|
Please Don't Miss and
|
|
Saturday, 12 April 2008
|
|
Debunking DeBord
Contributed by Russ Vaughn [Editor's Note: Russ wrote this in response to , which you should read first.] Matthew DeBord, of the LA Times, is a dumbass civilian who apparently has no compunction about demonstrating it for all to witness. Any serving military officer, NCO or private appearing before the Congress would wear the Class A uniform of their particular service, if for no other reason than out of respect for their civilian paymasters. From my own military experience, I would imagine that the Class A uniform is required by regulation for any such appearance. As for the General's bling, to put it in terms a shallow lightweight like DeBord might understand, there are plenty of serving sergeants and lower-ranking officers who wear far more ribbons, badges and medals than General Petraeus. To a clueless civilian like DeBord, those bits of metal and color may be nothing more than ostentatious show, but to members of the military, those decorations are a career roadmap, telling fellow service members what training one has had, where they have employed it and how well, over what period of time and whether or not their service has been exceptional, particularly in the case of medals for valor in combat. With a quick look at a military uniform, someone knowledgeable of the system can learn a great deal about the person inside. Believe me, it saves a lot of time when you want to know who you're dealing with in a first-time situation. Lastly, you are right that the name tag is required by regulations and is grounded in the common sense notion that in very large organizations where you are giving orders and getting orders on a regular basis to and from folks who are all dressed alike, sometimes under very spontaneous and chaotic conditions, it is helpful to have a prominently displayed name tag to make it clearer to everyone in the process, who gives what orders to whom. No, General Petraeus wouldn't get dinged if he didn't wear his name tag, but he does it as a common courtesy to his troops and to show he observes the regulations just as they must. Besides, to some privates, all generals look alike. Wine-sipping, sissy effetes like Matthew DeBord should stick to critiquing waiters' and sommeliers' uniforms. Russ Vaughn *** [Bill Faith adds:] See also: |
|
Contributed by Russ Vaughn on April 12, 2008 at 11:56 AM in | Comments Posted by: John Guerrero Mathew DeBord is an insignificant little nobody. Why do we waste our breath on this moron. To even humor this clown is to disrepect General Patraeus and the U. S. Army. Please leave DeBord where he belongs in the limbo of idiots and lets continue to move onward in support of the General's efforts and the goals of the United States of America. Posted by: John Guerrero | Apr 12, 2008 7:11:37 PM Posted by: Boomer BRAVO Russ for having the cajones to respond to DeBord. Hopefully you sent it to his inbox or even his newspaper for all to read. The article appeared in our Guam Pacific Daily news, issue April 10th. I cut it out and planning to send it to my military friends. Keep it up...you do good work! Boomer in Guam Posted by: Boomer | Apr 12, 2008 8:53:54 PM Posted by: GM Cassel AMH1(AW) USN RET Do ya think it would be fun to take this little scumbag across the Equator in the presence of King Neptune and Davy Jones? Would it ever, providing it was like I did in Good Ship Ranger CV61 on 28 December 1980. Posted by: GM Cassel AMH1(AW) USN RET | Apr 13, 2008 8:50:24 AM Posted by: Rafer Hmmm...it seems this effete is angry that Petreaus doesn't have more medals that represent combat; I wonder if he understands that combat requires war? As to the nametag, I suppose they could start issuing solid-gold versions instead of "cheap plastic" ones, I'm sure that would make this sissy happy. Posted by: Rafer | Apr 13, 2008 10:57:47 AM |