A supporter of Dorothy Gasque stops by. I respond.

Sometimes, campaign supporters can get really, really mad when there's pushback at something their candidate said or did... or didn't do. This is a comment from one of them.

Jeff L said... 

I appreciate the efforts of people who call out instances of Stolen Valor. In this case, you were wrong. And I'm afraid of the damage you may have already one to a highly-qualified candidate to replace Jaime Beutler, who needs to go. 

Unfortunately, instead of just clearly stating you were wrong and apologize, you tried to downplay your arrogance. This, to me, has remnants of birtherism. When provided with prove[sic], the false accuser, you, is never fully satisfied. What is it, exactly, that you want? Video of Dorothy kicking doors down? 

Further, if Dorothy was a male instead, would you have been so quick to falsely accuse an honorable soldier of the heinous act of Stolen Valor? My gut says no. My gut says you're trying to save face. But the only way to do that is with a clear, unambiguous apology. And even then, you and this blog will forever have its integrity called into questions. 

I hope you allow this comment to remain on your blog so people will know that they aren't alone in the feeling of disgust from you accusing an honorable soldier of Stolen Valor.

My response is, well, long. I respect the effort and the thought that went into this attack, so I need to make sure, I believe that a full understanding is achieved by Jeff L... whoever he may be.

So, yes, Jeff L... your response is going to remain on this blog...permanently.

I appreciate your obviously rabid support of your candidate. As of now, the only congressional candidate I know I will NOT be voting for is Jaime Herrera, as far as that goes. 

But your knee jerks so hard here I'm surprised it's not broken. 

I called this as I saw it. I ALWAYS call these things as I see them. 

So, in order, I am going to respond to your observations, just so you understand that all is not what it appears: 

1.  I appreciate the efforts of people who call out instances of Stolen Valor. In this case, you were wrong. And I'm afraid of the damage you may have already one[sic] to a highly-qualified candidate to replace Jaime Beutler, who needs to go. 

I never made any claim that DG did not deploy. I did, and do, however, dispute her claims of what she did while she was there. 

As I pointed out, words have meaning. There is a huge difference between "Lead" and "participate" in. 

There is a huge difference between "organize" and "participate in". 

There is a huge difference between "Manage base security" and holding the rotated position of "Sergeant of the Guard." 

You may not like those realities, but that's what they are. 

DG was trained as a missile technician. She had, apparently, zero combat training beyond that everyone received in BCT, and she indicates she was among 350 infantrymen, ANY ONE OF WHOM FAR EXCEEDED HER LEVEL OF TRAINING FOR A COMBAT ASSIGNMENT. 

Does it remotely make sense to you that SHE would be placed in charge of combat units, even at the squad level, when any number of troops already there were far more qualified then she was? 

When you served in the military, and you obviously did based on your decision to opine on this issue, did you ever find yourself in a similar situation? 

I spent 14 years in; enlisted, NCO and Officer. Cavalry, Infantry, Adjutant General (Administration) Infantry again and Force Modernization (Bradley M3CFV Fielding in the 1/11 ACR) 

In all of that time, I was never once led by anyone not fully qualified in every sense of the word, not only by rank but also by training and experience, in any situation of any kind. Thus, when I read where this woman had "lead combat patrols" in a time when women were not allowed to do such a thing, my cynicism needle pegged. 

As it turns out, DG has not provided any evidence that suggests she, in fact, was a combat leader; save her own narrative. 

Now, when it comes to your claim that she is "highly qualified candidate to replace" JB, I beg to differ. (And, for the record, I despise JHB; a quick review of my meager effort here would quickly confirm that.) 

To the best of my knowledge, DG has zero experience in elective office. She has zero experience on legislative staff. She has zero experience in foreign policy or economics. In fact, besides her obvious desire to replace Herrera, I fail to see any qualification of any kind. I believe that any state legislator at any level is far more qualified to replace Herrera than DG is. 

“Liking” a candidate does not make them something they are not. 

But that is also in the eye of the beholder. One person's completely stark resume' is another person's recipe for success. 

2. Unfortunately, instead of just clearly stating you were wrong and apologize, you tried to downplay your arrogance. This, to me, has remnants of birtherism. When provided with prove[sic}, the false accuser, you, is never fully satisfied. What is it, exactly, that you want? Video of Dorothy kicking doors down?

I didn’t clearly state I was wrong because no evidence has been provided to clearly indicate that I WAS wrong, save for DG’s actual INVOLVEMENT in the situations she listed. 

I indicated as such. That she PARTICIPATED in these situations does not equate to her running them, leading them, organizing them or managing them. 

You have your standard of proof and I have mine. Your standard leans to merely accepting what she wrote at face value. My standard leans towards reviewing the evidence provided wherein her commanders characterized her duties over there somewhat differently than she did. Am I to ignore their words and just accept hers? 

Fortunately, I suppose, how you “take” what I have written on this or any other issue is of no concern to me. I do not write to meet your standard any more than you write to meet mine. I could say something equally cryptic and irrelevant in return, but what’s the point? 

DG used certain words, words that were NOT on the award form she provided me. To that end, you would have me turn a blind eye to what your candidate provided me; the words provided by her actual leaders, and merely, doggedly, just accept what she had written on her website while failing to accept what THEY had written on recommendation SHE provided me. 

I would be “fully satisfied” had the words on the ARCOM recommendation form matched the words she had written on her website. There is no reason they SHOULDN’T have matched… yet they didn’t. 

I’m sorry if that upsets you, but there you have it. 

What is it exactly that I want? Something from the US Army that matches the language DG is using. 

Had she used the exact, same verbiage she provided, you likely wouldn’t find this discussion necessary. 

But for whatever the reason, she did not. That is her choice; my pointing out these differences is my choice. 

It’s not like, for example, that form DID say she led combat patrols, that she DID organize traffic control points or that she DID manage base security and I, for my part, refuse to acknowledge those words, or lied about their presence. 

The form in question did NOT say that… did it? 

3. Further, if Dorothy was a male instead, would you have been so quick to falsely accuse an honorable soldier of the heinous act of Stolen Valor? My gut says no. My gut says you're trying to save face. But the only way to do that is with a clear, unambiguous apology. And even then, you and this blog will forever have its integrity called into questions.

Your gut is flat wrong. Gender plays no part here: I beat the hell out of ANYONE that lies to get elected, lies to remain elected or lies when confronted with their falsity. 

In fact, you wrote that entire paragraph to make yourself feel better and oh-so-much-more-superior. 

You don’t know me, however, so in the face of all of this, you merely fell back to leftist talking points because your candidate just happened to have the reproductive system that supported it. 

I suggest you get your “gut” checked out and maybe avoid wasting your time listening to it. 

I will be happy to provide what you refer to as a “clear, unambiguous apology” the moment I get clear, unambiguous evidence that she did PRECISELY what she said she did without exaggeration or falsity. 

I have yet to see that and, in fact, have seen evidence to suggest something somewhat different. 

As for my blog, no one reads it. It’s the least read little effort in the United States. And oddly, every person that I go after for lying, exaggerating, misleading, or screwing us outright shares the public view that my little effort here has no integrity. 

That didn’t stop many of those same people, from the current Clark County GOP Chair to State Senators and Representatives and city councilmembers and county commissioners from providing me with information that has been advantageous to them, of course. But now, because I call them to account, all they can do is, well, what you’re trying to do, which is to belittle and degrade my efforts to hold ALL politicians accountable for what they say or what they do or both. 

Party is irrelevant to me, though lately, the GOP has been a much more target-rich environment, and certainly, gender is equally meaningless to me. 

But if you were to believe that, it would destroy a major part of your foundation for your disdain for me and my efforts here. Right? 

4. I hope you allow this comment to remain on your blog so people will know that they aren't alone in the feeling of disgust from you accusing an honorable soldier of Stolen Valor.

Your self-serving “feeling of disgust” is certainly your problem. 

Like everyone else, you and the others have the ability to read what I write here or not. 

The entire purpose of all of this has been to point out that *I* have found what *I* believe to be evidence of exaggeration of a service record. You, of course, may feel free to disagree, that is your privilege. But you offer up absolutely nothing to disprove what I have written because, at the end of the day, the evidence your candidate provided was somewhat lacking when it comes to the actual history of what took place, and what she wrote took place, at least in the eyes of those who both wrote and signed off on the ARCOM recommendation she provided me. 

It appears that we are not going to agree on this: you believe the only reason your candidate doesn’t walk on water is that she doesn’t like wet shoes. 

As for my part, I have been in the political game for 29 years ending with my retirement from it last year. That time has taught me, repeatedly, that few candidates qualify for Sainthood; party or gender notwithstanding. 

In fact, you can look up a few better-known examples such as Sen. Richard Blumenthal and his Vietnam problem, or former Altantic City Mayor Robert Levy’s Special Forces problem.  His supporters sounded, well, a lot like you. 

I freely acknowledge that your candidate served in Iraq (never said she didn’t) and, as the paperwork she provided indicates, that she PARTICIPATED in combat patrols, traffic control points and was Sergeant of the Guard when the duty rotated to her. I also acknowledge, as does the record in question, that she participated in 3 raids of some sort and that she provided invaluable assistance when it came to searching and processing female suspects.

But even you should be able to acknowledge that she did not "lead combat patrols," did not “organize traffic control points,” and did not “manage base security.” 

And in all of your vitriol directed at me, you never claimed she did those things either. 

So tell me again: why does this seem to upset you so much?

This pretty much sums up my position on all of this and I will be referring any further inquiries to this post.

And Jeff, thanks for stopping by.  I wish your candidate luck.  In this GOP district, she's going to need it.