Medal of Honor awarded for race?

[blueghost]

[quote name="TankerHC" post="1126743" timestamp="1395196587"]I write everyone when it concerns veterans and is required. Should say call. What amazes me the most is how the original post is ignored and everyone defends the President's action's. He made it racial. When a President proclaims that he is going to " correct a racial injustice" by awarding the MoH then he just brought a racial and political element into the award. I've done plenty over the last 15 year's and continue to do so. How about you? Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2[/quote] When it concerns issues (mainly gun rights, taxes, the economy) that I feel strongly about, absolutely. I've never even heard of Lt Garlin Conners until I read this post & I'm sure there are many others in the same boat so thanks for enlightening me about him, learn something new everyday.

[TMF]

[quote name="TankerHC" post="1126743" timestamp="1395196587"]I write everyone when it concerns veterans and is required. Should say call. What amazes me the most is how the original post is ignored and everyone defends the President's action's. He made it racial. When a President proclaims that he is going to " correct a racial injustice" by awarding the MoH then he just brought a racial and political element into the award. I've done plenty over the last 15 year's and continue to do so. How about you? Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2[/quote] You keep saying this has to do with the President. Explain exactly what this has to do with the President. He is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead as far as these Medals are concerned. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guest TankerHC]

That wasnt the same. They gave out Medals of Honor to hundreds of National Guardsman as reenlistment bonuses, because there was no standard back then and they needed people to stay in the unit. Comparing that to this is like comparing dog crap to filet mignon. The 24 that received the MoH all deserved it as far as I could tell, but considering there were actual investigations on each one to ensure they met the criteria is more legitimate than what has been done in the past. There are several MoH recipients who did not participate in combat or meet the modern day criteria for the award. There was a general who got it as a service award. Lindbergh even got one. So no, this isn't about Obama. Obama didnt recommend these troops for the MoH. He didnt conduct the investigation into these cases and he didnt authorize the Medal. He simply presented them at a ceremony. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Wrong on that one. Need to look more deeply into Civil War History. In fact,Obama re-awarded one of those Medals that were rescinded, and justifiably. 

[oddprimer]

OP didn't get the story quite right. Obama doesn't get to pick the recipients as others have pointed out, congress does. 

 

"The presentation came after Congress in a 2002 defense bill ordered a review of thousands of war records to determine whether Latino and Jewish veterans were denied the nation’s highest military decoration because of discrimination."

 

But it is a little worse, OP makes it sound as though Obama is doing some white/black thing and injecting race. But what Obama said was a little different:

 

"This ceremony reminds us of one of the enduring qualities that makes America great," Obama said. "No nation is perfect. But here in America, we confront our imperfections and face a sometimes painful past, including the truth that some of these soldiers fought and died for a country that did not always see them as equal."

Which is largely true. There are plenty of reasons not to like this particular president without making things up. Here's the worst thing of all: sure Lt. Garlin got the screwjob but a lot of people get the screwjob. Go through the list of recipients and pick out one or a dozen that didn't deserve the medal. In general I believe you should try to pull yourself up instead of dragging others down. 

 

 

[Guest TankerHC]

You keep saying this has to do with the President. Explain exactly what this has to do with the President. He is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead as far as these Medals are concerned. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

OK, allow me to explain since no one seems to get it.

 

First off, in my OP I stated, if a grateful nation feels they earned the Medals, then they deserve it.

 

Secondly, to clarify, the Medal Of Honor, is NOT the COngressional Medal of Honor, and the President is NOT just a figurehead. The Medal Of Honor, is THE MEDAL OF HONOR Awarded by THE President in the name of Congress.

 

The Medal serves one purpose. To honor an individual, by a grateful Nation, who has gone above and beyond the call of duty with total disregard for life and limb.

 

Several years ago, the issue was brought up when the first minority recipients from WWI were honored. In complete violation of every rule and protocol, time limitation and with a lack of witnesses, living and dead. At that point the the Medal became something of a Political point rather than for it's original intent. Not for everyone of course, but when it was Politically expedient. 

 

Since then, certain living individuals who have been nominated, have gone through the process, passed every obstacle and had been denied, while, for racially motivated and political purposes we have had mass awards. Bill Clinton began this, he awarded half a dozen, since Bill Clinton awarded half a dozen or so, how is Obama correcting a racial injustice. Clinton already did that. 

 

This is Political, racially based, and dilutes the meaning of America's highest Honor. It is History, in this case, revisionist History. If this is acceptable, not that they received the awards, that isnt even in dispute that they earned them, but that people like Clinton and Obama can conduct mass awards of the MoH, with no remaining living witnesses, nothing to show that they were recommended for anything higher than a DSC, in exclusion of the time limits, by being given exceptions, then there is a lot of other things certain people claim, incorrectly, that they believe in. They do this for Politics, something, prior to Clinton was never done, plenty of Medals have been given out posthumously and much later, but they haven't had liberal Democrats proclaiming justice, they had men, being awarded for their Heroism.

 

IF, this would have been an award of the Medals simply for their Heroism, that would have been one thing, unfortunately for Obama and the rest of the Left, no matter how hard they try, they cannot change History, history is linear, period. 

 

 

 

Before going off the deep end, some people need to learn the basics first, like what the Medal is and what it is for. And it has not only been awarded to soldiers, sailors, airman and Marines. 

Edited March 19, 2014 by TankerHC

[TMF]

[quote name="TankerHC" post="1126757" timestamp="1395198545"]Wrong on that one. Need to look more deeply into Civil War History. In fact,Obama re-awarded one of those Medals that were rescinded, and justifiably. [/quote] No, sure as hell ain't wrong on that. 311 Medals were awarded simultaneously to Maine Volunteers as reenlistment incentive. They were later, justifiably, rescinded. That is fact. Sorry. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TMF]

[quote name="TankerHC" post="1126757" timestamp="1395198545"]Wrong on that one. Need to look more deeply into Civil War History. In fact,Obama re-awarded one of those Medals that were rescinded, and justifiably. [/quote] During the Civil War, Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton promised a Medal of Honor to every man in the 27th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment who extended his enlistment beyond the agreed-upon date. The Battle of Gettysburg was imminent, and 311 men of the regiment volunteered to serve until the battle was resolved. The remaining men returned to Maine, but with the Union victory at Gettysburg the 311 volunteers soon followed. The volunteers arrived back in Maine in time to be discharged with the men who had earlier returned. Since there seemed to be no official list of the 311 volunteers, the War Department exacerbated the situation by forwarding 864 medals to the commanding officer of the regiment. The commanding officer only issued the medals to the volunteers who stayed behind and retained the others on the grounds that, if he returned the remainder to the War Department, the War Department would try to reissue the medals.[145] In 1916, a board of five Army generals on the retired list convened under act of law to review every Army Medal of Honor awarded. The board was to report on any Medals of Honor awarded or issued for any cause other than distinguished service. The commission, led by Nelson A. Miles, identified 911 awards for causes other than distinguished service. This included the 864 medals awarded to members of the 27th Maine regiment, 29 who served as Abraham Lincoln's funeral guard, six civilians, including Dr. Mary Edwards Walker and Buffalo Bill Cody, and 12 others.[146][147] Dr. Walker's medal was restored by President Jimmy Carter in 1977.[125] Cody and four other civilian scouts who rendered distinguished service in action, and who were therefore considered by the board to have fully earned their medals, had theirs restored in 1989.[148] The report was endorsed by the Judge Advocate General, who also advised that the War Department should not seek the return of the revoked medals from the recipients identified by the board. In the case of recipients who continued to wear the medal, the War Department was advised to take no action to enforce the statute.[149] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TMF]

^^^ Wrong, eh? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TMF]

[quote name="TankerHC" post="1126765" timestamp="1395199725"] Before going off the deep end, some people need to learn the basics first, like what the Medal is and what it is for. And it has not only been awarded to soldiers, sailors, airman and Marines. [/quote] Apparently the meaning is subjective over time, since there are recipients of the Medal who never were on a battlefield and did not receive the Medal for actions in combat. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TMF]

[quote name="TankerHC" post="1126765" timestamp="1395199725"]OK, allow me to explain since no one seems to get it. First off, in my OP I stated, if a grateful nation feels they earned the Medals, then they deserve it. Secondly, to clarify, the Medal Of Honor, is NOT the COngressional Medal of Honor, and the President is NOT just a figurehead. The Medal Of Honor, is THE MEDAL OF HONOR Awarded by THE President in the name of Congress. The Medal serves one purpose. To honor an individual, by a grateful Nation, who has gone above and beyond the call of duty with total disregard for life and limb. Several years ago, the issue was brought up when the first minority recipients from WWI were honored. In complete violation of every rule and protocol, time limitation and with a lack of witnesses, living and dead. At that point the the Medal became something of a Political point rather than for it's original intent. Not for everyone of course, but when it was Politically expedient. Since then, certain living individuals who have been nominated, have gone through the process, passed every obstacle and had been denied, while, for racially motivated and political purposes we have had mass awards. Bill Clinton began this, he awarded half a dozen, since Bill Clinton awarded half a dozen or so, how is Obama correcting a racial injustice. Clinton already did that. This is Political, racially based, and dilutes the meaning of America's highest Honor. It is History, in this case, revisionist History. If this is acceptable, not that they received the awards, that isnt even in dispute that they earned them, but that people like Clinton and Obama can conduct mass awards of the MoH, with no remaining living witnesses, nothing to show that they were recommended for anything higher than a DSC, in exclusion of the time limits, by being given exceptions, then there is a lot of other things certain people claim, incorrectly, that they believe in. They do this for Politics, something, prior to Clinton was never done, plenty of Medals have been given out posthumously and much later, but they haven't had liberal Democrats proclaiming justice, they had men, being awarded for their Heroism. IF, this would have been an award of the Medals simply for their Heroism, that would have been one thing, unfortunately for Obama and the rest of the Left, no matter how hard they try, they cannot change History, history is linear, period. . [/quote] Here is a link to the MoH process flow chart. I see that the president is nowhere in there until the end. http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/steps.html Also, could you explain how the awarding of these Medals violates the law governing the authorization and awarding of the Medal? There have been plenty of other military decorations that took decades to be authorized, and plenty we white folks. Also, to say that they were awarded Medals based on race is to say that all the white MoH recipients in their era were awarded based on the color of their skin if there were peers who met the same criteria but had their awards denied because they were black. It goes both ways. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TMF]

[quote name="6.8 AR" post="1126770" timestamp="1395200040"]Also, I remember one recipient who was presented three times for the Medal of Honor. Twice it got overlooked before it was finally awarded. After all the bravery that short Jew, who survived WWII, came to the US, with difficulty finally enlisting in the Marines, went to Korea, singlehandedly held a hill, ended up in a POW camp saving his fellow soldiers by keeping them fed and just alive, someone finally made sure he was awarded the medal. I remember him because he was not looking for anything. He just loved the US and wanted to repay his new country by fighting for it. His medal could have been easily forgotten. He was nominated three times and twice it got lost in the shuffle, if I remember correctly.[/quote] I think I remember seeing an interview with that guy, where his Sergeant pretty much left him to die but the guy held off the enemy single handedly. When they needed someone to sit in the foxhole and cover the withdrawal the Sergeant said, "get that funny talking Jew up here." He was a post WWII immigrant. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guest TankerHC]

Here is a link to the MoH process flow chart. I see that the president is nowhere in there until the end. http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/steps.html Also, could you explain how the awarding of these Medals violates the law governing the authorization and awarding of the Medal? There have been plenty of other military decorations that took decades to be authorized, and plenty we white folks. Also, to say that they were awarded Medals based on race is to say that all the white MoH recipients in their era were awarded based on the color of their skin if there were peers who met the same criteria but had their awards denied because they were black. It goes both ways. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I dont need to look, there is a time limit on the MoH, there is a requirement for witnesses, at least three, and the Medal is awarded by the President, and is not the Congressional Medal of Honor. 

 

10 US Code 3741The President may award, and present in the name of Congress, a medal of honor of appropriate design, with ribbons and appurtenances, to a person who while a member of the Army, distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.

 

There is a two year time limit to submit the application following the act of heroism. Not 65 years.

 

​The President reinstated one Medal and he isn't even authorized to do that, that is the job of the Board of Military corrections, for any Medal, not just the MoH.

 

 

[Guest TankerHC]

BTW, I do not know how many times I have to repeat it, 3 should be enough. It will be enough for me. I am not saying they did not deserve their Medals, Those men and every one of them who were recipients of that Medal did things most of us can only imagine (I know of at least one here on this Forum who can imagine it, because he did it, and as far as I know wasnt awarded the Medal). But those things should supercede things like proclaming by a politician that he is fixing a racial injustice, black, white, Jew, Native American, it doesnt matter, could be Japanese descent, plenty of them in the 442nd. But to run articles like CNN's "The color of Valor" is BS, plain and simple. 

 

Were those men standing up there for their Heroism? Yes. Were those men standing up their so this President could proclaim social and racial justice has been served, and self serving? YES.

 

And Lt. Conner's family should have been standing right there with them. 

Edited March 19, 2014 by TankerHC

[Links2k]

If Obama and the media were attempting to make this ceremony for these heroes a racial issue, then they are buttholes. By the same token, since these men were properly vetted, anyone who has read or heard about the exploits of these men and still thinks that they received these awards as some sort of "Affirmative Action" payback is an even bigger butthole. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TMF]

I dont need to look, there is a time limit on the MoH, there is a requirement for witnesses, at least three, and the Medal is awarded by the President, and is not the Congressional Medal of Honor. 

 

10 US Code 3741The President may award, and present in the name of Congress, a medal of honor of appropriate design, with ribbons and appurtenances, to a person who while a member of the Army, distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.

 

There is a two year time limit to submit the application following the act of heroism. Not 65 years.

 

​The President reinstated one Medal and he isn't even authorized to do that, that is the job of the Board of Military corrections, for any Medal, not just the MoH.

 

 

 

Tanker, you could not be more wrong with this post.  First, after the two limit has been reached a person can be submitted by a member of Congress and that can be submitted directly to HRC or the Sec of the Army.  Perhaps you should look at that flow chart.

 

As for the President presenting the award, it is no different than him pardoning the turkey on Thanksgiving.  He does not go out and select the farm and turkey to be pardoned.  He just issues the pardon. 

 

President Kennedy signed whole new regs into law things have stayed the same in regards to criteria since 1962.  Before that, to include WWII era, there have been plenty of people who were awarded the Medal for non-combat related actions.

 

Also, in the past 30 years there have been 50 belated MoH recipients, not including these ones here.  Some were awarded by Obama and some of those were white.  So I'm not sure what you're getting at with this thread.  You're wrong about the requirements.  You're wrong about Obama only awarding blacks.  You're wrong about past awards for non-combat related reasons, and you tried to compare that to these brave men.

[Guest TankerHC]

That's right. He went back and forth between
a heavy machine gun and a rifle. Something like a hundred dead enemy below the hill when they came back. It was a show about three medal
recipients.

 

What if I said there is a member here who did darned near the same thing, heroically I mean, and we converse with him almost every day (No worries to that person, I wont out you). I wised to hell I could, people should know his story. 

[Guest TankerHC]

Tanker, you could not be more wrong with this post.  First, after the two limit has been reached a person can be submitted by a member of Congress and that can be submitted directly to HRC or the Sec of the Army.  Perhaps you should look at that flow chart.

 

As for the President presenting the award, it is no different than him pardoning the turkey on Thanksgiving.  He does not go out and select the farm and turkey to be pardoned.  He just issues the pardon. 

 

President Kennedy signed whole new regs into law things have stayed the same in regards to criteria since 1962.  Before that, to include WWII era, there have been plenty of people who were awarded the Medal for non-combat related actions.

 

Also, in the past 30 years there have been 50 belated MoH recipients, not including these ones here.  Some were awarded by Obama and some of those were white.  So I'm not sure what you're getting at with this thread.  You're wrong about the requirements.  You're wrong about Obama only awarding blacks.  You're wrong about past awards for non-combat related reasons, and you tried to compare that to these brave men.

 

There is actually a certain individual right now who has people fighting for him, not he himself, because he did not make the time limit for recommendation and should be awarded the Medal. 

[oddprimer]

The thing that needs to be remembered is that this started with the statement:

 

"This week 24 black veterans are being awarded, because exceptions were made for them. Their background is not even close to Lt. Conner."

 

An untrue statement. A statement that should tell  you about the rest of the posts. They weren;t  all black and if you got worried or offended that they were you need to check yourself. 

[Guest TankerHC]

The thing that needs to be remembered is that this started with the statement:

 

"This week 24 black veterans are being awarded, because exceptions were made for them. Their background is not even close to Lt. Conner."

 

An untrue statement. A statement that should tell  you about the rest of the posts. They weren;t  all black and if you got worried or offended that they were you need to check yourself. 

 

And I stand by that, because the POTUS and reports made that claim. Why did CNN do their COLOR of Valor report, and why was a racial injustice corrected by the POTUS? Plenty of Jews recieved high awards during WWII and other wars, they were honored for their Heroism, not their race, color, creed or sexual orientation. 

 

I dont need to check anything out. Why should I be worried? 

[Guest TankerHC]

The thing that needs to be remembered is that this started with the statement:

 

"This week 24 black veterans are being awarded, because exceptions were made for them. Their background is not even close to Lt. Conner."

 

An untrue statement. A statement that should tell  you about the rest of the posts. They weren;t  all black and if you got worried or offended that they were you need to check yourself. 

 

I also notice that you left this out of the original post " Fine, if they earned it, and a grateful Nation feels they deserve it, then they deserve it."

 

Finally, If you are even insinuating that I am a racist, you would be sadly mistaken. My posts come nowhere close to some of the other posts around here. My question, and Ill state it again, why is the President proclaiming that he fixed a racial injustice, while Lt. Conner's is being sidelined? 

 

THAT is racist. 

[TMF]

There is actually a certain individual right now who has people fighting for him, not he himself, because he did not make the time limit for recommendation and should be awarded the Medal. 

 

There is no time limit for Congress to make the recommendation.  As to these awardees, I'm curious as to the process for their MoH.  Surely some of them were recommended by their Chain of Command during whatever the time limits were in WWII and Korea, only to be downgraded or dismissed due to race.  So I'm under the assumption that some, if not all, met that criteria.

 

Here's my deal though.  I know the awards system is screwed up, and it is personality driven.  Everyone who has been in the military and especially those who have fought in war know this.  I recall a buddy who left cover to pull a fellow soldier who was critically wounded behind cover and provide him treatment.  He was shot while pulling his buddy to cover, but was still able to not only render him livesaving aid to a severe wound, but he himself returned fire on the enemy and assisted in killing every attacker from a superior sized force.... all with a gunshot wound.

 

His Bronze Star V was downgraded to an ARCOM V.  WTF?  Yeah, it's upsetting.  Even more upsetting when you see POGs who sit on a FOB get Bronze Stars like candy.  So when I see that there are heroes from past conflicts that have displayed such valor to rise to the level of MoH status only to learn they were denied such valor because of skin pigment I become enraged.  So very effing enraged.  I don't care about the media or Obama.  Obama can try to take credit for righting the wrongs of the past, but I know better.  He had no more to do with this than if any other President was sitting in the White House.  He only got the honor of presenting the award and being in the same room as these last three survivors. 

 

When I saw this thread before I wasn't going to comment on it, but it is upsetting.  You're saying that you agree they deserve the award, but in the same post you claim they only got it because of race.  Like I said before, the same could be said about every single white recipient of the Medal, if you're suggesting that the recent awards are exclusionary to potential white awardees (such as Lt Connor) and therefore the award is based on race.  Well I could say the same about white recipients during the WWII and Korean era if the award was exclusionary to potential black awardees.  That means the MoH back then was based on race.

 

I don't see it that way, however.  The way I see it, to draw that conclusion is taking away the focus of the sacrifice those brave folks made for our country.  I don't think there is a single MoH recipient who wouldn't want to see everyone who deserved a MoH get awarded, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or gender.  To make this a race issue takes something away from those awardees, and it is no different than the media making this a race issue.  You took the bait from CNN it seems. 

Edited March 19, 2014 by TMF

[Guest TankerHC]

No dispute with you about Lt. Conner. You told
his story, Tanker. I hope some day he is awarded
it, also. But I'll bet there are thousands of soldiers
who should be awarded it, also, who did things
so brave and not in front of the right person that
we will never know of.

Let the cowards have their way. Eventually, they
will fall. Try and have some solace in that.

I look at my father as a hero in WWII. I barely
understand what affect it had on him. I don't
know the half of what he did and he's my hero. He
never got a medal for bombing the Hell out of
Berlin and other targets. I never heard anyone
complain. He did what he did for something,
other than a medal, I imagine for the same reason
as Lt. Conner.

I get pissed off with the politics of things like this,
but some things will correct themselves in time.
I have more serious things to get mad over with
certain politicians than making hay over a medal.
Benghazi comes to mind, for one.

 

I agree with this more than 1000%. My grandfather fought through four campaigns, Infantry, then had to go south as an attachment to the 262nd and fight for four more months, wounded several times, awarded what he was awarded. He, along with many of my other relatives, are my hero's. But to be perfectly honest, I do not think his actions rate the MoH, I have read every single thing he did on his units daily reports, but there were plenty in his 4th ID unit who did. There were too many people that did exactly what he did. 

 

This has come up on several military sites, certain issues, I posted it here simply because there are vets here from wars from the last 50 years. As soon as this was announced, Lt. Conner's family issue came to the forefront because a judge ruled that there was nothing he could do, due to technical issues related to the submission of the award. It was pointed out that his submitted paperwork was rejected by the board, and that it was rare for a DSC to be upgraded to a MoH. Well apparently it was not too rare, not in the current cases. 

[Guest TankerHC]

There is no time limit for Congress to make the recommendation.  As to these awardees, I'm curious as to the process for their MoH.  Surely some of them were recommended by their Chain of Command during whatever the time limits were in WWII and Korea, only to be downgraded or dismissed due to race.  So I'm under the assumption that some, if not all, met that criteria.

 

Here's my deal though.  I know the awards system is screwed up, and it is personality driven.  Everyone who has been in the military and especially those who have fought in war know this.  I recall a buddy who left cover to pull a fellow soldier who was critically wounded behind cover and provide him treatment.  He was shot while pulling his buddy to cover, but was still able to not only render him livesaving aid to a severe wound, but he himself returned fire on the enemy and assisted in killing every attacker from a superior sized force.... all with a gunshot wound.

 

His Bronze Star V was downgraded to an ARCOM V.  WTF?  Yeah, it's upsetting.  Even more upsetting when you see POGs who sit on a FOB get Bronze Stars like candy.  So when I see that there are heroes from past conflicts that have displayed such valor to rise to the level of MoH status only to learn they were denied such valor because of skin pigment I become enraged.  So very effing enraged.  I don't care about the media or Obama.  Obama can try to take credit for righting the wrongs of the past, but I know better.  He had no more to do with this than if any other President was sitting in the White House.  He only got the honor of presenting the award and being in the same room as these last three survivors. 

 

When I saw this thread before I wasn't going to comment on it, but it is upsetting.  You're saying that you agree they deserve the award, but in the same post you claim they only got it because of race.  Like I said before, the same could be said about every single white recipient of the Medal, if you're suggesting that the recent awards are exclusionary to potential white awardees (such as Lt Connor) and therefore the award is based on race.  Well I could say the same about white recipients during the WWII and Korean era if the award was exclusionary to potential black awardees.  That means the MoH back then was based on race.

 

I don't see it that way, however.  The way I see it, to draw that conclusion is taking the focus on the sacrifice those brave folks made for our country.  I don't think there is a single MoH recipient who wouldn't want to see everyone who deserved a MoH get awarded, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or gender.  To make this a race issue takes something away from those awardees, and it is no different than the media making this a race issue.  You took the bait from CNN it seems. 

 

I also agree with this. The problem is not that these men received their due award, but the fact that this POTUS gathered a group of men "Of color", according to CNN to make a Political point. Yes the awards system is screwed up, majorly. 

 

I didnt take any bait from CNN, I have been following Conner's families issues for a while. If I took bait from anyone it would be Politicians using these mens day, to promote a political agenda, while excluding someone when they could have added them. 

 

I dont think most MoH recipients would discuss it for the most part, the political aspect. In 1997 I had a very rare privilege, I was in Little Rock Arkansas going through some classes at the NG Schools up there while moving into an AC/RC slot, on our first day, every living MoH recipient except one, a WWII vet who couldn't make it, were in the classroom next to ours holding their meeting. The very rare privilege was to spend a couple of hours, shaking hands and thanking. I am not hero worshiper or worshiper of any kind of mortal man, But I will say that I felt in the presence of greatness that day, for a couple of hours. They were all wearing their Medals, one in particular was still in active duty, a Full Bird Colonel, INfantry, and he was in Uniform, told me he was retiring. I couldnt even talk to him, what do you say to someone who is standing in front of you wearing the Medal. But there was no bragging, nothing, except talking about Veterans issues.

 

Anyone who knows me knows that I have the utmost respect for all veterans, especially WWII veterans, however, I have little respect for career politicians, and less than no respect for Socialists and Communists. I also have no respect for people who consistently say that 20+ year vets should not be allowed to retire, that the troops get paid enough because the GOVERNMENT claims they make more than their civilian counterpart when there is no civilian counterpart to a soldier, when Politicians and the public do not have a problem with Vets having their benefits removed for the sake of welfare programs, and decreasing taxes, money that was spent years ago.

 

And I see it and hear it every single day. Regardless of what anyone thinks, what this is, is wrong. NOT the awards, the way it was carried out and the exclusion. 

 

I dont mind negative replies, sometimes I am wrong, other times I am right, and I read every one of them. If I am wrong I will say I am wrong, I am not one of those people who is embarrassed about being wrong. The only thing, you cannot be wrong on your own opinion. It is your opinion, and my opinion is this should have been carried out in a manner that reflected their Heroism, not their race, and there should not have been an exclusion. 

 

Ill stick by that, on the requirements of awarding the Medal, I cannot honestly say 100%, since I do not read the regs daily, any longer. 

[btq96r]

If this were President Bush standing at the podium and saying that these men were being awarded the MoH due to the fact that when they performed their acts of heroism, they were overlooked for racial reasons, it couldn't see it being an issue.  It would be the same thing it is today- doing the right thing even if years later.  But, because of all the racial undertones real or imagined with President Obama, we have debates like this thread.  Never mind that this initiative was part of the 2002 Defense Appropriations bill.  Passed in 2001, a year when the President was a Republican, the House of Representatives was controlled by Republicans and the Senate was a 51/49 split between Democrats (including an independent that caucused with them) and Republicans.  The leading thoughts that this is some racially biased thing President Obama is doing don't pass the smell test.

 

The military is representative of society and back then, a sizable portion of our country was racist.  To think that those thoughts weren't part of the beliefs for Army leadership who were raised in that environment isn't realistic  I can absolutely believe that not being white or being Jewish instead of Christian made getting them the recognition they deserved more trouble than it was worth for some.  And by some I mean those who had to process these awards several echelons removed from the units these men served in while under fire.  If their race was enough to be a factor in denying them the award, it's enough of a factor to be mentioned when we correct that.  People should be proud that we looked back and publicly said said "this was wrong" and got these men the recognition they deserved. 

 

I get that there are probably hundreds more of every race/ethnicity/skin color that aren't recognized when they should be.  Garlin Conners is hardly alone in this regard.  But I challenge anyone to look at this list, click through the names, read the stories and tell me who among them may have been awarded the MoH for their race, religion or skin color instead of their actions that day after looking at their heroism without the racism of the days they served in clouding peoples views.

Edited March 19, 2014 by btq96r

[Guest TankerHC]

If this were President Bush standing at the podium and saying that these men were being awarded the MoH due to the fact that when they performed their acts of heroism, they were overlooked for racial reasons, it couldn't see it being an issue.  It would be the same thing it is today- doing the right thing even if years later.  But, because of all the racial undertones real or imagined with President Obama, we have debates like this thread.  Never mind that this initiative was part of the 2002 Defense Appropriations bill.  Passed in 2001, a year when the President was a Republican, the House of Representatives was controlled by Republicans and the Senate was a literal 50/50 split between Democrats and Republicans.  The leading thoughts that this is some racially biased thing President Obama is doing don't pass the smell test.

 

The military is representative of society and back then, a sizable portion of our country was racist.  To think that those thoughts weren't part of the beliefs for Army leadership who were raised in that environment isn't realistic  I can absolutely believe that not being white or being Jewish instead of Christian made getting them the recognition they deserved more trouble than it was worth for some.  And by some I mean those who had to process these awards several echelons removed from the units these men served in while under fire.  If their race was enough to be a factor in denying them the award, it's enough of a factor to be mentioned when we correct that.  People should be proud that we looked back and publicly said said "this was wrong" and got these men the recognition they deserved. 

 

I get that there are probably hundreds more of every race/ethnicity/skin color that aren't recognized when they should be.  Garlin Conners is hardly alone in this regard.  But I challenge anyone to look at this list, click through the names, read the stories and tell me who among them may have been awarded the MoH for their race, religion or skin color instead of their actions that day after looking at their heroism without the racism of the days they served in clouding peoples views.

 

None of them. But that wasnt my point, clearly my point didnt come across as intended. But if Bush, or Reagan or any of them, would have thrown in their Politics, I would have said the same thing. 

Edited March 19, 2014 by TankerHC