Posted on 03/08/2005 12:49:49 PM PST by swampfx
free dixie,sw
Yep...MUD
Yes, but all the intestinal fortitude you could muster would still not transform you into Liz, but just a little intestinal fortitude outta Ashcroft and we couldda nailed Clinton to the wall.
FReegards...MUD
!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you"MeekOneGOP":}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Politics is like a flophouse where the sheets are never changed.
BTW, Boorda's citations citing his paticipation in combat were based on exchanging fire with the enemy. That is the requirement to be awarded the V device, so I am surprised by a statement like "He clearly was not authorized officially to wear the device".
f. On 2 October 1965 CDR J was awarded the NCM with Combat for meritorious achievement during the ship's combat operations in Southeast Asia. At this time, the Navy and Marine Corps Awards Manual, SECNAV Instruction (SECNAVINST) authorized the CDD, a bronze letter @IV," to be worn with the NCM and certain other medals if the particular award was "for acts or services involving direct participation in combat operations." This directive did not require that the citation accompanying the award specifically authorize the CDD in order for it to be worn.
What I meant by official is that his service record did not include any such specific authorization. As far as I am aware, there is no such retroactive blanket authorization for someone to be awarded a combat V."
I have not read Boorda's citations. Do you know where they can be found? It would be interesting to learn if other crew memebers on the destroyers were awarded "Vs" on their personal awards. Besides spending a year in-country, I spent over 8 months off the coast of Vietnam on an LPH. Personally, I never heard of someone on a US ship, destroyer and above, being given a combat "V" with the exception of the aviators.
FYI: It is not necessary to be personally "exchanging" fire with the enemy to receive a "V" device. You just have to be under enemy fire.
Interesting. I notice that the original panel turned the son's request down. This is all political, revisionist history. Boorda knew that he was not entitled to wear the "V" device and decided the honorable thing to do was to take his own life.
Am I missing something? The link you provided clearly indicates that Boorda was not authorized a combat "V", not then and not now. This was the offical Navy response.
Clinton should be in jail peroid.
No. We were wrong about Bush.
Correction:
No. But we were ALSO wrong about Bush.
"Right Must Now Lead the World!!"
(To be sung to Ten Years After's "I'd Love to Change the World")
Everywhere, Left's FReeaks are scary...
Fight RAT-fairies, tell me "Wha' 'bout Liberty?!"
RATS, they bitch, plead fer more...
Must defeat the Lib'ral Whore'd!!
Right must now change the world...
Rush'll tell you what to do...
Folks, we'll FReep with George Dub-YOO!!
Righteous nation, Bush is leading...
Save the needy...promote FReedom, why won't Left see?!
Time is money...future's sunny...
FReepin's funny...Truth is stunnin'...fight Tyranny!!
Right must now save the World...
From Dem fascist Guv'ment tools!!
Folks, yer FReedom's up to you!! Oh yeah!!
(Sweet guitar jammin')
Power devolution's...the Right solution!!
Constitution...brings absolution!!
Yes, Black is Right...RATS are whores!!
Right is just...win the war!!
Right must now lead the world...
To a future Right and True!!
Folks, yer children look to you...
Mudboy Slim (11/16/2004)
A civilian board appointed by Bill Clinton concluded Bill Clinton was right. John Dalton and Admiral Elmo Zumwalt Jr. have more credibility on the subject. Zumwalt was there.
Now you are being ridiculous. Bill Clinton did not appoint the members of the panel. If he did, they would have subverted the integrity of the US Navy awards process and come out with the politically correct answer. The panel did a thorough job of research and came to the only reasonable conclusion.
I spent almost 8 years in the Navy and agree with their conclusion. Granting Boorda a CDD retroactively would have far-reaching implications devaluing the CDD. Moreover, Boorda was not under hostile fire.
Zumwalt was trying to salvage the reputation of a fellow CNO. If you read the panel's report, you will note that in paragraph 3t "Zumwalt concedes he did not have the authority to authorize such distinguishing devices. Only (SECNAV) has that authority and it must be granted in writing on each award citation." Dalton was a Clinton appointee who was trying to uphold the name and reputation of a subordinate. Pretty clear to me.
Admiral Boorda participated in combat operations in Southeast Asia and was awarded two “V” devices for medals he received related to combat operations.
This is bogus. The Navy never awarded Boorda CDD's and his son's request to award them after the fact in 1998 was denied.
I am not sure that is correct.
It was not unusual for ships engaged in combat operations off the shores of Vietnam to be fired upon.
I recall reading histories of the ships Boorda served on and some of histories included receiving hostile fire.
This is definately one we will have to agree to disagree on. Admiral Mike Boorda was murdered. Nothing you could write on this forum will change the facts and nothing I could write will change your mind.
However, if you could provide the exact wording in your citation that authorized you to wear the V device when it is convenient I would be in your debt.
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.