If he didn’t think he deserved it, he wouldn’t have arranged a ceremony to award it to himself.
That’s not what I said. Number 4 is that the meeting Bush hosted was to honor the Thomases. 1, 2, and 3 were done by the Thomases to honor Bush.
Would you have felt better about it all if, instead of accepting the Thomases’ gift, the president had pulled out his dick and masturbated on their daughter’s dress?
Yeah, Dio! Would you have liked it better if GeeDubya took their daughter’s puppy and tore out its throat with his teeth? Huh? How about that, Dio! How about if he took the old guys hand and broke a couple of his fingers, snapping them like pencils? Bet you’d like* that*, wouldn’t you, Dio!
Did you mistype? Does Bush not deserve it too? 
Like I said, there’s different forms of politeness, and just as I have no wish to bash** Liberal’s ** sense of it, I have no wish to bash the veteran’s sense of it. All i’m bashing is the idea that political insults are equivalent to combat wounds.
But hey, at least i’m not one of the usual suspects, for I am not Pitting Bush. 
It was Bush’s idea to invite them to Washington and throw a little Triumph for himself.
Better than using the Constitution like he usually does.
Seriously, Lib, you are well versed in recognizing logical fallacies. Surely you recognize a false dilemma when you use one.
He didn’t award it to himself, the vet gave it to him.
:shrugs:
As per usual, the instant you start losing an argument is the instant you start lying.
I don’t understand this remark. I thought we had agreed that the vet was free to decide who should receive his medal as a gfit.
Regards,
Shodan
Free to give and deserving are two different things. I am free to give you all my worldy possessions, if I so wish. But that doesn’t mean you are deserving of them.
Anyway, my point was more of a joking one; you identified the veteran as having recieved in genuinely, suggesting that he could be differentiated from Bush on that matter. I’m sure that’s not what you meant, it just seemed a poor way to put it.
Agreed. The update to this story in no way changes my initial displeasure. At best, there’s a way to accept this award in a manner that just makes it look cheesy. It remains my opinion that any honorable person would not accept such a thing period–and truth be told, an honorable man would not offer it either. I feel Bill Thomas, who says he earned one of his Purple Hearts a few seconds after a friend of his was killed saving his life, has belittled the memory of that dead friend with this stunt.
While there may be some way to accept this award without looking totally out of line, the manner in which Bush accepted it doesn’t fit that definition, to me.
What is bogus about the citation? Is there some official citation authority? Some statute prohibiting citations written by old people? What?
None of those things have happened to Bush.
How is criticizing his job performance “false accusations”?
U.S. Presidents have been criticized for about 230 years now, it’s tradition. It’s all because of that constitution thingy that says we’re supposed to be able to do that. If Bush has suffered more criticisms than anyone other president it’s because his administration and his actions have warranted them. I find it doubtful that he has suffered more slings and arrows than presidents who have been in office during other wars, oil lease rights, eavesdropping or blowjob scandals.
Yes. Believe it or not, Military decorations and citations have to be authorized by the military. Is that news to you?
I don’t know if there’s a penalty for forging a citation (which isn’t really important since I’m only saying that Thomas’ little crayoned suck-up card is not an authentic military award citation, not that it’s illegal) but there is a penalty for falsely pretending to have been awarded a US military decoration. Its called the Stolen Valor Act. Guess who signed it into law.
Granted, he probably won’t get in trouble unless he wears it, and even then it would only be item 2,957 on his personal catalog of crimes and misdemeanors. The lifespan of this thread has already outlived the lifespan of my own minor ourage about it. I think it’s distasteful, but spending too much time complaining about it would be like spending three days being outraged that Hitler gave a bad tip at a restaurant.
The vet was content to drop it off with his Congressman and have it forwarded. It was Bush’s idea to stage the fake award ceremony.
Le sigh. No, Dio. That’s not news to me. But Bush didn’t get a military decoration; he got a personal gift from a private citizen. See, once the military gave the medal to Thomas, THOMAS BECAME THE OWNER OF IT. Maybe it’s your socialist mentality, and your failure to grasp the notion of private property.
One more time, the gifting of the medal is not the issue for me, it’s the acceptance of a mock citation, which not only characterizes the presentation of the medal as a personal decoration for Bush, rather than a gift, but also equates the (richly deserved) public criticism of his job performance with soldiers being wounded in the field. By accepting that “citation,” Bush is implicitly agreeing with and endorsing the sentiment that a.) he is a kind of wounded soldier and b.) those who criticize him are enemies of the state.
But if, as you say, it’s a “personal decoration” and not an official decoration of the Pentagon, why do you care? If Thomas has a right to pen a citation of his own creation — and not even Congress can stop him from doing it — what the fuck is it to YOU? It smacks of petty jealousy, frankly. If an Olympic gold medalist gave his medal to a mentor along with a personally authored citation, would you be all blustery about it? Would you call the citation “bogus” and “mock”? If not, you have no standing here. If so, you have serious issues of bias.
I still got my good conduct ribbon. Any chance he’d invite me in to give it to him for not getting his dick sucked?
If other swimmers had died on the field of battle to qualify for their medals, you are damn straight I would object to someone else contriving to receive one without similar personal sacrifice.
I haven’t said he doesn’t have the right. All I’ve said is that it’s offensive.
If Bush accepted a citation from a private citizen (with or without a medal) for doing such a fine job protecting the White Race from the Satanic Jew Confederacy, would it be ok to say that was offensive?
In this case, he’s accepting a citation (and the medal itself is neither here nor there, in my opinion) which states that those who criticize him politically are America’s enemies. By accepting the citation, he’s endorsing that statement. THAT is what I thin is offensive. THAT is why I think he should have accepted the medal as a gift but declined the citation.
(Well, that along with the fact that he’s endorsing the claims in the citation that he deserves to be equated to killed and wounded soldiers).
C’mon. Let’s all take a deep breath and recognize some things we all know to be true.
First of all, these medals may be personal property, but they represent something deeper than that. They are the thanks of a nation for wounds received or heroism rendered or superior duty performed in military service. And while that piece of metal and cloth can transfer hands from one man to another, the thanks of the country go to just one man.
When I was a student at the University of Pittsburgh, I would often pass by a gold medal from the 1936 Olympics, framed and displayed proudly in Hillman Library. It had been won by John Woodruff, a Pitt freshman at the time, who won the 800 meter track and field event. He later donated it to his alma mater as a gesture of thanks to the university, and the university, naturally, displayed it proudly.
Now the winner of the event was still, obviously, John Woodruff. That did not change by his donation of the medal to another party. The only other message conveyed there was a separate one - one of thanks and gratitude to his school.
Now, nobody generally would fault John Woodruff for making this gesture or the university for accepting this gift. That would be churlish. But in this case, politics intrudes on both sides, and motives become a bit harder to discern.
Nevertheless, it remains the fact that no matter who holds the medal, George Bush did not win it and the thanks of the nation that it represents do not attach to him. The fact that someone gave him a medal, an important personal keepsake, is an entirely separate message from the one that the medal originally represents.
Now, I was pretty hard on John Kerry in a thread some time back for his inconsistent explanations concerning his treatment of his own medals. At no time, though, did I question his right to use those medals as he saw fit and even use them to make a political statement.
With all of that, I don’t see how this becomes any kind of large issue at all.
I want to give GWB one of my Pulitzer prizes for fiction*, along with a citation saying that although he may not meet the technical requirements, he nonetheless deserves it for his extensive fabrications, fables and fibs while in office. How soon does anybody think I’ll be going to the White House, meeting not only Barney but the Decider too, whether or not the latter manages to say that he doesn’t think he deserves it?
Bill Thomas (like a couple hundred million other Americans do every day) had a political statement to make: his was that the president deserves an medal, one normally given only to soldiers wounded in combat, for weathering a lot of mean things folks have said to and about him. Mr Thomas wrote up a citation saying so, and he also had a prop to use: a Purple Heart he himself had earned. Mr. Thomas’ service should be honored, but there’s no reason to mistake it for good judgment, and this is one of the stupidest things I’ve seen recently that didn’t have “Regards,” as its penultimate word, and it drips with contempt for actual wounded soldiers besides. Nonetheless, freedom of speech doesn’t stop at good judgment, and Mr. Thomas went ahead and did what he had every right to do: ask his congressman to forward the items, and talk to the newspaper about it.
He got a lot more than he asked for. He was invited to the White House where the president lent his presence in the Oval Office to a ceremony in which Mr. Thomas was allowed to give his Purple Heart and home-made citation to the Decider yet again. Can we have a roll-call of the reasons this doesn’t constitute a presidential endorsement of the statement, clearly articulated from the outset, that Mr. Thomas wished to make?
-
The medal wasn’t a medal anymore, it was a gift. Even Liberal agrees that a medal is an object whose only value is symbolic: it either means what it purports to mean or it has the same significance as Grandpa’s briar pipe – which nobody gets to meet the president to present. Besides which, Liberal also articulated the exact criteria by which we should ascertain the meaning of this mysterious bit of metal and ribbon when he said "…I do believe that the person who has earned the medal is entitled to invest it with whatever symbolism he wishes. " But Liberal seems to balk at the next step. Guys, we know what that is! Thomas has said it again and again: the symbolism attached to the gift is that GWB deserves a Purple Heart because the verbal attacks he has endured are equivalent to the physical wounds suffered by soldiers injured by enemy action. There’s no ambiguity here. I find it puzzling that some of the people (not necessarily only or always Liberal here) banging hardest on Thomas’ right to free speech are simultaneously disparaging it by pretending not to know what he said.
-
He said he didn’t deserve it. I can see Shodan gleefully seizing upon this snippet, much as a Piaget-flunkee greets his rattle as it emerges from its oblivion behind a paper screen. But come on. The Decider didn’t say these humble syllables in refusing the “gift,” he said it while accepting the medal (or, by courtesy, the “object”) and the citation, in an event the White House went out of its way to arrange. Yes, he remembered to say something humble. My grandmother used to say “You shouldn’t have,” when I gave her a box of chocolate-covered cherries. Then she ate the candy. Surprisingly quickly. Usually without sharing. I’ve never seen any reason to think that, when actions don’t match words, that the words deserve priority. Especially when dealing with the current president and administration. Or maybe the words were correct, and the president sees nothing wrong with accepting this accolade even though he has not earned it. That’s a thumb in the eye to a whole bunch of wounded servicemen, just to be extra-polite to one veteran who wanted to give the Decider a present. Don’t you think?
There’s another thought here I’m not sure how to resolve. Of all the people on the planet who should be especially aware of the criteria for receiving a Purple Heart, wouldn’t the president be high on the list? After all, it’s a decoration created by a president and awarded in the name of the president. Who gets to keep one in his dresser drawer should be a matter of some concern to the president, and the established criteria for its holders should matter, shouldn’t it?
Anyhow, nobody ever said this was grounds for impeachment: it’s just a stupid PR mistake, which the White House seems to be suppressing as much as it can (as well they should, given the potential blowback). As insults to the military and its wounded servicemen go, it ranks somewhere between the purple heart bandages at the Republican Convention and GWB’s treatment of his own military service, all of which fall far short of the administration’s current treatment of our military and its veterans.
*Note to self: first, win one or more Pulitzer prizes for fiction.