View Single Post
  #38  
Old August 22nd 04, 09:58 PM
Michael Wise
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:


And he said in an interview 2-3 days ago (I'm sorry, but I can't
remember the source) that he always thought he had received the Bronze
Star for saving the mined boat and that he did not know the citation (as
well as the post op reports) stated that he had done so under fire.


That was not the impression I got from the interview and I doubt your version
of it simply because it's ridiculous.



You are trying to say that a man just
realized what the text of his citation read after 35 years.


I just located the source I got the info from: Washington Post,
08.19.04, Michael Dobbs

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug18.html

Here are some relevant excerpts:

------------------------------------
...."It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case,"
Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze
Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for
coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on
anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."...
------------------------------------

Seems to me he's claiming he always believed his award was for coming to
the rescue of the mined boat and the fact that his citation states in
numerous instances that he was under fire.

How could he not know what his citation said? How is it he can say in
the ABC interview your heard (do you know if a written transcript
exists?) that he knew what his citation stated and simply shrugged it
off?


But it gets better...

------------------------------------
Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under
enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't
under fire," he said.
------------------------------------

This even further suggests he is claiming that we wasn't aware of what
his citation said...and now that he is aware (after having the text read
to him), he considers his own award to be fraudulent. Naturally, he
doesn't go on to say whether or not be will be petitioning to have his
"fraudulent" award revoked.



The only way this
is possibe is if he were awarded the Bronze Star after seperating and received
it in the mail and never read the citation.



Could be. The same article states that Mr. Thurlow claims to have lost
his award 20 years ago. A different article (also in the W. Post, I
believe) stated that he received his award via mail in Kansas after
returning home.

Fair enough, seems like an air-tight case of him not being aware of what
his Bronze Star was for. How to you reconcile that claim with his other
claim (which you yourself cite as evidence) that he knew what the award
was for all along and just "shrugged" it off?


He's claiming the whole under fire thing for his citation is a current
surprise to him


That's not the impression I got from the ABC interview and it seems absurd no?



It seems absurd until confronted with Mr. Thurlow's own words.



--Mike