<< LOCAL ANGLE MISSED ~ MAIN ~ SADDEST PHOTOGRAPH EVER >>
PICTURESQUE GERMAN TOWN VETERAN AGAINST THE WAR
Ward Reilly, an outspoken member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War and Southeast national contact for that organization, isn’t a Vietnam veteran. Rather, Reilly – who came to this site’s attention through his belief in mystical birdlife – served from 1971-74 with US forces in peaceful Germany. Reader JDB turned up this interesting information, and has lately been in contact with Reilly, who claims to have made no secret of his non-‘Nam status:
I served, proudly, for 32 months in Germany in the 1st & 16th(Rangers) as a mortar gunner, starting in 1971, when I volunteered for the infantry at age 17.(With 2 full years left in the ground war in Viet Nam)
I went where the army sent me...that what soldiers do. I could have just as easily been sent to Viet Nam, but I got lucky.
Reilly requires a certain amount of prodding before his wartime location is revealed. Biographical details offered in this speech – although entirely accurate – would incline any listener not aware his Division was based in Germany to conclude that he’d served in Vietnam:
My name is Ward Reilly. I am a retired Government Inspector, and I am a member of “Veterans For Peace”, “Vietnam Veterans Against The War”, and the Baton Rouge based “Coalition For Alternatives To War in Iraq”. I served for 3 years as a volunteer Infantryman, as an 81mm mortar gunner, in the Weapons Platoon, of Co. “C”, 1st Bn., 16th Infantry (Rangers), of the First Infantry Division, from 1971 until 1974. I spent 1095 days of my life living with, training with, and sharing the lives, of hundreds of combat veterans who served in Vietnam, a war that ripped our country apart and caused countless atrocities and deaths on both sides.
No mention of Germany there. No mention of Germany here, either:
Ward Reilly is a native of Chicago. He volunteered for the Infantry in 1971 and was a member of the Weapons Platoon, Co. “C” 1st Bn. 16th Infantry (Rangers) from 1971 until 1974 when he was awarded an Honorable Discharge. He joined Viet Nam Veterans Against the War originally in 1972 while he still an active duty soldier and is now a National Contact person for them. Ward joined Veterans For Peace in 2000 and is a Board Member of “Bienville House For Peace and Justice” founded in 1968 of Baton Rouge, member of CAWI (Coalition Against War & Injustice) of Baton Rouge founded in 2002. Other memberships include Greenpeace, NOW, Amnesty International, NORML, the “Draft Board” of the Baton Rouge District, and C3 in New Orleans. He states he is “NOT in the CIA, FBI, NSA, or Homeland Security."
He doesn’t state that he was not in Vietnam. No wonder the Green Party is confused, referring to “Vietnam veteran Ward Reilly”. So too the Baltimore Chronicle; a Reilly piece published last August carried this description:
Ward Reilly, of Baton Rouge, La., is a Vietnam combat veteran.
This was later revised:
Ward Reilly, of Baton Rouge, La., is a Vietnam Era Infantry veteran.
Oh, please. A Vietnam Era veteran? Reilly’s latest column for the Chronicle also omits the crucial matter of his ‘Namlessness:
Ward Reilly is the Southeast national contact for Vietnam Veterans against the War, and a member of Veterans For Peace. He was a volunteer Infantryman in the First Infantry Division from 1971 to 1974.
Yes, he was. In Augsburg, Germany.
Right! That’s it - I’m applying for medals for service in Somalia, East Timor, Bouganville, Solomon Islands, Lebanon-Syria-Israeli Border, Sinai, Western Sahara, Afghanistan, Gulf War II (postponed), Cambodia. Didn’t actually go to any of these places, but I was serving while Aussie Troops were there.
Maybe Ward shared a foxhole with Micah Wright
From cuckoo’s link and from Michah Wright: "I’ve lied to so many people about this that it’s made me physically ill. I haven’t been able to sleep and I’ve just about given myself an ulcer. The phone would ring and guilt, terror and panic would grip me"
Good. I hope it still does.
Wright is a reprehensible cretin.
-- Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 08 09 at 02:48 AM • permalinkAh, another Winter Soldier comes in from the cold and dusts off the snow.
Life imitates South Park once again - I wonder if he remembers the water slide at Trang Banh Duc?
Posted by rick mcginnis on 2005 08 09 at 03:00 AM • permalinkWard Reilly, of Baton Rouge, La., is a Vietnam Era Infantry veteran.
Not do we have another Winter Soldier here, we also have a clueless leftie emulating his ideal role model—John Kerry, The Ultimate Clueless Leftie*, who emphasized his Vietnam “service” to the point of inducing nausea in the American voter.
Ward is inducing a similar nausea already.
[* well, OK, there are even more clueless lefties out there, but you get my point!!]
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 09 at 03:12 AM • permalinkThis maroon spends 3 years in Germany, slugging down pilsner. And this makes him an expert in war how?
Hell, I spent 3 years in the late 70’s slugging down brew at a US Navy submarine base in New London, Connecticut. Does that make me an expert in Cold War submarine warfare?
Posted by David Crawford on 2005 08 09 at 03:26 AM • permalinkThat would make President Bush a Vietnam veteran, as well.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2005 08 09 at 03:39 AM • permalinkIt seems clear that the real breach of trust is not that he is a former serviceman, but a former serviceman who has implied by omission that he deserves credibility because of association. I’ve been around the traps during about as many ops as Razor, but I sure as hell don’t stand around pretending that I’m some sort of protest warrior because I heard about a conflict somewhere. Idiot.
Shush, Aaron! You might pop some leftie heads.
No, wait, on second thought.....go right ahead!!!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 09 at 04:36 AM • permalinkSo is this guy like a Zimbabwean war veteran?
Posted by Young and Free on 2005 08 09 at 04:38 AM • permalinkRe, #11:
Legally, honorable military service makes you a veteran, regardless of service during peace or war. So Ward is a veteran—make no mistake about that.
The issue is Ward’s implication that he poses as an expert on war, but rather glosses over his service in a peace time environment. Sort of like what John Kerry tried to pull on the American people.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 09 at 04:44 AM • permalink#9, that all depends on who and what you support.
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 08 09 at 04:44 AM • permalinkI served in Iraq. I wasn’t actually there but I participated in the ferocious debates and contentious politics of that troubled time. I wanted a role and Blogspot gave me one. Brought it up to me like room service.
That’s why I could see the realism of the Ward Reilly dialogue in the new picture, Oktoberfest Now:
You smell that? Do you smell that? Sauerkraut, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of sauerkraut in the morning.
Carl don’t surf!
C.L., how can you pick up hot German chicks with sauerkraut on your breath? EEEWWWWWW!!!!
And, please, stop channeling John Kerry!!!! LOL!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 09 at 06:04 AM • permalinkC.L., how can you pick up hot German chicks with sauerkraut on your breath?
Same way you get Italian hotties with Garlic breath.
Piece.Of.Cake!
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 08 09 at 06:55 AM • permalinkNot to justify what was sid, but the term vietnam era veteran is the correct term to use. I have plenty of friends that were vietnam era veterns but did not deploy to the theater. The US govt. uses this term in giving veteran benefits status and other things.
It is a little curious though how he phrases his service record, but it is not lying, just giving people who don’t understand the military every opportunity to misunderstand what was said.
He also has been involved in the campaign against the use of depleted uranium, where the article described him thus:
”...they should be prepared to bring in experts. Having veterans testify helps. Another veteran, Ward Reilly, from Baton Rouge was instrumental in helping get the bill through committee."
What a complete and utter tosser.
"Not to justify what was sid, but the term vietnam era veteran is the correct term to use. “
I sure hope that from now on, Bush is labelled a “Vietnam Era Veteran”.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 08 09 at 07:50 AM • permalinkHey! It’s another guy named “Ward” who isn’t what he’s trying to make you believe he is. Is this like how having the middle name “Wayne” predisposes you to being a serial killer/incompetent criminal?
Oddly, I went to college in the 80s with a guy who always said he was “Vietnam era veteran.” He said it with sadness, as if he’d missed his calling.
It’s a cultural legitimacy thing: I’m sure there were soldiers in WW2 who stayed in country and later felt they hadn’t done their bit. Nowadays, the chickens on the Left are trying to delegitimize criticism of war from those who didn’t serve in one (except, of course, for the chickens).
Posted by William Young on 2005 08 09 at 08:22 AM • permalinkAnyone can join the organization “Vietnam Veterans Against The War,” which is something to keep in mind when they are presented in the media as being Vietnam veterans.
Augsburg - ha! We had it really tough in Kaiserslautern - The pilsner was much better in Augsburg and you were closer to Munich...Ward, you utter wimp.
Posted by Major John on 2005 08 09 at 09:45 AM • permalinkthe term vietnam era veteran is the correct term to use
The name of the organization is Vietnam Veterans Against the War, not Vietnam-Era Veterans Against the War or Anyone Who Wants to Join Against the War. It seems they have a truth in advertising problem.
But then the VVAW’s first Executive Director was Al Hubbard, who passed himself off as an Air Force Captain who had flown missions in Vietnam. It turned out he’d been an E-5 (Sergeant) who’d never been to Vietnam.
Much of the testimony at the so-called Winter Soldier Investigation, which was sponsored by VVAW, was also by people who had never been to Vietnam, some of whom had never even been in the military.
Posted by Bruce Rheinstein on 2005 08 09 at 10:03 AM • permalinkIf anybody actually believes that Reilly’s biography as shown above is not intended to deceive the reader and create the impression that he served in Vietnam as an Infantryman, then the Sydney Harbour Bridge Sales Company wants to hear from you.
Vietnam “era” veteran. What a steaming pile.
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2005 08 09 at 10:30 AM • permalinkI served in the mid-60s and was stationed in the US exclusively. Many of my HS friends ended up in Vietnam (what you get for being country boys, I guess). They consider me a veteran (I am), but not a Viet vet. I agree. My brother spent 18 months in Vietnam as an MP and got shot at exactly once. Is he a Vietnam vet? You betcha. He was in a dangerous damn place and was lucky. One of our best friends was a Marine and saw lotsa combat and survived. The best man at my first wedding spent almost 2 years of the coast of Vietnam on a destroyer escort (sound familiar?). Both the last two are Vietnam vets? Was their service equivalent? No way. Were they friends afterwards. You betcha.
Most of the vets I know just want you to be honest. The more a guy puffs his service, the more likely he is to be lying, I think. My experience is that the dozens of Viet vets I know really only talk to other vets about their experiences, unless pressed.
I just went to my 40th class reunion. Out of 20+ guys there, some 8-10 were vets. The only one blowing about his service had been a stateside company clerk. At least two of the others had multiple purple hearts (real wounds in combat) and other medals. They were talking about their grandchildren and baseball. Go figure.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2005 08 09 at 12:09 PM • permalinkMy husband was a Vietnam era veteran who served for ten years, and was proud of his service even though he never went to the theater of combat. The Army, in its wisdom, was too busy teaching him Russian and Iraqi Arabic in anticipation of the next big crisis (which, as we see, arrived thirty years late and in a form no one then could have anticipated). Instead we went to Germany (Munich) the year after Reilly went home to Mama. The biggest danger there were the nonstop beer festivals and the scraggly remnants of Baader-Meinhof.
My point is, we were surrounded by soldiers who had been to Vietnam. To a man, they despised the Rambo movies and the subsequent characterization of all Vietnam vets as damaged-by-guilt crazies, instead of professional soldiers who had served their country.
People like Ward Reilly evidently find some romantic appeal in the Vietnam-Vet-As-Victim, but I know what the real veterans would have to say about him.
This Ward slimeball really gets around doesn’t he? Having no idea who he was I did a search. It makes for some very ironic reading given the above.
This exchange with what is probably another bogus Vietnam Vet, is reproduced in what looks to be a very questionable Islamic website. I believe it’s about the muslim US soldier who murdered his fellows in the opening bout of Iraq’s liberation.
Ward:
I never saw any “fragging” but it became a common occurrence toward the end in Viet Nam, or so I hear*....fucking officers trying to get some hero-badge to advance his career at the expense of wasting good men…Reply:
“Frag An Officer?“I Can Relate Brother.
“Damn Shame That Guy Got The Death Sentence If You Ask Me. Damn Shame”
*beer hall gossip?
I worked (as a civilian) for the U.S. Army V Corps in Frankfurt am Main, (West) Germany, during the Vietnam war (’71-’73).
By his measure, guess that makes me a Vietnam veteran, too?
I mean, geez - my headquarters got blown up by the Baader-Mainhof gang. They never blew Augsburg. Guess that makes me more of a combat veteran than he is. ;-p
Posted by Barbara Skolaut on 2005 08 09 at 02:06 PM • permalinkIf you are in the military during a war, you are a veteran of that war whether you actually were sent into action or not.
What would you call WW2 vets who served behind the lines or in England or elsewhere in Europe, but were never on the battlefield? What about those who did all their military service in the U.S.?
What would you call WW2 vets who served behind the lines or in England or elsewhere in Europe, but were never on the battlefield? What about those who did all their military service in the U.S.?
World War II veterans.Seeing as how it was a world war, and they were in the world.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2005 08 09 at 02:28 PM • permalinkThe “Rangers” designation looks a bit dodgy to me. “Rangers” is in the modern US army a fairly big deal, designatig elite light airborne infantry that is the entry point for special forces.
The unit history here: http://www.riley.army.mil/view/article.asp?id=623-2002-05-16-50878-08
says the 1st Battalion’s _nickname_ was the “Iron Rangers”, “adopted in 1966 when the battalion was mechanized”.
It’s possible that the terminology used has changed since the early 70’s, but it still looks dodgy to me. I’ll ask a few people.
Posted by Ernst Blofeld on 2005 08 09 at 02:35 PM • permalinkIf you are in the military during a war, you are a veteran of that war whether you actually were sent into action or not.
Not so:
The term “Vietnam veteran” means an individual who performed active military, naval, or air service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era, without regard to the characterization of that individual’s service.
38 USC 1821 (2)Posted by Bruce Rheinstein on 2005 08 09 at 02:45 PM • permalinkAnyone who has ever served in the military is a veteran. Anyone who has served on active duty during a time of war is awarded the National Defense medal. But to be awarded a service or campaign medal, which is required to be accepted into the VFW for instance, and to gain certain benefits from the VA, you must have served in the theater of war.
If Ward Reilly were to come clean on his Military record, I have the perfect headline should the MSM pick up the story – The Augsburg Confession.
According to WorldAtlas.com, the distance between Houston, Texas, where President Bush performed his Vietnam-era service, and Hanoi, Vietnam, is 8664 miles. The distance between Munich, Germany, near where Ward Reilly served, and Hanoi, Vietnam, is only 5345 miles.
So Reilly can brag that, although President Bush flew jets, a much more hazardous duty, he served about 0.62 times closer to the action than the President. Give the man his due.
I think we are seeing a bit of cross cultural confusion here folks.
In the US you may be considered a ‘veteran’ if you’re an ex-serviceman with or without active service. You Yanks can argue that one out I wouldn’t know. Honestly the way you dole out gongs it wouldn’t really surprise me (wink).
But here in Oz as a soldier without active service you are termed an ex-serviceman.
Vets are veterans of WAR.
Full bloody stop.
Frankly, I can’t imagine anyone in any reputable Country having the gall to call themselves a veteran when they have never served in a war zone.
Although there are certain considerations made for what is deemed ‘warlike service/ops’ during peacetime.
Try rocking up to the DVA (Dept. of Veterans Affairs) and claim you’re a Veteran simply because you once wore the uniform and they’d laugh you out of the building.#55 Isn’t it illegal in Australia to claim to be a veteran when you are not?
It’s fraud, surely and punishable by law if you deceive for gain and punishable by a good punch in the jaw if a real servicman encounters you.
-- Nora (daughter of a realVietnam veteran)
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 08 09 at 06:41 PM • permalinkNora,
Yes it most certainly is illegal to pass off oneself as an ex-serviceman or veteran and thanks to PM Howard big fines now apply to these shonky wannabes.
I myself am an ex-serviceman, (not a Vet) and have dealt summarily with at least three ‘tin soldiers’ on different occasions at my local RSL.
I might add that as a chocko with ten years infantry experience including operational deployment against real time targets (with both us and the targets well armed) I’m still just an ex-serviceman who did his job. No big deal.
Our war veterans need to be respected for who they are and the terrific job they did.
Lest we forget.There was a bloke caught just recently passing himself off as a Vietnam vet.
Ironically hes a lecturer in media studies at CSU, fabrication and media, a perfect fit.
I concur that real veterans don’t talk about their time in Vietnam. My dad was there in 1968 and the last thing hes interested in talking about is Vietnam.
It looks to me like Reilly is engaging in some artful inflation of his record by including the (Rangers) designation in his unit name.
The the US Army Rangers are elite light infantry, roughly analogous to the Royal Marine Commandos for our commonwealth readers. There also happen to be a couple battalions of regular “leg” infantry that have unit nicknames that include the word “Rangers”. By including an (incorrect) unit nickname in the unit designation he seems to be trying to mislead readers into thinking that he belonged to the elite unit.
He designated his unit as this: “1st Bn., 16th Infantry (Rangers), of the First Infantry Division”.
This obviously refers to the 1st battalion, which belongs to the 16th Infantry Regiment. The part in question is the (Rangers).
First of all, “Rangers” is not the nickname of the battalion he claims to have belonged to, 1st Battalion 16th Infantry Regiment; that’s the “Iron Rangers”. The 2nd battalion of the 16th Infantry Regiment is nicknamed the “Rangers”. Second, you don’t normally include the unit nickname in parentheses like that; it’s more common to see it referred to as “The Iron Rangers, 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry” or “the Raider Rakkasans, 2nd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment”. The reason is that usually a unit’s _function_ is included in parentheses, though this is not part of the official name. So you’ll typically see something like “101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) or “24th Infantry Division (Mechanized)”.
It looks to me like Reilly is attempting to mislead people into thinking he was a member of an elite organization. He can just barely escape having the snot beaten out of him by a member of the 75th Ranger Regiment due to the unusual case of his unit having a nickname similar to that of the Ranger regiment (even though he got the nickname wrong), and some ambiguity in the unit naming designation. But his getting his unit nickname wrong is pretty damning.
Posted by Ernst Blofeld on 2005 08 09 at 07:51 PM • permalinkErnst—Prior to the formal reorganiztion of the 75th Rangers, the term was used in the Viet Nam era for units that perform missions similar to the Long Range Recon Patrols. There was a Texas Guard unit that remained configured as the old style Ranger patrols into the 80’s, as I recall.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 08 09 at 08:02 PM • permalinkErnst—good catch on the unit nickname, I missed that. 1/16th was never a Ranger unit (as in, could wear the tab). The Rangers in the Vietnam era were, if I recall correctly, company and platoon size formations attached to larger commands.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 08 09 at 08:26 PM • permalinkPeople are being unfair to Ward. Its just a misunderstanding. This is how it arose:
When Ward was serving in Germany he and his mates liked to take a break from firing their mortars into the air by going into the local town and guzzling the local brew. One day, they thought it would be a great lark to take their unit’s mascot with them. The mascot was an enormous pig with a little curly tail and big floppy ears called Nam, most beloved of the commanding officer. So you can imagine the hilarity when Ward and his mates piled the pig into their jeep and careered off to the village for a booze-up.
Well, they hit it hard – the pig too! Man they had a whale of a time, downing steins and schnapps and dancing on the tables and pawing the beer wenches. Of course, this was in the days when beer wenches didn’t have to cover up their buxomness for fear of sunstroke. No, the only stroking these gals had to fear was from Ward and his exuberant mates. Anyway, after a time (actually, quite a few times), Ward and his crew passed out right their on the beer hall floor – tanked on tankards. When they finally woke up - well shit! The pig was gone! Vanished! The C.O.’s gonna use their balls for billiards if they don’t find that pig, so they turn the place upside down searching for him. But there just warnt no porker, nowheres. Finally, Ward, he gets suspicious and pulls his mortar on the publican. “Where’s the goddam pig!’, he yells and the publican falls on his knees plubberin’ ‘Ve et Nam’.
So you see when Ward says he’s a Vietnam Veteran, he doesn’t mean a Vietnam Veteran as in ‘Vietnam Veteran’, he means Vietnam Veteran as in ‘Ve et Nam Veteran’. Hope this clears things up.
Gibbo:
A RAAFie I knew used to tell of the bloke at the local near her base in Victoria who would go on, and on, and on, about ‘nam. He had been in the services, but they all reckoned that his ‘nam was the Tottenham RAAF stores base (I think it was logistics).I was in the ARES (C Coy 4RNSWR) from 1975-1977. I met some really great people who had served in Vietnam, some from D Coy. As a 17 year old I could appreciate the stories that they told, and how hard things were in a war zone. I was always treated with respect, they looked after me like I was their little sister. I loved these people like family. I will always appreciate the trials and tribulations of our service people, who I sometimes think are not appreciated enough.
81alpha (#55) is right about Oz veterans. I signed up for RAAF service in 1952 while we were helping the Yanks repel the commie hordes in Korea. That war stopped while I was still in flying training. Seven years of jet-flying later, I had not seen active service. I was very slightly wounded by a 20mm cannon slug in a firing-range accident, but I got off lightly. Three of the guys from my base in peaceful Australia were killed in Sabres in three months.
No medals and no Veteran Affairs benefits for us because we had never faced the reality of hostile fire.
I gained much from my service including a career in aviation and wouldn’t even think of claiming to be a veteran.
A relative who served in Malaysia qualifies for full VA benefits, and rightly so. Although he had his wife and kids with him in Malaysia, he was working in a war zone and people were trying to kill him. None of them got him, but he had to kill one of them.
Another relative served in Viet Nam. The only time we hear anything from him about his war service is when he screams out in his sleep and wakes the whole house. These are the real ‘Nam veterans--the guys who were treated so shabbily by our pc msm and the anti-war loonies during the latter stages of that war.Skeeter, having worked on the GARP (Guide to Assessment of Rates of Pensions) system at the DVA, you’re right.
Having worn a military uniform is neither neccessary nor sufficient to qualify as a “vet”.
Example:
Commonwealth (Federal) Police doing “peacekeeping” but actually “peacemaking” in certain areas where they were liable to be shot at and have to return fire qualify as Vets.
People who crewed AA guns at Darwin in 1942 during Japanese air-raids likewise (though they didn’t originally). Those who crewed AA guns in Melbourne in 1942 don’t.
The list of areas, duties, and dates where service qualifies is constantly being updated. It’s less strict than it once was, there were plenty of people who were shot at during WW II who didn’t qualify. Now it’s more sensible, and reliant upon a “common sense” approach rather than a strict construction of exact geographic position. For example, if you served on the “Gun Line” in Vietnam subject to enemy fire, you’re a vet, even if you were 10.001 km away from shore rather than 10.000.Unless you are a scumbag contractor like me - but a line has to be drawn somewhere. And I’m Cold War Era anyway, not Vietnam Era.
Is this indignation reserved for the left only Tim?
“My name is Michael Jericho, and I’m an Australian Special Forces veteran of East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq. I’m also the founder of a group blog, comprised of Australians and American contributors, named A Western Heart.”
Power Line http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008113.php#008113
Vodkapundit http://vodkapundit.com/archives/006858.php
A collection of thoughts http://www.jenmartinez.com/mt/archives/2004_10.php#001380
81Alpha—looks like Oz and the USA define the term “veteran” differently. Anyone who has served in the US military is a veteran. Personnel who served in a theater of war are combat veterans.
Your distinction is a valid one; in the US military, one has to look at personnel records to determine if someone is a combat veteran or not.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 10 at 12:42 AM • permalinkHaving worn a military uniform is neither neccessary nor sufficient to qualify as a “vet”.
I think we’re clear that that’s not the case in the U.S., where Reilly lives. Over here we use the word “veteran” in the most straight forward sense, and it’s not the same as a veteran of a foreign war, which Reilly is not.
Well you learn something new everyday folks.
For we Aussies veteran is essentially an abbreviation of war veteran.
So thanks for setting me straight my US friends though honestly I doubt anyone at the RSL will believe me when I tell them your definition....like I say a cultural thang.Can you please tell me that as a US ‘veteran’ do your ex-service people qualify for veteran’s benefits from your Govt or does that only apply to ‘veterans of foreign wars’?
Can you please tell me that as a US ‘veteran’ do your ex-service people qualify for veteran’s benefits from your Govt or does that only apply to ‘veterans of foreign wars’?
All U.S. “veterans” get some benefts, like the VA home loan and the GI Bill (if you signed up for it), but the full medical benefits are limited to veterans of foreign wars and those with service-connected disabilities. VA medical centers treat patients on a scale depending on the nature of service. If you were awarded a Purple Heart, for instance, you’re placed in a higher tier. It’s somewhat complicated and I haven’t yet read all the literature they’ve sent me. Maybe someone else could shed more light on it for you than I can.
It’s not really the term ‘veteran’ that’s the problem, it’s the ‘Vietnam’ part. ‘Vietnam era,’ okay, that’s technically accurate. But, as Bruce Rheinstein so kindly illustrated, having not served in Vietnam means he is not a ‘Vietnam veteran.’
81Alpha, to my secondhand knowledge, anyone who has served in the US military (in a combat capacity or not, in theater or not) and been honorably discharged is eligible for veterans’ benefits. My father was in the Army during the Korean War. Though he was stationed entirely in Japan, he went to college thanks to the GI Bill and qualified for a VA (Veterans’ Administration) home loan. JeffS is no doubt a more definitive source, though.
#68 does Gary know something to discredit Mike Jericho? Is Jericho pretending to be a Vietnam vet? If not, what’s the problem? East Timor, Afghanistan & Iraq haven’t exactly been safe recently. Getting shot at (or hacked to death with a machete in the case of ET) isn’t exactly unlikely in any of these places.
lmbrjk
CPMH did not “completely exonerated” him at all.
This is there words.
“We give him the benefit of doubt, as, what he has said is possible and we will not publicise a “Wannabe” unless we have irrefutable proof of deliberate fraud.”
By the way “the professional investigation” was on my behalf as for the threat to contact his solicitor. Well it will be the same as when his mate Darp tried the same thing. hahaahha!!!!!
All of those posts resulted from a single, widely-distributed email that I did not write.
I never claimed to be a special forces vet on my blog, or anywhere, at any time.
I have a disclaimer on my site that deals with this in full.
I have contacted the owners of those websites and advised them of the situation.
There isn’t much more that I can see that I can do, under the circumstances.
Nice back-stabbing there, Gary, had you come to me originally, I would have gladly explained everything to you.
Posted by Mike Jericho on 2005 08 10 at 07:09 AM • permalinkMike, were the comments left on those blogs under your name made by your anonymous friend as well? Disclosing his name might prove embarrassing for him, but it would go a long way to support your contention that he used your computer and your email address in a misguided attempt to gain you a wider audience.
US veterans are any who served for a minimum of 180 days. an honorable discharge allows some benfits, VA loan, GI bill (it’s changed several times), and VA hospital care. there are 7 tiers in the hospital care depending on service connection, etc.
i’m a vietnam era vet, didn’t get out of school till after the troop withdrawal, but did run into lots of the libs bs after kerry’s antics in 72. I also went to the Ranger school at benning and other garden spots in 74.
Reilly’s little annotation (Rangers) would be improper if the unit were really a Ranger unit, there is never an s used; but we shouldn’t hold liars to such exacting standards maybe.
As I stated, he misrepresented me in at least one email that I know of, and he says that he might have done some “other stuff” around the same time. He was in a bad way back then. I can’t be 100% sure that I have covered all of it. That isn’t for lack of checking, though.
No, I won’t disclose who he is.
I stand on my record. I’ve been blogging for a long time now and I’ve never made ludicrous GI Joe claims.
I never needed to lie to get someone to link to me.
Posted by Mike Jericho on 2005 08 10 at 07:49 AM • permalinkMike, if someone had perpetrated a fraud in my name, especially one such as this, I’d want to clear it up pretty quickly. Wouldn’t your “friend” want to remove the cloud of suspicion that he created over your head? It would seem awfully selfish of him to expect you to protect his anonymity after what he is alleged to have done. Indeed, refusing to identify this nameless person only makes sense if he doesn’t exist—and don’t kid yourself, that’s exactly what many people are thinking right now.
Far from dealing with the matter “in full,” your so-called disclaimer leaves a lot to be desired in the way of answers. You also avoided answering my question as to whether you wrote the two comments (here and here) in the comment sections of the posts linked by Greg. Surely you know if you wrote them or not.
I don’t know if you’re telling the truth or not, and as long as you refuse to answer direct questions I never will.
My father and a few of my uncles are Vietnam Vets. Dad was in sigs and has never spoken to me about it. The little I know, Mum told me.
My dad’s brother is on a TPI (Total Permanent Incapacity) pension because of his war wound. Admittedly, he got his back damaged by being thrown out of a pub in a brawl lol! It was in Vietnam, though.
Another uncle is currently dying. He was in the Navy, and he was sent over twice. He is literally a basketcase courtesy of what he went through over there. He has asbestosis, cataracts, losing his hearing. He can’t sleep without his oxygen mask. It took years for he and my aunt to get any compo from Vets Affairs over this, even though it was all directly attributed to his service for our country.
For what our armed forces ask of our families and friends, what they willingly sacrifice, they deserve much more honour and respect than they get.
For anyone who falsely claims that they are or were a member of the armed forces, you are lowlife scum and should be tarred and feathered and run out of town. A little bit of humiliation never hurt anyone.
/end rant.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 08 10 at 09:24 AM • permalinkI’m sorry if you think I am stupid. I afforded you the assumption that you weren’t.
I won’t disclose who he is because that which results from the disclose (mainly because of his current employment) could possibly be more than “embarrassing” for him. I thought I made that clear between the lines.
To answer your question, no, I did not write those comments. Please look at what I wrote in my first reply to Gary.
All of those posts resulted from a single, widely-distributed email that I did not write.
That is perfectly truthful. They did result from that email. He has since informed me of a few other instances of misrepresentation, such as comments and links to photos of me on Tim Dunlop’s blog.
All of which I made the CPMH investigator aware of.
Please understand that you are largely ignorant of the situation, and will remain that way. Mainly because I have a right to a certain degree of anonymity.
The misrepresentation is regretable, but I did not perpetrate it. I have fully declared that I am not a SF vet, and have gone to all necessary lengths to prove this.
I used no ambiguity, or misleading partial truths ("Vietnam era vet") I am not a vet, and have even placed a prominent disclaimer testifying to the fact on my blog, when nothing - except the desire to be honest - compells me to do so.
Lastly, what you personally think of me is worth precisely nothing.
Posted by Mike Jericho on 2005 08 10 at 09:35 AM • permalink"All of those posts resulted from a single, widely-distributed email that I did not write.”
Well the different second paragraph in those says other wise.
“I have contacted the owners of those websites and advised them of the situation.”
If so they haven’t corrected or deleted the post have they.
“Nice back-stabbing”
Pfft!
“I would have gladly explained everything to you.”
And this explanation looks similar to the ‘friend’ that deleted your blog?
Funny how your friend was able to follow track back pings to your site by sending an email. And his writing style is so close to yours.
All this aside. Threats to sue “anyone, anywhere, publicly states or strongly insinuates that I deliberately misrepresented myself” not only sounds like a desperate attempt to close debate but not something most bloggers would not support even coming from some one deluded in thinking they have a case.
If so they haven’t corrected or deleted the post have they.
No, they haven’t. Please feel free to contact them (make sure to contact Hinderaker on Powerline - he is the one I wrote to at that blog) and check to see if I am telling the truth.
That is a matter for them, though. I cannot realistically demand that they edit their own blogs.
<style is so close to yours.</i>
What kind of a monket can’t follow trackback pings that appear on my blog? I was away for days during the Oz election, he had all the time in the world to do what he wanted.
If his writing style is close to mine, it is because we went to grew up and went to school together.Notice how the email opens with “My name is Michael Jericho”? Since when have I ever gone by anything other than Mike?
And what the hell does this have to do with the Man Blog, the archives of which were deleted by someone. I never found out who by. I had suspicions, but did not name names because I was not sure.
The fact was, I didn’t misrespresent myself. I have a right to protect my reputation. I was investigated and cleared. You don’t like that? Tough shit.
Posted by Mike Jericho on 2005 08 10 at 10:08 AM • permalinkCan you imagine this lot ruling the world?
Sadly, yes. And the world would be a worse place for it.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 10 at 11:45 AM • permalinkActually, Ward’s response is more like “true, but inaccurate.” And Mike has been anything but plain in trying to explain his former housemate’s alleged impersonation of him. Maybe he’s telling the truth, but it smells funny from six different angles. He can’t reveal the name because the guy would lose his job? What does he do? I suppose Mike could tell me but then he’d have to kill me.
Lawrence, I don’t see anything fishy about the whole affair.
Someone was found to be misrepresenting themselves as Mike, Mike made an announcement of that and has gone out of his way to clean up that mess and still look out for his friend.
Do we know the whole details? No.
Do we need to? No.I would have thought the fact that he could be so honest about the situation is a major positive in Mike’s favour.
How many of us would cut someone loose at a bad time in their life? And this is irrespective of the damage it could do within our own lives.
It’s easy to sit down at your keyboard and slag off at somebody you have never met or spoken too just because you don’t agree with them.
To use what appears to be a trying time against someone is typical lefty hate the sinner love the sin crap.
So Gary has always been 100% honest and open in his dealings with the world? Have you, Lawrence?
I thought not. The only people who are always honest are dead.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 08 10 at 05:42 PM • permalink"I was investigated and cleared."--Mike Jericho
mmm ““We give him the benefit of doubt, as, what he has said is possible and we will not publicise a “Wannabe” unless we have irrefutable proof of deliberate fraud.”
So now you’ve quit blogging again. Must be close to 6 or 7 sites you started and dropped in two years.
Oh! and usually I know if I,m being abusive so if “Pfft!” hurt your feeling sorry. But speculation such as for some one who’s an obsessive track back surfing and hit junky your excuse deserved more scrutiny . Especially since it took a CPMH investigation for you to do anything about the aledged misrepresention.
I quote the CPMH investigator:
"CPMH is satisfied with your explanation regarding web site entries about Military Service."
You can spin that however you’d like. But that’s how it is.
As for your lies about my sites, I have had four sites in that time, one of which has merely been renamed to represent the multicontributor format, and was relocated once. One was created, but never got started because it was hacked (my fault too, according to you, even though I had done all the work on the site, and I was the only one who lost out in any way).
That leaves two blogs I ended. Is that okay with you, Mr Gravett? Or should I have obtained your permission first? More generalisations and inaccuracies from the great Gary Gravett the wonder gimp.
Your abuse is meaningless. It’s your treachery that bothered me. You didn’t give me the benefit of the doubt as a trusted friend. Without saying a word, you went off and had me investigated - something that could have resulted in jailtime for me if I hadn’t been up front about everything.
I’m done with this. You can keep ranting and whining in your stupid, infantile, “I can spell worth a shit” way, but you’ll be talking to yourself.
Posted by Mike Jericho on 2005 08 10 at 07:07 PM • permalinkThe fall off Jericho
That Islamasist spoof site (I cant rember the name)
The Rat Pack
Australian Bloggers Alliance
The man blog
A Western Heart.Plus and including variuse incarnations on the same URL.
“You didn’t give me the benefit of the doubt as a trusted friend.”
‘friend’?
“You can keep ranting and whining in your stupid, infantile, “I can spell worth a shit” way”
Lol!! You do make it easy to compare you to Darp.
The Fall of Jericho - named changed to A Western Heart and subsequently moved. The name change and the move did not coincide. It has not ended.
The spoof site I allowed for. That’s one I started and ended.
I was only a contributor at The Rat Pack. It wasn’t “my” blog. As you well know.
ABA: First line of the introduction? "This isn’t my blog." It was designed to be a tool to get attention for other Australian bloggers. Not be a blog for me.
Anubis I started and ended. That’s two.
The man blog was created and wrecked, as I said. Didn’t get to start it means that it couldn’t very well be ended. Could it. Or do you need the terms explained to you?
I won’t try explaining the word “friend” to a rat.
As for comparing me to Darp, I don’t take that as an insult. If you weren’t a bigoted old cripple, you might find out he’s not such a bad guy.
Oh, and remember when Darp was mocking you and hassling you on his site because you can’t spell and you come across as a retard? I wrote to him, asked him to stop, and defended you. If you don’t believe me, check that out (you seem to like to).
You’re a piece of shit. Stop talking to me. You’re empty air to me.
Posted by Mike Jericho on 2005 08 10 at 07:46 PM • permalink"If you weren’t a bigoted old cripple, you might find out he’s not such a bad guy.”
More Darpisams are your sure your not twins? Both of you like to stir up shit then laugh when people take the bait. Anyway what makes me a bigoted and how am I crippled?
“wrote to him, asked him to stop, and defended you.”
orr such a martre, but it seems you say allot you don’t beleave.
“Stop talking to me.”
Ha! What are you going to do, borrow Darp’s legal team.
Debra, everything you wrote is only true if you begin by believing the premise, which, frankly, is a bit difficult for me.
It’s easy to sit down at your keyboard and slag off at somebody you have never met or spoken too just because you don’t agree with them.
On the contrary, having looked over Mike’s site today I agree with about 99% of what he has to say. This is not a partisan thing. Ask yourself, would you cut a lefty this much slack under the same circumstances?
I’m not interested in badgering the guy. This was the first I’d heard of it and as far as I’m concerned the matter is over with now. But as to whether I believe his story… you know the answer.
Lawrence, I prefer to cut everybody slack. If you stick your head up, prepare to be shot down at times. It’s happened to me plenty of times over the years in the real world as on the net in various settings.
I guess I should have been a bit more specific and addressed Gary rather than yourself, although I still can’t see what’s fishy about Mike’s stance. Please accept my apologies on that.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to go looking up the history between Mike and Gary, so I don’t know all the details of whatever is going on now. and right at this moment I don’t need to. If I were an active participant then it might be different.
Like everyone over the age of about 7 I’ve been burnt by friends and family on occasion. It’s part of life. While tempted, I’ve not made my own life easier by cutting them off. Hehe. Boy, have I wanted to. Still do, sometimes.
I could easily move to Florida. As much as I love Melbourne, my life would be a lot less complicated.
In the meantime, I think I’ll just sit back and continue on my merry way.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 08 11 at 04:21 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Gee, I was alive during the Vietnam war, and if they’d started drafting 13 year olds - which they were probably on the verge of doing - I could have fought there. So does that make me a ‘Vietnam era veteran’?