 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:41 am Post subject: Letter to Jack Murtha from Don Baily |
 |
|
Have any of you ever read this?
Letter to Jack Murtha from Don Baily
| Quote: | May 5, 2002
Dear Jack,
I’m writing on matters of joint concern. A number of weeks ago I was talking with someone who is a mutual acquaintance and your name came up. It was an unusually frank discussion and I considered it private. I did relate some opinions about you and shared some recollections about experiences with you in Congress. I was, to be honest, critical about how you misled me about ABSCAM where you convinced me you had voluntarily told federal agents about the offer of money to you and I learned later, after I had successfully defeated the ethics charges against you, that you had merely manipulated the system to cooperate with federal agents to avoid prosecution.
I also shared my recollection of when you admitted, back in our corner, that you didn’t earn your purple hearts (you indicated you had small scratch on your cheek that wasn’t even directly related to an APC that ran over a small anti personnel mine that was behind you). The other purple heart you even declined to explain.
At the time you were feeling particularly vulnerable, because it wasn’t too long after you had called me crying and sobbing, thanking me for “saving your life” before the ethics committee. There was no doubt in my mind that you were expressing to me that you did not believe you did anything sufficient to earn the purple heart, and that you didn’t want to be active in my efforts to laud Vietnam Veterans that served with us.
Given what I know about the brave men who served in the Marine Corp., I did not criticize you, but to be honest, I was shocked and disappointed in you personally. We both knew what was at issue, and we both know what happened and that you wanted to avoid the limelight. Later, we ended up having to run for the same seat. It was a good clean race and I admit I knew I couldn’t win, simply on the basis of voter turn out alone. During that time some people came to me with documents indicating you had used influence, after the fact, or had embellished your purple heart awards. I did not respond, and I said nothing. In doing so I may have betrayed my comrades in arms because I knew then what you had told me in the corner of the house - but I had told no one about that and I stood mute. But a few weeks ago my conversation was private and I was not seeking to do you any harm, though it would be ridiculous for me to infer that I have any respect for what you’ve done.
Regardless, shortly thereafter a reporter called me and I was put in a very different position. I could either deny what I said in private conversation, and thus lie, or I could fess up to the truth, or, I could take the cowards way out and stand mute. If I say something, I should either have the courage to back it up, or I shouldn’t open my mouth. Regardless it was too late, and I did not choose to lie. So I admitted to what I had said. However, I later received two calls from two different aides of yours, and later I was called a liar in the press. I am not a liar and I want an apology for the remarks you authorized that I didn’t tell the truth about our conversation. I don’t know how you got yourself awarded the purple hearts, but I know you indicated you didn’t earn them.
By the way. I’m not an ingrate. I deeply appreciate the help you gave me for the last governor’s primary. In fact, out of respect for you, when I realized that the race was going no where, I didn’t even cash the check you sent, (which I kept). Being grateful for your help, I have not sought to hurt you - but I will not betray or exploit the young men who died while fighting, with me, for this country. Never coming forward is one thing - I never have. Lying is another. Coincidentally I just settled an 11-year old law suit with Barbara Hafer where she apologized in writing for campaign defamation and admitted that federal agents (Thornburgh’s political friends) lied to her. I will not accept your falsehoods now. Enough is enough.
You clearly indicated to me in a moment of weakness, that you hadn’t deserved the purple hearts and there was no confusion on that. You may deny that all you wish - but you and I know that that conversation took place. Please apologize now. You may fool a few reporters into believing that merely because you got some perfunctory paperwork made out by a friend, that that means you earned the purple hearts. But even if you were awarded the medals later, there should be affidavits from witnesses. These things should be easy to get - where are they? I bet they don’t exist Jack because you are the one who’s lying. Luckily there’s one easy way to settle all this. Call a press conference. Explain where you were and what you were doing when you got the purple hearts. Explain who was with you and treated your wounds, but most important Jack describe your wounds or the lack thereof, as you did for me, years ago. I am absolutely certain that you won’t do that - because, though you may have manipulated some paperwork that says you were awarded the medals (for political purposes) you can’t produce the witnesses or documents to show any wounds or circumstances under which they occurred.Unless the Marine Corps gives out medals for unsubstantiated non -combat related telltale scratches, procured for use in political campaign - then show me the money Jack - because there should at least be evidence by affidavit, or record of the scratches, that’s what getting a purple heart requires - show me.
You may be able to take advantage of a few Washington reporters who don’t have sufficient experience to understand - but you can’t fool combat veterans of the Vietnam war by hiding behind “Unit” losses - we’re used to those stories. I have my orders describing my combat awards Jack - to back up my DD-214. Where’s your’s? And Jack - don’t ever call me a liar.
Sincerely,
Don Bailey
DB:Alb
cc: file
|
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MrJapan
PO1
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 465
Location: Chiba, Japan
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why does this story sound familiar... 
Wonder who he learned the tricks of the trade from  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sorry, though I appreciate the sentiment, that letter just "smells" like a fake to me. I think it needs some vetting before it goes any further. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
baldeagle
PO2
Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Posts: 362
Location: Grand Saline, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Could be sour grapes.............
| Quote: | Pennsylvania 12th Congressional District Primary - May, 1982
John Murtha: 52%
Don Bailey: 38%
That primary was a poignant election - Bailey and Murtha, both incumbent Congressmen, were pitted against each other because Pennsylvania had lost seats after the 1980 census. No one feels more entitled to his next victory than an incumbent - and because incumbents lose re-election campaigns so rarely, failure is exceptionally galling to them.
|
http://www.swingstateproject.com/2006/01/pa12_don_bailey.php
_________________
"In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home." --George Washington |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This could seem familiar because we had a short discussion on it back in January;
http://www.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=21554&highlight=murtha
What made Bailey decide to take this stance against his former friend, I don't know.
What matters most to me is not Murtha's service so much as his stance against our troops before any investigation is finished. That is why I oppose him and even though not in Pennsylvania, support Diana Irey.
Vets4Irey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anker-Klanker wrote: | | Sorry, though I appreciate the sentiment, that letter just "smells" like a fake to me. I think it needs some vetting before it goes any further. |
| Quote: |
Murtha's War Hero Status Called Into Question
By Marc Morano and Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff
January 13, 2006
Read Article About Murtha's Links to Abscam
(CNSNews.com) - While Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha has ascended to the national stage as one of the most vocal critics of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, he has also long downplayed the controversy and bitterness surrounding the two Purple Hearts he was awarded for military service in Vietnam.
Murtha is a retired marine and was the first Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress. Since 1967, there have been at least three different accounts of the injuries that purportedly earned Murtha his Purple Hearts. Those accounts also appear to conflict with the limited military records that are available, and Murtha has thus far refused to release his own military records.
A Cybercast News Service investigation also reveals that one of Murtha's former Democratic congressional colleagues and a fellow decorated Vietnam veteran, Don Bailey of Pennsylvania, alleges that Murtha admitted during an emotional conversation on the floor of the U.S. House in the early 1980s that he did not deserve his Purple Hearts.
"[Murtha] is putting himself forward as some combat veteran with serious wounds and he's using that and it's dishonest and it's wrong," Bailey told Cybercast News Service on Jan. 9. Murtha served in the Marines on active duty and in the reserves from 1952 until his retirement as a colonel in 1990. He volunteered for service in Vietnam and was a First Marine Regiment intelligence officer in 1966 and 1967.
Murtha and Bailey, once allies, were forced to run against each other in a Democratic congressional primary in 1982 following redistricting. Murtha won the election.
Murtha has, in the past, publicly dismissed any questions about whether he deserved his two Purple Hearts, noting during his 1994 congressional campaign that "I am proud of my service in Vietnam."
In his Friday, Jan. 13, response to the Cybercast News Service investigation, Murtha again defended his military record.
"Questions about my record are clearly an attempt to distract attention from the real issue, which is that our brave men and women in uniform are dying and being injured every day in the middle of a civil war that can be resolved only by the Iraqis themselves," Murtha wrote in an email response.
"I volunteered for a year's duty in Vietnam. I was out in the field almost every single day. We took heavy casualties in my regiment the year that I was there. In my fitness reports, I was rated No. 1. My record is clear," Murtha added.
However, another source, World War II Navy veteran Harry M. Fox, previously indicated that Murtha in 1968 personally asked Fox's boss, then-U.S. Rep. John Saylor (R-Pa.), for assistance in obtaining the Purple Hearts, but was turned down because Saylor's office determined that Murtha lacked sufficient evidence of wounds. Murtha later challenged Saylor for his House seat in 1968 and lost. Fox said he personally viewed Murtha's military records in 1968 as Saylor's aide.
When Saylor died in 1973, Fox attempted to succeed his boss in Congress, but was narrowly defeated by Murtha in a 1974 special election.
"Pretending to be a big war hero and boasting about having medals is a slap in the face to our veterans who were seriously wounded or killed in action," Fox was quoted as telling the Uniontown Herald-Standard in the newspaper's Nov. 1, 1996 edition. "He campaigned as a war hero and I've never seen any documentation that he earned any of these honors," Fox reportedly stated.
On Friday, Jan. 13, Murtha's congressional communications director provided Cybercast News Service with a copy of a letter from the commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, citing Murtha's request of Sept. 26, 1967, seeking Purple Hearts. Cybercast News Service did not authenticate the letter.
"The records of this Headquarters show that you are entitled to the Purple Heart and a Gold Star in lieu of a second Purple Heart for wounds received in action against insurgent Communist Guerrilla forces on 22 March and 7 May 1967 in the Republic of Vietnam," according to the letter signed by an individual identified only as A. Gardoni. Gardoni's title is not listed on the letter.
Cybercast News Service attempted to contact Fox for this article, but learned that the health of the 81-year-old was too poor to allow him to communicate. But in a 1996 newspaper article, Fox questioned whether Murtha deserved his Purple Hearts, alleging that there was insufficient evidence of injuries and that Murtha was never confined to a hospital.
"Of course Congressman Saylor wanted to help if he could, but there was nothing in the service record to indicate the wounds were of any severity and the documents specifically indicated that next of kin was not notified in either instance," Fox told the Herald-Standard in 1996. "We were amazed that Mr. Murtha was asking for Purple Hearts for superficial lacerations," he added.
Murtha's accounts of his Vietnam War wounds may also conflict with the available U.S. Marine medical records obtained by the media.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on May 12, 2002, reported that "Marine Corps casualty records show that Murtha was injured in 'hostile' actions near Danang, Vietnam, on March 22, 1967, and May 7, 1967.
"In the first incident, his right cheek was lacerated, and in the second, he was lacerated above his left eye. Neither injury required evacuation," the Post-Gazette reported.
But an Oct. 26, 1994, article in the Herald-Standard quoted Murtha as describing two different injuries.
"I was wounded in the arm with shrapnel from a bullet that hit the motor mount of a helicopter. In the other, my knee was banged up and my arm was banged up when a helicopter was shot down from a very few feet," Murtha told the Herald-Standard.
A June 1, 1967 report in the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat quoted a letter that the newspaper indicated was sent by Murtha to his wife that same year. The letter apparently detailed yet another version of how Murtha qualified for one of his Purple Hearts. According to the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat, Murtha's injuries involved his being "struck in the ankle" by a "shot that ricocheted off the helicopter."
Murtha, a 16-term congressman from southwestern Pennsylvania and the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, drew national attention on Nov. 17, 2005, when he called for an immediate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.
The Vietnam veteran even took a swipe at President Bush and Vice President Cheney, neither of whom have actual combat experience.
"I like guys who've never been there, who criticize us who've been there," Murtha said. "I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and sent people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions that what may need to be done."
Murtha discussed his own combat experience as a marine intelligence officer in his 2004 autobiography, "From Vietnam to 9/11: On the Front Lines of National Security."
"I had been awake more than twenty-four hours by the time we landed. A few hours into the battle, an on-again-off-again event, I could no longer keep my eyes open. I curled up next to a bunker and fell into a deep sleep for about an hour. Even the noise of frequent gunfire didn't wake me up. (One of my fellow officers told me the next morning that when he hadn't seen me for an hour or so, he assumed I was dead,)" Murtha wrote of one of his Vietnam combat experiences on page 14 of the 2004 paperback edition of his book. Murtha's two Purple Hearts are referenced on the back of the book.
In addition to his Purple Hearts, Murtha received the Vietnamese Cross for Gallantry and the Bronze Star with combat "V" for service in the 1st Marine Division in Vietnam. Murtha also served in the Marines during the Korean War but did not serve in Korea, according to his book.
'He's a phony and a liar'
Bailey said during the time Murtha was being investigated for his role in the Abscam FBI sting in 1980, Murtha made a confession on the House floor.
... you admitted, back in our corner, that you didn't earn your purple hearts (sic) (you indicated you had small scratch on your cheek that wasn't even directly related to an APC [Armored Personnel Carrier] that ran over a small antipersonnel mine that was behind you). The other purple heart [sic] you even declined to explain," wrote Bailey in an open letter dated May 5, 2002.
Bailey is also a decorated Vietnam combat veteran. He served in the U.S. Army's 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions and was awarded a Silver Star and three Bronze Stars.
"At the time (of Murtha's alleged admission), you were feeling particularly vulnerable because it wasn't too long after you had called me crying and sobbing, thanking me for 'saving your life' before the ethics committee (on Abscam-related charges). There was no doubt in my mind that you were expressing to me that you did not believe you did anything sufficient to earn the purple heart [sic] and that you didn't want to be active in my efforts to laud Vietnam veterans that served with us," Bailey wrote in his May 2002 letter.
"You may deny that all you wish -- but you and I know that that conversation took place," he added.
In the Jan. 9 interview with Cybercast News Service Bailey affirmed the contents of his 2002 letter.
"The issue here is this idea or pretense that [Murtha] knows combat and he's got two Purple Hearts. He's a phony and a liar," Bailey said.
Bailey also questioned why Murtha has thus far declined to release his full military records in order to clear up the controversy.
"The Marine Corps ought to be able to produce all the orders, the medical stuff, the citations and the orders granting [the Purple Hearts] and everything else. Where is that stuff?" he asked.
According to a May 16, 2002, edition of the Washington, Pa., Observer-Reporter, Murtha "produced military paperwork indicating he was entitled to the awards," and a Murtha spokesperson was quoted as saying that "the media for years has investigated 'and found nothing.'"
But Murtha's paperwork did nothing to sway Bailey's opinion.
"You may fool a few reporters into believing that merely because you got some perfunctory paperwork made out by a friend, that that means you earned the purple hearts [sic]. But even if you were awarded the medals later, there should be affidavits from witnesses. These things should be easy to get," Bailey wrote in his letter while demanding an apology from Murtha for questioning his credibility.
Murtha could end the controversy at any time, Bailey added, simply by calling a press conference and producing the evidence of his wounds.
"Explain where you were and what you were doing when you got the purple hearts.[sic] Explain who was with you and treated your wounds, but most important, Jack, describe your wounds or the lack thereof, as you did for me, years ago," Bailey wrote.
"Unless the Marine Corps gives out medals for unsubstantiated noncombat-related telltale scratches, procured for use in political campaign -- then show me the money, Jack," Bailey added.
Murtha: 'I'm proud of my service in Vietnam'
During the 1994 congressional campaign against GOP opponent Dr. William Choby, Murtha's two Purple Hearts became a political issue.
"Explain your Purple Hearts. He (Murtha) used them to get elected," Choby charged in 1994.
In responding to the charges, Murtha claimed that he "didn't ask for the Purple Hearts.
"I'm proud of my service in Vietnam. I don't know if he (Choby) served in the service at all. I left my family and my business to serve in Vietnam. My family made great sacrifice for me to make that service in Vietnam, so I'm very proud of that," he told the Uniontown Herald-Standard in the newspaper's Oct. 26, 1994 edition.
"I am disappointed that a guy (Choby) would say something like that when I volunteered in the reserves and I felt it was important that I go. What's the point in all this? It's irritating," Murtha added.
Choby also challenged the validity of Murtha's Bronze Star with Combat 'V' during the 1996 congressional campaign.
"I find it very curious that Combat 'V' doesn't even exist in any of the materials he had distributed," Choby was quoted as saying in the Herald-Standard of Oct. 13, 1996. "His military record improves over the years," he added.
The Murtha controversy is reminiscent of the flap surrounding the war record of 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. But while critics like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacked Kerry in 2004 because of his anti-war activism of the 1970s, Murtha's three chief accusers all made their allegations years and in some cases decades before Murtha emerged last November as a prominent anti-war activist.
Choby told Cybercast News Service on Jan. 5 that Murtha's entire political career is based on his war record. "Without that credibility of those combat medals, he would have never been elected to office," Choby said.
|
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have no use for Jack Murtha. Without knowing anything about his service history or record, I despise his recent grandstanding at the expense of our troops.
Having said that, I am still somewhat skeptical of the charges by Baily. I notice that on this thread and on the previous thread, the sole person who was making those accusations was Baily. And I notice that the sole news organization that reported them was CNS. The charges may very well be true, but I cannot accept them as true until either I have personally investigated them, or until I see more than one independent source making them, with some additional substance to back up the charges.
But there's a much more fundamental issue here (with both Murtha and sKerry, and others) for me. Frankly, I'm getting very tired of these politicians trying to use their military service for political gains - whether their records are "clean" or not. Honorable service is honorable service; valiant service is even more commendable. And I, as a veteran myself, will go out of my way to honor the service of a fellow vet - on a person to person basis. But what has honorable military service got to do with politics, particularly the necessary qualifications for Representative, Senator, or President? It doesn't IMHO.
I've noticed that those with truly impeccable service records tend to keep their service experience rather quiet (as do most vets). It always seems to be the fakes and imposters who want to make their service a qualifying criteria, and hide behind it whenever they are criticized. That correlation is almost 100% in my observation. To which I then conclude that the only way to rid ourselves of these phoney heros using bogus service "records" for political gain (thus dishonoring us all) is to decouple military service from political qualifications in the public's mind, and for veterans' groups to state that position loudly and publicly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anker-Klanker wrote: | | To which I then conclude that the only way to rid ourselves of these phoney heros using bogus service "records" for political gain (thus dishonoring us all) is to decouple military service from political qualifications in the public's mind, and for veterans' groups to state that position loudly and publicly. |
Good luck with that. For politicians, touting your military service is as close to the bone as kissing babies...perhaps even closer.
Nope. I've gotta part company with you on this one Anker. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, shout your military service and awards from the rooftops...it IS both commendable and noteworthy...but what you shout better damn well be legitimate or I'll be right there with your angry constituency calling for your political head on a plate.
I've got to admit that when I saw this post in the forum I cringed. But a quick Google search showed me that this issue, just like the issue of Kerry's 30 year fraud, has LONG been in the public domain and, like Kerry's fraud, has most probably been buried by a recalcitrant media.
The answer doesn't lie in changing the public perception of military service. It lies in changing the perception of would-be politicians that fraudulent military records and/or scamming the awards process will not be unearthed and/or, hopefully, prosecuted.
Jack Murtha needs to make a clean breast of things on this issue, and he better do it soon.
Last edited by Me#1You#10 on Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:07 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wing Wiper
Rear Admiral
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 664
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Jack Murtha needs to make a clean breast of things on this issue, and he better do it soon.
|
He's probably seen from Kerry's experience that there is no consequence to his actions. I'd be in favor of a rule that once a politician mentions their military service as a qualifier for office, their service records are released to the public without the requirement of a signed SF 180.
Fat chance of that, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mtboone
Founder
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 470
Location: Kansas City, MO.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Me#1You#10"] | Anker-Klanker wrote: |
Nope. I've gotta part company with you on this one Anker. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, shout your military service and awards from the rooftops...it IS both commendable and noteworthy...but what you shout better damn well be legitimate or I'll be right there with your angry constituency calling for your political head on a plate.. |
I agree with Anker and I agree with his statement. Most persons that have fought in combat do not want to talk about it, how do you make a person understand what you have been through and did unless he did the same thing.
I cannot understand what a Marine or the Army did, walking in the bush for weeks at a time or a Pilot flying over North VN. I never did those things and they never went up rivers or canals that before I called a creek.
I could not talk about my time in VN for many years, I had to be guarded about what I said and who I said it to. Just like so many other thousands did for such a long, long time and not even to family.
But, if you are honest, truthful in your deeds and use it as an example of how this defined you and your beliefs and how this will guide you in helping the Nation. I say be comfortable with your service and wear it with pride and tell this Nation.
However, others have used it to lie and be deceitful in their past and use it to advance their purpose and distortion. That dishonors the medals, the heroism, the efforts and the past memory of those that served their Nation Honorably.
Then in 2003 Kerry comes to our reunion and you can tell he is going to go for the Presidency and using people and the press for that purpose. Now they wonder why we were so adamant against him and why they were so against us, they believed their lies and not our truth.
_________________
Terry Boone PCF 90
Qui Nhon 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BuffaloJack
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1637
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Me#1You#10 wrote: |
Nope. I've gotta part company with you on this one Anker. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, shout your military service and awards from the rooftops...it IS both commendable and noteworthy...but what you shout better damn well be legitimate or I'll be right there with your angry constituency calling for your political head on a plate. |
This might be the thing that makes you feel good, but most vets are quiet about their military experiences. Most vets have realized that people will listen but then think "Yeah, sure you did." and not believe a word you said. They just can't believe you. As a result the only people that vets can really discuss their experiences with are other vets.
We don't need to "shout it out" to know what we've accomplished. We know in our hearts and that's sufficient.
I'm afraid I have to side with Anker-Klanker and mtboone for this one also.
_________________
Swift Boats - Qui Nhon (12/69-4/70), Cat Lo (4/70-5/70), Vung Tau (5/70-12/71) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LimaCharlie
PO2
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BuffaloJack wrote: | | Me#1You#10 wrote: |
Nope. I've gotta part company with you on this one Anker. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, shout your military service and awards from the rooftops...it IS both commendable and noteworthy...but what you shout better damn well be legitimate or I'll be right there with your angry constituency calling for your political head on a plate. |
This might be the thing that makes you feel good, but most vets are quiet about their military experiences. Most vets have realized that people will listen but then think "Yeah, sure you did." and not believe a word you said. They just can't believe you. As a result the only people that vets can really discuss their experiences with are other vets.
We don't need to "shout it out" to know what we've accomplished. We know in our hearts and that's sufficient.
I'm afraid I have to side with Anker-Klanker and mtboone for this one also. |
You can’t even talk about your experiences with other veterans unless they were in the same situations and areas at about the same time with you. I have spent time on Swift Boats, amphibious ships, aircraft carriers, instructor duty at Coronado, and as an Army officer in the National Guard. If you tell National Guard friends over a beer about an incident on an aircraft carrier, they just give you a blank stare. You quickly learn your audience doesn’t understand and in most cases doesn’t care, unless they were directly involved.
I have a ninety-two year old friend that I go to coffee with at least once per week. He joined the Navy in 1931 and retired in 1956. He was a corpsman (medic) with the Marines throughout the South Pacific during WWII and in Korea. When we go out for coffee, he tells me his stories and I tell him mine. I still have no idea what he went through and he probably has no idea what I went through. I believe he went through a thousand times more than I did. Our only common understanding is when we talk about going on liberty in the same place many years apart. Some things never change.
I do not believe military service qualifies you for political office. I also do not believe the lack of military service disqualifies you. Just be honest about your military service and keep the embelishments to a minimum if you run for office. Thousands if not millions have been there and done that before or after you. They will out you if you are lying. Common sense should tell you this truth. Lack of common sense does disqualify you for holding political office.
_________________
I was going to become an anarchist, but they had too many rules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wing Wiper wrote: | | I'd be in favor of a rule that once a politician mentions their military service as a qualifier for office, their service records are released to the public without the requirement of a signed SF 180. |
While it is certainly arguable that our political vetting process has degraded to a point where we can, perhaps, no longer afford an already "vetted" candidate a presumption of honor and personal integrity, the answer lies in fixing the broken process without resorting to draconian "rulemaking". There's an old cliche reminding us that "bad cases make bad law."
Integral in the legitimacy of that vetting process is an examination of a candidates particulars, generally handled by a rightfully skeptical media in conjunction with a reasonably skeptical opposition. One element of that process has been corrupted, and it's been so since the ascendancy and domination of the leftist "advocacy journalism" of the 60's.
IMHO, that fix has been rigorously applied with the advent of internet journalism, restoring and reinvigorating the element of media scrutiny so long overdue...and it appears to be working. Let's give this new media the opportunity to both dissuade and deny the would-be political fraud from even a consideration of resorting to the embellishment or misrepresentation of a military record of service. Those who, like John Kerry (and, perhaps, John Murtha), have been "grandfathered" by that corrupted process can be effectively dealt with on a case by case basis.
Last edited by Me#1You#10 on Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:08 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I said:
| Quote: | | ...To which I then conclude that the only way to rid ourselves of these phoney heros using bogus service "records" for political gain (thus dishonoring us all) is to decouple military service from political qualifications in the public's mind, and for veterans' groups to state that position loudly and publicly. |
I guess I would not have even gone down that thought-process lane if it were not for recent events wherein real and apparent phonies like sKerry, Murtha, Cleland, etc., had not emerged thumping their chests over their war service exploits, and declaring that their service gave them the moral high ground on any issue. It is kind of curious - don't you think? - that all of these chest-thumping phonies represent the left, or dark, side of the political divide. Which forced me to think about the big picture...
I simply don't buy that receiving a Purple Heart, or Bronze Star, or a fist full of campaign ribbons, or whatever - even if valid - determines anything legitimate about that politician's position on issues. It doesn't have anything to do with which side of the ideological divide he/she resides, or his/her position on the immigration debate, overhaul of social security, same-sex marriage, or any of the other myriad of issues that face our country. In other words, military service and awards received is almost irrelevant to defining and being an effective politician.
Is someone who served a minimum term of service, received some decorations, and then left the service more patriotic than someone who stayed in 20 years and did his duty as assigned and received no such awards? Not in my book. Does someone who served a short term of service and received awards more knowledgeable about military ways and life, military strategy, geopolitical events, etc.? Almost assuredly not! Does the receipt of such awards provide a sure-fire indication that such a person is capable of real leadership? Not necessarily, and in fact, from my experience, there's probably no real correlation between the two.
Or perhaps one could think about it another way. If for sake of argument we were to, e.g., assume that all of Jack Murtha's vaunted military service and awards were valid, does that automatically give him credibility and moral authority in his attacks on our military people and the war in Iraq? Does that automatically qualify him to be an expert on what we should do re Iran? I most vehemently think not!
So what does (legitimate) military service and awards tell us about the person's political fitness? If anything, it's such a small factor it's not worth considering (IMHO).
But if, on the other hand, we continue to give high credance to such service and awards as being politically relevant, we have ample proof of the potential for abuse people from people like sKerry, Murtha, and (to a lesser extent) Cleland - and others. One side of the great political divide is definitely actively, and with malice-of-forethought, moving down the path to increase such abuse.
Just my 25-cent further elaboration of what I was and still am thinking... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LimaCharlie
PO2
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to agree with Anker-Klanker’s analysis. When I was involved with Operation Endsweep and Operation Homcoming in 1973, I would have voted for John McCain for any office he wanted. Today, I wouldn’t vote for him as dog catcher. His past military career and POW status have absolutely nothing to do with his voting record and public stances on issues.
It does not matter one bit to me if Kerry was a one hundred percent hero in Viet Nam or a medal chasing buffoon. I can forgive being a medal chasing buffoon. He betrayed his Brothers In Arms with his later words, actions, and votes for his political gain. That is totally unforgivable.
My wife worked for a department director in a large corporation. Everyone there believed he was a special operations Viet Nam hero and someone who could kill you in ways you had never imagined. The people working for him were in total awe of him. My wife was excited to get us together and told both of us we had lots to talk about. When I did meet him, I talked to him about places we had both been to in Viet Nam. He was very evasive on specifics and said, “I don’t remember, I was just passing through.” My wife and I now have a standing joke when we believe someone is blowing smoke. We look at each other and say, “Just passing through.”
_________________
I was going to become an anarchist, but they had too many rules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
