Peralta discussion continues
Last weekend we wrote about the Washington Post article in which two witnesses to Sergeant Rafael Peralta’s death and the heroic act which preceded it, claimed that the act never happened. The Washington Times today reports that Sergeant Peralta’s mother claims that the Washington Post reporter, Ernesto Londoño, tried to get her to play the race card in their interview;
Peralta’s mother Rosa said in a letter this week that a reporter for The Washington Post seemed intent on trying to get her to say her son was denied the Medal of Honor because he was Hispanic.
Other witnesses are standing by their original account of the events in that small room;
“If you’re trying to smear the legacy of a Marine who’s a hero, who saved my life, then you’re barking up the wrong … tree,” said Nicholas Jones, one of the Marines in the room when insurgents tossed the grenade toward the troops. Peralta received the Navy Cross for his actions, but his supporters — including California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, who himself served as a Marine office in Fallujah during the Iraq war — say he deserves the Medal of Honor.
In the Washington Post article, their witnesses claim that those in the room conspired to concoct the heroic story about Peralta’s final act;
Among those are the video shot by the combat photographer showing the aftermath of the fight and Peralta’s body, with wounds consistent with the original story and contrary to what the dissenting Marines now claim. The video also covers the time period when the story would have been concocted, but there’s no evidence of any such discussion, Mr. Hunter said.
Mr. Hunter also pointed to pictures of Peralta’s body armor which ended up with a fragment of the grenade fuse embedded in it, which he said was consistent with the initial story.
My problem is that Peralta was awarded the Navy Cross for things that are currently in dispute. He has a ship named after him because of that final act. So why are they having this discussion – based on the official statements made by “experts” who weren’t there.
Category: Marine Corps, Real Soldiers
Insulting. They’re trying to get race involved over a man’s death against an enemy that cares very little for the color of your skin. Only parasites over here bring it up.
I can’t say I know who is right here, given that there isn’t definitive evidence to say if Peralta was alive when the grenade went off or not. However, his actions prior to that were certainly deserving of the awards he was posthumously awarded.
I might be in the minority here, but I believe that the Navy Cross and the christening of a vessel in his name is enough, especially given that there is a valid dispute (definitely not a pleasant one, but a valid one) over the actions involving the grenade.
I’m curious about the relationship between SGT Peralta and the two naysayers before he died. It wouldn’t be the first time that due recognition was denied “because fuck that guy.”
The video evidence and the condition of Peralta’s gear and his remains are consistent with Peralta consciously covering the grenade. Some doctor who wasn’t there says he couldn’t have, supported by two men whose credibility may or may not be questionable. As a civilian, I can’t really speak to what can or can’t happen in combat.
All I can say is that in 15 years as a firefighter I’ve seen a fair amount of things happen that were medically and/or scientifically impossible. They happened anyway, though I probably wouldn’t believe half of them had I not witnessed them firsthand.
I think this debate is pretty much dead. It’s unfortunate, but it’s likely. With two people who were there providing dissenting accounts, I doubt they’ll upgrade it to the CMOH. I’ll keep praying, though.
improbable =/= impossible
Apparently the docs didn’t get that memo.
If there is physical evidence that counters the hypothetical physical evidence and conflicting witness testimony I know what I’m putting more credit into.
What a crazy event.
@3: It is not the CMOH, it is the MOH. A lot of people get confused because it is presented by the President in the name of Congress.
@3 – MOH.
This is from Battle Rattle Marine blog. Check out the link to a Nov 23, 2004 article that quotes David Allen on what he did in that room.
sam .l Says:
February 23rd, 2014 at 10:19 pm
So, D. Allen changed his story?
Read
http://blogs.militarytimes.com/battle-rattle/2014/02/22/new-claims-challenge-peraltas-medal-of-honor-account/#comments
@6: It looks like we both caught it at the same time.
@7: Judging by the link you gave it looks like Allen didn’t see what happened.
Some of the “discussion” around this has pissed me the hell off. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the very same things stated in his Navy Cross Citation are why he should have got the MOH, and the dipshit Secretary of Defense is playing stupid human games with it by siding with “experts” who were not there.
The men in that room, saved by him say he did it and that is good enough for me. No idea who these other guys are who were not actually in there when it happened but are now somehow given credibility are, but in my opinion they need to shut the fuck up. They didn’t see what happened, and are claiming wild ass shit that doesn’t even begin to sound credible. (Except to some dumbass reporter looking for a story)
“The men in that room, saved by him say he did it and that is good enough for me.” Yep. And that really is all there is to it. For the exact same selfless, sacrificial act described by those who were there, others received the MOH–or, more precisely, their survivors did on their behalf.
Those so-called experts forget that the part of the brain which allows people who are as described (idiot) savants to do things they should not be able to do, can also take over and have the dying to extraordinary things.
I don’t know if the term ‘idiot’ is in use any more, which is why I put it into parentheses. But if you’ve ever seen a savant doing something like playing the piano, you know what I’m talking about.
And as for covering a grenade with his body, adrenaline is a remarkable hormone that is released in huge quantities in extreme stress. It allows small women to lift cars or trucks off of someone, with no damage to themselves.
If those experts were here, I’d have enough documentation of extraordinary events to refute what they said before they opened their mouths.
@Twist it sure does look like he is not consistent when everybody else has been. Maybe he is butt hurt that the story does not revolve around him, or he is not getting enough Hero talk. He has put himself in the middle now.
I just don’t trust today’s polite PC military. After the Jessica Lynch fawning and the Pat Tillman fiasco…who in the hell knows and more importantly who in the hell is in charge?
@6/7-Roger.
I don’t understand how the president and congress can upgrade 24 awards from DSC to MOH the same week that they turn this marine’s upgrade down. I agree with congressman Hunter, no wording will have to change on the citation, just the award. In the past few years there has been many upgrades, during the Clinton administration and now, the present administration. Valor awards are no place for politics, but unfortunately no one is listening.
I always assumed the Navy Cross citation and the DDG name was an extended middle finger from SECNAV to SECDEF. As in “If you won’t give our guy what he deserves then We will do everything we can.”
All available evidence suggests that SGT Peralta was a damn good Marine who got shot in the head by his team mates. An investigating Officer who concluded that he was deserving of the NC still found that he was shot blue on blue. DOD has not classed it a blue on blue death because that grenade bailed them out. This is not the first time blue on blue has been covered up with a valor award.
It can not be stressed enough that if proved this despicable behavior BEARS NO REFLECTION ON THE HONORABLE CAREER OF SGT Peralta. He showed up and these days I think that is a lot even for FOBBITs like me let alone grunts like Peralta.