| So I did some checking. Mr. Myers served aboard the USS Bunker Hill during Desert Shield/Storm. His claim of being seasoned by combat appears to be tied to the award of the Combat Action Ribbon to his ship. But, as I discovered, the award was given under a waiver of the traditional definition of "combat".
Basically, to get the Combat Action Ribbon, his ship should have had to take damage from the mines in the area where it operated - as the Tripoli and Princeton did. Myers has claimed that the Bunker Hill had several "near misses" - but I don't recall awards being given for "almost being in combat". Hence, the waiver.
The other claim of combat comes from the V designor on his Navy Commendation Medal. Normally referred to as a "combat V", it is given for particularly valiant or notable service in combat. The award letter notes that Mr. Myers was responsible, in effect, for air traffic control during ground operations (combat). The Bunker Hill fired twenty-four missiles in support of the ground troops.
Again, this is not the traditional understanding of naval combat. It is, technically, a "combat support" operation. Words matter.
It doesn't mean that Mr. Myers didn't serve honorably. He did. It doesn't mean that he is lying about his awards. He isn't. But it does mean that he has the experience to know that he was not in combat and is chosing to inflate the public perception of his resume by misrepresenting his experience.
I believe that all veterans, even those such as myself who were never in combat, should be honored for the service they have given. After all, if I had been called on to enter combat while in uniform, I would have. But we should be satisfied with the honor we deserve, and those whose lives were endangered by direct enemy fire, in my opinion, deserve an extra measure of respect - as do those who have been injured in battle, those who were killed in action, and prisoners of war.
It is not denigrating other service to say that the sacrifices called for by these experiences require more than the normal measure of honor. It is merely stating what should be obvious. "Combat" means actual combat. At least, it should.
Since Mr. Myers has nothing else upon which to base his campaign, he reacted strongly. He sent out a press release and held a press conference attacking me for pointing out that he was stretching the public record.
Mr. Myers claimed that I was trying to "swiftboat" him. That group, however, claimed that the official record of John Kerry's service was somehow falsified. I claim the official record is right, but Myers doesn't want the whole thing to be known. But, since he brought it up, there is no record of him condemning the Swiftboat Liers for their actions.
He has also claimed that I was "coordinated" with his opponent, who is not a veteran. When asked for substantiation of this serious charge, he simply said, "I have no proof of it." The truth is that I left the military because I don't like to take orders - not even from someone I hope wins office. I am not working for anyone.
Throughout the whole thing, Mr. Myers has denounced me as a "liberal blogger" while finding a way to neglect mentioning that I am a veteran and my ship even spent several months operating in the same waters as the Bunker Hill. As a result of his strategic omissions, and of his coordinated email efforts, commenters in serveral local newspapers have derided me as a crack-pot who doesn't know anything (here and here, for examples). To me, this is simply more of the same old GOP gameplan of running a veteran (me) - except this time it is a veteran who is doing it.
Is it a fine hair to split? I suppose so. But it is an important one. We all know that American voters love a veteran - and they tend to turn off their filters when someone claims veteran status. Those of us who know the difference have to stand up to protect those who have and are currently serving in combat. But we also have to speak up and protect the voters from a politically ambitious cynic who is more concerned with winning an election than with telling the truth about his service. Myers hopes that this will make people forget that he said that the important thing in Iraq is to make it "look like we've won".
If it is not a hair worth splitting; then why put so much effort into destroying my public reputation? If it is a hair worth splitting; then why raise a fuss when a person insists that the public record should be told in its entirety?
If you feel strongly enough about this, you can pass a donation along to Myers' opponent, State Senator John Adler. If you think I'm wrong, you're certainly free to say so. That is, after all, one of the reasons all of us wore the uniforms that we did. |
