Posted on 12/15/2011 7:17:14 AM PST by World'sGoneInsane
With Dakota Meyer standing at attention in his dress uniform, sweat glistening on his forehead under the television lights, President Barack Obama extolled the former Marine corporal for the “extraordinary actions” that had earned him the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest award for valor. SNIP
But an exhaustive assessment by a McClatchy correspondent who was embedded with the unit and survived the ambush found that the Marines’ official accounts of Meyer’s deeds....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I think you’re correct. This has everything to do with his complaints about a DOD contractor.
Media promoted massive number of inflated stories for mObama's Honor ( Alert)
No, I don’t believe that.
;^)
A Cavalry Troop Captain was KIA while standing on his 113. Years later we learned he received the DSC for attacking bunkers, killing NVA with hand grenades and a 45. He was 24 from West Point.
He never dismounted his command vehicle, which was behind another 113.
Some Awards are embellished. Napoleon said something about soldiers love trinkets.
Chessplayer is right.
Nobody, including the reporter, is saying the MOH recipient didn't deserve the honor. The question is whether the official citation was embellished or not, and if so, why.
Attacking the media on this — especially since a reporter was there at the time and has firsthand knowledge of at least some of the incident — is not the answer. We have the First Amendment for a reason, and the key part of that reason is to have a check and balance on government. A reporter's job is to report the facts, and it's possible to test whether the report is in agreement with the facts. Facts are stubborn things, and we will likely find out very soon what the facts are in this case.
I remember at the time that Marine involved called himself the farthest thing from a hero, but said he was accepting on behalf of his fellow troops to recognize their accomplishments. That comment stuck with me, and indicated either an extreme amount of modesty (quite possible, given the circumstances) or that there were facts that hadn't yet come out.
For better or for worse, we likely will now find out much more about this MOH recipient and the incident than we ever expected to know. In the long run, getting facts verified or refuted is not a bad thing.
The fact that it came from an unnamed reporter/media is what makes the headline suspicious.
Imagine! "tarnish a signature moment of Obama as commander in chief." Almost more than one can fathom.....
Medal of Honor Marine Dakota Meyer speaks in the video below.
[6:45] Medal recipients tell of their sacrifice and the sacrifice of their fellow heroes -- and why they support Rick Perry.
Isn’t it a strange coincidence that he is in this video and now the story is being questioned.
I thought of that.
Just like US Attorney General Eric Holder flying this week to Austin (LBJ library) to brag about how his DOJ foot is going to be pressing down on the neck of states’ new voter ID bills.
He was harassed within the company and left. He received a less than glowing reference. Stating that he was “Mentally Unstable” and basically a loose cannon....
This is payback for outing a DOD contractor..."
Our country is sliding into moral oblivion faster than the speed of light. It's all about the buck and to heck with our troops is their attitude?! May this 'contractor' find themselves in the unemployment line and right soon.
~SEMPER FI~ Sgt. Meyer. Don't let the slimy dirtbags get you down.
Where was Denzel?
I agree that this question needs to be answered and I assume we will get the answer very soon.
After all, the reporter's byline would presumably have appeared on the articles he wrote about the unit, so this probably isn't something that would be hidden or even possible to hide. Google searches generate lots of information for anybody interested in finding things published in newspapers.
I can think of two likely possibilities of why the reporter wasn't named:
1. The Washington Post is not part of the McClatchy chain of newspapers. For an initial article, naming the competing news organization for which the reporter worked, and which was responsible for editing and publishing his work, may be more significant than the name of the reporter. That would be common though not universal practice for a newspaper in dealing with reports on the news coverage of a competing newspaper — name the other newspaper, but avoid naming the individual reporter until it's clear the reporter has become the story.
2. There are some statements in the Washington Post article that raised other questions in my mind, such as whether the McClatchy reporter still works for the same company. I'm guessing so I don't want to muddy the waters by putting guesses into circulation. There's no reason for that since we'll get the facts shortly.
Other possibilities, though less likely, include that there may be security issues with the reporter. This was an embed mission, so the reporter may not be an American. Even if he/she is American, if the reporter is still in-country, it may be important to get him/her out before widely disseminating the name.
In any case, I have little doubt we will all get lots of information in the very near future that confirms, clarifies, or corrects the information in the Medal of Honor citation.
Full disclosure: I was a finalist for a newspaper position that would have included embedding as an occasional part of my duties, though I pulled out of consideration for that newspaper due to accepting a different job offer covering the military in a position where embedding was not an option. Later on, I had a different opportunity to be an embedded reporter, but for a variety of reasons it simply was not financially or logistically possible for me to take the offer.
I don't have any way to know how good or bad I would have been as an embedded reporter, but I strongly believe the story of our troops needs to be told and it's not being told very well right now. Virtually the only thing most people see in the media beyond the national news outlets is coverage of military funerals. I'm all for honoring people who made the ultimate sacrifice, but put bluntly, we're winning the war and far too few people have noticed. We need to be hearing what our troops are doing, not just what happens when a vehicle hits an IED and somebody dies.
I've read the attacks here in this and other Freeper threads on embedded reporters. I'm the first one to agree that some reporters have a serious anti-military bias and cause a great deal of damage. However, when we compare coverage of the current War on Terror with most prior military conflicts in which America has fought, a glaring difference is the near-total lack of awareness by the general public of what our troops are doing.
Many of us here on Free Republic are military veterans or have family members who are in the military or have previously served, but that is not the case for the vast majority of Americans who know very little about the military. Due to the current media crisis, most newspapers simply do not have the money to cover the troops the way they should be covered with on-the-ground reporters; the same is true of many broadcast outlets.
Lack of coverage most emphatically is **NOT** helping build support for our Armed Forces. We're now facing the strange situation of having to answer the question, “What would happen if we won a war and most people didn't notice?”
Mmmm...Sheriff Arpaio is in the news, as well.
Yes....the THREE year investigation on Sheriff Arpaio has “finally” born fruit for Obama’s reelection.
Since you are "pro-military," then you can understand the dismay with this story and the media in general. It would be just so typical for the liberal media to tear a military hero down.
57 posted on Thursday, December 15, 2011 3:48:00 PM by World’sGoneInsane: “Since you are ‘pro-military,’ then you can understand the dismay with this story and the media in general. It would be just so typical for the liberal media to tear a military hero down.”
We are in agreement.
Few people get more annoyed with left-wing media bias than someone like me who has spent a quarter-century dealing with it on a daily basis from colleagues. There are certainly conservatives and moderates in the news media, just like there are certainly liberals in the military, but they’re a distinct minority in both professions. The dominant cultures in both professions are such that it’s not advantageous to one’s career to speak out too much.
57 posted on Thursday, December 15, 2011 3:48:00 PM by World’sGoneInsane: “Well, if you are a reporter that knows there will be more information coming out, then we will see and judge what else comes out.”
Clarification — I know nothing about this individual case.
My point was that once claims like this get made, there is no way the questions that got raised will remain unanswered. The fellow Marines and friends of this Medal of Honor recipient will make **VERY** sure of that.
Likewise, the media whose stories have been called into question, and President Obama’s own staff, and the military personnel who reviewed the Medal of Honor packet, and the Marine public affairs personnel will all be double-checking their work.
Long-term, fact-checking is a good thing. Short-term, it can be very unpleasant to deal with garbage accusations getting made, but in a case like this the accusations, if proven to be garbage, will get refuted. The Medal of Honor is too significant for this story to go away before the facts are on the table.
See the link I posted to you #47. His fellow marines already came out to support him. That story was posted at noon online in Kentucky. Maybe you can use it as a source.
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.