Two Updates: Oliver "Grimmace" Willis and John Forbes Kerry's Silver Star

Earlier I posted an article questioning why John Forbes Kerry had a 1986 citation for his Silver Star, signed during Reagan's second term by the then-Secretary of the Navy John Lehmann.

The facts most likely are on Kerry's side. There is the possibility of shenaningans here, but it's not a strong possibility, and it's less likely that we're talking major shenanigans.

First: I asked if there were earlier reports of Kerry's Silver Star. This was a rather ignorant question. Several posters informed me he got his Silver Star in 1969 or so. The actual question about the citation is over the citation itself, not the actual Silver Star, which wasn't issued in 1986, but fairly contemporaneously with the war.

I was "wrong" in the sense that I was asking a dumb question because I didn't know enough not to ask it.

On Thursday's Brit Hume (I love DVR), Brit Hume asked a Lt. General Cowell (?) about this, and he said he didn't know why a 1986 citation was issued, nor why that fresh citation contained new, more glowing language about John Kerry's alleged heroics. He guessed that Kerry simply asked for copies of his previous citations (they are often lost, and sometimes vets want good, fresh copies for framing), and the Navy sent along the new citation -- with new language -- gratis.

He and Brit Hume seem to think it most likely that the Navy did this of its own accord. And its reason for doing so? John Forbes Kerry was now the junior Senator from Massachusetts. Both men said this wouldn't be the first time one of the services had kissed up to a Senator or an important Congressmen in the hopes that somewhere down the line they might receive a positive vote on a weapons system. (Of course, in the case of John Forbes Kerry, all such hopes were dashed.)

That doesn't exactly settle the issue, and it's possible that Kerry requested new language making him seem more heroic, but it does suggest that this is probably not something which will end in some juicy revelation.

Now that that's out of the way, let's get to the important stuff:

Over at Shamu's House of Fish Stix, a commenter made this point:

Some of your posts (and the resulting threads) have focused on how Malkin looks in these unflattering shots from the interview. Because of remarks you've made in the past about certain types of personal attacks against you, it surprises me that you would resort to such petty teasing when there is so much actual content to debate.

Sort of a good point, no? Especially considering that Grimmace cries foul when you point out that he looks like Weeble with a metabolic imbalance.

But Grimmace doesn't back down:

I think she has crazy eyes. I'm sorry but it's true. I also think she's quite attractive. She can call me beady-eyed if she wants, because I am.

Well, Oliver sure seems highly restrictive about what personal, looks-based insults Ms. Malkin can offer in return. He deigns to allow her to respond that he's beady-eyed.

Well, he is beady-eyed. But, on the list of things that are unappetizing about Shamu's appearance, anything involving his eyes clocks in no higher than Number 657. The very fact that he has two of them counts in his favor, given his other, rather more compelling problems.

With all due respect, Chubbsy McLipidsac, if you attack someone on what you find to be the worst aspect of their appearance, they're allowed to attack you back on whichever part of your appearance they find most disagreeable, not just some minor flaw you've come to grips with.

And I'm no bodyist or whatnot, but I would say that your biggest problem involves, how do I put this delicately?, your gigantic sagging man-ass and big flopping he-tits.

I'm sorry but it's true. If you must, you can criticize me for my eyelashes, which have just never been as lush or as sultry as I might like. I, like most other men of my age group, have just never gotten over the fact that I didn't grow up to be Nick Rhodes of Duran Duran.

posted by Ace at 01:22 AM

| Access Comments