QandO
Questions and Observations| « Hyperbole, Fiction and the Left, Part V | Main | Poverty and Terrorism » |
|
August 09, 2004 Does the name Mike Boorda mean anything to you? No? Think back a few years. Admiral Jeremy Michael Boorda, Chief of Naval Operations? Suicide over a problem with a medal? That's right, he felt what he'd done was so dishonorable that he took his own life. He also couldn't face the fact that the media was relentless in its pursuit of the story. It was clear to him that the media wasn't going to let it rest. What was Boorda's sin? Boorda was awarded commendation and meritorious service awards for his duty in Vietnam, which included combat operations. But copies of the citations released Thursday by the Navy did not mention that Boorda qualified for wearing a combat ''V.'' All over the "V" device. Not the medals, mind you. He was entitled to the medals, just the "V" device. And this was important enough for the media, at that time, to go after Boorda. To dig and investigate. The nation's top Navy officer, distraught after some of his military awards were called into question, died Thursday, May 16, 1996, from an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound. If this was so important to Newsweek at the time, where in the hell are they today? Where's Time? Or the NY Times, USA Today, LA Times, and Washington Post? Why does John Kerry get a pass on his medals when in the past they've been known to hound some poor military guy to death over the same sort of problem? They didn't hesitate at all about digging into Boorda's medal problem (which by comparison was tiny). But with Kerry, well its just not something they wish to do. With Boorda it was just some military guy ... who cares? But with Kerry, its a liberal icon who could replace the hated Bush. You really expect the media to investigate Kerry like it investigated Boorda? Heh ... nope. Instead you're going to get column's like Brownstein's and this one in USA Today. They're not going to do a real investigation of the Swift Boat Vet's charges. They're going to ignore it. If they can't get away with that they're going to whitewash it. And if they can't do that they're going to attack the Swift Boat Vets. Just hide and watch. |
wow! proves MSM bias yet again.
HAVE THEY NO SHAME!?!?!?!?
Posted by: dan at August 9, 2004 03:03 PM
Kerry testified before Congress and claimed that American soldiers, "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, [blew] up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war. ..."
Surely Del Sandusky, Jim Rassman or any of the other members of Kerry's crew who stood with him on the stage of Boston's Fleet Center must remember seeing some of this - if indeed it was as commonplace as Kerry alleged.
If no one from Kerry's crew can recall seeing the war crimes that Kerry so vividly described, did Kerry knowingly give false testimony before Congress
Posted by: ABC's at August 9, 2004 03:22 PM
"Whoever controls the present, controls the past"
Meanwhile, down at the Ministry of Truth, Winston Smith is working overtime shoving all those negative Kerry stories down the memory hole.
Posted by: W at August 9, 2004 03:46 PM
I belive that this blog (and others) awhile ago were discussing a pledge that some us would take should Kerry become President, to accept him and not view him as illegitimate, Hitlerian, evil, etc, aas the left is doing to Bush now.
Based on the press treatment of Kerry and Bush, I don't see how anyone with any intelligence could call a Kerry win "legitimate"- and I will never recognize it as such if it (god forbid) happens
Posted by: shark at August 9, 2004 04:12 PM
Pathetically weak sliming, guys. Boorda was accused of wearing medals that he never received. The not so Swifties are saying that Kerry should never have received his medals that he actually did, at the recommendation of some of those now attacking him. Hardly analogous, nor a reason for Kerry to blow his brains out, which obviously is Shark's hope. (Hey, imagine the incredibly small speck that would result from the president's blowing his out.)
Too, Shark, are you saying that when Kerry wins, you'll leave the country? Naw, can't be; you'd be laughed at harder around the world than you are here. You could try holding your breath and jumping up and down, I guess.
Posted by: Bloggerhead at August 9, 2004 06:43 PM
Just a quick comment on the "v's" that Boorda wore. From what I've read, the time period that Boorda started wearing the v's didn't require as much paper work (if any). You were in a battle, you got the v's. Later on it became a more controlled award that required more paperwork. In other words, Boorda may have very well have been wearing the v's correctly, but his name was smeared no matter what. We lost a good man that day.
Although I am a vet, I'm not a combat vet, so I might be wrong on this. Either way, what happened to the Admiral was just plain wrong.
Posted by: michael dennis at August 9, 2004 06:45 PM
Bloggerhead: Did you actually read what was written above? There was no inference that Kerry should blow his brains out, that is if he could hit them.
Boorda was awarded commendation and meritorious service awards for his duty in Vietnam, which included combat operations. But copies of the citations released Thursday by the Navy did not mention that Boorda qualified for wearing a combat ''V.''
IOW, it wasn't about the medals, it was about the "V" device.
But the point of my article is that the media hounded Boorda about it. And essetially it was insignificant when compared to the charges against Kerry.
Where's the same sort of "digging" in Kerry's case? Novak has read the book and found it to be meticulously researched. Kerry won't release his records. If it were Bush it would be media feeding frenzy time.
Where's the feeding frenzy, Bloggerhead?
Posted by: McQ at August 9, 2004 06:50 PM
bloggerhead: Boorda wasn't accused of wearing medals he didn't earn, only the v insigna on the medals. It's a bit like a oak leaf cluster on a ribbon for additional awards, except they testify to specific behavior at the time the medal was earned.
Kerry brought this mess on himself.
Posted by: michael dennis at August 9, 2004 06:53 PM
Michael: You're precisely right.
While rules governing the awarding of combat "Vs" are very clear now, they were not so clear when Boorda was a young lieutenant in Vietnam.The rules in 1965 stated simply that "V" pins were authorized for "direct participation in combat operations." Also, Boorda's combat operations citations implied that he was qualified to wear the medals.
Retired Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, who was chief of naval operations during the Vietnam War, said he believed Boorda was "completely entitled" to wear the pins.
Zumwalt said on the CNN program "Larry King Live" that paperwork sometimes did not indicate the V, even though it was authorized. He said he routinely authorized the wearing of the combat "V" pin for Vietnam combat veterans.
"That was my intention as an operational commander, and I believe that is the judgment that should prevail," Zumwalt said. "It is a bureaucratic distinction to say, 'Well, it wasn't in the citation.'"
It was a nonsense charge that Newsweek pursued like a bloodhound on scent.
Where are they now?
Posted by: McQ at August 9, 2004 06:54 PM
Too, Shark, are you saying that when Kerry wins, you'll leave the country?
Having trouble with reading comprehension, Bloggerhead? Shark never said that or even implied it. Of course, you seem to have had trouble understanding McQ's post, so I'm not surprised you didn't understand shark's comment.
Shark said that Kerry's election would not be legitimate, and he wouldn't recognize it. That's nowhere near the same thing as saying he'd leave the country.
People who have so much trouble reading plain text shouldn't criticize anyone over the size of their brains.
Posted by: Steverino at August 9, 2004 07:23 PM
Hardly analogous, nor a reason for Kerry to blow his brains out, which obviously is Shark's hope.
Wow, you must be at an advanced level, you can see things that were never typed!
Shark, are you saying that when Kerry wins, you'll leave the country?
If it means I wouldn't have to share it with you....
Posted by: shark at August 9, 2004 09:13 PM
Salty,
Fortunately for Senator Kerry, we don't have video of the FORTY-PLUS MINUTES he sat, incapable of thought, between the second tower hit and the Pentagon hit.
That's not my claim, it's Senator Kerry's.
And Senator Kerry's Vietnam war record is irrelevant? That's news to him! He thinks it qualifies him to be President.
I agree, actually, that his Vietnam war record should be irrelevant. His credibility, however, is highly relevant. The Vietnam war record just happens to shed light on his credibility, making it relevant.
Posted by: UML Guy at August 15, 2004 10:18 AM
Just FYI, Boorda was later cleared and the Chief of Naval Operations during Vietnam at that time said he personally authorized Boorda to wear those V's. In 1998 the Sec of the Navy offically ruled that Boorda had in fact been award Valor designation. Case closed.
Posted by: Brian at August 19, 2004 10:37 AM
Kerry's got a V-device, too.
Posted by: Joe at August 20, 2004 02:08 PM
What is so fucking hard to understand. Are you saying the military lied about Kerry's awards? The records are all out there for you to see. Oh, that's right, you probably think the navy was in on Kerry's master plan. Meanwhile, your man spent his time snorting coke and drinking booze.
And deny it all you want, use Kerry (a Senator at the time who did not have the power to do a damn thing) to excuse the Bush-coward's behavior on 9/11. But if you had the guts to watch the video (which you don't, because you might see the truth), your guy fucking froze. Panicked, choked, big-time. And be honest for once, if it had been Clinton sitting there in shock, not moving for 7 minutes while people were jumping off buildings, ya think you would be so darn forgiving. I didn't think so. You would be asking for his head on a platter.
I can't believe you fuckwads stick up for him. Scratch that, I can't believe you stupid, moronic fuckwads stick up for him.
Posted by: bettyboop at August 27, 2004 02:47 AM
Yep, when there is no substance to your candidate or your thoughts, resort to foul-mouthed name-calling. That really helps the country and impresses citizens about what types of people want to be led by Mr. Kerry. It's easy to measure the candidate by the quality of protesters at President Bush's campaign events that claim to support Kerry. Their language and derogatory speech says nothing about the President, but it speaks volumes about what kind of man Kerry must be to draw such foul-mouthed supporters!!
Posted by: Kat at September 3, 2004 01:48 PM
Kat,
Bush and Cheney don't allow Kerry supporters at their events. It's all Bush, all Cheney, all the time. Kerry allows anyone to attend his events, even those that disagree with his policies. You should really educate yourself before making statements you have no knowledge of.
And pulling the holier than thou card is such old news. You can't have it both ways. You want morality, then you best demand it in your candidates and their surrogates before accusing others of using "foul-mouth" name calling.
Quoting Cheney, that fine, moral, upstanding citizen, "Go fuck yourself!"
Posted by: bettyboop at September 9, 2004 11:53 PM