What a POS.

https://www.military.com/daily...dge-was-revoked.html

Not half as bad as Trump being commander in chief when he is a draft dodging coward!

He fits right in with the Trumpiteers.Just another crook….

He must be related to Blumenthol, who claimed to be a Navy seal.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Not half as bad as Trump being commander in chief when he is a draft dodging coward!

Trump was sworn in as President, so he could actually BE "Commander in Chief" but this douchnozzle was not, by MOS, an Infantryman or a Special Forces soldier and cannot, by Army Regulation, be awarded a CIB.

He's a PX hero who got some admin drinking buddy to slide the paperwork through in a pile and was awarded a badge for which he was not qualified, which was rescinded, and he is no more entitled to wear it than you are, Saeed.

One of the richest men in the senate, Blumenthal had 5 draft deferments during vietnam. Then signed with the marines for a unit station in DC and CT. to make sure he wasnt sent to vietnam.
He held campaign rallies where he claimed to have been a seal in vietnam.
He's worse than the congressman, yet they vote him in regardless.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
One of the richest men in the senate, Blumenthal had 5 draft deferments during vietnam. Then signed with the marines for a unit station in DC and CT. to make sure he wasnt sent to vietnam.
He held campaign rallies where he claimed to have been a seal in vietnam.
He's worse than the congressman, yet they vote him in regardless.

Not what he claimed.

I knew you would come along and suck his dick jeffie.
Yes he did claim that at a couple rallies. My buddy has it recorded and I have watched it.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
I knew you would come along and suck his dick jeffie.
Yes he did claim that at a couple rallies. My buddy has it recorded and I have watched it.

For such a manly man you sure are obsessed with homoerotic ideation, not that there's anything wrong with that.

You are here defending a dirtbag who is knowingly wearing a badge he did not earn and has no right to wear by pointing to somebody else who exaggerated his service decades ago and has apologized, and you can't stop thinking about sucking a dick long enough to make a weak argument.

Now that's sad.

And you still cant read can you jeffie.
In my first post I compared the two as guilty of stolen valor.
You come along and defend the scum because he's a Dem. He apologized, only because he was caught and
and forced to by vets. Even then he first tried to worm his way out with a different version.

I mean, we can debate the motives of an apology.

Both are “guilty” in the moral side bc the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds invalidated the Stolen Valor Act. I am not sure this conduct would qualify under the w Valor Act.

I would rather a man apologize for a known wrong, than continue to defiantly engage in the wrong behavior. We can debate motives, but apologizing. However, the man who continues to engage in the bad conduct is the one in the wrong of the two.

I hope the Representative listens to his former veterans and other critics to course correct and apologize.

Now, in the modern GOP to engage in dishonorable, or disrespectful behavior by political leaders seems to be awarded.

For better or worse, the voters of his district hold the accountability lever.
Well, that and any unrelated(not from just members of his district or Texas), unregulated PAC money that might get funneled into his district during an election.

I wonder if he would wear this accommodation bestowed by the Federal Government if the Texas legislature engages in an unconstitutional secession vote?

This would be a crime under the invalidated Stolen Valor Act. The Representative can thank Xavier Alvarez.

I wonder had the Republican Texas Representative been in Congress during the vote on the Stolen Valor Act would he have voted for it? I wish a reporter in Texas would ask him. I say he would have voted for it, but that is pure speculation.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I mean, we can debate the motives of an apology.

Both are “guilty” in the moral side bc the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds invalidated the Stolen Valor Act. I am not sure this conduct would qualify under the w Valor Act.

I would rather a man apologize for a known wrong, than continue to defiantly engage in the wrong behavior. We can debate motives, but apologizing. However, the man who continues to engage in the bad conduct is the one in the wrong of the two.

I hope the Representative listens to his former veterans and other critics to course correct and apologize.

Now, in the modern GOP to engage in dishonorable, or disrespectful behavior by political leaders seems to be awarded.

For better or worse, the voters of his district hold the accountability lever.
Well, that and any unrelated(not from just members of his district or Texas), unregulated PAC money that might get funneled into his district during an election.

I wonder if he would wear this accommodation bestowed by the Federal Government if the Texas legislature engages in an unconstitutional secession vote?

This would be a crime under the invalidated Stolen Valor Act. The Representative can thank Xavier Alvarez.

I wonder had the Republican Texas Representative been in Congress during the vote on the Stolen Valor Act would he have voted for it? I wish a reporter in Texas would ask him. I say he would have voted for it, but that is pure speculation.

Since he's a Republican he probably would have voted against it and immediately claimed credit for it passing, like they do infrastructure projects.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
I knew you would come along and suck his dick jeffie.
Yes he did claim that at a couple rallies. My buddy has it recorded and I have watched it.

Post it then

Well wymple, I will tell you jeffies line.
If you want me to teach you, I charge $300 an hour.
I will then get it copied and mail it when the check has cleared.

Translation....you got nothing substantial.

Translation, so Blumenthal appalogized for doing nothing? Look it up.

I don't know about Blumenthal but this guy wearing a revoked CIB, which he apparently wasn't entitled to in the first place, is outrageous. In my opinion, there should be criminal penalties for these clowns who claim military status and/or decorations that are fraudulent. Weirdos and creeps.

Nehls apparently disputes that he is ineligible to wear the CIB and told the news outlets to "go ask the Army." They did and the US Army confirmed he was ineligible for the CIB.

https://www.notus.org/house/ar...ligible-combat-badge

I agree Mike.
And especially if they do it and/or use it as a campaign enhancer. Fraud.

I know of a few instances of non line officers getting the CIB back in Vietnam. They were shot at, so I really don’t have an issue with that.

They do have the new combat action badge, which is supposed to be the “right” one for non infantry types.

Did he get that? I do get that the CIB is recognized by the public more so than any other army badge (except for pilots wings, anyhow) and that a politician would want to look like they have been there, done that.

I wouldn’t put wearing an award that was improperly given in the same boat as the guys who never served trying to claim military status.

It sounds like this guy would have gotten a CIB if he was infantry where he was at. Frankly, the way the military plays games with promotions and having the right awards, I’m surprised this isn’t more common than you think.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I know of a few instances of non line officers getting the CIB back in Vietnam. They were shot at, so I really don’t have an issue with that.

They do have the new combat action badge, which is supposed to be the “right” one for non infantry types.

Did he get that? I do get that the CIB is recognized by the public more so than any other army badge (except for pilots wings, anyhow) and that a politician would want to look like they have been there, done that.

I wouldn’t put wearing an award that was improperly given in the same boat as the guys who never served trying to claim military status.

It sounds like this guy would have gotten a CIB if he was infantry where he was at. Frankly, the way the military plays games with promotions and having the right awards, I’m surprised this isn’t more common than you think.

Gotcha. So, if the rules for getting a CIB were different, he would have gotten a CIB.

The point is he was apparently in combat.

CIB, combat action badge, he deserved one or the other.

It’s not whole cloth stolen valor unless he wasn’t really even in a combat zone.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I know of a few instances of non line officers getting the CIB back in Vietnam. They were shot at, so I really don’t have an issue with that.

They do have the new combat action badge, which is supposed to be the “right” one for non infantry types.

Did he get that? I do get that the CIB is recognized by the public more so than any other army badge (except for pilots wings, anyhow) and that a politician would want to look like they have been there, done that.

I wouldn’t put wearing an award that was improperly given in the same boat as the guys who never served trying to claim military status.

It sounds like this guy would have gotten a CIB if he was infantry where he was at. Frankly, the way the military plays games with promotions and having the right awards, I’m surprised this isn’t more common than you think.

YOU don't have an issue? From whence do you imagine your opinion acquires gravitas?

Why didn't this PX hero just get his G-1 drinking buddy to put Medal of Honor paperwork through while he was at it, I don't imagine you'd have an issue with that, either.

You know who DOES have an issue with shit like this?

Those who wear the uniform, or have done so.

Notice them making excuses for him?

Actually, some, yes.

If he deserved a combat award, that’s different than if he didn’t at all.

The arguments I’ve seen here are all he wasn’t detailed infantry or SF, not that he wasn’t serving in combat.

So he should have the combat action badge, not the CIB. Sure, it doesn’t have the cachet of the CIB, but like you he did sign up, and apparently he did serve in harm’s way.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Actually, some, yes.

If he deserved a combat award, that’s different than if he didn’t at all.

The arguments I’ve seen here are all he wasn’t detailed infantry or SF, not that he wasn’t serving in combat.

So he should have the combat action badge, not the CIB. Sure, it doesn’t have the cachet of the CIB, but like you he did sign up, and apparently he did serve in harm’s way.

I have my doubts he deserves anything but contempt, a civil affairs REMF is generally not issued anything but a sidearm, and that for decoration.

We're talking about a jackwagon who brags about his Bronze Star awarded with this citation: "Captain Nehls trained and mentored nine Iraqi staff members and four coalition soldiers assigned to the Kirkuk Business Center, which became known as the best business center in all of Iraq."

Audie Murphy, step aside.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The point is he was apparently in combat.

CIB, combat action badge, he deserved one or the other.

It’s not whole cloth stolen valor unless he wasn’t really even in a combat zone.

Was he in combat? I haven't seen anything to indicate that and he hasn't so stated. I see he got a Bronze Star. As noted, that commendation reads in part: "Captain Nehls trained and mentored nine Iraqi staff members and four coalition soldiers assigned to the Kirkuk Business Center, which became known as the best business center in all of Iraq."

I don't see anything anywhere about any shots fired in anger.

The point is that he continues to wear a military decoration that was revoked by the United States Army. You thinking that he may deserve a CIB doesn't really matter too much.

Turns out that the guy who signed the letter that this turd relied on when the issue first came up, has also backed away from it. He didn't even sign the letter.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...n-t-earn/ar-BB1oOdDF

>>>>The statement confirms extensive prior reporting by Guardian of Valor, a veterans watchdog group, which in May began sounding the alarm about Nehls wearing a Combat Infantryman Badge he didn’t earn.

The group reviewed the Texas Republican’s 53-page military personnel file, and found that while a badge had been awarded in 2008 for his deployment to Afghanistan, the Army revoked it in 2023 after realizing he’d served as a civil affairs officer ― not in the infantry or Special Forces.

Nehls responded by sharing a Defense Department letter on social media that appears to confirm the award. The letter, from 2008, bears the signature of Army Maj. Tim Botset.

But Botset, now retired, told KHOU earlier this month that someone else seems to have signed on his behalf, because he knows with “absolute certainty” that he didn’t sign it himself.

“I was shown the memorandum containing my signature block over a year ago,” Botset told KHOU in a statement. “I informed the investigator that it is my signature block but not my signature. It reads ‘for,’ which means someone else signed in my place. I know with absolute certainty that I did not sign it. I was on EML (Environment and Morale Leave) in Tennessee on the date indicated on the memorandum.”

“Is this an honest mistake? Perhaps, but finding a copy of the 4187 and/or sworn statements that generated the memorandum will provide you the specifics behind the award,” he continued. “I do not know anyone in my unit that would have intentionally approved an award for someone that was not entitled. No one, for any reason, should knowingly wear unearned awards or badges ― period.”

In a letter of his own addressed to U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Nehls accused the veterans group of attempting to discredit him.

“I disagree with the Awards and Decorations Branch revocation of my CIB, which was awarded by the 101st Airborne Division,” Nehls wrote. “I further believe this is a concerted effort to discredit my military service and continued service to the American people as a member of Congress.”

But Anthony Anderson, an Army veteran who runs Guardian of Valor, says it’s quite the opposite.

“The veteran community is starting to get to the point now where there’s no room for forgiveness at this point because now they see, ‘Hey, this wasn’t an error. He’s doubling down now,’” Anderson told Military.com. “He knows he didn’t earn this award.”

I’m not saying he should continue to wear the CIB.

But he was in the 101st, in a combat zone. The commentary seems to be if he was an infantry officer, he’d merit the CIB by serving in Kirkuk.

If he’s not qualified just because he wasn’t detailed infantry or SF, he should get the combat action badge.

If he was not in combat/combat zone, then he deserves neither. I don’t see that claim being supported here; just that he wasn’t infantry or detailed infantry.

My assumption was that he got the CIB because pretty much all the 101st officers got it as they are airborne infantry (or air assault.)

The guy served in Iraq. I’m a little hestitant to claim stolen valor based on folks saying because he wasn’t infantry.

It’s a far cry from a guy who was in a combat zone and got an award from the 101st and is proud of the fact he did so (even though you have to be pretty dumb as an officer to wear it when you know you technically don’t qualify) and say me claiming a CIB and combat service when the closest I came was ROTC camp.

If he doesn’t even merit the Combat action badge, that’s different.

If he had his G1 buddy make stuff up entirely, then the G1 guy should face court martial and the congressman deserves whatever shit he gets… but the difference between the combat action badge and the CIB seems trivial to someone who isn’t infantry. Both were in an active combat zone completing assigned duties.

I’m also underwhelmed by that major. He isn’t supporting his subordinates and didn’t generate a culture of respect for regulations, did he? Someone signed the paperwork supposedly with his permission (that was the customs of the service- if your CO gave permission for you to sign paperwork in his name, you were allowed to. It was his name and he was responsible, but you were responsible to not tell a falsehood in his name as well. Don’t tell me you never signed something for an officer in that manner, Jefffive.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I’m not saying he should continue to wear the CIB.

But he was in the 101st, in a combat zone. The commentary seems to be if he was an infantry officer, he’d merit the CIB by serving in Kirkuk.

If he’s not qualified just because he wasn’t detailed infantry or SF, he should get the combat action badge.

If he was not in combat/combat zone, then he deserves neither. I don’t see that claim being supported here; just that he wasn’t infantry or detailed infantry.

My assumption was that he got the CIB because pretty much all the 101st officers got it as they are airborne infantry (or air assault.)

The guy served in Iraq. I’m a little hestitant to claim stolen valor based on folks saying because he wasn’t infantry.

It’s a far cry from a guy who was in a combat zone and got an award from the 101st and is proud of the fact he did so (even though you have to be pretty dumb as an officer to wear it when you know you technically don’t qualify) and say me claiming a CIB and combat service when the closest I came was ROTC camp.

If he doesn’t even merit the Combat action badge, that’s different.

If he had his G1 buddy make stuff up entirely, then the G1 guy should face court martial and the congressman deserves whatever shit he gets… but the difference between the combat action badge and the CIB seems trivial to someone who isn’t infantry. Both were in an active combat zone completing assigned duties.

I’m also underwhelmed by that major. He isn’t supporting his subordinates and didn’t generate a culture of respect for regulations, did he? Someone signed the paperwork supposedly with his permission (that was the customs of the service- if your CO gave permission for you to sign paperwork in his name, you were allowed to. It was his name and he was responsible, but you were responsible to not tell a falsehood in his name as well. Don’t tell me you never signed something for an officer in that manner, Jefffive.

I can, and will, tell you flatly, unequivocally, I NEVER signed anybody's name to official paperwork but my own. If you are authorized to sign "for" someone you write or type "for" next to their signature block and sign your own name, not theirs.

Isn’t that what was claimed- for and signature.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I’m not saying he should continue to wear the CIB.

But he was in the 101st, in a combat zone. The commentary seems to be if he was an infantry officer, he’d merit the CIB by serving in Kirkuk.

If he’s not qualified just because he wasn’t detailed infantry or SF, he should get the combat action badge.

If he was not in combat/combat zone, then he deserves neither. I don’t see that claim being supported here; just that he wasn’t infantry or detailed infantry.

My assumption was that he got the CIB because pretty much all the 101st officers got it as they are airborne infantry (or air assault.)

The guy served in Iraq. I’m a little hestitant to claim stolen valor based on folks saying because he wasn’t infantry.

It’s a far cry from a guy who was in a combat zone and got an award from the 101st and is proud of the fact he did so (even though you have to be pretty dumb as an officer to wear it when you know you technically don’t qualify) and say me claiming a CIB and combat service when the closest I came was ROTC camp.

If he doesn’t even merit the Combat action badge, that’s different.

If he had his G1 buddy make stuff up entirely, then the G1 guy should face court martial and the congressman deserves whatever shit he gets… but the difference between the combat action badge and the CIB seems trivial to someone who isn’t infantry. Both were in an active combat zone completing assigned duties.

I’m also underwhelmed by that major. He isn’t supporting his subordinates and didn’t generate a culture of respect for regulations, did he? Someone signed the paperwork supposedly with his permission (that was the customs of the service- if your CO gave permission for you to sign paperwork in his name, you were allowed to. It was his name and he was responsible, but you were responsible to not tell a falsehood in his name as well. Don’t tell me you never signed something for an officer in that manner, Jefffive.

I don't read the requirement as simply being "in a combat zone."

Here's what the army says:

Personnel Eligible:
For award of the CIB a Soldier must meet the following three requirements:

(1) Be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties.

(2) Assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat.

(3) Actively participate in such ground combat. Campaign or battle credit alone is not sufficient for award of the CIB.

https://www.hrc.army.mil/conte...tryman%20Badge%20CIB

Did the good congressman "Actively participate" in ground combat? I haven't seen anything that supports that requirement.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Isn’t that what was claimed- for and signature.

If somebody else signed their own name he wouldn't have needed to verify it wasn't his signature.