John Kerry and medal throwing.

Great Debates
21

I don’t think it’s indisputable. Mentioning them on his website doesn’t mean he’s proud of them. He may be very ashamed of them (I don’t think he is, but he certainly could be). It is smart for his campaign to have them on his website whether or not he is proud of them.
[/quote]

I don’t think they are hung on his wall or in “a place of honor” unless he did it very recently or you consider a drawer as a place of honor. All the mainstream articles I’ve read stated that he keeps them in a drawer, either at his office (online newspapers) or at his home (according to the author of a Kerry biography) depending on what source you want to believe.

One answer to your general overall question is that he threw his ribbonss to show his disgust with the war. He kept the medals as a reminder of what he and others went through during that war. You won’t get an answer you’re satisfied with unless you get it directly from Kerry, though, so I’m not sure why you posted here.

22

Except for Kerry himself, if you’d bothered to read anna’s link. :smack:

Yup.

He definitely answered it. I think you consider the answer inadequate, which you’re entitled to do. But it’s plainly been dealt with. The fact that you didn’t pay enough attention and notice they weren’t his medals doesn’t indicate you want an answer, it makes it sound like you’re looking for excuses to criticize his honor.

23

This is an extaordinarily complex question, not to mention emotional. I remember the incident in question, and I consider Kerry’s actions patriotic in the truest sense of the word. When Viet Nam vets began marching with us, it changed everything. I mean that quite literally. Hurling insults of cowardice was easy until they saw a man wearing fatigues with a sleeve pinned up for a missing arm.

Think how easy it would have been not to. To accept the smiling back-slaps and praise, even as you knew, in your heart, that you had no claim to glory. Easy enough to accept it, not make waves, not bruise the innocent ignorance of blind patriotism.

John Kerry told a terrible truth, and told it bravely and directly, in terms that could not be ignored. Rather than allow himself to be praised and lionized, he made himself a target of derision and insult. For his country. For honor. For the fallen.

The men who died for a false cause, for a foolish and ignoble venture, they are gone, to wherever it is they go. The men who killed for that cause still live amongst us, it is the living who carry the burden of our folly. The only solace we can offer is bitter wisdom, that we have learned, that now we know better, that we will not do to thier chldren what was done to them. We owe them far more, but this minimum is the very least that common decency demands.

If throwing his medals onto the Capital steps will move that one inch closer, so be it. If displaying his medals on his wall, so be it. If it will move us to having a Commander in Chief who is gravely reluctant to move our children to combat, who would loathe to be known as a “war president”, rather than draping it over his shoulders as though it were a badge of honor or a shield from repudiation, so be it.

He has long since gone beyond the call of duty. I have no illusions about Kerry, he is a politician, after all. But our present leader, I fear, sees war as glory and valor, where Kerry sees little beyond sorrow and horror. Kerry is right, and Bush is terribly wrong.

24

How anyone can be concerned about how somebody treats a piece of cloth or a piece of metal is beyond me. It’s obsession over petty crap like this that gives me the creeps about the “more military than thou” crowd. What really drives this whole question is how on earth do you spin Kerry’s military record to justify voting for Bush. Hmmm… both could have used their wealth and connections to dodge Vietnam but only Bush did. Only Bush can’t verify where he was when he was supposed to be in the ANG. But hey now, we can dump on Kerry because he doesn’t genuflect to a piece of metal! How can we trust the country to someone who dared throw a ribbon on the ground? Good thing the only bad things Bush did were lie to start a war, give the treasury to millionaires, gut our civil liberties, and add $2.3 Trillion to the national debt. Thank God he didn’t dare show disrespect to a piece of cloth. That would be dishonorable.

25

I have trouble understanding it too, but I don’t doubt it’s real among the career military. Admiral Jeremy Boorda, the CNO of all people, *killed himself * when an issue was raised over his right to wear a particular ribbon. It turned out he actually was entitled to it anyway. But it won’t change any minds either way - Kerry’s having voted for the Iraq war resolution is going to be the issue for him.

“Bring 'em on.”

26

Oh, boohoo, get over yourselves. I’m a 23-year retired Viet vet and I can tell you that there is nothing noble about going to war. It’s dirty, nasty business made necessary by politicians and greedy corporations. Those who consider the whole mess honorable have been brainwashed into believing it, or have never experienced it.

If, as you say, he had the right to throw medals or to protest his displeasure because he changed his mind, how can you then say he can’t recant or change his mind again? Kinda one way, don’t you think? People change their minds all the time and have no obligation to explain it to you or anyone else, for that matter, regardless of political ambition. And by the way, medals are just a sop to make you feel better about being duped into going in the first place. If the nation wants to express its “heartfelt thanks”, give the poor bastards a check and vote the SOB who sent them over there in the first place out of office.

What…too bitter?

27

Marley: No, he did throw his ribbons, but not his medals (I was initially confused by this too). The ribbons are the equivalent in that they’re what you wear to represent the medals you’ve earned (unless I’m still confused)…

Seems as though neocons don’t think that way. Just read a book excerpt at salon about this: “Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn’t Tell You.” By Paul Waldman:

Maybe a neocon would see this as exemplary character??? :frowning:

28

Ah, alright. I do get the difference, I just had to read it six times to get it was his RIBBONS and other people’s MEDALS that were thrown.

Both items are his to do with as his pleases, Mr. Moto, and he does not have to justify it to you. Of course, he’s explained anyway. I think ‘I’d still like an explanation’ (after being given one) = ‘I want to keep whining because I don’t like him.’

29

What John Kerry did with his medals/ribbons in so much like what the USA did with its service personnel in Vietnam.

It threw away some, and then later put some others in a place of honor.

War. It sure can present some conundrums.

Which reminds me. I sincerely recommend seeing “The Fog of War”.

30

substitute “is” for “in” please.

31

First off, I am glad the OP was asked – I will vote for the Democratic nominee, but it is an important issue, in some ways. Thank you, Mr. Moto, for bringing it up.

What I gather and infer from that Slate piece is the Kerry wanted to make a political statement by throwing his own ribbons (and others’ medals and things) but that he seems to value the medals he kept for his own personal and sentimental reasons.

While it seems that some vets thought that their medals represented a hollow commitment by the country to the troops in Vietnam, and these people were all to happy to discard their ribbons, medals, and whathaveyou, it seems that Kerry had a more nuanced position.

Nothing wrong with that. I think folks should be able to do pretty much whatever they want with their own possessions, including throwing away medals they earned or even burning American flags (gasp!).

But I do think that this is another incident of John Kerry just being terrible at explaining his positions on things, even things he did decades ago. The man is so nuanced in everything he does, it barely makes any sense (voting for the Iraq war, but against the funding? Whuh?)

32

Just for an example of the difference is between a ribbon and a medal, look here. It has a list of ribbons (which you wear on a ribbon rack while in your service dress uniform), and if you click on one of them there is a photograph of the actual ribbon (which is traditionally worn on your mess dress uniform). Note that the upper portion of the medal is what makes up the design of the ribbon, and also note that all of the designs are different so anyone who cares can immediately tell the difference.

I’m trying not to belabor the point here, but you’re genuinely curious, so hopefully now you can see that while a ribbon is a representation of a medal they both mean exactly the same thing.

33

Thanks again, Airman.

34

Throwing down a medal, badge or shield traditionally indicates total disgust of and or a protest over policy or actions by a government or force. It is reserved for actions on part of, or done in behalf of, the government or military force that the thrower deem particularly heinous. Reports of events the May Lai massacre, the napalm bombings, and the incursion into Cambodia may have persuaded many Vietnam Vets to ‘throw their badges’.

35

Being as highly decorated as he is…shouldn’t we send him into combat? I mean, let’s face it, the Presidency is the ultimate REMF.

(d’s then r’s)

36

If I’m correct however, the ribbon (bar part) is worn as a part of the uniform while one is serving one active duty. The ribbon allows for a non-clunky/noisy way of showing the medals that someone has won.

The Medals themselves (~2in of fabric and a metal adornment) is worn either on the full dress uniform (fancy circumstances and dress duty) and are used for displays/mementos later in life.

While I’m not Kerry, from my vantage point he threw back the ribbons for the medals that he won for service in Vietnam, in doing so he’s returning the portions of the medal that are worn day to day in active service. These represent the achievements to other people in the govenment when a medal winner regularly interacts with them.

The medals themselves are as much personal reminders of the men that you served with and the time that you spent there. This can certianly be remembered and honored while the reasons for being there in the first place are being protested.

At least that’s my take on it.

Coffeecam

37

Not only is Kerry unworthy to be president because he tossed his ribbons, he also can’t enter the land of milk and honey because he hit a rock.

This comment brought to you by the anti-establishment clause.

38

Glad someone noticed. This morning I heard a clip of him explaining his position on something (civil unions, I think) and it was painfully obvious he was trying to make sure he didn’t accidentally string together 3 words that could be used for a “gotcha” soundbite!

This would be so simple to explain: he repudiated the War in Vietnam, AND he cherishes the reminders of how he endured that suffering. No contradiction there.

39

But therein lies the problem. You have to take into account that whatever you say, people are going to find a two second snippet out of it that can be used completely out of context. Which leaves you the option of nitpicking everything down to a fine point, or just coming out with moronic drivelling catchphrases all the time.

And as with most complaints about politicians, it’s the voters’ fault. If they would pull their heads out of their asses and make rational decisions based on adult discourse, it wouldn’t be an issue. It’s the fact that most people want their politics to fit neatly into the commercial breaks during the ball game (without displacing the beer ad that has the chick with the huge melons, mind you) that creates the issue.

40

Much of what I would say on this is already in Chefguy and ravenman’s posts. Times change, as do people’s personal views of themselves and various issues large and small.

Presumably Kerry’s perspective on his military accomplishments changed between when they occurred, and 1971. It does not strike me as absolutely unreasonable for his perspective to have changed some more in the following 30+ years.

As I see it, that he did the specific things to be given those awards is a fact. Whether he is proud of it or not on any given day, does not change the fact that he conducted himself in that manner. Same way he is responsible for the actions he chose to take in 1971.

I don’t know about you, but my life does not seem to flow in a nice clean mathematical manner, where acts on one day neatly and completely equal out acts from a preceding decade. I can easily imagine that Kerry earned his honors simply by fulfilling what he thought his duty. Essentiallty doing what he considered his job. I can also understand that as he learned more about the context in which his job was performed, he became disgusted with the system that had created that context, and sought numerous ways to express his disagreement with that system and seek changes.

Now his situation is changed yet again. He is 30 years older, with twice the life experience, and considerable professional experience. I am not a veteran, and I will not criticize any veteran for recalling the service he provided. I am not sure of the time and context in which the medals reappeared, but I am not certain putting them on his wall necessarily called for a press conference. In fact, had he done so, I can imagine certain parties criticizing him for calling undue attention to them. Damned if you do…

Even if I were to assume he recently posted the medals simply to obtain political currency, that strikes me as understandable, human, and not a terrible thing that disqualifies him from being president.

I really hate to run the risk of sounding overly partisan, but I believe Kerry should explain his actions the same way his possible future opponent should address his historic drinking and substance use (if any), the unusual efforts he went through to avoid active duty or even onerous participation in the guard, and numerous other business and personal matters. I would far prefer a candidate who was upfront about such matters, over one who tried to weasel out of addressing them.

Although I consider them relevant and valid matters to address, no one of such issues should be determinative. I think it is silly to put too much emphasis on these particular pieces of ribbon and metal. Kerry’s actions and mindset at the time are legitimate matters of concern for the electorate. It is appropriate that he be questioned on this, and direct answers ought to be expected. That is not to say, of course, that everyone is going to be satisfied with those responses. In fact, as the OP clearly indicated, whether or not he gets a satisfactory answer on this matter, he will find some other reason(s) not to vote for Kerry. The same way I could not imagine circumstances that would cause me to vote for Bush.