Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. We don't know yet, because you haven't addressed it.
|
Then I missed it, or it changed.
Quote:
|
My point is that your party has called into question the way military medals for injury and valor were awarded in the Vietnam Era.
|
No, a portion of my party has called into question, with evidentiary support, Kerry's honesty as he made application for an award in a system that depends, to a large part, on the honor of the applicants and detailers. To criticize this is in no way a criticism of other recipients, or of the system. West Point lives and dies by the honor system. Periodically, cheaters are discovered. Yet, we continue to hold the other students in esteem partly because of that system, and partly because they have adhered to it. The system works when it encounters honorable people - it is predicated on honorable people. The fact that it has survived . . well, forever . . . shows that it remains viable. The fact that Kerry is being called out for violating it simply means that some people think standards should be enforced. If Kerry did what he is accused of, and it is proven, then the honor to the others is even higher, because there has been a showing that cheaters can't easily game the system.
To blast valid criticism of Kerry in this situation because it "might cheapen what others have done" in an honor system is quintessential misdirection. Kerry should not get slack because other, more honorable people might somehow be tarred. Kerry's alleged dishonesty is what supplies any dishonor to the system that is present. If Kerry did what is claimed, and he is outed for it, other medal holders' honor is only enhanced.
(ETA: I should add that, if one has truly gamed the system, one would be well advised not to trumpet that award for years as a primary indication of honor and primary qualification for honor. The higher you ride a lie, the further you have to fall.)
Threaded Mode