“Sua Sponte”: Critics and Veterans Slam Media Attack On Sen. Cotton’s Service Claims

There is an ongoing controversy triggered by an article in Salon suggesting that Sen. Tom Cotton had lied about being an Army Ranger in describing his military service. The Salon article by Roger Sullenberger claimed that Arkansas senator Tom Cotton “felt compelled to repeatedly falsify that honorable military record.” It is an accusation that borders on a claim of stolen valor and could not be more insulting, particularly for someone with a highly distinguished military service record. The article has been denounced as part of a smear campaign by conservative sites like National Review but also veterans as unfair and inaccurate.

Ironically, the regimental motto of the Rangers is the Latin phrase sua sponte, or “of their own accord.” There appears debate on whose accord is controlling on such questions.

Cotton volunteered to serve and was commissioned as a second lieutenant. He was deployed with the 101st Airborne in Iraq and was promoted to first lieutenant. He also served in Afghanistan. He was awarded a Bronze Star, two Army Commendation MedalsCombat Infantryman BadgeRanger tabAfghanistan Campaign Medal, and Iraq Campaign Medal.

False or exaggerated military records have been raised over political claims in the past.  Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., claimed on repeated occasions that he served in Vietnam when he had been in a Marine Reserve unit that was never sent overseas. In one article in May 2008, Blumenthal claimed that “when we returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse we encountered.” There is no ambiguity on that claim.

However, Cotton not only went to Ranger School and received a Ranger badge but went into combat. Cotton received his Ranger badge and then served with the 101st Airborne Division. As a military history nut, I have discussed the “Screaming Eagles” in prior columns as one of the most storied and revered forces in United States military history.  Cotton was in combat with one of the most elite units in the world.  He never claimed claimed to have served in the 75th Ranger Regiment. Instead, he claimed that he “volunteered to be an Army Ranger” and referred to himself as a ranger on occasion.  Sullenberger maintains that that does not make him an “actual Army Ranger,” but that is not a view shared by some other rangers.  There is no balance in the article. Such countervailing views appeared in coverage following the Salon article.

The Arkansas Times interviewed Command sergeant major Rick Merritt, who served in the 75th Ranger Regiment, who denounced the premise of Salon’s article as “absurd,” “unfair,” and “almost slanderous.” Conversely, Rep. Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat who served in the 75th Ranger Regiment, criticized Cotton for referring to himself as an Army Ranger, tweeting a picture of a Ranger in uniform with “Hey @SenTomCotton, unless you wore one of these berets you shouldn’t be calling yourself a Ranger. Truth matters.”

The National Review takes apart that claim and notes that veterans insist that Cotton was a Ranger. Moreover, it noted that major publications have referred to graduates of Ranger school as rangers in the same way as Cotton did. Notably, critics pointed out that Newsweek slammed Cotton after the Salon story but in 2015 used the same description of graduates from the school who did not serve in the actual Ranger regiment. Rather than change its criticism of Cotton, Newsweek quietly changed the 2015 article to remove the reference to being a Ranger.

As the site military.com noted, “the 75th Ranger Regiment requires its soldiers to complete its own eight-week selection process. Upon completing the course, soldiers are allowed to wear a distinctive tan beret with their uniform.” Cotton took the U.S. Army’s Ranger School, a roughly eight-week leadership course on light-infantry tactics. While Salon dismissed the school as a course that “literally anyone in the military is eligible to attend,” military.com wrote

To be clear, serving in the 75th Ranger Regiment or completing the Army’s Ranger School are both significant accomplishments. The vast majority of service members have neither served in a special operations unit nor attended Ranger School, both of which are physically and mentally grueling tasks. Neither are required to be eligible for the other — the only exception being that 75th Ranger Regiment leaders, such as commissioned officers, are required to complete Ranger School.

This does strike me as unfair. Salon as a long history of such hits pieces, particularly against Cotton. For example, the Arkansas Times noted prior pieces entitled “10 frightening facts about Tom Cotton” and “Chair of the imbecile caucus: Sen. Tom Cotton proudly stands at the vanguard of shameless Republican obstructionism.” This latest article was entitled in a way to be used by an Internet mob to suggest a type of stolen valor: “Sen. Tom Cotton campaigned on his “experience as an Army Ranger” — but he didn’t have any.”  This was a man who earned his Ranger badge but served with an elite airborne division.  The headline makes it sound like he was back in the states with the motor pool.  Normally, this type of issue would warrant a parenthetical in a profile piece.

I have no problem with raising this issue. Indeed, I find it interesting. This appears to be a long-standing matter of debate. Frankly, I do not see why Cotton did not just identify himself as Airborne with the Screaming Eagles, which is an enormous distinction. However, the Salon piece is typical of the slanted and sensational coverage that is now common among publications. Articles are designed to thrill audiences in our siloed media where people expect nothing confirmation of their own biases. These sites on the left and the right contribute to the anger and divisions in the country.

290 thoughts on ““Sua Sponte”: Critics and Veterans Slam Media Attack On Sen. Cotton’s Service Claims”

  1. “Former ‘Ranger’ Tom Cotton refuses to call Jill Biden ‘Doctor'”

    ‘“It’s just misleading,” said the former 101st Airborne Officer who campaigned on his experience as an Army Ranger.’

    https://www.duffelblog.com/p/former-ranger-tom-cotton-refuses

    A few of the comments:

    GI Jo Jan 25

    Ok — this is satire — you know — a form of humor that a ranger in an actual ranger unit would probably find funny. Anyone who served in the 75th certainly knows the difference between earning a tab and serving in the regiment. And yes, I can see where someone with a tab who served in a conventional unit would not find it as funny. But if you just read politics left/right in the article, I think the humor sailed right over your head. I never called anyone a ranger just because they had a tab. That made them ranger qualified, not rangers. Again, nothing to take away from the tab. And again… satire.

    82DABNDIVJAG Jan 25

    I love it ! Totally insider satire. If you weren’t on active duty you wouldn’t get it. I remember that Ranger School grads were always careful to distinguish between being tabbed and being “in the Bat”

    OldRedleg Jan 25

    Everyone has gotten into the habit of splitting hairs (or is it Hares?) here. Cotton obviously graduated from the Ranger qualification course, and I have great admiration for anyone who can accomplish that. Technically, he is “Ranger qualified’ and can be referred to in many circles as a “Ranger.”

    The problem arises because he is running on his deployment and combat record and claims to have served there as a “Ranger.” He didn’t serve as a Ranger per se, but as a Ranger-qualified officer in another combat unit. However, that is the hair he is splitting to enhance his image. Is this “stolen valor” or just stupid childish bragging? I wonder what Rangers who actually served in the 75th think.

    **’Duffel Blog is an American military news satire organization featuring satirical articles reporting on national security and US military topics. It is often described as “the military version of The Onion.”‘

    1. Well this is a far better argument – though it is a better argument that Cotten is hypocritical regarding Jill Biden.

      I dismissed the Jill Biden nonsense at the start. I think Jill Biden is being stupid. But if she really wants to be called Dr. Biden,
      I have no interest in debating it.

      I have friends who have doctorates. In very narrow contexts I refer to them as Dr. xxxx, usually within the field of their doctorate.
      Not at dinner in a resturaunt.

      I would find it equally annoying if Cotten insisted on being Called Ranger or Capt. in every context.
      He is a ranger and he is a capt. But not at Dinner or a movie.

  2. From “Task & Purpose”:

    ‘…we received feedback from some readers voicing their agreement with the 75th Ranger Regiment’s assessment of who gets to claim the “Ranger” title, with one person writing: “I graduated from Ranger School in November 1969, and proudly wore the tab for 20 years. I would NEVER refer to myself as an ‘Army Ranger.’ That would be a total insult, by me, to all who have ever served in a Ranger unit.”’

    1. Whether your unidentified person likes it or not – the norm is the opposite.

      A ranger Tab says RANGER. Not only are YOU allowed to call yourself a ranger – the army did so for you – on your uniform.

      Further the Ranger Hall of fame classifies anyone with a ranger tab or a ranger scroll as a ranger.

      There are plenty of people whith a ranger Tab who never served in the 75th who are far more clearly warriors than many of those who served int hr 75th. Cotton is one of those.

    1. Give the author does not grasp that Cotton was relected in 2020 – with 66% of the vote and will not face election again until 2026,
      why should the rest of the article be trusted ?

  3. A Bronze Star and a CIB is all I need to know. There were Marines who worked in finance who got attacked and fought during the Tet offensive. They didn’t have Ranger tabs but so what?

    1. Anonymous the Stupid, do you know the difference between an opinion article and a fact? Obviously not. This article you provide is from Jan 25 and is rendering an opinion after the fact.

      One can choose either side for their preference but one cannot say that Cotton was wrong. He used the appropriate label.

      (from the article) There are two symbols clearly defining each.

      Ranger

      75 Ranger RGT

      Cotton said Ranger, he didn’t say 75 Ranger

      In the field one knows by looking at the uniform. I don’t know that most 75 Ranger’s would off the battlefield have such low esteem to force them to say I am not just a Ranger but I am a 75 Ranger with a scroll. Maybe you would be so petty. I wouldn’t.

      1. This is all acceptable between soldiers in a bar.

        This type of rivalry is encouraged by the service.

        But it has no place in public. If Crow were still in the service he would be told to shut up and likely be disciplined.

        1. “This is all acceptable between soldiers in a bar.”

          John, you are 100% correct. Why would they put a patch on the uniform saying, Ranger, unless that is what they wanted other uniformed soldiers to know?

          Anonymous the Stupid is told the proper leftist thinking. Then he uses the leftist arguments provided in opinion pieces to prove his point. He doesn’t know the difference between opinion and fact. He also doesn’t know how to think.

          1. Those fighting this seem to think that Cotton is entitled to wear a uniform with an ARmy insignia that litterally says “Ranger”.
            But that he is unable to utter the words “I am a ranger”

            Tom could in their minds legitimate waive his ranger tab in front of people – but he would not be permitted to read it aloud.

            1. It makes the Sissy, in the commenters on this blog that try to impugn Cotton, stand out loud and clear.

      2. This debate is stupid and was long over.

        More interesting is the logical and reasoning failures of those making the this claim.

        I am deliberately highlighting the microparsing or web pages as press statements.

        I am also noting that whether language from non-authoratative sources is interpreted narrowly or broadly is completely a function of ideology – not logic or reason.

        The fact that the ranger Tab is a permanent insignia and say RANGER is dispositive. There is no need to ask whether you need to be Broad or Narrow. The plain reading is obvious. In fact a Ranger Tab is MORE clear than that a captains bars identify you as a captain – even though clearly they do.

        I am not mostly dealing with the underlying debate – that is settled.

        I am addressing the hypocracy of the debator and the arguments.

        Every single bit of “evidence” offered to dispute Cotton’s claim to be a ranger requires some non authoritative text to be interpreted – either broadly or narrowly, and in most cases unnaturally.
        As an example “Ranger Qualified” can be read as “has the potential to be a ranger”. But it can also be read as “is a Ranger AND is qualified” as opposed to “Unqualified Ranger” – is a ranger but is not qualified.

        Does anyone doubt that those on the left would argue the exact opposite reading of the same paragraphs in an unauthorative source – if that suited their ideological purpose.

        I do not agree with Glenn Greenwald on some things – but he is consistent.

        He opposed the War in Iraq and Afghaistan under Bush, Under Obama, and Under Trump.
        He has written critically of the military actions of each. But he ultimately concluded of the 3 Trump was by far the lessor evil.

        Greenwald has also been attacking the deep state, starting with Clinton’s efforts to require backdoors into our phones and through the Patriot Act and to the present. Greenwald may not like Trump – but he grasps and writes about the danger that the “deep state” poses – regardless of who is president.

        The point is Greenwald is not a hypocrit, he is consistent.

        Those attacking Cotton – and frequently Trump are hypocrits. All words mean whatever is necescary to make the current ideological argument. Tomorow they can mean the opposite.

        We are told THIS is incitement to violence

        “We’re going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol-And we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. So we are going to–we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we are going to the Capitol, and we are going to try and give–the Democrats are hopeless, they are never voting for anything, not even one vote but we are going to try–give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re try–going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.

        I want to thank you all. God bless you, and God bless America. Thank you all for being here. This is incredible.

        While none of these are

        “Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.”
        Nancy Pelosi

        “I’m counting down the hours ‘til he’s gone. I plan to pull him out of there by his hair, his little hands and his feet,”
        Pelosi

        “He better have an army if he thinks he’s gonna walk down the street in New York. New Yorkers don’t want to have anything to do with him, He can’t have enough bodyguards to walk through New York City.”
        Cuomo

        “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,”
        Schumer.

        “There’s nothing to investigate about Biden or his son, and Lindsey is about to go down in a way I think he’s going to regret his whole life,”
        Biden.

        “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for”
        Clinton

        there are myriads of other examples.

        But my point is that while there are objective standards for judging Trump’s statements, there is no subjective standard by Which Trump’s statement is improper, that does not more grievously indict myriads of democrats.

        This hypocrisy is a serious problem.

        Hypocrisy obliterates Trust.

        I do not know as an example if there was sufficient fraud to flip the election. I am deeply suspicious there was.
        I do know the election was lawless, and that the scale of lawlessness with near certainty altered the election outcome.
        I strongly suspect that not only would Trump have won all key states if the election was held by actual law.
        I think he would have won them all if Mailin ballots had been subject to the same standards as they had in all prior elections including primaries only a few months earlier.

        These things matter – Governors with the assistance of courts can not change the laws, constitutions, standards and rules for each election as they please to suit their desired outcome.

        We hear democrats screaming about the popular vote – is there anyone who doubts if they were losing the popular vote they would have some other reason that the election was unfair.

        I have ranted about Fairness before. It is ALWAYS possible to argue that something is not fair.
        There is no approach to anything that everyone universally agrees is “fair”.

        This is why we have laws. We can follow the law. We can with reasonable clarity determine whether the law was followed.
        We can not acheive “farness” – because we will not ever agree on what it is.

        1. John Say wrote: “This debate is stupid and was long over.”

          Maybe so, but did he stop there? Nope.

            1. So long as you wish to embarrass yourself, I will be happy to help you do so.

              I am having fun.
              While I have already made the decisive argument,

              I think of more all the time.

              1 decisive reason is sufficient.
              But if you insist on keeping it up.
              I will be happy to point out myriads of other sufficient counter argumets of flaws in your arguments.

              You are on the dishonorable side of the argument and do not grasp it.

          1. I am having fun piling on.

            There are so many errors in your position, Yet you continue.

            The fact that the Range Uniform tab says “Ranger” should have ended this.
            That is not merely a very strong argument. It is FINAL.

            But you keep going. I have countered all your other arguments – not just a single disasterous failure,
            but that your premises are broken.

            You are trying to claim that Cotton was claiming an honor that he did not have.
            That is a stupid argument. The identy “ranger” is not an honor because you are a member of the 75th.
            It is an honor because it means you are a warrior, leader, courageous, and a hero.

            Cotton is Demonstrably all of those – with or without being assigned to the 75th.

            Cotton was NOT trying to claim to be a member of the 75th – there is no reason to do so.
            Cotton was claiming to be a warrion, leader, courageous, hero – which he is.

            Voters do not go – Oh, he was a member of the 75th – I will vote for him.
            They go – oh, he is a warrior, leader, courageous, hero – I will vote for him.

            A ranger tab has meaning – because those who earned it worked hard for it.
            And because those who do so are likely to have been or go on to be warriors, ……

            An assignment to the 75th has EXACTLY the same meaning.

            The only significant of the 75th versus the 76th is the expectation that those in the 75th are warriors, …..

            some who get a Ranger tab never have a higher military accomplishment – it is probably wise for them not to claim to be a ranger, even though they are entitled.

            Some who serve in the 75th never have a higher accomplishment – they too should keep silent arround real warriors, …

            Paper rangers exist – both among those with Ranger Tabs and Ranger Scrolls.
            Tom Cotton is obviously not one of those.

            If Tom Cotton had a ranger Tab and no other service distinctions – you would still be wrong Technically.
            But you would have some moral argument.
            If your highest accomplishment is EITHER a ranger tab or a ranger scroll – you should keep quite when among warriors.
            But that is not the debate here.

            And you keep dragging it out.

            And I will be happy to keep pointing out how you diminish your own integrity in doing so.

    2. From “Task and Purpose”:

      ‘…we received feedback from some readers voicing their agreement with the 75th Ranger Regiment’s assessment of who gets to claim the “Ranger” title, with one person writing: “I graduated from Ranger School in November 1969, and proudly wore the tab for 20 years. I would NEVER refer to myself as an ‘Army Ranger.’ That would be a total insult, by me, to all who have ever served in a Ranger unit.”’

      1. Again Capt. cotton’s uniform bears the insignia issued to him by the army that says “RANGER”

        There is no argument that will ever be superior to that.

        When the Army slaps a label on you that says Ranger – you are a Ranger.
        When it slaps captains bars on you – you are a captian.

  4. A statement from a U.S. Army Special Operations Command spokesperson:

    “The U.S. Army Ranger Course is the Army’s premier leadership school, and falls under Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Eustis, Virginia, and is open to all members of the military, regardless of whether they have served in the 75th Ranger Regiment or completed the Ranger Assessment and Selection Program. A graduate of the U.S. Army Ranger Course is Ranger qualified.

    “The 75th Ranger Regiment is a special operations unit with the mission to plan and conduct joint special military operations in support of national policies and objectives. The Regiment’s higher headquarters is the U.S. Army Special Operations Command located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The Regiment is the Army’s largest, joint special operations force. All members of the 75th Ranger Regiment have passed the Ranger Assessment Selection Program 1, 2, or both. Anyone who is serving or has served within the 75th Ranger Regiment is a U.S. Army Ranger.”

      1. “You have been debunked, you are only making things worse for you.” — John Say, the guy with all the correct answers /sarc

        lol

        Who the hell are you?

        As one soldier puts it:

        “Ranger Tab is a Trophy
        “Ranger Scroll is a way of life.”

        “Tab or Scroll: Inside the contentious debate over who’s an Army Ranger”

        “It’s settled.”

        https://taskandpurpose.com/culture/army-ranger-tab-scroll-history/

        “In conclusion: Having a Ranger tab ≠ a Ranger.”

          1. Saying it’s a “false argument” doesn’t make it so.

            “Having a Ranger tab ≠ a Ranger.”

            You may not understand the distinction, but Tom Cotton did and does…and he skirted the truth. He exaggerated. Why? Because he knew that he could get away with it, in some quarters — with guys exactly like you.

            You might read about the history of the patch — to which they should probably add a “Q” — to make things crystal clear — mostly for folks like you.

            1. “Saying it’s a “false argument” doesn’t make it so.”
              Correct, it is merely an observation of the obvious.

              Nor are your mistakes limited to This.

              You continuously misread most everything broadly or narrowly as suits you to reach false conclusions.

              You read Army web pages that say Anyone in the military litterally, when though not on those web pages the Army has many requirements to be permitted to take RASP, Including securing a recomendation. I.e. there is no “entitlement” to Take RASP,
              merely being allowed to take RASP is something that must be EARNED.

              More simply – Anyone != Anyone
              or – you can not draw the types of conclusions that you keep seeking to to from web pages or press statements.
              They are not intended to be parsed in the way that you insist on doing. They are not holy scripture, they are not military law.

              You are making a fallcious appeal to authority and you are not even citing an actual authority.

              I am sure there is actual military code regarding what insignia a soldier is entitled to wear.
              It is a serious violation of military code to wear insignia that you have not earned. It is even infraction to wear it improperly,
              or to wear your uniform improperly.

              A ranger Tab says Ranger – if you are entitled to wear it you are entitled to call yourself a ranger.
              Numerous officers and rangers have said that. The Ranger Hall of Fame has confirmed that.

              There is no exaggeration involved.

              This is almost but not perfectly analogous to being able to call yourself a Seal if you graduate from BUD/S. After you do you are allowed to wear the Trident insignia. You can call yourself a Seal. While the 75th Scroll is equivalent to being assigned to a Seal Squad.

              Like the Ranger Tab, those that pass BUD/S can wear the Trident on their uniform for the rest of their lives – no matter wear they are assigned. While Unit designations such as the 75th Scroll are only allowed on your uniform while assigned to that unit.
              If you leave the 75th you are entitled to call yourself a former ranger for the rest of your life. But your uniform will reflect your last assignment.

              Again there is certainly Military code to cover this. It is NOT determined by press releases, nor by Web pages.

              So “your argument is False”

              And again you make the same fallacious failure all the time. You presume that news articles, press releases, web pages have more authority than they actually have. And worse you read them narrowly or broadly as needed to support your claims.
              If an argument of fact depends on the subjective dynamic range in which you read what someone SAID – you have erred.

            2. “Saying it’s a “false argument” doesn’t make it so.”
              Correct, It is the error of the argument that makes it false. My statement is just observation of that fact.

              “Having a Ranger tab ≠ a Ranger.”
              False.
              Having the 75th insignia means you are currently assigned to the 75th
              Having the Ranger Tab means you graduated from RASP
              Both entitle you to call yourself a ranger.

              I would note that you are not required to pass RASP to be assigned to the 75th – the criteria for the 75th is the same as being able to begin RASP. Nearly all 75th officers and Noncoms pass RASP – it is almost a requirement.

              “You may not understand the distinction, but Tom Cotton did and does”
              I am sure Cotton does. He knows that the Ranger Tab makes him a Ranger, just as the Captains Bars make him a captain.

              “and he skirted the truth. He exaggerated.”
              Nope.

              “Why?”
              And here we once again go of the rails like a typical left wing nut.
              You have assumed a failure and now you are enegaged in mind reading to determine Motive.

              “Because he knew that he could get away with it”
              Correct – because it is true.

              “in some quarters”
              No in just about all quarters except a Few members of the 75th.
              This Scroll nonsense is ancient.
              Many not all members of the 75th wish to distinguish themselves based on assignment rather than achievement.
              That comes closer to a claim of stolen valor.

              Capt. Cotton can not merely claim to be a Ranger, but also a Warrior – check the rest of his decorations. He has earned much more than just a Ranger Tab. He has served in other elite Units, as well as earned a Combat Infantry Badge, and a Bronze Star.

              He also served in the Old Guard – that is an assignment of high honor. Every single member of the old guard is saluted by every single person in the military.

              Any member of the 75th publicly attacking Cotton’s status as a ranger is acting dishonorably.
              This is juvenile bar room behavior and it diminished Crow, not Cotton.

              It appears that Crow also served with distinction – though his public military record is thinner.
              That only makes this more offensive on Crow’s part.
              Crow is not some former enlisted man whose only claim to distinction is getting into the 75th Regiment.
              He is an officer and he earned a bronze star.
              He is expected to behave like an officer and not defame other officers.

              He is also wise enough to know from Cotton’s public service record that this is not someone you should be making claims of stolen Valor against.

              “with guys exactly like you.”
              Yup, people who draw conclusions from facts.

              “You might read about the history of the patch — to which they should probably add a “Q” — to make things crystal clear — mostly for folks like you.”
              The absence of your hypothetical Q is the proof that you are wrong.
              The patch actually says RANGER. It is MORE clear than Captains bars.
              Further is it a permanent insignia, not a unit designation.
              And the history of the rangers predates the founding of this country.

            3. I never served in the military. Though I was recruited by the naval academy and applied to Annapolis meeting all the requirements except for uncorrected eyesight – I was outside waiver able limits.

              I am a military history buff, and I was aware of the Ranger controversy long before either Crow or Cotton joined the military.
              I have also worked as a defense contractor and I am familiar with the myriads of rivalries inside the service.

              The services encourage these rivalries – so long as they do not get out of control. They raise esprit de corp.
              They want every unit to think and act as an elite unit.

              You and the press have tried to turn competitive pride within the miltary into stolen valor.

              That is both error and immoral. You should be ashamed.

              But you have no shame.

              You are busy imputing bad motives to Cotton. Cotton is a decorated Combat Veteran. He has no need to claim false valor. He has plenty of evidence of actual valor.

              Cotton chose to note his Ranger status in his campaigns because that is the easiest for ordinary people to understand.
              Most people do not understand what a CIB means, what a Bronze Star means. What selection for the Old Guard means.

              The fact that you are slandering Cotton means that you do not either.

              Again Cotton has no need to claim false valor.

              1. John Say says:

                “You and the press have tried to turn competitive pride within the miltary into stolen valor.

                That is both error and immoral. You should be ashamed.

                But you have no shame.”

                ____

                John is getting desperate and he’s down in the mud, now.

                He obviously didn’t watch Brianna Keilar’s CNN piece, because he appears to have the attention span of a gnat.

                Most reasonable people agree that this obvious wasn’t about “stolen valor.” Rather, it was about ever so carefully distorting the truth, by exaggerating.

                There was no need for Cotton to exaggerate, as JT noted, and yet he did.

                https://mackelevationforum.com/is-exaggeration-lying-in-disguise/

                “Psychologist Robert Feldman cites protecting self-esteem or maintaining social contacts as the reason people exaggerate (or in his words “lie”). However you cut it, exaggeration is playing with the truth. It’s birthed out of insecurity, is deceptive and it damages the core of all relationships.

                “The research once again shows that most people are not looking for bigger than life leaders, high charisma and bravado. The majority of us are turned off by people who exaggerate claims because after a while we see through it. We don’t trust these behaviors because history has shown that these traits, which often elevate leaders to power, are the same traits which are their undoing.

                “When leaders exaggerate, their brand and their word are at risk. The truth always squirts out.”

                1. More mind reading nonsense.

                  “John is getting desperate and he’s down in the mud, now.”
                  non-sequitur.

                  “He obviously didn’t watch Brianna Keilar’s CNN piece,”
                  False and non-sequitur.

                  “Most reasonable people agree”
                  You do not speak for others.
                  Nor does it matter.
                  Facts are not determined by consensus.

                  “that this obvious wasn’t about “stolen valor.” Rather, it was about ever so carefully distorting the truth, by exaggerating.”
                  These are the same thing. “Stolen valor” is claiming honor that you have not earned.
                  Whether by outright lies or exaggeration and distortion.

                  Regardless, your argument is not merely wrong, it is also pedantic.

                  Why does a political candidate claim to be a ranger ?
                  They do so because Ranger” to most people means, Warrior, leader, courageous, hero.

                  You can remove the Ranger tab from Cotton’s list of military decorations and it is still clear that Cotton is a Warrior, leader, courageous, hero.

                  There is no world in which Cotton is claiming honor or valor that he does not have.

                  Which means your argument devolves to your narrow meaning of ranger – serving in the 75th.

                  This is also why Crow’s public sniping is petty and slanderous.

                  All of those of you who are maligning Cotton are claiming that
                  The definition of Ranger as “serving in the 75th” is more important than “warrior, leader, courageous, hero”

                  The importance of symbols such as the CIB, Old Guard, Ranger Tab, Bronze Star is not that they tell us what unit someone served in.
                  But what thy tell us about a persons character.

                  An analoguous argtument to that of the left is “even though you won the medal of honor, you are a disreputable person because I think your public statements imply membership in a unit that you never served with”

                  You have lost this argument BADLY.
                  You have lost it on the plain facts.
                  Cotton’s uniform says “RANGER” – that should have been the end of this.

                  But you are ALSO wrong because People do not claim to be rangers to demonstrate to voters that they served in the 75th.
                  But to inform the public that the military has determined that they are Warriors, leaders, courageous, heros.

                  Cotton is that – even without a ranger tab.

                  You impune Cotton’s motives.
                  But that is s stupid argument – Only idiots think Cotton claimed to be a Ranger to inform voters that he served in some unit – even an illustrious one. He did so to inform voters that he was a warrior, leader, courageous, hero. All of which are true even without the ranger tab.

                  This is a typical left wing nut attack. This is the core of much of the nonsensical claims of lying against Trump.

                  It is claiming someone is lying because you micro parse their words and pedantically attack some imprecision.

                  It is like claiming Trump is lying about being spied on or wiretapped for idiotically pedantic reasons.
                  Or claiming that horrowitz refuted those claims because he did not use the word “spying” in a particular sentence.

                  Every single person that you cited who had a ranger tab, but did not serve in the 75th that said they would not claim to be a ranger,
                  served honorably, but did not serve with distinction – particular distinctions that would set them apart as warrior’s, leaders, courageous, heros. I would further note that many who served int he 75th served honorably but ALSO do not have the distinctions that indicate they are warriors, leaders, courageous, heros.

                  It is correct that many who have a Ranger Tab – even though entitled – should not call themselves rangers.
                  Just as many who served in the 75th – even though entitled – should not call themselves rangers.

                  “There was no need for Cotton to exaggerate”
                  That is correct, and that is just another proof that you are wrong.
                  Cotton did not claim valor he did not have.
                  He did not claim honor he did not have.

                  Your argument FAILS because all you are saying is that Cotton claimed membership in a unit that he was not in.

                  Cotton’s identification as a Ranger was not a claim to be a member of the 75th.
                  It was a claim that he was among the army’s elite – the warrior class, the leaders, the courageous, the hero’s.
                  And that claim is inarguably true.

                  The reason that your argument is shameful slanderous, dishonorable.
                  is because only dishonorable people attack the character of a person who is clearly honorable and valorous, over pedantic nonsense.

                  I told you repeatedly this fight belongs in a bar on a military base.
                  You can be a “paper ranger” whether you have a ranger tab or a Ranger scroll.
                  Cotton is obviously not a “paper ranger”.

                  ““Psychologist Robert Feldman cites protecting self-esteem or maintaining social contacts as the reason people exaggerate (or in his words “lie”). However you cut it, exaggeration is playing with the truth. It’s birthed out of insecurity, is deceptive and it damages the core of all relationships.”

                  This argument runs AGAINST YOU. How is Cotton protecting self esteem – why would someone whose uniform alone shows they are a Warrior, leader, courageous, and a hero, think that they are pumping up their reputation by falsely claiming membership in a specific unit ?

                  Let me put this a different way – lets assume that Cotton had a medal of honor in addition to the CIB, Bonxe Star and other elite unit designations – would you sill be making this argument that a Ranger Tab is not enough to call yourself a ranger ? and that Cotton was doing so to inflate his self esteem ?

                  Or a different hypothetical – would you be calling a member of the Seal Team Six Squad that got Bin Laden of being a liar if they too had a Ranger Tab and claimed to be a Ranger ?

                  Your argument only works for those who have NOT earned the honor they are purportedly exagerating.

                  “The research once again shows that most people are not looking for bigger than life leaders, high charisma and bravado.”
                  naked assertion.
                  BTW also one that if true refutes your argument.
                  If voters were not drawn to vote for rangers, no one would claim to be a ranger.

                  In fact if being a ranger did not signify Warrior, leader, courageous, and hero – no one would seek to be a ranger.

                  “The majority of us are turned off by people who exaggerate claims because after a while we see through it. We don’t trust these behaviors because history has shown that these traits, which often elevate leaders to power, are the same traits which are their undoing.”

                  That is correct. We mistrust people who claim to be a warrior, leader, courageous, hero who are not.
                  Most people pay no attention to pedantic claims such as yours.

                  “When leaders exaggerate, their brand and their word are at risk. The truth always squirts out.”

                  Again – what is the “exageration” ? Is Cotton not a Warrior, leader, courageous, hero ?

                  You claim that Cotton exagerated – is a claim that he misrepresented a unit assignment. Not that he misrepresented his character – which he clearly did not.

                  Most members of the 75th do not have a Ranger Tab, Most do not have a Combat Infantry Badge, most do not have a bronze star, most were not honored by assignment to the old guard.

                  So why would Cotton falsely claim something that merely hints at attributes he can prove directly ?

          2. ranger tab = ranger quailifed

            This is what the Army says, but John Say knows better. He always does.

            1. No I know the difference between a uniform designation that is strictly governed by military code and remarks on web sites and press releases.

              This argument is much the same as the idiocy where the PA Dept State web site claims that Act 77 specifically authorized the courts to change deadlines. When in fact Act 77 specifically barred any changes to many provisions of the law – including deadlines.

              Text on a web site or a press release does not bear the weight of the narrow or broad reading that you impose as your mood or ideology suits.

              The Ranger Tab says Ranger. If you earned the right to wear it not only can you call yourself a ranger, but the military expects other soldiers to identify you as a ranger. Further the Ranger Tab is NOT a unit designation, it is NOT an assignment. It is an earned award.

              As is typical of the left. you engage in word mangling. Attaching more significance to the less significant, and less significant to the more significant.

              Cotton’s uniform has Captain’s bar’s on it – is he not entitled to call himself a captain ?

              This argument was over long ago – and yet you stupidly persist.

              1. John Say says, about himself, apparently: “This argument was over long ago – and yet you stupidly persist.”

                Too funny.

                1. When the Army requires you to fasten an insignia to your uniform that says RANGER – the Army is saying “This person is a ranger”

                  Just as if you are entitled to wear captains bars – you are free to say “I am a capitain”

                  Again you lost this argument long ago, in several ways and still you stupidly persist.

        1. Anonymous the Stupid, you have copied from an opinion article written after the fact (Jan 25).

          You cannot, in your own words tell us why this opinion should be considered fact. You keep posting links that you do not fully understand. It is time for you to get a grip on yourself and in your own words demonstrate why what you believe is fact, not opinion.

          If you can’t put this in your own words you haven’t proven it is a fact.

          1. “If you can’t put this in your own words you haven’t proven it is a fact.”

            Trying to decide if this is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Top three for sure.

            1. Anonymous the Stupid, do you want to know why you think that way? I’ll tell you. First you need to comprehend the written word before being able to interpret what it says correctly. Then you have to be able to interpret that understanding into English. It requires critical thinking skills that you haven’t developed.

              1. Since fully one third of my income is generated through writing projects I suppose I should give up on them according to you?

                1. I wonder what writing projects those are.

                  Does you teacher in 3rd grade have you write ‘I will raise my hand before I talk’ 33% of the time you are in class?

                  1. It is pretty self evident that an enormous portion of professional writers today can not think. Many of them can not write either.

              1. Sounds like one of Anonymous the Stupid’s third grade friends that looks and acts like him. Must be an Anonymous the Stupid pretend friend.

      2. The comment was posted at the top and wasn’t a reply to “John Say.”

        While John might not be interested in “press statements.” other might be.

        1. There is nothing wrong with Press statements.

          There is a great deal wrong with treating them as biblical.

          I word note that if you insist on this word processing nonsense “Ranger Qualified” means “meets the requirements to be identified as a ranger.

          But the fact that the ranger Tab says Ranger and is an earned permanent deignator – not a unit insignia would end the debate if you were honest.

  5. For some reason this email never made it to my inbox and seemed to disappear so I am posting again. Sorry for the double posting if it ends up appearing twice. Has to do with heinous claims against Cotton’s military service and Ranger status.

    Anonymous the Stupid is unable to comprehend. Where does it say one has to be a member of the 75th to be a Ranger? You have posted this link multiple times and that still hasn’t helped your comprehension. You have used links to other sites, cut and paste, meaningless words, quotes that do not say what you think they say. You have made a Stupid mess of your arguments to impugn the integrity of a Ranger with an incredible military history.

    You do everything but go to the source. That requires brains and you are Anonymous the Stupid for a reason. You are Stupid and arrogant, a bad combination.

    One can be selected for the Ranger Hall of Fame under the following conditions:

    “The selection criteria is as unique as our Ranger history. To be eligible for selection to the Hall of Fame, a person must be deceased or have been separated, or retired from active military service for at least three years at the time of nomination. He must have served in a Ranger unit in combat ******* or be a successful graduate of the U.S. Army Ranger School.******* ”

    https://www.ranger.org/Ranger-Hall-of-Fame

    At the graduation of female Rangers Maj. Gen. Scott Miller said to the women:

    “You’ll leave Victory Pond today with a small piece of cloth on your shoulder, but more importantly, you carry the title of Ranger from here on out”

    Anonymous the Stupid, what do you think “YOU CARRY THE TITLE OF RANGER FROM HERE ON OUT” means? Are you too Stupid to comprehend that simple sentence?

    I don’t care that you don’t know what you are talking about and provide links that prove you to lack reading comprehension skills. Stupidity can be addressed. What cannot be addressed is your arrogant and heinous desire to impugn the integrity of anyone you happen to disagree with. In this case you did it to a man who served with honor in combat in the military while receiving multiple medals. What that man wipes his butt with has more character than you will ever have.

  6. Power Line has the full explanation of Cottons claims, vs what Slate reported.

    In short, The Rangers say that every graduate of ranger school is a Ranger.

    Cotton never claimed to have be deployed as a Ranger.

    Go to Powerline, all the links and quotes are there and you can reach your own informed opinion.

    At the very least, Slates story is dishonest and lies by omission.

  7. This isn’t the first time:

    “GOP Senate hopeful says he’s an ‘Army Ranger,’ but Army says he’s ‘Ranger-qualified’”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/22/gop-senate-hopeful-says-hes-an-army-ranger-army-says-hes-ranger-qualified/

    “The U.S. Army Ranger Course is the Army’s premier leadership school, and falls under Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Eustis, Virginia, and is open to all members of the military, regardless of whether they have served in the 75th Ranger Regiment or completed the Ranger Assessment and Selection Program. A graduate of the U.S. Army Ranger Course is Ranger qualified.

    “The 75th Ranger Regiment is a special operations unit with the mission to plan and conduct joint special military operations in support of national policies and objectives. The Regiment’s higher headquarters is the U.S. Army Special Operations Command located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The Regiment is the Army’s largest, joint special operations force. All members of the 75th Ranger Regiment have passed the Ranger Assessment Selection Program 1, 2, or both. Anyone who is serving or has served within the 75th Ranger Regiment is a U.S. Army Ranger.”

    Not a partisan issue/problem, apparently, as OLLY has noted, downstream:

    “Bolduc, Messner trade barbs on military service”

    Staff report May 9, 2020 Updated May 10, 2020

    “The two Republicans competing to take on Sen. Jeanne Shaheen sparred over military records last week.”

    https://www.unionleader.com/news/politics/national/bolduc-messner-trade-barbs-on-military-service/article_75273e0f-7b5e-567c-bf7d-6b7dd504420f.html

    1. It is quite common for junior members of elite services – especially those who have not seen combat to spar over whose d!ck is bigger.

      The Ranger Tab says RANGER – not RANGER QUALIFIED.

      If you can wear the Tab you are a ranger.

      This is nonsense no matter who is squabling over it.

      I would further note given Cotton’s military record this is a losing battle for those on the left.

      Cotton is a warrior and a decorated combat veteran. He did not go from earning his ranger Tab to a Quartermaster battalion.
      He fought with distinction in elite units.

      1. Jon Say says: “It is quite common for junior members of elite services – especially those who have not seen combat to spar over whose d!ck is bigger.”

        __________

        Brigadier General Don Boldoc isn’t a “junior member.”

        https://www.concordmonitor.com/Corky-Messner-versus-Shaheen-36235911

        Excerpt:

        In point of fact, Messner rose to the rank of captain before leaving the Army in 1984 to attend law school. During his military service, his campaign materials claim, “Corky became an Army Ranger,” “led his men into our battle against socialism,” and “served abroad guarding the Berlin Wall during the Cold War.”

        It is unclear why the Berlin Wall needed guarding, as the communist East Germans who built it did so effectively by shooting anyone who tried to escape over it to the West. And the U.S. military is not known to engage in political tasks like fighting socialism.

        Messner’s claim to have served as an elite Army Ranger earned him the first two of six Pinocchios in July from the Washington Post’s fact-checker, Glenn Kessler. In the Army’s view, Kessler reported, completing the challenging Ranger School as Messner did makes you “Ranger-qualified,” but to actually become a Ranger, one must also serve in a Ranger unit. Messner did not.

        To civilians, this may seem a small difference. Even Rangers are sometimes of two minds on this. But in the military, precision in describing one’s service record is a point of honor – one observed by Messner’s main primary contender, retired Brig. Gen. Don Bolduc. A New Hampshire native who served 10 tours in Afghanistan and won five Bronze Stars and two Purple Hearts, Bolduc also completed Ranger School, but did not serve as a Ranger. He was careful to call himself “Ranger-qualified.”

        Messner earned the Post’s next four Pinocchios on July 31 – the maximum the newspaper awards for any one fib – for boasting at a Republican event about the good works of the Messner Foundation in supporting underprivileged students. -Concord Monitor

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_C._Bolduc

        In Jon Say’s mind, it’s about “whose dick is bigger.” For many people, it’s about basic honesty. And for those who don’t care about the size of their dicks, there is no need to exaggerate.

        1. Anonymous – you complain about my long posts and then you cut and past long drivel were a link would suffice.

          While you are free to do so – isn’t that extremely hypocritical ?

          Worse you are not even able to make your own arguments.

          Nor can I make sense out of why you think what you cut and pasted is consequential.

          Wow, two republicans had a similar contest many years ago. And some fact checker using a ouji board picked winners and losers.

          Whether you like this or not – this is an OLD debate. Those who earn a ranger tab – that is the right to wear on their uniform an insignia that identifies them as a Ranger, constantly claim they are rangers. While those who are members of the 75th ranger batalion who are entitled to wear a 75th Ranger scroll AND the Ranger tab as well a beret assert ONLY they are rangers.

          This has been going on forever.

          What is rare is that idiots attack someone with the distinguished military Service that Cotton has.

            1. So don’t listen.

              Put your fingers in your ears and scream “I can’t hear you”

              Do whatever you want.

              But you can not expect that you can spray nonsense unanswered.

              Today I heard Susan Rice from the White House.

              I have no idea what she said. I do not care. Rice lied – to everyone. A big lie.
              I have no interest in anything she has to say.

              That people like you continue to defend those like her is unconscionable.

              I am not interested your “whataboutism”.

              What has anyone on the right said that is on par with the the Lies of those like Schiff or Rice.

              You want to argue about Cotton – but you start from a huge deficit. You, the media, the left, democrats have destroyed your credibility.

              Apparently now the National Guard must remain in DC until April – or longer ? Forever ?

              I guess the next “endless war” or the left is in our nations capital.

              What you have done to the country looks more like China every day.

              Is the Mall the next Tianamen square ?

        2. Does the uniform patch that the army allows Sen. Cotton to wear say “Quartermaster” ?

          No it says “Ranger” – not “Ranger Qualified”.

          This is a stupid argument that never should have made it outside of a bar and you lost.

          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Ranger_Tab.svg/1200px-Ranger_Tab.svg.png

          Yes, it is a matter of public integrity – claiming that someone who is entitled to call themselves a ranger may not is defamation.
          It is public lying.

        3. During his military service, his campaign materials claim, “Corky became an Army Ranger,” “led his men into our battle against socialism,” and “served abroad guarding the Berlin Wall during the Cold War.”

          It is intentionally ambigous. But he never said he served as a Ranger. He completed Ranger School (that means he EARNED the designation of Ranger. He completed Ranger school and led his men…. All true although it is written to let you believe he led his fellow Rangers. But he is a Ranger.

          1. It was intended to get your vote. Like all campaign adds.

            Is there are really significant distinction between being a ranger leading a platoon of rangers or being a ranger leading a platoon of Screaming Eagles ?

  8. The weird thing is, if Joe Biden suddenly announced he identifies as a woman, the Left would crown him the first female American President. But when Senator Cotton claims to have served in the military as an Army Ranger, they will spend eternity picking the fly $hit out of the pepper to discredit his honorable service to this country.

    1. Excellent.

      Sen. Cotton identifies as a ranger – does the left require us to respect peoples chosen identities ?

      Sen. Cotton should list ranger as one of his prefered pronouns.

      This is a stupid fight for the left. The distinction being made is petty. It has more to do with the patches on can wear on their uniform – and Cotton has plenty of those.

    2. It’s very common for people to be mislead when someone says he has a bronze star, leaving people to believe this is one hell of fighter. It seems the receipts never bother to say , no i dont have V for combat. They just let those who don’t know assume they are the real deal of combat. Notice how no one says mr,cotton doesn’t have the V. I wonder why ?

      1. Even mentioning the other citations that Cotton has would destroy this stupid argument.

        Cotton could as easily have said “I was a screaming eagle” and it would have had the same impact on voters.
        Cotton is a warrior. He is entitled to that respect.

        There are real warriors entitled to more respect than Cotton – Cotton has not claimed to be them, and they have not pissed on Cotton.

        Thus far there is no evidence that Rep. Crow is as much of a warrior as Cotton.

        While no one should piss on Crow’s service in the 75th, and he got a bronze star for something. he does not appear to have a fraction of the citations that Cotton does.

        Crow’s fixation on Beret’s is real thin – cloths do not make the man.

        Real soldiers know what each and every citation on your uniform actually means.

      2. I wonder why ?

        I don’t. Senator Cotton served this nation with honor. The majority of those that do will live the remainder of their lives in relative obscurity and no one will question their fitreps, awards and medals. But in our current age of rage, if you dare to be a conservative Republican and you pop up on the cancel culture’s radar, you will be forced to defend your military record from initial entry to discharge (resignation). The fact is Senator Cotton is a rising star for conservatives and the Left wants to do to him what enemy combatants failed to do.

        1. OLLY says:January 28, 2021 at 3:22 PM:

          “The fact is Senator Cotton is a rising star for conservatives and the Left wants to do to him what enemy combatants failed to do.”

          ___________

          Nonsense, OLLY.

          Two Republicans in a primary race:

          “GOP Senate hopeful says he’s an ‘Army Ranger,’ but Army says he’s ‘Ranger-qualified’”

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/22/gop-senate-hopeful-says-hes-an-army-ranger-army-says-hes-ranger-qualified/

          1. Your fact check i quite obviously Bunk.

            “Anyone in the military can attend the Ranger School, whether or not they served in the Ranger Regiment.”
            Incorrect. There is a long list of requirements just to get into Ranger school. Most applicants do not get in.
            Most who get in do not pass.

            “Army Ranger School is known as one of the toughest military training schools in the world, selecting soldiers based on mental and physical capabilities and submitting them to rigorous and exhaustive training. Still, for a soldier, admittance to and success in Ranger School is the epitome of military service. Only about 25 percent of accepted candidates make it through all three phases and earn the coveted Ranger Tab, according to the U.S. Army.”

            Merely getting into Ranger school is a significant accomplishment, much less passing.

              1. I am talking about your inability to comprehend facts.

                As noted many many times – the Ranger tab says “Ranger” – not “Ranger Qualified” not “Quartermaster”.
                In a world were words have clear meaning – that would be the end of this.

                But keep up you 2 minutes of hate against Sen. Cotton.

                Rep. Crow has lost this contest and dishonored his service.
                He can say whatever he wants inside a bar,
                When he steps up to a bully pulpit to defame a distinguished soldier he dishonors himself.

                As best as I can tell Capt. Crow’s services was significantly less distinguished than Capt. Cotton’s.
                But maybe Crow’s wikipedia page is not uptodate, or maybe Rep. Crow is ashamed of Capt. Crow’s service.
                I do not know.

                What I do know is that Rep. Crow has not demonstrated the distinguished service necescary to sit in judgement of Cpt. Cotton.
                Nor have you or any of those on the left.

                But keep it up – make fools of your self.

                  1. All you are doing is making obvious the failure of your semantic nonsense argument

                    If you are going to try to apply ridiculous semantic precision in one place you are obligated to elsewhere.

                    Yes The army SAYS anyone can ask to go to Ranger school.
                    But that is FALSE. Put simply you can not apply with the precision you attempt things from websites and press releases.

                    Not anyone can get in. There are numerous requirements. If you do not meet them, you will not go to Ranger School.
                    Live by semantics DIE by semantics.

                    No Many do NOT attend. The average class size is 350, the max is 400.
                    Only 20 ranger class slots are alloted to the Marines and only 6 to the Airforce.

                    It also appears that you can be a member of the 75th regiment WITHOUT attending RASP.

                    In that case you can wear the 75th Batallion Scroll But NOT the Ranger Tab.

                    In fact It appears most members of the 75th did NOT attend RASP, RASP is top heavy with OFFICERS.

                    1. Do you think this contradicts me ?

                      All you have is Army pages saying that it is EASIER to be a member of the 75th Ranger Regiment than to earn a Ranger Tab.

                      Is the argument that you wish to make

                      “Sen. Cotton can not claim to be a Ranger, because he is a MORE ELITE WARRIOR” ?

                      All rangers are not entitled to wear the Ranger Tab.
                      Everyone who is entitled to wear the Ranger Tab is not a member of the 75th.

                      Both are rangers.

                    2. A statement from a U.S. Army Special Operations Command spokesperson:

                      “The U.S. Army Ranger Course is the Army’s premier leadership school, and falls under Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Eustis, Virginia, and is open to all members of the military, regardless of whether they have served in the 75th Ranger Regiment or completed the Ranger Assessment and Selection Program. A graduate of the U.S. Army Ranger Course is Ranger qualified.

                      “The 75th Ranger Regiment is a special operations unit with the mission to plan and conduct joint special military operations in support of national policies and objectives. The Regiment’s higher headquarters is the U.S. Army Special Operations Command located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The Regiment is the Army’s largest, joint special operations force. All members of the 75th Ranger Regiment have passed the Ranger Assessment Selection Program 1, 2, or both. Anyone who is serving or has served within the 75th Ranger Regiment is a U.S. Army Ranger.”

            1. John, of course, has take a quote out of context, but that’s hardly a surprise to some of us:

              From the W. Post article:

              ‘Simply put, there’s the Ranger School, and there’s the Ranger Regiment, a Special Operations unit. Anyone in the military can attend the Ranger School, whether or not they served in the Ranger Regiment. The Ranger School is an intense 62-day small-unit tactics course for dismounted infantry that only about 40 percent manage to complete. If a soldier makes it through the course, he or she earns the right to wear a uniform “tab” — a small cloth arch — that reads “Ranger.”’

              John again:

              “Merely getting into Ranger school is a significant accomplishment, much less passing.”

              I don’t think that anyone is claiming that it isn’t. The Washington Post certainly doesn’t make that claim.

              1. The Wapo article is WRONG. Anyone in the military can NOT attend Ranger school. There are numerous requirements, most can not qualify to apply, most aplicants are rejected, and most accepted fail to graduate.

                Given that WaPo can not get the basic right – they can not be trusted on anything else.

                What is new – it is WaPo afterall. You should be ashamed for citing such a poorly written article.
                Especially when the articles author makes the same semantic error that you are accusing Sen. Cotton of.

                Anyone in the military can NOT attend ranger school.

                BUT Anyone who has earned a ranger tab can call themselves a Ranger.

                As noted repeatedly – an Official Army insignia which can not be worn without being earned and awarded identifies the wearer as a “RANGER”.

                Only an idiot would try to claim that someone can wear an Earned insignia that identifies them as RANGER but can not Say “I am a Ranger”.

                No amount of poor journalism can change that.

                Rep. Crow has shamed himself.

                You have no shame.

                  1. Linking the same bogus comment of your over and over does not change anything.

                    Your semantic argument has failed repeatedly.

                    If as you claim some press statement by the military that a Ranger Tab means “Ranger Qualified”. Not “Ranger” as the tab says,
                    is determinative – then why is it that many in the 75th did not attend RASP and are not permitted to wear the ranger Tab ?
                    Are they Ranger “unqualified” ?

                    If we can take this citations you assert from the military with the precision you demand – beyond their plain meaning and the even more plain meaning of the Ranger Tab.

                    Then why is it that Anyone in the military can NOT get into RASP ?
                    There are numerous requirements to get accepted to RASP.
                    Yet the reading of the web page you link clearly is that ANYONE can go to RASP.

                    Why must we apply your semantics to one and not the other ?

                    You have thoroughly lost this battle.

                    You have done so done so for reasons that were obvious from the start.

                    You have elevated internal military rivalries into gods sacred law.
                    You have done the same with Army press releases and web pages which were never written to be legally precise.

                    I beleive at the time of Cotton’s campaign – and possibly even now, he is subject to military regulations regarding uniforms and identifications. As are many others.

                    Do you have an example of a person earning a Ranger Tab being court maritaled for saying they were a ranger ?

                    I would note we went through a version of this with Lt. Col. Vindman – who wore his Dress uniform on numerous occasions in which he was not permitted to do so.

                    Uniform requirements as well as how soldiers can be addressed are part of the military code – they are not set by web pages and press statements.

                    1. John Say wrote: “I would note we went through a version of this with Lt. Col. Vindman – who wore his Dress uniform on numerous occasions in which he was not permitted to do so.”

                      Do you have something to back that up?

                      https://www.stripes.com/news/dress-greens-out-dress-blues-in-for-army-1.82189

                      “The greens and whites are being phased out over the next six years, with the Army mandating dress blues as the exclusive Class A uniform by 2014.”

                    2. There was a big fight over this.

                      There is a FALSE claim that Vindman ws required to wear a uniform particularly a Dress uniform.

                      One of the reasons this is demonstrably false is that Vindman testified before congress several times previously – Out of Uniform.

                      He was detached to the NSC. He wore a business suit. When testifying to congress previously he wore a business suit.

                      But when testifying on TV he wore his dress uniform.

                      It is absolutely true that if he was before congress testifying for the military he would be in uniform.

                      But he was not. He was testifying as someone from the NSC.

                    3. Ranger tab. Ranger qualified.

                      “Tom’s military decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, Combat Infantry Badge and Ranger Tab.”

                      “Tom completed combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where he served with the 101st Airborne and a Provincial Reconstruction Team.”

                      To his credit — and wisely — he doesn’t make the claim that he’s a U.S. Army Ranger on his website.

                1. I’d like to see the loser reporters pass jump school let alone the ranger course. they are so fake in this story we should just drop it and quit embarassing them

                  they are a joke and there is bigger quarry afoot

                  LIKE BILLIONAIRE HEDGE FUND MANAGES

                  Sal Sar

            2. “Your fact check i quite obviously Bunk.”

              So says John Say, and he goes on to say that it is incorrect that anyone in the military can attend Ranger School.

              What doe the Army say?

              https://www.goarmy.com/ranger/your-questions-about-serving.html#tab

              “Ranger School is the Army’s premier leadership school, and is open to all members of the military, regardless of whether they have served in the 75th Ranger Regiment or completed RASP.”

              So the Army says that Ranger School is “open to all members of the military.”

              “Upon successful completion of the Ranger Assessment & Selection Program (RASP) 1 or 2, we will send you to the appropriate schools in order to serve in the Ranger Regiment. For some duty positions, you will not serve in the regiment until you successfully complete Ranger School. If you are unable to complete the course, you may be dropped from the regiment and sent to serve elsewhere.”

              So while many may “attend,” the elimination rate is high, as the Washington Post clearly states.

              1. What the Army says is right on the insignia on Capt. Cotton’s uniform.

                It says RANGER.

                Cotton is entitled to wear on his uniform by the strict rules of the military a specific insignia that identifies him as RANGER.

                There is no gag order that prohibits Cotton from describing himself exactly as the Army insignia on his uniform does.

                Your argument is BAD semantics nonsense.

                It would be bad if Cotton had earned his Ranger Tab and never accomplished anything else.
                But he had a distinguished military career. He has a Bronze Star, a CIB, and was a member of the distinguished Old Guard.
                As well as other citations.

                  1. So Cotton arguably has MORE basis to call himself a ranger than members of the 75th.

                    A ranger tab is an accomplishment.
                    Membership in the 75th is an assignment.

                    The criteria a soldier must meet to be assigned tot he 75th are almost as high as those required to START RASP.

                    Officers in the 75th must complete RASP but enlisted men are not required to.

              2. Anonymous the Stupid is unable to comprehend. Where does it say one has to be a member of the 75th to be a Ranger? You have posted this link multiple times and that still hasn’t helped your comprehension. You have used links to other sites, cut and paste, meaningless words, quotes that do not say what you think they say. You have made a Stupid mess of your arguments to impugn the integrity of a Ranger with an incredible military history.

                You do everything but go to the source. That requires brains and you are Anonymous the Stupid for a reason. You are Stupid and arrogant, a bad combination.

                One can be selected for the Ranger Hall of Fame under the following conditions:

                “The selection criteria is as unique as our Ranger history. To be eligible for selection to the Hall of Fame, a person must be deceased or have been separated, or retired from active military service for at least three years at the time of nomination. He must have served in a Ranger unit in combat ******* or be a successful graduate of the U.S. Army Ranger School.******* ”

                https://www.ranger.org/Ranger-Hall-of-Fame

                At the graduation of female Rangers Maj. Gen. Scott Miller said to the women:

                “You’ll leave Victory Pond today with a small piece of cloth on your shoulder, but more importantly, you carry the title of Ranger from here on out”

                Anonymous the Stupid, what do you think “YOU CARRY THE TITLE OF RANGER FROM HERE ON OUT” means? Are you too Stupid to comprehend that simple sentence?

                I don’t care that you don’t know what you are talking about and provide links that prove you to lack reading comprehension skills. Stupidity can be addressed. What cannot be addressed is your arrogant and heinous desire to impugn the integrity of anyone you happen to disagree with. In this case you did it to a man who served with honor in combat in the military while receiving multiple medals. What that man wipes his butt with has more character than you will ever have.

        2. Look at the nonsense attacks – Cotton is also attacked for being a Nazi white supremacist.

          Because – well all republicans and half the country are Nazi white supremacists and nascent domestic terrorists.

          I thought that Cotton’s argument to use the Insurrection act was a bit too strong – and then the left went full bull goose loon over the insurrection act because somebody stole Pelosi’s laptop and members of congress almost ended up having to rub elbows with the Prols.

Leave a Reply