I'd like your thoughts

[VABills]

 

Anyway, I am not as irreverent in person.

 

B)

8675[/snapback]

 

I am. In fact I usually get a lot worse in person.

[ExiledInIllinois]

So you were authorized first but not established until much later.  We were authorized and established on the same day.  We don't !@#$ around.  Even then it was tell us what to do and it was done immediately.  Your group !@#$ed around for years, until you came together.  Typical Army.

8667[/snapback]

 

 

I knew you were gonna hit me with that!

 

Doesn't it always seem that the most needed things usually get the backburner?

 

Kinda like:

 

"Honey, do we we have any extra money so we can upgrade our leaky toilets?"

 

"No, I am flying to Buffalo for opening day... We'll get to it in March if the money is there."

 

 

Sappers and miners I guess weren't too bright also. I guess that is something they share in common?

 

[_BiB_]

Are these vets and I guess you guys so thinned skinned that coming back and having one of your fellow soldiers complain/protest actually affects them?  I guess some real crazy crap went on that they just can't come to terms with.

 

So what?  He kissed and told.  Get a life and get over it.

 

I never spent a day in the military... Thank God... I just work for the Corps as a civilian... Pretty bizarre in itself!

 

My father always said, "Never, never go in the service, unless you need to or after college".  Guess what dad?  I went to UB for four years and landed a job with the USACE.

 

All you gung-ho types... I guess Iraq is pretty FUBAR'ed... They are looking for bodies left and right... Fellow employee just got back, and they already called him and asked if he wanted to be re-deployed.  No thanks...

 

It is the wild west out there boyzzz, go for it!

8610[/snapback]

 

You miss my point. Many people came home and denounced the war...after they did their 12-13 months. I would have much less difficulty with this had Kerry done so. He didn't leave on a stretcher-and I wouldn't want him or anyone else to-but we're talking about a focus and attitude. JK could have easily remained with his unit-yet chose to take the first available out. As the circumstances surrounding at least one of his PH's are suspect, there is every chance that they were manipulated to do so. There's every chance that they weren't. But the question is certainly there. Had he remained somewhat low key and quiet about it, I wouldn't take issue. But this fella knows damn well he bailed on his oath and obligations back then, and wants to stand up now and scream his duty from the rooftops.

 

Now, we are taking this guy and putting him in a position to lead not a dozen - but millions. And no one is questioning this. I knew after watching Clinton in action that the idea of honor was gone from our government. This is what it gives us. At least Gore didn't make his service a centerpiece.

[ExiledInIllinois]

You miss my point. Many people came home and denounced the war...after they did their 12-13 months. I would have much less difficulty with this had Kerry done so. He didn't leave on a stretcher-and I wouldn't want him or anyone else to-but we're talking about a focus and attitude. JK could have easily remained with his unit-yet chose to take the first available out. As the circumstances surrounding at least one of his PH's are suspect, there is every chance that they were manipulated to do so. There's every chance that they weren't. But the question is certainly there. Had he remained somewhat low key and quiet about it, I wouldn't take issue. But this fella knows damn well he bailed on his oath and obligations back then, and wants to stand up now and scream his duty from the rooftops.

 

Now, we are taking this guy and putting him in a position to lead not a dozen - but millions. And no one is questioning this. I knew after watching Clinton in action that the idea of honor was gone from our government. This is what it gives us. At least Gore didn't make his service a centerpiece.

8703[/snapback]

 

Ya, but, what if your unit is doing something fundementally immoral?... Why remain quiet? Isn't his moral obligation to speak out and denounce it? The medals and ribbons aren't related because you can still obtain them helping your unit. They have no bearing on what you were originally doing there to begin with, which I suspect was not on the up and up.

 

Flash ahead to to the prison scandel. Are you saying that people caught up in it should just remain quiet and not say anything? Maybe that is why the problem festered and grew worse?

 

I think it was a sign of frustration that he threw the medals away. I don't see everything as intertwined as you do.

 

It all comes down to doing what is right, sometimes maintaining honor isn't right. It is much harder to speak out on what you feel is wrong.

 

That is the change we need.

[_BiB_]

So you were authorized first but not established until much later.  We were authorized and established on the same day.  We don't !@#$ around.  Even then it was tell us what to do and it was done immediately.  Your group !@#$ed around for years, until you came together.  Typical Army.

8667[/snapback]

 

As ex-Army, I think I can safely say it took them that long to write and staff the plan.

[SD Jarhead]

Kerry's service would truly be a non issue if it weren't for the current administration using the politics of fear to show for some unfathonable reason that the current President is the most desirable candidate as Commander in Chief. I think it's called political strategy. It's all horse manure, as long as Karl Rove can keep the issue on Kerry's Viet Nam record he can avoid debating real issues.

 

 

You can't be serious! Did Karl Rove make JK stand up on the stage at the Dem's convention and salute while muttering "Reporting for duty?" Did he force the Dim's to make a "Saving Pvt. Kerry" video to whip up the masses? Oh, yea...vast Right Wing conspiracy.

 

C'mon...open your eyes.

[KRC]

Kerry's service would truly be a non issue if it weren't for the current administration using the politics of fear to show for some unfathonable reason that the current President is the most desirable candidate as Commander in Chief. I think it's called political strategy. It's all horse manure, as long as Karl Rove can keep the issue on Kerry's Viet Nam record he can avoid debating real issues.

You can't be serious! Did Karl Rove make JK stand up on the stage at the Dem's convention and salute while muttering "Reporting for duty?" Did he force the Dim's to make a "Saving Pvt. Kerry" video to whip up the masses? Oh, yea...vast Right Wing conspiracy.

 

C'mon...open your eyes.

8837[/snapback]

 

You have to remember. The DNC told the lemmings that this is all Bush's fault for making Kerry's war record the focus of Kerry's campaign. The fact that Kerry is talking about it ad nauseum is strictly because Bush can't stop talking about Vietnam.

 

It is so simple, when you remove all reasoning skills, stop thinking for yourself, and blindly accept what the DNC/Kerry is telling you.

[SD Jarhead]

I know all about awards, and believe me, the last time I checked, soldiers/sailors don't put in for their OWN awards! You know as well as *I* do that officers always seem to get a LOT of these awards, while us enlisted get one from time to time; it's understood politics. I don't see how you can knock the man on the PH's, BUT what he did after and the way he handled it was wrong, I agree.

 

Actually, I have heard of many people writing their own awards as I cited in an earlier post. That's what interests me regarding the JK thing...who exactly authored and submitted him for his awards? I'm not sure what the paper trail was like back in that era, but I know that in my Service Record there are origination documents listing who authored any award recommendations that I've received.

 

I'd be interested to see if JK wrote himself up for his awards. Given what I know about his at this point, I wouldn't be suprised if he did. So, why won't he release his service records and medical history and put the whole issue to rest?

 

It's really pretty simple.

 

I do agree that the officer corp at large are the beneficiary of more of these medals that the enlisted force.

[IDBillzFan]

So, why won't he release his service records and medical history and put the whole issue to rest?

 

For a guy who is riding his his Vietnam service as the focal point of his campaign, you would think he would have all of this available on the internet for EVERYONE to see.

 

Where is all this information and how come we can't see it? Isn't it public record?

[SD Jarhead]

I'm honestly not sure what the Freedom of Information Act says about the release of a persons Service Record Book. I'm pretty sure that his medical history is protected though.

[RCow]

Simple response: you and the right would never treat a Republican this way. If a Democrat criticized a Republican's war record just slightly, let alone using blatant lies and smears, the Right would brand them a unAmerican, unpatriotic, country-hating, military bashing, communist.

 

Why is OK to smear McCain, smear Max Cleland and bash Kerry on highly suspect charges about details of a "skirmish" in the friggen field, but give Bush a total free ride? There was enough crap on Bush's embarrassing "service" record to fill 3 Democratic presidental campaigns.

 

When will so-called military and veteran supporters (including vets themselves) apply the same standards to Democrats as they do to Republicans? When will they put the honor of service and the interests of veterans (health care for instance, pay, etc) before partisan politics?

 

At one time I used to think that Republicans had a point about Democratic attitudes toward the military. I truly believe Democrats have improved public attitudes toward veterans (health care) and there virtually no "anti-military" pockets of note, and very little resistance to military spending (though never enough for the Republicans).

 

However, nearly everytime Democrat has a respectable service record they are bashed like a serious political threat -- their mere presence sends Republican veterans and ardent military supporters into tailspin ("does not compute, danger, Will Robinson") This is particular maddening when it's a Democrat with a respetable record vs. a Republican with a (ahem) questionable record (Bush, Chamblis, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc, etc). This also extends to veteran issues, problems in military decision making, proper equipment and funding. Republicans get a pass -- and if an officer or any ex-military criticseThe concerns of partisan victories consistently outweigh the respect of service -- no matter how impressive.

 

To put it mildly, the Republicans and Right have lost all credibility on military matters.

[KRC]

Simple response:  you and the right would never treat a Republican this way.  If a Democrat criticized a Republican's war record just slightly, let alone using blatant lies and smears, the Right would brand them a unAmerican, unpatriotic, country-hating, military bashing, communist.

 

Why is OK to smear McCain, smear Max Cleland and bash Kerry on highly suspect charges about details of a "skirmish" in the friggen field, but give Bush a total free ride?  There was enough crap on Bush's embarrassing "service" record to fill 3 Democratic presidental campaigns.

 

When will so-called military and veteran supporters (including vets themselves) apply the same standards to Democrats as they do to Republicans?  When will they put the honor of service and the interests of veterans (health care for instance, pay, etc) before partisan politics?

 

At one time I used to think that Republicans had a point about Democratic attitudes toward the military.  I truly believe Democrats have improved public attitudes toward veterans (health care) and there virtually no "anti-military" pockets of note, and very little resistance to military spending (though never enough for the Republicans).

 

However, nearly everytime Democrat has a respectable service record they are bashed like a serious political threat -- their mere presence sends Republican veterans and ardent military supporters into tailspin ("does not compute, danger, Will Robinson")  This is particular maddening when it's a Democrat with a respetable record vs. a Republican with a (ahem) questionable record (Bush, Chamblis, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc, etc).  This also extends to veteran issues, problems in military decision making, proper equipment and funding.  Republicans get a pass -- and if an officer or any ex-military criticseThe concerns of partisan victories consistently outweigh the respect of service -- no matter how impressive. 

 

To put it mildly, the Republicans and Right have lost all credibility on military matters.

8937[/snapback]

 

 

I just love how the lefties are trying to play "innocent victim" here, at the same time they are bashing.

 

I didn't know that it was so easy to talk out of both sides of your mouth.

[Alaska Darin]

To put it mildly, the Republicans and Right have lost all credibility on military matters.

8937[/snapback]

I'm sure you say the same things everytime a Democrat bashes a Republican of color, etc.

 

Sure you do.

[_BiB_]

A respectable service record? I'm not painting with a broad brush here. Your attempt to, as you guys do-veer away from the subject is noted. I'm talking about a specific point with a specific individual. Max blew himself up with his own hand grenade, but it was an accident and I think his service was honorable.

[IDBillzFan]

Why is OK to smear McCain, smear Max Cleland and bash Kerry on highly suspect charges about details of a "skirmish" in the friggen field, but give Bush a total free ride?

 

If you're going to lob a slow, easy one over the middle of the plate like that, far be it from me to not swat it.

 

The answer is simple: Bush's entire campaign does not rest on four months spent in Vietnam. "Band of brothers." "Reporting for duty." What the fug do you EXPECT the Republicans to do when the one thing that Kerry is running on is what has now amounted to his questionable military service.

 

Pollys need to understand that things don't just happen to you. You LET them happen to you. It's called personal accountability.

 

More simply put: I've been asked to bid a project with one other company. We each make presentations. During my competitor's presentation, they say they are qualified to do the job because they did a similar job 30 years ago. Being a good salesman, I knew that the company DID do a similar job 30 years ago, but that they left the job before it was completely done.

 

What do I do? I explain that my company also has done similar jobs, and that I actually have references to back my claim. And then I suggest that they contact my competitor's client from 30 years ago and ask them how the job went.

 

If they're stupid enough to bring up that job, I'm smart enough to smack the living crap out of it.

 

So if my competitor loses the job, is it because I called them on their claims or because they were stupid enough to make the claim in the first place?

 

Personal accountability. Become a Democrat and throw it out the window.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

Simple response:  you and the right would never treat a Republican this way.  If a Democrat criticized a Republican's war record just slightly, let alone using blatant lies and smears, the Right would brand them a unAmerican, unpatriotic, country-hating, military bashing, communist.

 

Why is OK to smear McCain, smear Max Cleland and bash Kerry on highly suspect charges about details of a "skirmish" in the friggen field, but give Bush a total free ride?  There was enough crap on Bush's embarrassing "service" record to fill 3 Democratic presidental campaigns.

 

When will so-called military and veteran supporters (including vets themselves) apply the same standards to Democrats as they do to Republicans?  When will they put the honor of service and the interests of veterans (health care for instance, pay, etc) before partisan politics?

 

At one time I used to think that Republicans had a point about Democratic attitudes toward the military.  I truly believe Democrats have improved public attitudes toward veterans (health care) and there virtually no "anti-military" pockets of note, and very little resistance to military spending (though never enough for the Republicans).

 

However, nearly everytime Democrat has a respectable service record they are bashed like a serious political threat -- their mere presence sends Republican veterans and ardent military supporters into tailspin ("does not compute, danger, Will Robinson")   This is particular maddening when it's a Democrat with a respetable record vs. a Republican with a (ahem) questionable record (Bush, Chamblis, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc, etc).  This also extends to veteran issues, problems in military decision making, proper equipment and funding.  Republicans get a pass -- and if an officer or any ex-military criticseThe concerns of partisan victories consistently outweigh the respect of service -- no matter how impressive. 

 

To put it mildly, the Republicans and Right have lost all credibility on military matters.

8937[/snapback]

 

Ummm, what "blatent lies and smears" are you talking about?

 

McCain- Touts his veteran record but neglects to mention how he cooperated with the North Vietnamese to get favorable treatment while injured and may have possibly given up important military information to them. The Washington Post reported on it at the time. Guess it's only a smear when someone dares bring up something embarassing from one's past that contradicts the crap he's spewing now.

 

Cleland-Touts his veteran record and how he gave his limbs for his country, but neglects to mention he didn't even get a Purple Heart for it because in actuallity he only lost his limbs because he was a dumbass in picking up a live grenade. Guess it's only a smear when someone dares bring up something embarassing from one's past that contradicts the crap he's spewing now.

 

 

Kerry- Touts his veteran record and that he's "Reporting for duty", but neglects to mention that 'reporting for duty' means trying to get a deferment first, then putting in for assignments away from any action, then on the unfortunate circumstance of getting assigned near action he writes HIMSELF up for suspect awarding of medals so he can get his ass away from the action as quickly as possible. Guess it's only a smear when someone dares bring up something embarassing from one's past that contradicts the crap he's spewing now.

 

 

Bush- Doesn't tout veteran record but repeatedly get's smeared from the Left for what he may or may not have done while in the Reserves, but whatever he did it was so terrible he got honorably discharged on schedule.

 

 

Don't know what fantasy world you live in Cow, but what color is the sky?

[_BiB_]

Cut it out.  What did the Marine Corps trademark the term.  Anyway, wasn't the Army Corps of Engineers formed right after the Battle of Bunker Hill, 1775?  Didn't the Continental Congress authorize it then?

 

What is the Marine Corps birthday?  Does 1775 beat it, I am pretty sure it does, whose the wannabee?

 

Essayons!

8657[/snapback]

 

 

et faisons?

[MichFan]

Why is OK to smear McCain, smear Max Cleland and bash Kerry on highly suspect charges about details of a "skirmish" in the friggen field, but give Bush a total free ride? There was enough crap on Bush's embarrassing "service" record to fill 3 Democratic presidental campaigns.

 

Seems to me Bush dealt with plenty of smears about his National Guard record during the Dems primary season. Seems to me McAuliffe was the head cheerleader on this effort -- going to the point of accusing Bush of being AWOL. Seems to me none of the candidates told him to back off. Seems to me Bush opened up plenty of records in an attempt to support his service, right down to his dental records, but nothing was good enough for you libbies. Kind of sucks having to take your own medicine, doesn't it?

 

Don't know what fantasy world you live in Cow, but what color is the sky?

 

Gavin gets a prize

[DC Tom]

Simple response:  you and the right would never treat a Republican this way.  If a Democrat criticized a Republican's war record just slightly, let alone using blatant lies and smears, the Right would brand them a unAmerican, unpatriotic, country-hating, military bashing, communist.

 

Why is OK to smear McCain, smear Max Cleland and bash Kerry on highly suspect charges about details of a "skirmish" in the friggen field, but give Bush a total free ride?  There was enough crap on Bush's embarrassing "service" record to fill 3 Democratic presidental campaigns.

 

When will so-called military and veteran supporters (including vets themselves) apply the same standards to Democrats as they do to Republicans?  When will they put the honor of service and the interests of veterans (health care for instance, pay, etc) before partisan politics?

 

At one time I used to think that Republicans had a point about Democratic attitudes toward the military.  I truly believe Democrats have improved public attitudes toward veterans (health care) and there virtually no "anti-military" pockets of note, and very little resistance to military spending (though never enough for the Republicans).

 

However, nearly everytime Democrat has a respectable service record they are bashed like a serious political threat -- their mere presence sends Republican veterans and ardent military supporters into tailspin ("does not compute, danger, Will Robinson")  This is particular maddening when it's a Democrat with a respetable record vs. a Republican with a (ahem) questionable record (Bush, Chamblis, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc, etc).  This also extends to veteran issues, problems in military decision making, proper equipment and funding.  Republicans get a pass -- and if an officer or any ex-military criticseThe concerns of partisan victories consistently outweigh the respect of service -- no matter how impressive. 

 

To put it mildly, the Republicans and Right have lost all credibility on military matters.

8937[/snapback]

 

You have way too much time on your hands. Do you really expect anyone to read let alone answer that?

[RCow]

A respectable service record? I'm not painting with a broad brush here. Your attempt to, as you guys do-veer away from the subject is noted. I'm talking about a specific point with a specific individual. Max blew himself up with his own hand grenade, but it was an accident and I think his service was honorable.

8953[/snapback]

 

 

Come BIB, you can do better than that. There's no broad stroke, it's at the heart of the issue.

 

Doesn't it seem Republicans get a free ride on military service while Democrats have to get severely wounded in battle and have win the Medal of Honor?

 

Bob Dole, who I HAD a great deal of respect until his "superficial wound" comment this week, was wounded in his first few weeks (days?) in a combat zone. As far as I knew he never fired his weapon or was cited for acts deemed worthy for medals. However, he was universally deemed and respected as "war hero" as he should. No one questioned his service, no one snickered and said he didn't do much, it simply wasn't an issue dispite the fact that the Dole campaign AND the Republicans, veterans, etc. never missed an opportunity to say Dole served and Clinton did not.

 

Let's also assume George, Sr. was a Democrat. There is no doubt the Right would criticize his war record: How was he responsible for lost mission? Was it really a battle? Didn't he screw up, wasn't he a bad pilot, was he somehow responsible for the death of his mates? Why did he jump out of a perfectly good airplane? Didn't his Daddy pull strings to take him out of the combat zone? Again, no questions, no inquires, no slander from Democrats.