Sen. Joni Ernst Defends Her 'Combat Veteran' Status, Never Saw Combat

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Michael Allen - Opposing Views


http://i.imgur.com/iNdHBpU.jpg

Sen. Joni Ernst proudly calls herself a "combat veteran" because she served in the Iraq War in a combat zone from February 2003 to April 2004.

Ernst, a Republican, never saw any actual combat, but was a commander of a Iowa National Guard unit that made deliveries in Kuwait and southern Iraq. The unit never fired on the enemy or got fired upon during its 14 months.

"By her definition, everybody who stepped off the plane in Kuwait is a combat veteran," Larry Hanft, a Vietnam veteran who earned the Combat Infantryman's Badge, told The Huffington Post. "Joni Ernst is using her military experience to gain a political edge and pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. She's a fraud..."

Technically, Ernst, who represents Iowa, can say it was a combat zone because President George H.W. Bush declared the Arabian Peninsula a combat zone in 1991 — during the first Iraq War — with an executive order that is still current.

Ernst is standing by the description of “combat veteran," reports Omaha.com.

“I am very proud of my service and by law I am defined as a combat veteran,” Ernst said in a statement. “I have never once claimed that I have a Combat Action Badge. I have never claimed that I have a Purple Heart. What I have claimed is that I have served in a combat zone.”

“Just because I’m not an infantryman and I wasn’t kicking in doors, I don’t believe I’m less of a player,” she added.

“Our fighters would be nowhere if they didn’t have the support coming from folks like those that served with me,” stated Ernst.

[redred]

but she got closer than most people :shrug:

[Pony]

I thought that by definition she is correct. The military considers her a combat veteran.

[FBD]

hey, its not like talking about a hail of gunfire that never happened like hillary did

[DemonGeminiX]

I thought that by definition she is correct. The military considers her a combat veteran.

By military definition, she is correct.

[Pony]

By military definition, she is correct.

That's what I thought, thanks.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Yeah, but most 'average' people are going to assume she saw combat, which she didn't, so by using the literal term, she is being disingenuous at best. She wants people to think she saw combat.

[FBD]

I dont even see military service as any sort of badge of honor any longer - just about every single person I've met that's come out of the military displays stupidity on the order of....they even joined in the first place stupid and then some.

[DemonGeminiX]

Yeah, but most 'average' people are going to assume she saw combat, which she didn't, so by using the literal term, she is being disingenuous at best. She wants people to think she saw combat.

No, the military wants people to think that their soldiers have faced combat, that's why the definition is so broad. She performed a combat support mission, she went into a hot combat zone and performed a task that was a military sanctioned mission. She could have easily come under fire, but she didn't. Under current military definitions, it doesn't matter if you come under fire while on a mission in a combat zone. There are many missions that can be performed in support of the larger general task that doesn't involve actual fighting. Either way, you've seen combat. You're a combat veteran. If you don't have to engage in a fire fight during a mission, that's just called having a good day.

[Hal-9000]

The unit never fired on the enemy or got fired upon during its 14 months.

By my definition, she was there but not a combat veteran.

I guess it's like the company clerk serving in Vietnam at a firebase that never saw any conflict. There was certainly the chance of combat because of proximity, but it never happened.

[redred]

why is this even a news story ?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

No, the military wants people to think that their soldiers have faced combat, that's why the definition is so broad. She performed a combat support mission, she went into a hot combat zone and performed a task that was a military sanctioned mission. She could have easily come under fire, but she didn't. Under current military definitions, it doesn't matter if you come under fire while on a mission in a combat zone. There are many missions that can be performed in support of the larger general task that doesn't involve actual fighting. Either way, you've seen combat. You're a combat veteran. If you don't have to engage in a fire fight during a mission, that's just called having a good day.

I don't care what the definition is, she's using the term to be deceptive about it, otherwise she would just refer to herself simply as a vet. She wants people to think she was involved in combat of some kind, which she wasn't.

[FBD]

No, the military wants people to think that their soldiers have faced combat, that's why the definition is so broad.

this, except


No, the government wants people to think that their soldiers have faced an enemy that still would have existed without vast amounts of logistical support from the government, that's why the definition is so broad.

[FBD]

why is this even a news story ?

she probably has an R after her name, and the media needs to find a way to demonize her

[Hal-9000]

why is this even a news story ?

Because a news anchor named Brian Williams recently came under fire for making a false claim about being shot down in a helicopter during a war, and has been subsequently suspended from work for 6 months (read - never work as a news anchor again...)

[Hal-9000]

hey Red, here's a pic of Williams (second from right)



http://i.imgur.com/AawYQ0X.jpg

[FBD]

yeah right he'll be back from his 6 month vacation returning to his old post like nothing happened



fuggin vbookie THAT one, I'll guarantee you he returns like nothing was ever fired....or almost fired, as the case may have been :lol:

[Hal-9000]

yeah right he'll be back from his 6 month vacation returning to his old post like nothing happened



fuggin vbookie THAT one, I'll guarantee you he returns like nothing was ever fired....or almost fired, as the case may have been :lol:

I don't know man...real combat vets took great offense and suspending him was a motion, rather than forcing an apology and carrying on like nothing happened :-k

[FBD]

I'll bet my entire vcash on it :tup:

[Hal-9000]

it's a broad bet....he can another job at some podunk station and you'd win :lol:

[FBD]

oh no, my bet is he returns to the same exact seat

[Hal-9000]

You're on.

I'll stake whatever vcash you have at the time after I check my vwallet :oops:


Bet is - 6 months from the beginning of his suspension, he has to be sitting as anchor for NBC Nightly News :thumbsup:

[FBD]

youre on :tup: (does 6 months and 3 days or some dumb shit count :lol: )

[Hal-9000]

righto. I'm in

and don't welch and make me send the entire Canadian Navel Fleet down after your ass :x








http://i.imgur.com/73TOi2R.jpg

[FBD]

:lol:

[Hal-9000]

we have sticks, you're fucked



:lol:

[deebakes]

let it go :shrug:

[redred]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk