Kerry's Medals (Rant Alert)

[Sharpieman]

I'm absolutely disgusted and enraged with the amount of media coverage on this issue of whether John Kerry threw his medals or ribbons during an anti-war rally 1/3 of a century ago. It sickens me. It’s not an issue whatsoever. I mean who actually cares whether this guy threw a medal or a ribbon in the first place. Medals and ribbons don't mean much at all. What matters is that he served his country and volunteered to risk his life for his country. And now people have to get on his case about throwing medals away? I can't believe that he actually responded to those questions and dignified them with an answer.

[SackAttack]

I don't think the issue, if I understand it right, is that he threw them. If I recall, he actually threw the ribbons, and kept the medals, which is a little bit two-faced.

There's also the whole thing with him trying to hold up his Vietnam experience as making him the better candidate, while at the same time having participated in these anti-war rallies.

It isn't so much whether or not it IS two-faced or duplicitious, as it is the appearance of insincerity.

[Vegas Vic]

I don't think the issue, if I understand it right, is that he threw them. If I recall, he actually threw the ribbons, and kept the medals, which is a little bit two-faced.

Speaking of two-faced, how about Dick Cheney? (from FoxNews.com):

Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey blasted Vice President Dick Cheney as "the lead chicken hawk" against Sen. John Kerry and criticized other Republicans for questioning the Democratic presidential contender's military credentials.

In a scathing speech, Lautenberg said he did not think politicians should be judged by whether they had military service but that "when those who didn't serve attack the heroism of those who did, I find it particularly offensive."

Lautenberg pointed to a poster with a drawing of a chicken in a military uniform that defined a chicken hawk as "a person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it."

"They shriek like a hawk, but they have the backbone of the chicken," he said.

"We know who the chicken hawks are. They talk tough on national defense and military issues and cast aspersions on others. When it was their turn to serve where were they? AWOL -- that's where they were," Lautenberg said.

"And now the chicken hawks are cackling about Senator John Kerry. And the lead chicken hawk against Senator Kerry is the vice president of the United States -- Vice President Cheney.

"He was in Missouri this week claiming that Senator Kerry was not up to the job of protecting this nation. What nerve. Where was Dick Cheney when that war was going on?" Lautenberg said.

Cheney did not serve in the U.S. military. Lautenberg quoted a Cheney interview from the 1980s that he had "other priorities" in the '60s than military service.

Lautenberg compared Cheney's remarks with the GOP campaign against former Sen. Max Cleland, a Georgia Democrat whose defeat in 2002 has been a sore spot to many in his party.

"Max Cleland lost three limbs in Vietnam and they shamed him so that he was pushed out of office because he was portrayed as weak on defense," Lautenberg said. "Where do they come off with that kind of stuff?"

Cleland, an Army officer in the war, has been a key player in the Kerry campaign, delivering speeches praising the candidate, reaching out to fellow veterans and attacking Bush.

In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, Cleland offered a harsh critique of Bush, comparing the president's Air National Guard service during the Vietnam War with Kerry's tour of duty in the Navy.

"He has not suffered," Cleland said of Bush. "He has not sacrificed for his country, and he doesn't understand those who have."

In the Senate, Lautenberg also criticized Bush for declaring an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 2003.

He showed a picture of Bush giving a speech on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln with the banner "Mission Accomplished" in the background.

"The mission accomplished was to get a picture that could be used in an election campaign," Lautenberg said.

Since that speech, 587 U.S. troops have died in Iraq, including 415 in hostile action.

And Lautenberg criticized the president for saying "bring 'em on" to Iraqi insurgents.

"I served in Europe in World War II," he said. "The last thing I wanted to hear from my commander in chief, or my local commander, is dare the enemy to launch attacks against us."

[Ksyrup]

Isn't this all a bit silly - on both sides? Isn't the Democrat 2004 playbook borrowing from the Republican 1992 playbook, which was doubtlessly a hand-me-down from some other political generation?

I don't think that it is a prerequisite to be Commander-In-Chief that one serve in the military. If it's that big of a deal, amend the Constitution. I also don't think that having served, makes you immune from criticism - even from those who didn't. Responding in that way seems, to me, to be purposely avoiding the issue being raised.

But it's politics, so that's to be expected.

None of these issues should be make-or-break on either side. If you want to infer something about a person's character from all of this, fine, but if the manner in which Bush served, or the whole atrocities/medals/protest thing from Kerry's side, makes you vote against one of them, that seems like a pretty big over-reaction to a whole lot of nothing, IMO.

[Maple Leafs]

"Max Cleland lost three limbs in Vietnam and they shamed him so that he was pushed out of office because he was portrayed as weak on defense," Lautenberg said. "Where do they come off with that kind of stuff?"

Cleland, an Army officer in the war, has been a key player in the Kerry campaign, delivering speeches praising the candidate, reaching out to fellow veterans and attacking Bush.
I find Max Cleland to be one of the most intriguing figures in this campaign, and in recent American political history. I can't think of anyone who's been portrayed in such different lights by supporters of either party, and the debate over whether the Democrats were "spinning" his war history was fascinating.

[Bubba Wheels]

Cheney is fulfilling the classic role of the VP Candidate: Axe-man for the Presidential Candidate. Anyone not realizing this needs to look back a little to see how it works. Al Gore calling Clinton "The Best President in American history!" That type of thing. One of the reasons Cheney IS VP is probably because the Bush's learned with the Quayle disaster how an ineffective VP can cost you. This is good news for us GOPers. Cheney is a political heavyweight in every sense of the word, and his drawing fire allows Bush to concentrate on the high points and get the job done. But again, this is just SOP for ANY political candidate, especially an incumbent. Just how its done.

[MrBug708]

I'm absolutely disgusted and enraged with the amount of media coverage on this issue of whether John Kerry threw his medals or ribbons during an anti-war rally 1/3 of a century ago. It sickens me. It’s not an issue whatsoever. I mean who actually cares whether this guy threw a medal or a ribbon in the first place. Medals and ribbons don't mean much at all. What matters is that he served his country and volunteered to risk his life for his country. And now people have to get on his case about throwing medals away? I can't believe that he actually responded to those questions and dignified them with an answer.


:rolleyes:

[Ryche]

Serving in the military does not exempt a politician from being questioned on their defense policies. Nor does not serving. Military service and defense policy are almost completely different issues that should be considered on their own merits.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Maybe he was sick of watching his fellow soldiers he served with get killed needlessly in a conflict that the United States had no chance of winning without a complete committment to winning.

If anyone should be called two-faced it was McNamara who talked out of both sides of his mouth for 9 years.

[miked]

It's called misdirection...good work by the Bush team. Try to make the issue about something stupid so Kerry gets caught up defending something that really in the end has no meaning. It's even made the press question him about it. Now Bush doesn't have to try and defend the skyrocketing jobless rate, the imploding deficit, the war-mess, or any of his other messes.

Separately, I can't believe we elected a guy who can't say the word "nuclear" and spends more time on his ranch than in the White House.

[Ksyrup]

Separately, I can't believe we elected a guy who can't say the word "nuclear" and spends more time on his ranch than in the White House.
It's comments like this that are really aggravating and have absolutely no merit in a substantive discussion whatsoever. I mean, I can't believe we elected JFK, considering he couldn't properly pronounce the sentence, "I parked my car."

What's next? Maybe we should have the candidates say out loud the name of the professional football team in Jacksonville, and whoever says, "Jag-wires" is automatically discredited as a legitimate candidate. :rolleyes:

[Bubba Wheels]

Lefties call EVERY GOP President "dummy, stupid, ect..." Liberals just cannot believe that being the smartest people in the world nobody listens to them.

[Cuckoo]

You were doing pretty well until about mid-way through, Mike. Here I'll trim it for you, leaving the part that's right on the money and cutting the part that's drivel. :D

It's called misdirection...good work by the Bush team. Try to make the issue about something stupid so Kerry gets caught up defending something that really in the end has no meaning. It's even made the press question him about it.

Now, aren't you much happier. :p

[NoMyths]

The most fascinating thing for me is how, in a supposedly rabid patriotic climate right now, folks that would identify themselves as fervent patriots are eager to tear down John Kerry, a man who is a decorated war hero for his service to the country. For those of you who get all weepy about Pat Tillman, you need to more strongly consider Kerry--another example of a person who had a life of privelege lined up and chose to volunteer for America's then-current war in order to fight for the country. It's okay to disagree with his politics, but questioning his patriotism is ignorant and offensive--not just to him, but to all veterans who returned from our wars to discover that folks would still find demean their honorable service to America.

Or, more personally: I know what my father went through to earn his Bronze Star in Vietnam, and I have nothing but respect for Kerry for the service he did in what few would argue was a necessary and just war.

[Cuckoo]

Wow, I agree with NoMyths. I'm... having... a hard time........ breathing... :)

[Cuckoo]

DOLA - With all the things that there are to tear down John Kerry about, I think it's absolutely insane to jump on this. That said, I do believe that it's a solid political strategy in that it keeps Kerry from making the news talking about Bush's weaknesses as well. Once again, we'll get a debate that barely even addresses the issues it seems.

[miked]

You were doing pretty well until about mid-way through, Mike. Here I'll trim it for you, leaving the part that's right on the money and cutting the part that's drivel. :D



Now, aren't you much happier. :p

Much better. Gracias. I don't really care about any of it. I just want a job and some money. As happy as I was to get my big $300 check a few years ago when he took office, I'd much rather have my grants instead.

[gstelmack]

It's comments like this that are really aggravating and have absolutely no merit in a substantive discussion whatsoever. I mean, I can't believe we elected JFK, considering he couldn't properly pronounce the sentence, "I parked my car."

What's next? Maybe we should have the candidates say out loud the name of the professional football team in Jacksonville, and whoever says, "Jag-wires" is automatically discredited as a legitimate candidate. :rolleyes:
One of my least-favorite political moments was the whole Dan Quayle "potatoe" fiasco. It's a valid spelling, it's the one that was on the card the teacher was using for the exercise, and yet he can't live it down to this day...

[Shepp]

The questions about the medal throwing has nothing to do with military service. It has to do with Seator Kerry being willing to change is postition and story to help advance him politically. There is no doubt that John Kerry served his country and deserved the medals that he was awarded. The problem is that he says he threw the medals over the wall because he was in protest over the war and that he did not want to be associated with the these military awards. Now he says, I served in Veitnam and look at the hero I was and all of the awards I have won. So witch was it? It looks to me like he'll tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear.

[Cuckoo]

So witch was it?

Now, John Kerry as a witch explains a lot... :D

[rkmsuf]

The questions about the medal throwing has nothing to do with military service. It has to do with Seator Kerry being willing to change is postition and story to help advance him politically. There is no doubt that John Kerry served his country and deserved the medals that he was awarded. The problem is that he says he threw the medals over the wall because he was in protest over the war and that he did not want to be associated with the these military awards. Now he says, I served in Veitnam and look at the hero I was and all of the awards I have won. So witch was it? It looks to me like he'll tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear.

You have to factor in the climate of the times back then. After all these years he has every right to look back and be proud of serving his country even if at the time he didn't agree with the war.

As far as I'm concerned he can do whatever he wants with the medals; wear em, throw em, feed em to a trout.

[gstelmack]

Now, John Kerry as a witch explains a lot... :DDoes he really weigh less than a duck?

[Ksyrup]

You have to factor in the climate of the times back then. After all these years he has every right to look back and be proud of serving his country even if at the time he didn't agree with the war.
I agree with this. However, it seems to me that the "climate of the times back then" actually works against him, considering what he did after the fact. People took stands against all sorts of things in protest back then, and I have no doubt that most of them damn well meant it. What happened here seems to suggest that he was only participating in the protest in a superficial way. I would think someone really behind such a protest would have thrown his medals away without thinking twice about it. It's called having the conviction of your beliefs.

This is the equivalent of people protesting the treatment of animals by burning their fur coats, only after the fact, you find out that one of the most vocal opponents actually burned a faux-fur, and has the original hanging in her closet today. You think knowledge of that fact doesn't affect the way people view that person?

That's got nothing to do with his service, though. I admire the fact that he served this country. To me, that and the numerous character issues cancel each other out, so I'm left with the fact that he's a Liberal, which means - no vote from me.

[rkmsuf]

I agree with this. However, it seems to me that the "climate of the times back then" actually works against him, considering what he did after the fact. People took stands against all sorts of things in protest back then, and I have no doubt that most of them damn well meant it. What happened here seems to suggest that he was only participating in the protest in a superficial way. I would think someone really behind such a protest would have thrown his medals away without thinking twice about it. It's called having the conviction of your beliefs.

This is the equivalent of people protesting the treatment of animals by burning their fur coats, only after the fact, you find out that one of the most vocal opponents actually burned a faux-fur, and has the original hanging in her closet today. You think knowledge of that fact doesn't affect the way people view that person?

That's got nothing to do with his service, though. I admire the fact that he served this country. To me, that and the numerous character issues cancel each other out, so I'm left with the fact that he's a Liberal, which means - no vote from me.

It's really hard now to try and judge someone's motives at the time. To question his conviction is dubious just because he kept some.

[Bubba Wheels]

What is not talked about enough: Bill Clinton was an out and out draft-dodger. Documented. Clinton ran against a bona-fide World War 2 War hero, maimed for life, in Bob Dole. How come being a war hero to democrats is suddenly so important now when it didn't count for diddly in that election? And I really don't expect an answer (cause there is none!)

[Suicane75]

The questions about the medal throwing has nothing to do with military service. It has to do with Seator Kerry being willing to change is postition and story to help advance him politically. There is no doubt that John Kerry served his country and deserved the medals that he was awarded. The problem is that he says he threw the medals over the wall because he was in protest over the war and that he did not want to be associated with the these military awards. Now he says, I served in Veitnam and look at the hero I was and all of the awards I have won. So witch was it? It looks to me like he'll tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear.


Kerry went and fought the war and saw what was happening and came home and denounced the war. He has every right to say "I was a hero in that Jungle" and "I, nor any other American soldier should have been anywhere near that Jungle"

[Suicane75]

What is not talked about enough: Bill Clinton was an out and out draft-dodger. Documented. Clinton ran against a bona-fide World War 2 War hero, maimed for life, in Bob Dole. How come being a war hero to democrats is suddenly so important now when it didn't count for diddly in that election? And I really don't expect an answer (cause there is none!)

1. Bill Clinton isn't running for President.
2. George Bush wants to us to focus on John Kerrys war record and stance, and if he wants us to do that than guess what, he's fair game on the issue as well.

[MrBug708]

I'm willing to bet Suicane isn't a member of the NRA :)

[BishopMVP]

I think that the whole tearing down Kerry over medals or ribbons is silly, just like the Bush AWOL story. A few observations - Democrats need to stop equating service in the military with defense. If you got 3 Purple Hearts in a war and then voted against every defense funding bill afterward, you are weak on defense (not saying that Kerry goes that far.) The chickenhawk stuff is bullshit. LBJ was a decorated pilot, FDR never served in the military. I don't think Lincoln ever served in the military. Which of those leaders was better leading a war?

In the end, with the Kerry and Vietnam stuff, I do take issue with it some. After he came back, he gave a speech to Congress talking about war atrocities regularly perpetrated by our soldiers and demeaned all of them. If he doesn't still believe this, he should issue some sort of apology and say something along the lines of "while I still support the ending of our presence in Vietnam, in hindsight I regret some of what I said and did" or stop making his service the center of his campaign.

[BishopMVP]

1. Bill Clinton isn't running for President.
2. George Bush wants to us to focus on John Kerrys war record and stance, and if he wants us to do that than guess what, he's fair game on the issue as well.When Bill Clinton was running for President against a war hero, most Democrats are on record talking about how service in the military wasn't necessary, as were most Republicans on record attacking someone who didn't serve. Almost all of them are partisan hypocrites.

[dawgfan]

When Bill Clinton was running for President against a war hero, most Democrats are on record talking about how service in the military wasn't necessary, as were most Republicans on record attacking someone who didn't serve. Almost all of them are partisan hypocrites.

I think most liberal-leaning people would acknowledge that military service is something to be considered in a political candidate. I don't think it's necessary by any means, but if you avoid mandatory service that is an issue that becomes fair game in judging your character. I wasn't proud of Clinton for evading the draft, but it wasn't nearly enough to overcome all the other factors that IMO made him much more favorable than Dole.

As long as you're attempting to make blanket smears along political lines, at least acknowledge that the same hypocracy is occuring right now with regards to Republicans and John Kerry's military service, or risk being labeled a hypocrite yourself.

[Suicane75]

When Bill Clinton was running for President against a war hero, most Democrats are on record talking about how service in the military wasn't necessary, as were most Republicans on record attacking someone who didn't serve. Almost all of them are partisan hypocrites.

Totaly true, but don't start a fight when you have a glass chin.

[BishopMVP]

As long as you're attempting to make blanket smears along political lines, at least acknowledge that the same hypocracy is occuring right now with regards to Republicans and John Kerry's military service, or risk being labeled a hypocrite yourself.I thought I implied that. If I didn't, then, sure, most Republicans right now are partisan hypocrites bacause they attacked Clinton while extolling Dole's service and now have switched their stance as the Republican is the one who didn't serve.

I do think that Kerry has been attempting to use his service as a blanket shield and too easily takes criticism against his record on defense or certain actions after he served as attacking his patriotism. The fact that he responded to questions on his record by attacking Bush's record is fairly illuminating (I'm not saying Bush is any better here, although to this point I don't think he himself has directly attacked Kerry over Vietnam) and just another reason not to vote for him. By actions like attacking Bush's past National Guard record, they are being stupid - we've had 4 years of Bush as President and we pretty much know what his actions will be regarding the military and defense, but Democrats think they can't win by attacking this record, so they are trying to use ad hominem attacks against Bush's policies. Republicans would probably be doing the same thing if they were the party out of power.

[Bubba Wheels]

Vietnam General was interviewed on the effect of the anti-war demonstrators in the U.S. during the war. He stated *paraphrasing* "We did not win the war on the battle field, we won the war in Washington D.C. and in Paris." He went on to say that while the demonstrators in the U.S. were viewed as North Vietnam forces in the American rear, the North Vietnam rear was secure as the U.S. could not and would not invade. The General also stated how delighted they all were whenever Jane Fonda and her 'supporters' would show up on TV supporting the North. This gave much aid and comfort to the enemy.

[timmynausea]

If you're going to criticize Kerry for equating his military service with his record on defense, I think it's important to examine what the other side is equating "weak on defense" with as well. To use the Cleland case as an example, they (R - Saxby Chambliss's campaign) ran commercials that showed Max Cleland, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Max Cleland supported setting up a Homeland Security Department before President Bush, but ultimately disagreed with the way Bush planned to implement it. The commercial simply states that he voted against Homeland Security. Showing Saddam and Osama was just the "scare-the-shit-out-of-everyone and-smear-this-guy's-patriotism" icing on the cake.
In any case, it seems to me that the Republicans have been equating defense policy with patriotism since 9/11 (and rather recklessly at that.) Even with Iraq this was the case, even though it turned out Iraq had nothing to do with the safety of Americans. No weapons, anyway. Democrats are merely responding to the smearing of their patriotism. I don't know, maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I happen to find it insanely fucking disgusting to suggest that a guy who lost three limbs in Vietnam is not patriotic.

[sterlingice]

What is not talked about enough: Bill Clinton was an out and out draft-dodger. Documented. Clinton ran against a bona-fide World War 2 War hero, maimed for life, in Bob Dole. How come being a war hero to democrats is suddenly so important now when it didn't count for diddly in that election? And I really don't expect an answer (cause there is none!)
Welcome to 8 years ago. Now we just need a "Bush didn't really win the election" post. Or how about that crooked 1824 election. Those bastards!

SI

[Vegas Vic]

What is not talked about enough: Bill Clinton was an out and out draft-dodger. Documented. Clinton ran against a bona-fide World War 2 War hero, maimed for life, in Bob Dole. How come being a war hero to democrats is suddenly so important now when it didn't count for diddly in that election? And I really don't expect an answer (cause there is none!)

Bill Clinton was opposed to the war, and he dodged the draft. You can blast him, but his actions were consistent with his beliefs.

Dick Cheney had other priorities during the Vietnam war, getting his six deferments. He has always been Hawkish on war, as long as he isn't the one who has to do the fighting.

Do you see the difference?

[BishopMVP]

Do you see the difference?Clinton has a (D) after his name and Cheney has an (R)? :confused:

[Bubba Wheels]

Bill Clinton was opposed to the war, and he dodged the draft. You can blast him, but his actions were consistent with his beliefs.

Dick Cheney had other priorities during the Vietnam war, getting his six deferments. He has always been Hawkish on war, as long as he isn't the one who has to do the fighting.

Do you see the difference?

Not quite, maybe you can help me understand. Clinton was drafted, his number came up. When that happened, Clinton contacted a family friend connected with his local draft board and stated that he, Clinton, would join the ROTC at a later date. Family friend pulled strings, someone else went to Vietnam in Clinton's place, and Clinton then reneged on his pledge about ROTC by writting a later publically published letter in which he denigrated everything that the military stood for and admitted he just promised the ROTC thing to get out of his draft commitment.

So Cheney's the one that is hawkish on the war after deferring his draft, eh? Watch a little movie called Black Hawk Down (Based on a real event.) I bet those soldiers are real glad that their Commander-In-Chief wouldn't send them into harm's way because of his own personal, consistant convictions. Wait, that's EXACTLY what he did!!! So where did I get it wrong?

[Leonidas]

Whatever happened to the days when a war hero like George McGovern refused to use his military service as a campaign issue because he thought it wasn't right to exploit something like that for personal gain? Granted, he lost the election, but he maintained a certain amount of dignity and integrity in the process. I fear leaders like that no longer run for President (or at least don't make it far enough for any of us to notice).

[Suicane75]

Not quite, maybe you can help me understand. Clinton was drafted, his number came up. When that happened, Clinton contacted a family friend connected with his local draft board and stated that he, Clinton, would join the ROTC at a later date. Family friend pulled strings, someone else went to Vietnam in Clinton's place, and Clinton then reneged on his pledge about ROTC by writting a later publically published letter in which he denigrated everything that the military stood for and admitted he just promised the ROTC thing to get out of his draft commitment.

So Cheney's the one that is hawkish on the war after deferring his draft, eh? Watch a little movie called Black Hawk Down (Based on a real event.) I bet those soldiers are real glad that their Commander-In-Chief wouldn't send them into harm's way because of his own personal, consistant convictions. Wait, that's EXACTLY what he did!!! So where did I get it wrong?

Bill Clinton isn't running for office.

[Greyroofoo]

My view:
Kerry willingly put his life on the line in Vietnam. Got injured and received medals.

Bush: Used his daddy's connections to skip the waiting list to get into the Texas Air National Guard, became proficient in an OBSOLETE fighter and guaranteed himself he's never have to put his life on the line. All the while going AWOL and still got paid.

It offends me that Bush calls himself the "War President". I can't see how he can send Americans to needlessly put their lives on the line when he never put his own life on the line.

[Ksyrup]

I can't see how he can send Americans to needlessly put their lives on the line when he never put his own life on the line.
Again...since when has it been a prerequisite that our Presidents be ex-military? You people act like this is something new. Does Abe Lincoln offend you in the same way? Did Bill Clinton offend you when he initiated actions in Somalia, Iraq, and Haiti?

[Vegas Vic]

So Cheney's the one that is hawkish on the war after deferring his draft, eh? Watch a little movie called Black Hawk Down (Based on a real event.) I bet those soldiers are real glad that their Commander-In-Chief wouldn't send them into harm's way because of his own personal, consistant convictions. Wait, that's EXACTLY what he did!!! So where did I get it wrong?

Instead of watching movies, perhaps you should study the actual history a bit further. It was George H. Bush who sent troops into Somalia, before Clinton was elected.

[Greyroofoo]

Abe Lincoln didn't really have a choice now did he?

And yes, Clinton did offend me with his actions in Somalia

So lets stick with Kerry and Bush shall we?

[Ksyrup]

So lets stick with Kerry and Bush shall we?
Sure, once you quit acting like this is the first President in history without a substantive military background to institute military action during his Presidency.

[Greyroofoo]

Sure, once you quit acting like this is the first President in history without a substantive military background to institute military action during his Presidency.
WTF are you talking about!?!?

I'm comparing Bush and Kerry, not Bush and Kerry and every other president in US history.

[Ksyrup]

I can't see how he can send Americans to needlessly put their lives on the line when he never put his own life on the line.

I know you are comparing Bush and Kerry, but to make this statement as a reason to discredit Bush ignores the fact that not only have we had Presidents without a military background, but they have instituted military action during their Presidency. It's not a prerequisite to be President that you have to have "put your own life on the line" in order to be Commander-In-Chief.

My point is, in comparing them, you can give the nod to Kerry, if you choose, based on his military record versus Bush's. However, I do not find it valid to simply dismiss Bush, putting aside any comparison to Kerry, simply because he didn't fight in a war (although he was in the military, of course). If that's your standard, then I hope you didn't vote for Clinton, and I hope you will not vote for his wife in 4 years, or any other future candidate who happened not to serve in the military AND get sent into action.

[Bubba Wheels]

Instead of watching movies, perhaps you should study the actual history a bit further. It was George H. Bush who sent troops into Somalia, before Clinton was elected.

Bush was President in 1993? I think ANY movie might be more accurate than your purported 'history.' BTW, what movie did I get Kosovo and Bosnia out of? Who does your 'history' show as President then, Harry Truman?

[Greyroofoo]

I find it easy to dismiss Bush with because he calls himself "The War President" and uses phrases like "bring 'em on". He has no idea what the ground troops go through.

I will be voting for Kerry in Novemeber, but not only because of this

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Bush was President in 1993? I think ANY movie might be more accurate than your purported 'history.' BTW, what movie did I get Kosavo and Croatia out of? Who does your 'history' show as President then, Harry Truman?

Errr... the Somalia mission started in 1992... But, yes, George HW Bush was president until Jan 21, 1993.

[Bubba Wheels]

Errr... the Somalia mission started in 1992... But, yes, George HW Bush was president until Jan 21, 1993.

Errr, Bush was President when the BlackHawk incident took place? Errr, I think not...Errr, what made that incident such a debacle was Clinton's insistance that our soldiers be put under U.N. control, who then dispatche them into Mogadishu, Errr...do I have that one right? Errrr....

[timmynausea]

Man, Bubba Wheels is right. There is no way I'm voting for Clinton this time. No way. Right now I'm leaning toward voting for John Kerry, actually.

[Suicane75]

Kennedy was a womanizer, i'm not voting for him.

[Bubba Wheels]

Point is simple, let me point it out for you lefty democrats. When its expediant for you to ignore someone's military record (Mr. Clinton), then that is all fine and good, but when it suits your purpose to beat the record to death (Bush in National Guard, Kerry on Patrol Boat) oh, hey, its now ALL a very different story! You just continue to show your bias.

Clinton authorized the bombing of Kosovo and Bosnia WITHOUT any U.N. resolution. Thousands of innocent civilians were maimed and killed, but Clinton's actions were 'humanitarian." Bush takes action against Iraq after DOZENS of U.N. resolutions and Bush is a 'war-monger' who has 'isolated us' from our allies. Where is your consistancy?

[Suicane75]

I voted for George Bush Sr and Bob Dole. George Bush calling out John Kerry on his military history is stupid, and too me, makes him look pathetic. Bubba, is it all possible that some of us who feel that way are simply baseing it on what we think is right rather than some politcal ideaolgy?

[Bubba Wheels]

I voted for George Bush Sr and Bob Dole. George Bush calling out John Kerry on his military history is stupid, and too me, makes him look pathetic. Bubba, is it all possible that some of us who feel that way are simply baseing it on what we think is right rather than some politcal ideaolgy?

That is another thing. Where has George Bush EVER called out John Kerry on his military record? I have seen just the opposite, with Kerry at first condemning those who questioned Bush's service and then gleefully jumping on the Bash-Bush on his service band-wagon because now it suits him. Which seems to be just the democratic way of doing things.

[timmynausea]

It's been reported all over that Cheney has been pushing the story that John Kerry wasn't injured badly enough to deserve one of his three purple hearts along with the stories about Kerry throwing his medals.

here's a link I just found http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4471.shtml

First one that came up in Google News search, so I really don't know much about the source.

[druez]

The most fascinating thing for me is how, in a supposedly rabid patriotic climate right now, folks that would identify themselves as fervent patriots are eager to tear down John Kerry, a man who is a decorated war hero for his service to the country. For those of you who get all weepy about Pat Tillman, you need to more strongly consider Kerry--another example of a person who had a life of privelege lined up and chose to volunteer for America's then-current war in order to fight for the country. It's okay to disagree with his politics, but questioning his patriotism is ignorant and offensive--not just to him, but to all veterans who returned from our wars to discover that folks would still find demean their honorable service to America.

Or, more personally: I know what my father went through to earn his Bronze Star in Vietnam, and I have nothing but respect for Kerry for the service he did in what few would argue was a necessary and just war.

Didn't he fly a jet in the war?

[BishopMVP]

Point is simple, let me point it out for you lefty democrats. When its expediant for you to ignore someone's military record (Mr. Clinton), then that is all fine and good, but when it suits your purpose to beat the record to death (Bush in National Guard, Kerry on Patrol Boat) oh, hey, its now ALL a very different story! You just continue to show your bias.As do you.
Didn't he fly a jet in the war?No, Kerry (I'm assuming you mean him) was in charge of a river patrol boat.

[WSUCougar]

Does Abe Lincoln offend you in the same way?Hey now! Let's be fair...Ol' Abe performed exemplary service doing virtually nothing during the Blackhawk War.

[Bubba Wheels]

Hey now! Let's be fair...Ol' Abe performed exemplary service doing virtually nothing during the Blackhawk War.

Well, using the current democratic standard, Richard Nixon served honorably in the Navy, so he would be preferable to Clinton today. You want a living example? Ok, same standard, ANYONE serving in Vietnam, or the Gulf War, or Desert Storm, ect...can and should run against Hillary in 2008 because they win AUTOMATICALLY on these standards.

[WSUCougar]

Bugger off.

Whoops, did I say that out loud? Sorry. :(

[Suicane75]

Well, using the current democratic standard, Richard Nixon served honorably in the Navy, so he would be preferable to Clinton today. You want a living example? Ok, same standard, ANYONE serving in Vietnam, or the Gulf War, or Desert Storm, ect...can and should run against Hillary in 2008 because they win AUTOMATICALLY on these standards.

I will gladly vote for Richard Nixon over Bill Clinton, when are the elections being held? I don't think i'd enjoy it inside your head but if thats were the vote is taking place I'll be glad to go.

[Bubba Wheels]

I will gladly vote for Richard Nixon over Bill Clinton, when are the elections being held? I don't think i'd enjoy it inside your head but if thats were the vote is taking place I'll be glad to go.

Just stating the obvious. Based soley on military records, no one should ever again say something bad about Richard Nixon. He served honorably. Democratic standards here.

[Suicane75]

Why are you having such a problem seperating the arguments of 2 people? I agree with you on Nixon and Clinton, can't you meet me halfway and at least focus on the 2 people running instead of the history of the world and not make this an all time Democrats vs All time Republicans thing?

[WSUCougar]

Democratic standards here.Do you really, honestly, truly, in your heart of hearts believe that this kind of political spin-doctoring is limited to Democrats? Can you be that naive?

Man, do I hate partisan politics. :rolleyes:

[timmynausea]

I don't think anyone has said "It should be a rule that military service is the number one factor when considering Presidential merit." I think that when you have guys who are calling everyone's patriotism into question over and over again, it's natural for the other side to put forward someone who is above that. They can't really question Kerry's patriotism because when he had the opportunity, unlike them, he volunteered and served heroically. I will vote for Kerry, but not merely because he was a war hero. I do get satisfaction out of how much it seems to bug a lot of Republicans that he was a war hero and they can't just call him a traitor or draft dodger or reciever of blow-jobs or whatever else.

[Bubba Wheels]

I don't think anyone has said "It should be a rule that military service is the number one factor when considering Presidential merit." I think that when you have guys who are calling everyone's patriotism into question over and over again, it's natural for the other side to put forward someone who is above that. They can't really question Kerry's patriotism because when he had the opportunity, unlike them, he volunteered and served heroically. I will vote for Kerry, but not merely because he was a war hero. I do get satisfaction out of how much it seems to bug a lot of Republicans that he was a war hero and they can't just call him a traitor or draft dodger or reciever of blow-jobs or whatever else.

What is really outrageous here is that somehow what Bush did is less than what Kerry did. Believe it or not, it wasn't. Dean Martin's son was a California National Guard Pilot, killed when his aircraft ran into a mountain. Flying military jets is not driving a truck. 40% of those serving in Iraq today are either National Guard or Reserve. If Bush had transferred to the Alabama Guard right before his Texas unit deployed overseas, democrats might have a case. But that's not what happened. Attacking Bush's service record is NO DIFFERENT than attacking Kerry's record. Period.

[Suicane75]

I wouldn't vote for Dean Martin. I'd vote for Frank though, he had hutzhpah.

[Bubba Wheels]

I wouldn't vote for Dean Martin. I'd vote for Frank though, he had hutzhpah.

They're both dead. Neither of them flew jets either. Although word has it we do have one Senator from Massachusetts (Not John Kerry) who attempted to pilot and Oldsmobile through a lake. Maybe you could vote for him!

[Suicane75]

They're both dead. Neither of them flew jets either. Although word has it we do have one Senator from Massachusetts (Not John Kerry) who attempted to pilot and Oldsmobile through a lake. Maybe you could vote for him!


:rolleyes:

Obviously you havn't read a thing i've written, and it doesn't surprise me.
I don't vote for people based on party or ideaology, of course I don't imagine you can wrap your head around that.

[Bubba Wheels]

:rolleyes:

Obviously you havn't read a thing i've written, and it doesn't surprise me.
I don't vote for people based on party or ideaology, of course I don't imagine you can wrap your head around that.

Suicane, I respect your views. Really! Its just that I can't really see how someone can determine weather someone else is 'right' or 'wrong' outside of their own ideology, influences and biases. So while I respect you wanting to vote for someone apart from 'ideology', I just don't think its possible.

[Vegas Vic]

Clinton authorized the bombing of Kosovo and Bosnia WITHOUT any U.N. resolution.

No, it was even better. The Kosovo campaign was a well-coordinated NATO operation.