We've already got a problem with Bernieite Leftist Dorothy Gasque and what appears to be her fake combat record: she continues to ignore my requests for clarification and greater documentable evidence.
As a former member of the unit she claims to have deployed with, the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment (as a Force Modernization Officer, responsible for Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle fielding in the 1/11ACR under Tank Abrams) and as a former Cavalry Scout/Infantry NCO, I felt that her description did not pass the straight-face test.
Her ongoing failure to respond to me, a prospective constituent, has served to reinforce that perception.
She has responded to others as outlined below, others who don't even live here, so she is getting the message.
The problem is these answers to Ryan's questions just sink her further.
She claims that she was with a unit that contained "350 infantrymen."
Such a unit would be fully loaded with NCO's capable and qualified to lead "combat patrols."
NCOs aren't rotated in combat patrols.
UNITS are rotated. Squads... Platoons. Think about it: you don't send technicians out on "combat patrols." They CAN be sent out on convoys... but convoys aren't patrols.
Further, you don't rotate leadership, which violates unit integrity.
If you COULD send untrained technicians out on combat patrols, what do we even need trained infantry and armor and the like for?
We can always send out untrained missile technicians, right?
As a former member of the unit she claims to have deployed with, the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment (as a Force Modernization Officer, responsible for Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle fielding in the 1/11ACR under Tank Abrams) and as a former Cavalry Scout/Infantry NCO, I felt that her description did not pass the straight-face test.
Her ongoing failure to respond to me, a prospective constituent, has served to reinforce that perception.
She has responded to others as outlined below, others who don't even live here, so she is getting the message.
The problem is these answers to Ryan's questions just sink her further.
She claims that she was with a unit that contained "350 infantrymen."
Such a unit would be fully loaded with NCO's capable and qualified to lead "combat patrols."
NCOs aren't rotated in combat patrols.
UNITS are rotated. Squads... Platoons. Think about it: you don't send technicians out on "combat patrols." They CAN be sent out on convoys... but convoys aren't patrols.
Further, you don't rotate leadership, which violates unit integrity.
If you COULD send untrained technicians out on combat patrols, what do we even need trained infantry and armor and the like for?
We can always send out untrained missile technicians, right?
Combat patrols serve a multiple of functions, not the least of which is movement to contact.Sunday morning, I resubmitted a request to her for clarification of her heroics that she has used in her campaign such as that picture above.
For ground forces, a tactical unit sent out from the main body to engage in independent fighting; detachment assigned to protect the front, flank, or rear of the main body by fighting if necessary.
A combat patrol is a group with sufficient size (usually platoon or company) and resources to raid or ambush a specific enemy. It primarily differs from an attack in that the aim is not to hold ground.
Also called fighting patrol.
On Friday at noon, I requested some clarification of what you are referring to as a "combat" record during your deployment to Iraq.
Because of what appears to be a great deal of exaggeration and misinformation (No, generally, technicians of any kind do not lead anything approaching a "combat patrol" while assigned to a Cav Regiment or, for that matter, any other unit, I have referred this case to Stolen Valor, the nationally renowned organization dedicated to outing people and politicians who make claims of combat that are untrue.
I have asked you to clarify your position on this issue; to provide some documentable, verifiable information to support your bizarre claims. And while you have responded to others questioning your service at my behest, you have yet to respond to me, and *I* am a prospective constituent of yours.
Don't misunderstand me: I want Herrera out of there even more than you do; I have never voted for her and, in fact, I voted for Jim Moeller last election.
But I will oppose anyone who feels compelled to lie or even exaggerate any aspect of their campaign to get elected: clearly, if you're not going to tell the truth about your time in the military, then you will equally have no problem lying to us about your time in Congress and we can't have that.
As a prospective constituent, you owe me the courtesy of a response, even if the response is to tell me you're not going to address my questions.
While you may think that failing to respond amounts to a response, it doesn't.
All of this correspondence is being blogged and your failure to respond is as well. And I am disappointed in you because of it.
K.J. Hinton - Clark County PoliticsThis situation, should it be legitimate, is easily resolved:
Brush Prairie, WA
Provide copies of NCOERs (evaluation reports) during the time, citation for her obvious Combat Action Badge, and the numerous other combat awards she no doubt received... at a minimum, a Bronze Star with a "V" device, to be sure. Press coverage from that era... she certainly would have been used as a poster child for that fake Army equality, right?
She needs to provide documentation for her actions. And she needs to do it now.
https://www.stripes.com/news/veterans/i-think-this-guy-is-a-phony-how-do-i-check-it-out-1.107363
ReplyDelete