In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

No, he was aware of it when he was awarded it...it just didn't make sense
to
him.


Really? And where do you get this conclusion from?

From an ABC radio interview. He was asked about the citation claiming enemy
fire and he stated he was surprised by that since there was no enemy fire.

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.

He's claiming the whole under fire thing for his citation is a current
surprise to him, that he disagrees with it, and that if the wording is
in fact true...he doesn't deserve that Bronze Star.


This seems in stark contrast to what he claims in your account of ABC
interview where he claims he knew the citation said he was under fire
and just "shrugged" it off.


One Mr. Thurlow is lying, as both accounts cannot simultaneously be true.


In an interview with the Washington Post this week, Mr. Thurlow stated
he had received the award "for helping to rescue the boat that was
mined."

The issue isn't what the award was given for, but the circumstances involved.
Enemy fire is not required to receive a Bronze Star.


Didn't say it was...but Mr. Thurlow's citation for his Bronze Star
states he was under fire (as do the post op reports). Being the senior
officer on scene, he must surely have been aware of that. And if he
wasn't then, he would have when his award citation was read.



You and I have both served and am sure both have medals. Mine are
nothing to write home to mom about, but I do know that when I was
awarded them, I was verbally informed of why I was getting them

Me too, however I was not forewarned of the citation text.


Neither was I, but it was still verbalized none the less. How is it Mr.
Thurlow missed the repeated instances of "under enemy fire" in his
citation?



why is it now unrelated?

I guess the same question could also be put the DNC. 12 years ago Kerry
himself
stated that Clinton's actions during the war were not relevent to the
Presidential election and he chastized the Republican party for opening old
wounds. What's changed since '92?


I'm not a Democrat, so I wouldn't know. I imagine it might have
something to do with the media making it an issue from the start.


--Mike