SwiftVets.com

[Paul]

“Paul,
You asked me for a response earlier in the week, I did, and have heard nothing in response. Was I wasting my time?”

Hi Mike:
First, I apologize. I’ve been away from this string "runing my big opinionated fingers off" in another. And even when I came back to look yesterday, I missed your reply. So I’m glad you ask, since your question got me going back up to find it.

It’s a fair question. For whatever it’s worth, I don’t believe that wasted your time and I appreciate the reply. Thank you!

Also, in fairness, and credit where credit is due, it was your questioning of my understanding of the system that actually got me thinking back and thinking even more about the particular details of the evaluation system and maybe how to state the objections to what I was seeing a bit more clearly and to the point. It may not have been your intent, but it was the consequence. And I hope that the post I made earlier with the reasons that some of this was genuinely bothering me helps to clarify why.

“The term stands for s*** hot, which approximates the Navy's Bravo Zulu.”

Thanks a lot. Now I know that I didn’t know what it meant. Actually, kind of an “informal” BZ, but I understand. Geez. Both it and my understanding it probably somewhat show our age to, no?!

“I was merely seconding air-vet's comments and defending which I interpreted, correctly or not, was a defense of the OER/APR process in the
Air Force, whether it be right or wrong. I was merely re-emphasizing his assertions of that process. “

I figured you were and now I understand the fuller meaning.


“But you make me especially curious with your phrasing about a ‘uniform of the US military.’ It’s a peculiar phrasing. There is NO SUCH uniform. {Paul}

“This was merely an attempt at brevity. Of course I know there is no one uniform for the US military, I was only using the term generically.”

Fair enough. And I didn’t mean to drill this one as hard as I did. The phrasing was just unique to me.

”Also, Paul, my comment about ‘either you never wore the uniform’ was
out of line and I apoligize.”

Naw, for nothing. Not a problem. It’s fair enough in these forums anyway. Like I said, I could claim to have been Admiral and then someone else could counter with the claim that they ad been the Chief of the Joint Chiefs. What can one say if it doesn't go any further than that and it's in question? Something like, "you couldn't have been, because I don't remember seeing you either before or after I was CNO????" Geez. . . he he

You posed the questions. I addressed my thoughts on the two statements that you made plainly and bluntly and then I answered with other details elsewhere. And like I said above, it's true, you're statements questioning my understanding of the system are what got me thinking more about it and about clarifying my statements and adding particular details.

”I guess my entire line of thought revolved around what I percieved as your attacking of air-vet (call it service defense) on the performance evaluation process which I also participated in, albeit for only 10 years. However, in the last 15 or so years as a manager I have again had many opportunities to write and administer performance evaluations on the folks who work for me. I have used many of the techniques I learned in the AF when doing this. I do not, however, as you have, perhaps correctly, pointed out, use the technique of hiding true intent in the guise of the text of the evaluation. I try to be as direct, honest, and constructive as I can.”

Fair enough. I understand. Actually, I had no intention of attacking AV himself and tried to avoid in the phrasing. The intention was to attack the “guidance” not AV. But I think that's been clarified.

I’m in the same boat as yourself on evaluations and such. Sure, I use some of the old approaches from my time in the navy too. In practice, what you describe here, then it sounds like you and I are in agreement on writing evaluations. And

”I am sorry that the intent and tone of my last post has offended you as it was not intended to do so.”

Again, not a problem. I’m not that thin skinned, believe me. But I appreciate it just the same.

“To the point of the original thread topic, I agree with air-vet that Franks was probably using the hidden doublespeak that he referred to, hence the impetus of my post.”

I understand.

Truth to tell, as to people reading this article, then my guess is that there will be:

Those who are pro-Bush who will key on the ambiguous statement about President Bush.

Those who are pro-Kerry who will key on the clear statement about Senator Kerry being qualified to be President.

Those who are committed to neither or anything in particular who will read it any number of various different ways, including some I believe who’ll see it the same as my friend and myself, that the General is being noncommittal and effectively straddling a fence.

The Swift Boat Vets, even if not rejected due to it, probably won’t fair well overall from this particle article and General Franks’ statements with the majority who read it, whoever they back, or don’t.

Those are my speculations.

After that, I’ve already explained my thoughts sufficiently on the article and General Franks elsewhere I believe. Also, the more the statements I see coming from General Franks, then I have a bad feeling that the word "hyperbole" is probably going to start being heard more and more. Probably "hyped" itself. . . I don't look forward to it

”Last, but not least, your impression that I was doubting your true service could not be farther that the truth. I was, obviously poorly, trying to use satire and sarcasm to embelish my point. For that I am also sorry.”

Again, not a problem. We dealt with it, no? A little “blue on blue” clash (now that I realize you were in the air force), but, again, thanks just the same. As to satire, then I did recognize it, but sometimes in these forums I do worry if I'm misreading something. It's a tough medium in that sense sometimes to know what or how a guy is saying something I think. That's why I tend to take the statements as made.

”At least we can agree on a couple of things, though. Kerry is 'Not Fit for Command' and Franks could have done a hell of a lot better job portraying his true thoughts and feelings.”

Absolutely!

Honestly, thank you for taking the time to make such a thoughtful response Mike.

Again, for whatever it's worth, then as far as I’m concerned, you “stepped up to the plate” like a real champ. I do appreciate it.

And seriously, as to any concern about hurting my personal feelings, then put your mind at rest. As to my veteran status, then, with the nature of my work and having moved around over the years due to it, then while a lot of us run into each other now and then and it comes out, truth to tell, most people don’t even know that I am, which is fine.

Also, I’m no blind jingo apologist for the navy, but for reasons given yesterday and alluded to in earlier posts , I see these kind of things as bigger and more important than just me.

Thanks again!
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

Hi Mike:

Just an aside, here lately it seems to be either former navy aerdales or ex air force that I run into something on. Mostly of course, there's similiarities, but some differences too. . . .

Keep in mind, I was what sailors in naval aviation referred to as a "black shoe." Often I'm not familiar with some of their jargon. In particular, I was a GMC Selectee, or Chief Gunner's Mate, at discharge. So even though I didn't make the navy a career, I was able to live up to an old joke about only havnig stayed in to see if I could make Chief. In the old days I'd have been a GMMC in particular, but that changed.

What it designated me as though was a Gunner's Mate Missiles. My job while in the navy was working in missile batteries with the purpose of shooting down supersonic jet aircraft (a line that I'll admit having used before and tend to enjoy using sometimes when chatting with naval aviators or air force).

So maybe there's a factor of difference of perspective of sorts as well. . . although, mostly in these more general topics, then I think that it's just jargon, terms and clarification of what we're saying.

Again, I do appreciate your reply. Thanks again.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

Hi Mike:

This is an aside somewhat, but directly applicable to your apologies and something that has come up in this string.

You seemed especially bothered by how your earlier satirical statements may have impacted me. Since I follow some veterans issues now and then, I was aware of this and so I’ll pass it in case you’re not aware and hopefully to put your mind at rest as well.

It’s not unusual in the United States today for folks to be claiming to have been veterans who were not. In particular claims of having been Vietnam Vets and Navy SEALS when in fact the men were not seem especially popular.

Directly pertinent to Senator Kerry in this regard, and another example of the damage he helped to inflict in our society as a consequence of his actions, is the example of Joseph Ellis, professor at Mt. Holyoke, who taught courses on the History courses at that college on the Vietnam Conflict in which he "supplemented" the material with his “personal experiences” in “Nam.” Most of it was regurgitated rubbish from John Kerry’s old VVAW day false propaganda.

This particular case was a public scandal in the newspapers in 2002. The only thing done to Ellis when it was learned that he’d been lying for decades, and after the college underscored his being an asset due to his "personal experience," was to put him on a suspension for a short period and then he returned to his position teaching, including his courses on history of the Vietnam Conflict.

If you'd like to take a look, there's an article about Ellis that leads to other links at: http://www.warbirdforum.com/ellis.htm

People masquerading as Veterans who were not is not a new topic in Veterans issues. So, again, I'll pass this along for you in case you weren't aware. And I was serious above, don't sweat your challenging me in the least. I'm not that thin skinned, demonstrated that I was more than willing to address it plainly, including that I'd included plenty to demonstrate my own familiarity in these strings even before adding more later, and also because I tend to assume general awareness of this problem among veterans affiliated with veterans associations or organizations. If not, then it's good to pass on to others.

Again, I was serious when I said not a problem. I’d love to claim magnanimity, but honestly can’t, it’s more just a matter of verity. Take care. Pass on the information!
_________________
Paul

[Richard Christiansen]

I might agree that Kerry's war record, his ribbons, and everything else about it should be left in the past, except to restate the obvious: Kerry has made his war record the main reason why he deserves to be elected. Therefore, the Swift Boat vets are to be commended to help us evaluate his resume that he is so proud of. As a Vietnam Vet myself, I have had to sit back and listen to people during the past 30 years claim outlandish war experiences, when I knew they were lying. I have watched parades where scraggly bums riding on floats claimied to be Vietnam Vets. I did not feel they represented most of us. If they were in fact Vietnam Vets, why portray the "loser" image? I have listened to people blame their life's failures on Vietnam, when some were not even there, or if they were, they were in a 36 square mile base camp where there was little or no risk. I watched potheads smoke themselves silly in fire base camps while the rest of us were on guard. To make a long story short, I say, "bring it on," as John Kerry says. Maybe its time to deal with all this once and for all. Did he commit war crimes or did he not? Was he in Cambodia or not? Is he proud of his Vietnam service or is he not? Is he in favor of military action in Iraq or is he not? Has he renounced his protest actions after the war? Is he still a very confused man? Does he know what he actually believes? Or if he does, does he have the courage to tell us? An honest answer would be nice for a change. I think he owes it to the voters, but don't expect anything but more of the same evasive answers, flipflops, and lies.
_________________
Big Red One & 25th, Lai Khe, Etc - 69-70

[Paul]

"I might agree that Kerry's war record, his ribbons, and everything else about it should be left in the past, except to restate the obvious: Kerry has made his war record the main reason why he deserves to be elected. Therefore, the Swift Boat vets are to be commended to help us evaluate his resume that he is so proud of. As a Vietnam Vet myself, I have had to sit back and listen to people during the past 30 years claim outlandish war experiences, when I knew they were lying. I have watched parades where scraggly bums riding on floats claimied to be Vietnam Vets. I did not feel they represented most of us. If they were in fact Vietnam Vets, why portray the "loser" image? I have listened to people blame their life's failures on Vietnam, when some were not even there, or if they were, they were in a 36 square mile base camp where there was little or no risk. I watched potheads smoke themselves silly in fire base camps while the rest of us were on guard. To make a long story short, I say, "bring it on," as John Kerry says. Maybe its time to deal with all this once and for all. Did he commit war crimes or did he not? Was he in Cambodia or not? Is he proud of his Vietnam service or is he not? Is he in favor of military action in Iraq or is he not? Has he renounced his protest actions after the war? Is he still a very confused man? Does he know what he actually believes? Or if he does, does he have the courage to tell us? An honest answer would be nice for a change. I think he owes it to the voters, but don't expect anything but more of the same evasive answers, flipflops, and lies."

Well Said. Very Well said.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"Just reading this, sorry"

Hi Richard:

Thanks for the reply.

No problem about not getting back sooner, I understand.

I apologize for not responding your reply before the others that came later. I missed yours too until Mike's post got me looking back. I'm sorry about that.

On General Franks, and assuming the best, the only thing I can say for myself is to point to what I said earlier. I can only take General Franks' statements as he made them and judge them and comment upon them accordingly. I don't like to make assumptions about his intentions or his meanings beyond that; negative or positive in this regard, one way or the other.

If nothing else, the dickering over his meaning I believe is an example in support of his statements when taken together here being ambiguous and why I point out that ambiguity rarely yields any good results.

As for his speaking in public on important issues that impact the nation, then I chose Admiral Moorer as a contrast because he did the same right through to his death, and so as to make an 'apples to apples comparison' of a prominent retired General Officer and a prominent retired Flag Officer.

On the matter of public statements about Senator Kerry, at least while he was in public office, then I believe a fair comparison would be General George S Patton III, whose opinions about John Kerry's inexcusable actions I fully agree with. General Patton was also quite plain spoken and clear in what his opinion of John Kerry was and why.

I agree that it's more than reasonable that as a famous individual and prominent citizen that the rest of us look to see what a man like General Franks has to say when his public statements are reported.

However, having looked and listened, I'm simply not impressed with what General Franks had to say. Retired Air Force General Merrill A. McPeak I understand from a news article is supporting John Kerry. In his case I know his position clearly, but truth to tell, I really don't believe that General McPeak gives adequate explanation or reasons for his opinion of support for John Kerry for me to even to consider adopting his position or think about changing mine. I strongly disagree with General McPeak.

At any rate, give me a General George S Patton III or an Admiral Tom Moorer any day over what I'm seeing from General Franks. At least when they spoke, then one knew precisely where those men stood, precisely what their opinion was and precisely why they held it; frequently enough, in some instances, in the face of opposition and absurd counter claims, I'll add. In my instance, I also happened to agree with a great deal of what they had to say for the reasons that they gave and what they based their opinions upon. But even if that were not the case and the opposite were true. Then with those men, at least I would have known what I would have been disagreeing with and why I disagreed with it.

Just the same, thank you for your reply!
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"Fair enough. And I didn’t mean to drill this one as hard as I did. The phrasing was just unique to me." {Paul}

Mike:

I spoke badly here about the uniforms matter. To be a bit more accurate: Actually, I DID intend to drill that one as hard as I did. I just probably didn't need too.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

“PBR enlisted were entitled to two war wounds before the end of their one-year tour. Officers had to get three Purple Hearts before they could go home early. I thought that policy was correct. The enlisted river rats had to endure a lot more time on the river than officers. Oftentimes PBR sailors’ little nicks due to the fiberglass or tiny aluminum shards never got documented. Naturally, most of the unrecorded wounds were suffered on boats entirely manned by enlisted, without an officer around. It was a mark of honor for some river rats to pass off superficial wounds as nonevents. Some staff puke from Saigon or Binh Thuy might claim a Purple Heart if he bruised himself while the gunners on his boat suppressed an enemy sniper, but not a true river rat. . Splinters in the butt, a bullet crease of the leg, burns on the hand from changing a hot machine gun barrel were all war wounds in my book if the guys are actively engaged with the enemy when injured. Individuals still had the option of completing their tours no matter how many little stars were pinned to their Purple Hearts. Nobody wanted a whiner around if he claimed his tour was over because he had a couple of Band-Aid wounds. . . . Briggs was not a whiner. That was it. He would continue to take his chances on the river. Briggs was a career Navy man. A second Purple Heart on his record would add to his retirement points. He just wanted to make sure his little wound was recorded. . . Ron Wolin got the second star on his, and GM2 Briggs got his third award and a sure fire early ticket back to the states. Briggs again declined the option. He left Vietnam on time with three Purple Hearts, just as Ron Wolin did in August. Both were real stand-up guys.”

--Wynn Goldsmith, Lt, USN Ret, Papa Bravo Romeo, Ballentine, 2001, pp. 219-220 & 230

This is describing service on PBRs rather than PCFs, but apparently the same policy, at least when the PCFs also began working on the rivers in ‘69, applied to them.

Frankly, having once been enlisted, young (and not having giving much thought to my “career” when 19 years old), and having served long enough in the navy to be familiar with the evaluation, awards and advancement systems, and also being older now, I understood all of this perfectly when I first read it.

And this Second Class Gunner’s Mate, underscores why Senator Kerry’s service record and his 4 months of a 12 month tour isn’t all that impressive, even if there were no questions regarding his awards, however much of it may be valid or not. Certainly not what’s trying to be done with it today and most definitely not how he’s used it in the past.

The majority in the US Navy during the Vietnam era were volunteers. ALL who served on PBRs on the rivers, PCFs on the coast (and later the rivers), and part of the joint riverine assault forces with the 9th Infantry Division were volunteers. Just like the Air Force and Marines, well over 90% of those KIA in Vietnam were volunteers.

Ok. The option Senator Kerry used his Purple Hearts for was valid. But no one has to be impressed that a navy Lieutenant would take it rather than fulfilling the one year tour that he had volunteered to serve. That kind of legalistic quick exit is not what comes to mind when one hears the phrase, in the “highest traditions of the naval service” or thinks of as a “leadership” trait.

What he did after his service and what he’s done, and hasn’t done, with it since is all quite plainly and objectively inexcusable.

I'm certainly not pro-Kerry. But neither am I pro-Bush, and haven't pretended to be on this forum, or anywhere else.

I’ve never argued not to take an objective look at Senator Kerry’s service record. Most certainly not against taking a hard look at what he’s done with it since. I won't make excuses or rationalizations for such as General’s Franks or McPeak.

Frankly, many of the pseudo-left political hacks on the right that I see days, including most of the so-called neo-con’s leaders don’t have any stellar records to boast of either from those days eithers. And while I don't spit on the President's service record in the Guard, and certainly don't join the exaggerated attacks upon it, former Secretary of the Navy James Webb is correct, it doesn't merit any prizes either.

The president's leadership as a war President having to deal with a situation thrust on upon him I probably make more allowance for than such as James Webb I suspect, however, am overall not all that impressed by it. I personally believe he screwed up royally with Iraq. And this President is no model of either consistency or clarirty where his principles, promises and statements are concerned.

At any rate, I most certainly won't aid any neo-con hacks on the committee to re-elect or any others if it means defecating on the service in a "whatever is expedient" manner. To hell with them.

What’s truly pathetic in this nation at the moment is not "hyperbole" as General Franks overuses, but it's that guys like Kerry, and even this President, and their less than inspiring service records, and not guys like this Second Class and the majority of others like him who get all the attention in this nation at the moment.

Not everyone who wore a uniform of our nation's armed forces was a hero. And not everyone who wears a uniform of them today is a hero. However, many heroes have worn the uniforms of our armed foces. Most men who have worn them were like these guys written about above. They did their jobs. There was a time in this nation when the majority of its population once admired such men. It's a different population today.

Anyway, maybe this excerpt from Goldsmith's account will help clarify also. Because this string took what I believe to be such a bizarre turn early on, I didn't put until now.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

I didn't know what it was yesterday, but have seen the definition since.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm a lot of things, but I'm not a sneak.

No one has anything, most certainly on this forum, to back up such a stupid and patently absurd charge against me with.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

[MikeWinn]

Paul,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think we agree on most issues. I didn't really take the uniform drilling reply so seriously. But, it was utmost in my mind to claify because accusing, even satirically or sarcastically, a veteran of not having been in service is indeed a terrible accusation. Even though it was not intended as such, the fact that you even considered it to be an accusation tells me I misworded the entire thought. That, my friend, is the impetus of the apology. You seem to put a lot of thought into your comments and responses on this site. Pity many don't do the same.

Mike
_________________
LOCK & LOAD!


GunnerMike
Spectre Gunner and 141 FE
Dedicated to Rico. KIA March 14, 1971.
Love ya man.

[LubyStarling]

We all need to focus on kerrys anti-war activity, his labeling vets as baby killers and his disdain for vets welfare after the war. I still see and hear vets traumatized by their lack of welcome home. Did Kerry help prolong that after war disdain for patriots? Then, lets make sure America hears about that. Did Kerry have contempt for an officers second responsibility, the welfare of his troops? We all know their first responsibility is to accomplish their mission. Lets hear about his VA hospital visits, his introduction of legislation for vet job training and job security. Put the focus on his oversights and shortcomings. LC
_________________
Luby Starling

[Paul]

But, it was utmost in my mind to claify because accusing, even satirically or sarcastically, a veteran of not having been in service is indeed a terrible accusation.

Hi Mike:

As to my reply, you betcha, you’re more than welcome.

Thank you for the further explanation also.

Actually, I do agree that it’s not a charge to make lightly. I know that I wouldn’t, most especially if it was someone I was unfamiliar with. But that holds true not only for veteran status but for anything really.

In our case, then I think that you and I dealt with it ok here and got it squared away.

Oh, by the way, it’s not always something that I add in the line with the explanation of the name and duties of a GMM, but to no few others, and among many of ourselves when I was in, we were sometimes referred to as “Grease Monkey Missiles.” For some reason, our rating, like Boatswains Mate’s, isn’t one that I’ve ever heard of anyone falsely claiming to have been. Go Figure, no?
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

Wasnt there a secretary of the Navy who committed suicide after he was told he was wearing unauthorized ribbons? {Roughfun}

Hi Roughfun:

Since I shutdown the cable, I do a lot more reading again, do glance into into National Defense matters and have been concerned at what I've seen since the '90s. Hence my even jumping in with an an answer of sorts on this. . .

It was Admiral Mike Boorda, USN who committed suicide in 1996 and he was Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) at the time, not Secretary of the Navy.

This is a tough one and probably an aside for this string. I don't believe Admiral Boorda's suicide can be summarized so easily. At the very least, his suicide is also controversial and as As RAdm Clarence A. ‘Mark’ Hill Jr, USN (Ret) noted in an article he wrote in 2003 titled The Stumpf Affair & The Changing Culture of the U.S. Navy:

“There are any number of theories about why Mike Boorda ended his life”

So from what I’ve seen, I don’t know that one could make an easy call on this one.

RAdm Hill’s article as the name indicates deals with the changes in naval aviation and throughout the navy under the Clinton Administration through to today.

Commenting on the numerous theories about the suicide, RAdm Hill noted in that article, “the latest one in the book, ‘No One Left Behind’ by Amy Waters Yarsinske.”

Admiral Hill found the theory interesting because Yarsinske was dealing with the matter of the question of whether or not LCdr Scott Speicher, an F/A-18 Hornet driver in VFA-83 flying off of the USS Saratoga during the first Gulf War, had possibly survived his shoot down and been left behind in Iraq at the time and possibly after the war.

The executive officer of VFA-83 at the time was Cdr Elmo Stumpf who along with Cmdr Spock Anderson led assaults over Iraq and under whom LCdr Speicher served. Both believed at the time that Speicher had very possibly survived the shootdown.

This of course, led to another controversy.

Further, Cmdr Strumpf was involved in a controversial ordeal later, since he was one of the naval aviators who was charged with conduct unbecoming a gentleman due to his attendance at the now notorious Tailhook Convention in 1991 (talk about "hyperbole" and exaggeration not to mention a good deal else. . . ), even though he was not involved with the particular incidents. He was subsequently cleared of the charge by a board of inquiry. However, he was later held back from advancement anyway and compelled to bring charges. Ultimately he won his case and was advanced to Captain (the navy and Coast Guard equivalent of a Colonel in other branches of the armed forces), however, by then he was out of the navy and his career was over, as happened to many fine Naval Aviators because of Clinton policies and social engineering changes during his administration.

As I understand it all, Admiral Boorda was the Chief of Naval Personnel at the time that Speicher was shot down. The Secretary of Defense at the time was Dick Cheney. In a news interview, SoD Cheney had stated that Speicher had been shot down by a SAM and most likely KIA. Admiral Boorda, as Chief of Navy Personnel, supported the statement. Purportedly, as a result of his formally being declared KIA, the air wing was ordered not to conduct a search operation for LCdr Speicher.

The key to Yarskinke’s claim is that in 1996 evidence of LCdr Speicher’s possibly having survived the shootdown (due it’s possibly being an AAM and not a SAM that downed his plane) was presented to Admiral Boorda who was CNO on the morning of the day committed suicide.

If you’re interested, Adm Hill’s article, which is primarily focused on the Clinton Administration changes in our Armed Forces beginning in '93 and continued through to today. Adm Hill's article focuses on naval aviation, the Tailhook and the Strumpf Affair and can be found at:

http://www.newtotalitarians.com/TheBobStumpfAffair.html

It's a long article. The portion that mentions this is about 1/2 to 2/3 of the way down.

PS. I defend the Evaluation and Advancement systems of the past that I'm familiar with, not of the present that I'm increasingly aware of and am not at all convinced are sound and not overly political. I believe that the situation in our armed forces where emphasis on political correctness and social engineering over National Defense for a great deal of the new armed forces is very bad.

If People think that this controversy over medals, conditions under which they were awarded, and political motivations associated with the awards is bad, just wait until a a couple to a few decades down the road. Five words: Jessica Lynch & Bronze Star Medal. Meaning, from the Pentagon press releases it looks like there's a lot of the politically motivated Jessica Lynch like BSM citations being issued today.
_________________
Paul