http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-30-najaf_x.htm
>>>>An Iraqi mortar round landed less than 50 yards away as two top U.S. generals were conferring here Sunday on the next phase in the U.S. offensive.<<<<
Nothing about him being close to imminent dange in the original report of the battle from which he was awarded a Bronze Star.
Perhaps he deserves that medal as much as Jessica Lynch deserved to her Bronze Star. I mention Jessica Lynch to illustrate the military will lie to promote service members, just as Jessica Lynch was nice looking and endearing, Petraeus is the anointed golden boy.
Yet I have been told that a fake report was made up to make it appear Petraeus was worthy of a Bronze Star. I have been told that based on what is in the USA Today, Petraeus didn't deserve his Bronze Star.
2007-09-28 05:59:24 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Its my understanding that Petraeus Bronze Star had a Valor designation, does that change anything?
2007-09-28 06:34:41 · update #1
You're talking about a Bronze Star. There is no requirement to actually be "engaged in combat with the enemy" to receive the Bronze Star. You only need to perform in a meritorius manner in a combat zone. It's kind of like the wartime version of the Meritorius Service Medal. It's not that big a deal.
Now, to the Silver Star awardee above. IMHO, that is a big deal. You only get the Silver star for valor. Thank you for your service, sir.
Addendum -- yes, a Bronze Star with "V device" (for valor) is an entirely different animal. As someone stated earlier, I'd have to see the citation.
2007-09-28 06:28:56 · answer #1 · answered by Smoker06 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
From my understanding, he got it from exemplary leadership under fire. The bronze star is not a heroism award, it's more like a gold star in elementary school for being above average. You could get the bronze star without the V for devising a better way to charge a building, developing better camouflage, creating a memorial etc. That's why there is a bronze star with and without the "V." There is even a civilian version for the same kind of service.
2007-09-28 08:54:32 · answer #2 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Just the same as the biased media and their dealing with President Bush, it's apparent liberals like yourself will do whatever it takes to discredit anyone, or anything positive coming out of Iraq...
Regardless, the Bronze Star is a service award, meaning it can be awarded for just having served in Iraq. Look it up, the Army has probably awarded the BS at least 100,000 times for Iraq service...
2007-09-28 08:54:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I wrote the story and there is no record of anything remotely like valorous action or even combat action associated with General Petraeus. For those who would bring in Kerry, whatever you think of him here's the difference: First, Lieutenant Kerry was awarded the Bronze Star for Valor (or, in militareze "with Valor device) and the MUCH higher Silver Star medal - which is also for combat heroism. I would not presume to judge what combat valor medal Kerry should have gotten, but it is undisputed that Lieutenant Kerry fired his weapon at the enemy of necessity, killed and/or injured enemy, took direct fire which injured him and his comrades, however badly, commanded and maneuvered through mined areas and under direct, deadly enemy fire with sailors killed around him, and pulled a man from the water with a bloodied arm. Not even the Swiftboaters deny that Kerry was in a hot combat zone and did these things, they simply downplay the circumstances. Fine.
General Petraeus never discharged his weapon at the enemy of necessity (he was only issued a pistol and no enemy even came with effective range of his weapon), he never had troops killed around him and he had BODYGUARDS.
How can a person who has bodyguards show combat valor? It's ridiculous on its face. He was a 54-year-old Major General for god's sake. It's an outrage. He may be the highest-ranking person to ever receive that medal for all I know. It's farcical.
Republicans argue how deep Kerry's schrapnel wound was. Petraues never even got schrapnel on his uniform.
2007-09-28 22:39:03 · answer #4 · answered by dlawbailey 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Bronze Star is not given solely for combat action. It's also given to reward exemplary non-combat service.
2007-09-28 07:33:38 · answer #5 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Without reading the citation for the medal, it's impossible to judge.
2007-09-28 06:12:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I do believe he was brought and paid for by W in this fall farce to prolong the war, but just as Kerry was raked over the coals for his metals which was not only mean spirited but unfair being those that attacked him were chicken hawks, Petraeus should not have to explain or justify his actions with his metals
2007-09-28 06:11:08 · answer #7 · answered by jean 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
No, he didn't. But I'm glad to see the truth come out about how liberals 'support the troops'.
2007-09-28 14:18:38 · answer #8 · answered by pgb 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
lets look at the citation then judge me silver star holder NAM< Semper FI
2007-09-28 06:16:38 · answer #9 · answered by aldo 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Hi dear one.I think the answer 1070 is the best.I add ruining the privacy of the one,s life right or wrong is the worst.Thanks.So long.
2016-05-20 23:31:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋