I am pointing out that many medals are given under very questionable circumstances (such as John Kerry's Silver Star) and that medals are often given for political reasons rather than for what actually happened in the field.
There were 20 Medals of Honor that were given for alleged undaunted courage and bravery in literally massacring nearly 200 women and children in an open field. Those medals were purely political and were awarded not for bravery, but to cover up an embarrassing incident. No one was charged for gunning down children in the back, but instead everyone was given a hero's pat on the back.
The political climate at that time was such that people like General Sherman and L Frank Baum (the wizard of oz) were advocating complete extermination of the native Americans as late as the end of the 19th Century. This thread was started as a veiled attempt to undermine the contributions of a Chaplain in the war effort who had been given a bronze star for his efforts. A lot of people complained that only battlefield contributions should be given such a medal. But when it comes down to it, there are a lot of battlefield medals that were either not earned or given for the wrong reasons.
The military hasn't changed too much from what it was 100 years ago. There is still a lot of politics involved in the awarding of medals and commissions. As far as I know the medals awarded for the Wounded Knee Massacre are still on the books. The fact that they were not rescinded implies that the Wounded Knee soldiers were as brave and honorable as the 7 soldiers who received them for their efforts on Omaha Beach.
It's both good and lousy to talk about this stuff but as your comments have illustrated, the only people that will ever know what really was worthwhile are the ones who were there.