On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 23:46:15 -0600, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 19:41:26 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:28:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:40:24 -0500, micky
wrote:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/to...n-army-ranger/


Same thing with Corky Messner, another Republican.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ger-qualified/


You and I might not have known the difference between a Ranger and
Ranger-qualified, but they surely did.

Don't know about Messner, but Cotton had honorable service in a combat
zone, so why did he feel the need to lie.

Like Tom Hanks. He wears a Ranger tab on his uniform in the movie but
that is not a Ranger unit.

WTF does Tom Hanks have to do with anything? You do understand the
concept of Fiction vs. reality, right? Perhaps not, given your
postings here...

Sorry you are right, bad example.
Just pointing out qualifying to be a Ranger, SEAL or Marine Force
Recon does not mean that is where you serve. You can still say you
have that qualification.

And like Mickey pointed out, that's where the problem lies. Cotton is
Ranger qualified, no one disputes that, but he never served as a Ranger.
Thus, he's not entitled to say, as he did in numerous political ads, that
he served as a Ranger when he didn't. If he had said Ranger qualified, and
left it at that, this would be a nothingburger. The only question remaining
is why did he feel he had to embellish his service record, and why hasn't
he apologized and cleared up the confusion? He already had a very good
service record. There was no need to pile on.

The way I understand it, if they let you wear the insignia, that is
who you are.
I was an FT, I went to school and had the crow but I never touched a
piece of fire control equipment in 6 years.
I was a gunners mate/ torpedo man in reality but in the twisted logic
of the military I was an FT no matter what they had me doing.