But think about it. Isn't it more revealing that Kerry is so deluded that HE THINKS he earned a campaign star by being "off-shore 1 day" ..... Then, abuses his power over the Pentagon to get HSI record OFFICIALLY changed 30 years later to get "his" star?
Remember, Kerry ignored letters warning HIM about slack airport security IN BOSTON BEFORE 9/11... But Kerry ignored those letters. Was he too busy polishing his shrine?
But, WHY IS KERRY SO DESPERATE TO GET his old record changed in the year 2000?
So, 30 YEARS LATER, why go to the DOD and tell THEM to re-write your ancient service history so "you" can add 4 stars to ribbons in a shrine in his Senate office building??
Do "you" want this obsessive, compulsive, self-worshipping, self-centered man to have the key to nuclear bombs?
Firstly, you refer to "a campaign medal". What we are referring to is a small bronze service star which is attached to the VietNam Service Medal. One such service star for each campaign during which one served.
I only determined that I was entitled to three stars recently when I ran across mention of my unit on the web. To many of us these things are pretty insignificant.
As we see, to career military and some politicians, every detail is important and could contribute to future success. Because such things are highly valued among the military, there tends to be a high degree of discipline associated with such entitlements. The boundaries of the theaters of war and the dates of each campaign are unambiguously decided.
There can be unusual results from such a system. For example, I vaguely recall hearing that some pilots would volunteer to fly just a single flight to VietNam in order to qualify for a month of combat pay and for the campaign service star for that particular day.
The problem with trying to devise a system with greater requirements is that injustice can be done to the deserving.
For example, if a soldier is wounded and permanently disabled on his first day in country, would that mean that he did not qualify for any campaign star? If the unit this wounded man was in was so decimated by the enemy that it was immediately withdrawn from the theater of war, would that mean that the wounded man qualified but those who were not wounded but who came under fire would not qualify for the campaign star? We should be cautious lest we treat those who are unsuccessful in battle better than those who manage NOT to get wounded.
I vaguely recall some controversy regarding Navy qualification for combat pay and/or campaign service stars. The list of 29 campaigns shows gaps where no Navy campaign is recognized. The Air Force has some campaigns for it alone. Assuming that the Gridley was on station in the Gulf of Tonkin during the times suggested, and assuming that the crew of that ship was entitled to campaign service stars while so stationed, then Kerry is fully entitled to two service stars for that duty.
When it comes to military service, "life ain't fair". Kerry's duty assignments are as described. Bush had what some would consider a cushier assignment stateside and may have found some slack to do political work.
I was stationed in one of the safest areas in VietNam during one of the safest periods.
A buddy of mine with the same training as I had was stationed in London in civilian status at the US Embassy. He was not allowed to wear his uniform and qualified for a clothing allowance. His greatest danger was probably looking the wrong way while trying to cross the street. Like I said, "life ain't fair".
All servicemen who served during the specified times are fully entitled to their service stars. All servicemen who have a need to have the military replace certificates describing the medals they have been awarded are fully entitled to request the military to do so.
Kerry is exceptional because he is among a select few who decided to insult the nation they served by throwing their medals on the Capitol steps, symbolically rejecting the legitimacy of such awards.
Further, Kerry is exceptional because he has sought to have certificates replaced which he evidently valued so little at one time that he has lost them. Kerry should be asked what other reason he could have for requesting replacement of certificates. It is odd that the record seems to include all the versions of the certificates.
Still further, Kerry is exceptional because he has sought to have his DD214 amended to include information which was not typically included on that document. I doubt that Kerry would suggest that every VietNam Vet should request that his DD214 be amended to include such information. That is the question I would have him asked. Why would Kerry have his record amended if it is not appropriate for every Vet to have his record amended?