# Marine praised by Bush won't get Medal of Honor



## pardus (Sep 18, 2008)

> By CHELSEA J. CARTER, AP Military Affairs Writer
> Thu Sep 18, 5:52 AM ET
> 
> 
> ...




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/death_by_grenade


----------



## AWP (Sep 18, 2008)

WTF?


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 18, 2008)

I think if Bush has been talking about him, then he should be using his powers as POTUS to correct this and award this Marine what he rightfully deserves.


----------



## rv808 (Sep 18, 2008)

gdamadg said:


> I think if Bush has been talking about him, then he should be using his powers as POTUS to correct this and award this Marine what he rightfully deserves.



What he said.


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 18, 2008)

rv808 said:


> What he said.



x2!!


----------



## The91Bravo (Sep 18, 2008)

What he said X1000,00000,00000000

Sounds to me like he deserves the CMOH


----------



## ROS (Sep 18, 2008)

> The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration awarded by the United States government. It is bestowed on a member of the United States armed forces who distinguishes himself "conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States"



I believe he more than qualifies.


----------



## Ex3 (Sep 18, 2008)

I don't get it.  The MoH was award to PO Monsoor and he did practically the same thing.



> Monsoor was part of a sniper security team on Sept. 29, 2006, in Ramadi with three other SEALs and eight Iraqi soldiers, according to a Navy account. An insurgent fighter threw the grenade, which struck Monsoor in the chest before falling in front of him. Monsoor, according to the account, then threw himself on the grenade.


----------



## HoosierAnnie (Sep 18, 2008)

"grabbed a grenade that had been lobbed by an insurgent. He absorbed the blast with his body, dying instantly."

"insurgent fighter threw the grenade . . .then threw himself on the grenade."

QUICK  without looking, which comment is about which man? 

Gee, ya can't tell them apart can ya?


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 18, 2008)

Medics on the review board are discounting the eye-witness testimony.  
Bunch of Bullshit, BTW- George Casey led the review board.


----------



## car (Sep 18, 2008)

SOWT said:


> Medics on the review board are discounting the eye-witness testimony.
> Bunch of Bullshit, BTW- George Casey led the review board.



I've thought about this since it was posted, so let me play devil's advocate.

What I'm about to say is certainly not what I think - just tryin to put myself in the heads of the people who made/recommended the decision.

The kid was shot up already, apparently by friendly fire (WTF?) So, he may have been bleeding out already - prolly was. I can only imagine what was going through his mind at that time.

"Fuck! I'm gonna die in this shithole....."

So, in rolls a grenade.

"I'm not gonna make it, and I'm really hurting. Fuck it....."

Rolls up on the grenade.

I have no idea what happened that day, I'm just speculating. But I'm thinking (and this is just car's opinion) that that's prolly what the "reviewers" of the recommdation were thinking - "It's not like he suddenly decided to sacrifice his life for his buddies. He already knew he was gonna die that day."

That makes it no less heroic - just an easier (although less rational) decision.

Folks, I'm not saying this is what I think or believe - I don't - he deserves the Medal. But I'm struggling to figure out what the hell the logic was in not awarding it to him.

/Running for hide hole and awaiting incoming indirect fire.


----------



## ROS (Sep 18, 2008)

That's just it, the board obviously wasn't thinking. 

If say presidential intervention is highly unlikely, especially considering his inaction on other black-and-white matters of reward/punishment.


----------



## pardus (Sep 18, 2008)

Has the POTUS got any say in this? It is the Congressional Medal of Honor after all, not the POTUS's MOH.

I'm asking, I don't know.


----------



## pardus (Sep 18, 2008)

I think the Marine deserves a medal absolutely, I don't necessarily think he's entitled the the MOH. :2c:


----------



## AWP (Sep 18, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> I think the Marine deserves a medal absolutely, I don't necessarily think he's entitled the the MOH. :2c:



I'll bite. Why isn't he entitled to it?


----------



## car (Sep 18, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> Has the POTUS got any say in this? It is the Congressional Medal of Honor after all, not the POTUS's MOH.
> 
> I'm asking, I don't know.



It's no longer the "Congressional......" It's the MOH, so Congress(wo)men couldn't pander to constituents.

Never mind the politics at the Pentagon - Sodom-on-the-Potomac. :uhh::doh: But honestly, I don't know the process for a that award.


----------



## Gypsy (Sep 18, 2008)

car said:


> The kid was shot up already, apparently by friendly fire (WTF?)




Read a post elsewhere from a medic in the area at the time.  To paraphrase, the Marines pulled out of that building and thought he was already dead...as they were spraying fire into the building he was obviously hit by friendly fire. 

I get what you were saying in your post...


----------



## AWP (Sep 19, 2008)

Okay, someone is either lying or being misquoted.

From Pardus' first post:


> "Following multiple and exhaustive reviews, the evidence supports the finding that Peralta was likely hit by 'friendly fire,'" the Marine Corps said Wednesday in a press release. "This finding had no bearing on the decision to award the Navy Cross medal."



The update, also from Yahoo:


> "There was conflicting evidence in the case of Sgt. Peralta as to whether he could have performed his final acts given the nature of his injuries," said Capt. Beci Brenton, spokeswoman for Navy Secretary Donald Winter.





> He said that because there was some contradictory evidence, Gates instead took the extra step of asking five other individuals to review the case — a former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, a Medal of Honor recipient, a civilian neurosurgeon who is retired from the military and two forensic pathologists who also are military retirees.
> 
> The five were given medical reports that had not been available in the initial review. They thoroughly reviewed the case again, including inspecting the evidence and re-enacting the event, Whitman said.
> 
> "Each independently recommended to the secretary that the evidence did not support the award of Medal of Honor," he said.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080919/ap_on_re_us/death_by_grenade;_ylt=ApKMWGB1R8mrRAI97lES0W.s0NUE

Unreal.


----------



## Swill (Sep 19, 2008)

They're lawyering this way too much. There is no way to disprove that the Marine didn't know he was mortally wounded. Should've awarded him the MOH. SECDEF jacked this one up.

464 MOHs were awarded for WWII, 133 for Korea, and 246 for Vietnam. 

Five MOHs have been awarded for OEF + OIF.

Five.


----------



## ROS (Sep 19, 2008)

From FoxNews:





> "There was conflicting evidence in the case of Sgt. Peralta as to whether he could have pents, Peralta lay mortally wounded on the floor of a house and grabbed a grenade lobbed by fleeing insurgents. His body absorbed the blast and he died immediately.In a rare move, the Marine Corps Thursday released a redacted copy of the Medal of Honor nomination by Lt. Gen. Richard Natonski and a investigative report detailing the "friendly fire" shooting of the sergeant.The report found sufficient evidence existed to believe that Peralta was probably shot by a fellow Marine and that a gunshot wound to the head and injuries to the head from a grenade caused his death.The nomination, which relies on witness statements, forensics, bomb fragment analysis and an autopsy, concluded that although Peralta was shot in the head, he made "a conscious, heroic decision to cover the grenade and minimize the effects he knew it would have on the rest of his Marine team."The nomination details Peralta's actions in the final minutes of his life,* with several witnesses recounting how the Marine lay face down and used his arm to pull the grenade to him. It also says a forensic analysis of Peralta's clothing and flak jacket show the grenade was underneath him when it exploded.
> 
> Friendly fire or not, he sacrificed himself for his brothers.*


----------



## digrar (Sep 19, 2008)

If he was from the Commonwealth he wouldn't get the VC because of the friendly fire, although the grenade wasn't from a friendly so at the end of the day he probably deserves the top medal.


----------



## AWP (Sep 19, 2008)

ROS said:


> The nomination, which relies on witness statements, forensics, bomb fragment analysis and an autopsy, concluded that although Peralta was shot in the head, he made "a *conscious*, heroic decision to cover the grenade and minimize the effects he knew it would have on the rest of his Marine team."The nomination details Peralta's actions in the final minutes of his life,* with several witnesses recounting how the Marine lay face down and used his arm to pull the grenade to him. It also says a forensic analysis of Peralta's clothing and flak jacket show the grenade was underneath him when it exploded.
> 
> Friendly fire or not, he sacrificed himself for his brothers.*


*

I'm with you. How he recieved his wounds is irrelevant, he made a conscious choice.*


----------



## pardus (Sep 19, 2008)

Freefalling said:


> I'll bite. Why isn't he entitled to it?



Medals are awarded right? You aren't 'entitled' to them, you don't a right to a medal for a certain act.

e.g. "You owe me a Navy Cross because I destroyed a bunker under enemy fire, as stated in the medal entitlement regulations."

That's what i mean.


----------



## AWP (Sep 19, 2008)

Okay, wording, I understand that. Good point.


----------



## Typhoon (Sep 19, 2008)

> The MoH was award to PO Monsoor and he did practically the same thing.


That was my first thought as well. That is shameful to the memory of Sgt. Peralta.


----------



## LibraryLady (Sep 19, 2008)

This link contains a synopsis of all three branches regs on the MOH.  Didn't see any great details as to the decision making process.

Probably one of the reasons there is a confusion over the inclusion of the word "Congressional" in the title of the medal is the medal is given by the President in the name of the Congress to the recipients.

LL


----------



## lionheart (Oct 15, 2008)

What about CPL Dunham, he was awarded the MOH( PostH.. )  while wrestling with an insurgent and out comes a grenade and he takes his helmet to cover the blast to protect his men in the immediate area.  Great book by the way if you want to read, "The Gift of Valor."  I mean the scenarios are a little different but at the end of they day they both took grenades for their brothers.  I would hate to be the one deciding who gets what medal/award.  It would drive me insane...  So many brave men/women out there.


----------



## TheGunDoctor (Oct 16, 2008)

I don't understand what the big deal is. The Marine should be awarded the MOH in this circumstance, regardless of the trivial detail. He used his life to protect those around him and it was obviously the grenade that finished him off.

Furthermore, the negatives of withholding the award outweigh the positives of granting it. Declining the MOH in this situation sends the wrong message to those of us who still serve in uniform, also those that are thinking about joining the military; and most importantly, to the families of the Armed Forces. 

_Too much red tape...
Too much propaganda... 
Too little recognition of sacrifice...
Too little encouragement for selfless-service..._


Those are the thoughts that many will have.


----------



## tigerstr (Oct 26, 2008)

Typhoon said:


> That was my first thought as well. That is shameful to the memory of Sgt. Peralta.



Exactly my thought too. Gives the impression that a SEAL doing the same heroic thing with a Marine will get a MOH and the Marine will not beause another Marine already got one for the same type of heroic action.

Complete nonsense. 

If someone does what these heroes did, deserves the MOH. Period


----------



## Viper1 (Oct 26, 2008)

Swill said:


> They're lawyering this way too much. There is no way to disprove that the Marine didn't know he was mortally wounded. Should've awarded him the MOH. SECDEF jacked this one up.
> 
> 464 MOHs were awarded for WWII, 133 for Korea, and 246 for Vietnam.
> 
> ...



And all 5 have been posthumous. 

No one gots to war gunning for the MOH. But, I believe it sets a dangerous precedent.

I am assuming that at least some of us have read stories, heard accounts, or even met recipients of the MOH. I met COL (ret.) Jack Jacobs, MOH, Vietnam, 4 years ago.  There is something to be said for this "living history" and IMO it should be maintained. Just my :2c:


----------



## JBS (Oct 26, 2008)

RIP Marine.

Always Faithful.


----------

