« AlienationFools, Infidels and Lowlife Journalists »

Frippery Decried

Dick Cavett uses up valuable bits of Internet space making fun of “fripperies” (military awards) and dickering over semantics in an anti-Petraeus, anti-Crocker, anti-war rant that contributes exactly zip to the debate.  Wasn’t that guy the host of a somewhat intellectual kind of lefty talk show about 100 years ago?  It’s pathetic when the opposition is this lame. Here’s Cavett’s bio, a quick glance over which establishes his credentials for commenting on what campaign ribbons and awards for military bravery and accomplishment represent. Before anyone starts making unkind remarks about that, I’d note that while they don’t hand out medals for kitchen duty at Yale, but maybe they ought to. Judging by Cavett’s mental health history, starting in freshman year, it looks like he might have been severely traumatized by the experience.

Malkin notes Petraeus’ chest is the talk of the town.

Iowahawk is typically cruel and meanspirited in his mockery of this well-intentioned LA Times military fashion critic. Jimbo critiques the critic.

Topics: media, military, moronocy

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:11 am on Sunday, April 13, 2008

6 Responses to “Frippery Decried”

1. Fatty Bolger Says:
   April 13th, 2008 at 11:16 am

   When I think of Dick Cavett, I think about how he and John Kerry chuckled in 1971 over the prospect of a bloodbath if we pulled out of Vietnam. Here’s that portion of the transcript, but you really have to watch the video to see how dismissive and blase they were.

   The entire transcript is here.
   http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1186437/posts

   It’s worth reading just to see O’Neill nail Kerry on his fake war crime accusations. The Democrats have tried to turn swift-vetting into a dirty word, but the fact is that all they did was reaquaint people with the real John Kerry, and introduce him to a generation that was too young to remember from that time.

   ============

   MR. CAVETT: No one has said that there’ll be a bloodbath if we pull out, which is a cliche we used to hear a lot. Does either of you still think there would be a –

   MR. O’NEILL: I think if we pull out prematurely before a viable South Vietnamese government is established, that the record of the North Vietnamese in the past and the record of the Viet Cong in the area I served in at Operation [unintelligible] clearly indicates that’s precisely what would happen in that country.

   MR. CAVETT: That’s a guess, of course.

   MR. KERRY: I –

   MR. O’NEILL: I’d say that their record at Thua, at Daq Son [phonetic spelling], at a lot of other places, pretty clearly indicate that’s precisely what would happen. Obviously, in Thua, we’ve discovered, how many, 5,700 graves so far, at Daq Son four or five hundred.

   MR. KERRY: The true fact of the matter is, Dick, that there’s absolutely no guarantee that there would be a bloodbath. There’s no guarantee that there wouldn’t. One has to, obviously, conjecture on this. However, I think the arguments clearly indicate that there probably wouldn’t be.

   First of all, if you read back historically, in 1950 the French made statements – there was a speech made by, I think it was General LeClerc, that if they pulled out, France pulled out, then there would be a bloodbath. That wasn’t a bloodbath. The same for Algeria. There hasn’t been.

   I think that it’s really kind of a baiting argument. There is no interest on the part of the North Vietnamese to try to massacre the people once people have agreed to withdraw. There’s just no pur- –

   I realize that there would be certain political assassinations, and that might take place. And I think when you balance that against the fact that the United States has now accounted for some 18,600 people through its own Phoenix program, which is a program of assassination, and when you balance that off against the morality of the kind of bombing we’ve been doing in Laos and the kind of destruction wholesale of the country of Vietnam, which amounts to some 155,000 civilians a year killed, then I think to talk about four or five thousand people is lunacy in terms of the overall argument and what we’re seeking in Southeast Asia.

   MR. O’NEILL: I think that’s a very highly spurious argument for the following reasons:

   First of all, after the North Vietnamese took over in North Vietnam in 1954, everybody knows about the bloodbath that occurred. Nearly 50 to 60 thousand estimated dead at that time. There were a million refugees that came south. As far as the bombing in Laos, it’s highly interesting to note that occurred in the area of the Ho Chi Minh Trail primarily where only seven to eight thousand people lived.

   It’s true that there is a severe refugee problem. There are 700,000 refugees, for example, in Laos. There were 10,000 down at [unintelligible]. I suggest that that all that Mr. Kerry’s program does is stop the refugee problem, but it stops it by giving those people no place that they can possibly go to. I think there would be a very severe bloodbath there.

   MR. CAVETT: We have a message. We’ll be right back. Local stations.

2. RebeccaH Says:
   April 13th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

   Dick Cavett and the wine critic nance are not only demonstrating petty meanness (typical of a clique of jealous high school girls, IMO), but also their profound ignorance about what all those “fripperies” stand for. I was also struck by the mention of the general’s nametag as a “piece of cheap plastic among all the pristine gilt”. What that says is that they don’t know that a soldier in uniform without his nametag is considered “out of uniform”. That applies to generals as well as grunts.

3. Banjo Says:
   April 13th, 2008 at 4:37 pm

   Dick Cavett, John Kerry, Barrack Obama — Hillary Clinton, for that matter. They all have Yale in common. Other buffoons and fools could be mentioned with the same linkage. Is this not prima facie evidence for never again considering anyone with that kind of past for national office ?

4. The_Real_JeffS Says:
   April 13th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

   I can personally attest that every single soldier in the Army wears pretty much the same “piece of cheap plastic” on their dress uniforms. So Cavett pretty much insulted every single soldier in the Army…..and we haven’t gotten into the ribbons and awards.

5. Vanguard of the Commentariat Says:
   April 13th, 2008 at 9:06 pm

   Well, there were always 3 kinds of fruit salad among those who stayed more than one tour.

   One was a big stack of the “everyman” stuff: unit, campaign and theater awards, and not much else. These guys were the backbone of the service. Never got noticed. Maybe had an attitude. Liked their jobs and always ready to deploy. Didn’t much care if they got promoted or got good guy medals.

   Another group wore a bunch of personal non combat awards and not much underneath to give it any context. Career staff weenies and Washington knights.

   The last was the rare guy who wore the kind of stuff you had to get shot at for. Purple Hearts and awards with combat distinguishing devices.

   A silly little twit like Cavett would have shit himself at the very idea of deploying or even working the kind of hours the staff weenies work, not to mention getting shot at. So why does anyone care what he has to say about the matter?

6. Carl P Says:
   April 14th, 2008 at 10:36 am

   “What that says is that they don’t know that a soldier in uniform without his nametag is considered “out of uniform”. That applies to generals as well as grunts.”

   And,

   “I can personally attest that every single soldier in the Army wears pretty much the same “piece of cheap plastic” on their dress uniforms”

   Uhhh, why haven’t they issued mine? It’s NOT standard issue.

   Not everyone is provided a cheap, plastic nameplate. It depends on your duty. Typically, the only people one sees with the junk are those in headquarters positions within CONUS, most usually at the Hill with liaison staff or the Pentagon. The USAF seem to like the bangles more than anyone else, but they look like bus drivers in their uniforms so perhaps it’s an homage to Greyhound’s tags.

   If you look at most enlisted or junior officers who have been called, at times, to testify before Congress, you will notice that very few have nameplates. I never was issued one in the USMC or the USA, and I got out a year ago (thanks, stop loss!).

   It is fair to note, Jules, that those of us “oldtimers” who remember the first Gulf War now have chests that look like those of Mexican generals. It’s considered something of a joke now that we have more service ribbons, medals and badges than the guys who took Normandy or Tarawa, and the award inflation for HQ brass is just crazy.

   Show me a CPL or a SGT with a chest like that of GEN Petraeus and I’ll show you a bastard who actually earned his pay, because rather than meritorious honors for rising through the ranks, he’ll have earned them in blood.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.