On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 22:38:14 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 21:25:15 -0500, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, 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.

That's right, but I already brought that up. See the underlined
sentence above.

You can still say you
have that qualification.

That's right, but Cotton and Mesner didn't just say they were
ranger-qualified, they said they were rangers.

Jesse Ventura is an example. He went through BUD/S training and can
call himself a SEAL but he didn't serve in a SEAL team in Vietnam.

Did he serve in a SEAL team anywhere else? Did he ever call himself a
SEAL? Are the rules the same for rangers and Seals.

Ventura called himself a SEAL his whole career, show biz and
political. Technically he can because he went through BUDS/S and got
his pin. He still never served on a SEAL team. He was UDT in Vietnam.

I don't really care about Ventura's ancient history. This is about Cotton.

Cotton did pretty much the same thing. If he has the training and the
patch, he is a Ranger.

Your opinion is noted, but it's incorrect. If he has the training and the
patch, he is "Ranger qualified". If and when he serves in a Ranger unit,
only then does he become a "Ranger". That never happened, thus his status
is "Ranger qualified" and not "Ranger".

That's not my opinion. That's the read out from multiple high ranking
military officials. You've cut your cord but you can still Google it if
you're confused.

He just never served in a Ranger battalion when
he was in Afghanistan.

He never served in a Ranger unit, period. Thus, he remained "Ranger
qualified" and not "Ranger".

It is really a distinction without a difference, sort of like Gore
saying he was a soldier in Vietnam when he really just worked in the
Stars and Stripes newspaper office for a few months there. He was a
senator's son, treated more like Bob Hope than the guys who got
drafted and handed an M-16.

Once again with the ancient history. As mentioned above, your opinion is
noted but it's incorrect. Just because you don't understand the difference
doesn't mean there is no difference.

I may not agree with his politics, but Cotton has a very respectable
military service record. He didn't need to puff it up.