKerry's cite.

Your first-hand experience is very valuable. I have none in this area. There are obvious differences in the laudatory sentences, and it stands to reason that the differences indicate careful selection of wording to appear in the final document.

If you read these and compare to sKerry's, you are clearly left with an impression that something was left out of the final sentence of sKerry's citation - it was a minimal impact statement.

Which comports with Elliott's general impression of Kerry's action on that day.

I know you may not believe it, but I think that was very clearly intentional on the part of the original author. Whoever altered this from the very bland "his actions were in keeping with the highest traditions of the US Naval Service" (I think was same sentence with Bronze, by the way) to the far more powerful: "By his brave action, bold initiative and unwavering devotion to duty Lieutenant Kerry reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the US Naval Service" knew exactly what they were doing. That materially alters the document, and its emotional impact.

You have given me first hand information that I didn't have before, thank you. You are familiar with the "SOP" for crafting of original language. You should not be surprized to learn that I believe you when you say the words are deliberately and carefully chosen.

So, what conclusions do you draw from the change?