Essay on presidential military service

[BTox]

Once again, Charles nails it.

And where did Kerry stand on the most critical national-security questions of the past two decades? In 1991 he voted against the Gulf War, which he now says he was in favor of. Twelve years later, he voted in favor of the Iraq war, which he now tells us he was against. Then he voted against the $87 billion for reconstruction and troop support while telling us that of course he supports both the reconstruction and the troops.

War hero he is. But a man of so many pirouettes hardly inspires confidence as a resolute President. That should not surprise us. The very idea that national service, even heroic service, necessarily correlates with great presidential leadership is simply irrational. By that logic, Douglas MacArthur would have made a great President. By that logic, Ulysses S. Grant was a great President. (It's not just an American phenomenon: the most decorated veteran in Israel's history, Ehud Barak, was a disastrous Prime Minister.) Even more impressive is the fact that two of the greatest war Presidents in American history — Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt — had military backgrounds that make Bush's look distinguished: Lincoln, minimal (less than half a year of militia duty); Roosevelt, none.

Source: time krauthammer essay (http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,591412,00.html)

[shemp]

Is this rich or what?! The same chickenhawk buttholes who spent years hammering Clinton about his avoidance of military service are now falling all over themselves explaining away Bush's similar lack thereof. What a bunch of maroons!!!

Military service was so important to them in 1992. Now it means nothing to them.

Pathetic hypocrites.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by shemp
Is this rich or what?! The same chickenhawk buttholes who spent years hammering Clinton about his avoidance of military service are now falling all over themselves explaining away Bush's similar lack thereof. What a bunch of maroons!!!

Military service was so important to them in 1992. Now it means nothing to them.

Pathetic hypocrites.

What, you don't remember the Balanced Budget Amendment?

[Zero]

Krauthammer is one of those "9-11 changed everything'" retards. 9-11 changed nothing. If it did, then the terrorists won, didn't they?

[LawnOven]

Originally posted by shemp
Is this rich or what?! The same chickenhawk buttholes who spent years hammering Clinton about his avoidance of military service are now falling all over themselves explaining away Bush's similar lack thereof. What a bunch of maroons!!!

Military service was so important to them in 1992. Now it means nothing to them.

Pathetic hypocrites.

yeah what he said.

[shuize]

Originally posted by BTox
Once again, Charles nails it ... You misunderstand. Those weren't really Kerry's votes.

Just like the medals he threw away to protest the Vietnam war, they were someone else's ...

[Dorian Gray]

Double post.

[Dorian Gray]

This is the most brilliant part: Even more impressive is the fact that two of the greatest war Presidents in American history — Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt — had military backgrounds that make Bush's look distinguished: Lincoln, minimal (less than half a year of militia duty); Roosevelt, none. Basically this says 'When you compare Bush to people who were never in the military, he has a good service record."

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Zero
Krauthammer is one of those "9-11 changed everything'" retards. 9-11 changed nothing. If it did, then the terrorists won, didn't they?
Absolutely. I said this from day one. They were no more of a threat on 9/12.
The "election" of 2000 changed everything.

[a_unique_person]

Dubya couldn't get his flying suit on quick enough for that landing on the Aircraft Carrier.

I think the problems the Republicans have is that so many of them ducked out of the room when Vietnam was on, there aren't any vets they can call on to run for pres. McCain wanted to run, but he wasn't part of the aristocracy.

In Australia, the idea that military service is relevant in any way is totally alien. It seems to be an American phenomenon.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Dubya couldn't get his flying suit on quick enough for that landing on the Aircraft Carrier.

I think the problems the Republicans have is that so many of them ducked out of the room when Vietnam was on, there aren't any vets they can call on to run for pres. McCain wanted to run, but he wasn't part of the aristocracy.

In Australia, the idea that military service is relevant in any way is totally alien. It seems to be an American phenomenon.

So we only had Democrats fighting in that war? No wonder we lost :D

[shuize]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


So we only had Democrats fighting in that war? No wonder we lost :D

I think it was Lt. Kerry's killing wounded prisoners that turned their hearts and minds against us.

(I know, I know. He's sorry about that. And he made up for it by throwing someone else's medals away in protest...)

[fishbob]

War hero he is. But a man of so many pirouettes hardly inspires confidence as a resolute President. That should not surprise us. The very idea that national service, even heroic service, necessarily correlates with great presidential leadership is simply irrational. So Kerry has warts. So Kerry is not by any means perfect. But why would anyone in his right mind prefer Bush over Kerry? What exactly does Bush stand for? Based on his actions, not his words, what does Bush stand for?

[shemp]

Originally posted by fishbob
So Kerry has warts. So Kerry is not by any means perfect. But why would anyone in his right mind prefer Bush over Kerry? What exactly does Bush stand for? Based on his actions, not his words, what does Bush stand for?

He stands for continuing the redistribution of wealth toward the rich by giving them the meat, potatoes and gravy, while convincing the middle class and poor suckers that he's on their side by throwing them a few crumbs.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Zero
Krauthammer is one of those "9-11 changed everything'" retards. 9-11 changed nothing. If it did, then the terrorists won, didn't they?

So he's a "retard" because you disagree? Are you still in Ann Coulter mode, or is this your SOP? I think the latter...

[Zero]

Originally posted by BTox


So he's a "retard" because you disagree? Are you still in Ann Coulter mode, or is this your SOP? I think the latter...

Sorry...but I do think it is foolish in the extreme to act as though 9-11 changed anything that you weren't looking for an excuse to change...it didn't change me or my life one single solitary bit.

And Krauthammer has alot more problems than is displayed in any single essay. Mostly problems with the truth, of course.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Zero
Sorry...but I do think it is foolish in the extreme to act as though 9-11 changed anything that you weren't looking for an excuse to change...it didn't change me or my life one single solitary bit.
If the destruction of the WTC and 3,000 innocent lives doesn't change your outlook, what would it take? 30,000? 100,000?

When would you think it is necessary to take action?

[Dorian Gray]

Zero, if you only had a radio show, you could be the first successful liberal on talk radio. I applaud you.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by WildCat
If the destruction of the WTC and 3,000 innocent lives doesn't change your outlook, what would it take? 30,000? 100,000?

When would you think it is necessary to take action? Take action against what? We invaded Afganistan, the country that shielded and supported Al Qaeda. Then we left it behind, failed to rebuild, establish a stable government, or do anything to help them. Afganistan is rarely mentioned in the news these days, but from what I've heard, the place is falling apart now. Opium production has risen, warlords are seizing control, and we've done little to nothing of what we claimed we would do.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Take action against what? We invaded Afganistan, the country that shielded and supported Al Qaeda. Then we left it behind, failed to rebuild, establish a stable government, or do anything to help them. Afganistan is rarely mentioned in the news these days, but from what I've heard, the place is falling apart now. Opium production has risen, warlords are seizing control, and we've done little to nothing of what we claimed we would do.
I had no idea that we left! Please, produce the news story that shows this happened. Of course, you can't - because we never left!

Being against the drug war, I could give a rat's a$$ about opium production.

Did you not hear about the new constitution (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/01/04/afghan.constitution/index.html), the upcoming spring offensive (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/01/28/afghanistan.us/index.html) against Taliban remnants, new cooperation from Pakistan (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/17/bin.laden.hunt/index.html) in the hunt for Osama, ongoing US efforts (http://www.usaid.gov/locations/asia_near_east/afghanistan/) to rebuild, etc etc.?

You don't extricate a country from 25 years of civil war in 2 years for cryin' out loud. If you really think nothing is being done, you haven't been looking.

The Taliban remnants are getting desperate, which is why they've resorted to suicide attacks against aid workers and civilians. They're not gaining strength, quite the opposite.

And from the tone of Zero's post, I got the impression he would have done nothing about Afghanistan, since it didn't affect him in any way.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by WildCat
I had no idea that we left! Please, produce the news story that shows this happened. Of course, you can't - because we never left! Fair enough. Let's just say that our presence there as a stabilizing force leaves much to be desired.

Being against the drug war, I could give a rat's a$$ about opium production. You should care. It means that the farmers can't survive raising normal crops and/or that the power of the warlords is rising again.

Afganistan is so high on the Bush Administration's List of Important Things to Keep Track Of that they forgot to allocate it any money in their budget submissions.

Afganistan is not a happy place to be.

[Clancie]

There's also Ronald Reagan, who fulfilled his World War II service making movies in the "1st Motion Picture Unit" in Culver City California.

It seems that Republicans who have never actually seen the frontline (or any battle at all) make some of the most avid war mongers....

[BTox]

Originally posted by Zero


Sorry...but I do think it is foolish in the extreme to act as though 9-11 changed anything that you weren't looking for an excuse to change...it didn't change me or my life one single solitary bit.

So where do you live, in a cave? I live close and occasionally work in NYC. I'd say your opinion is a distinct minority.

Originally posted by Zero
And Krauthammer has alot more problems than is displayed in any single essay. Mostly problems with the truth, of course.

Problems with the truth because you disagree with the truth. I get it...

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
You should care. It means that the farmers can't survive raising normal crops and/or that the power of the warlords is rising again.
Of course they can make more $$ from opium than other crops. There's just not much to be made in subsistence farming. It will be a long road before there's a real economy there. It took a hundred years to make the transition in the US!

In case you haven't read the link, here's what has happened so far, or is happening:

-Reopened the Salang Tunnel and made preparations for keeping it open during the winter. More than 1,000 vehicles and 8,000 people use the tunnel every day. Seventy percent of the fuel for Kabul passes through it.

-Completed demining, grading, and leveling through 51 miles of Kabul-Kandahar-Herat Highway, and will begin asphalting soon.
Completed over 6,100 water-related projects, including wells, irrigation canals, karezes, dams, reservoirs, and potable water systems.

-Supported over 225 spot reconstruction projects such as government buildings, schools, roads, bridges, irrigation systems and other community projects that provide local workers with thousands of days of labor.

-Will rebuild thousands of schools, irrigation systems, and other vital infrastructure in villages adjacent to reconstructed highways.

-Is rehabilitating 2,500 miles of road, is reconstructing 31 bridges, and has kept open an additional three mountain passes.

No, it's not a happy place. Neither was Europe after WWII nor the South after the Civil War. Rebuilding takes years, probably be 10-15 years before a semblence of normalcy begins to take shape. It will be at least another generation before people are in charge who haven't known only war their entire lives.

Probably not what you want to hear, but such is the reality of the world. :(

[shecky]

Originally posted by BTox


So where do you live, in a cave? I live close and occasionally work in NYC. I'd say your opinion is a distinct minority.

Biggest change I've seen is the govt increasing willingness to get into the lives of citizens. But by and large, my own life, too, hasn't been too affected.

Originally posted by BTox

Problems with the truth because you disagree with the truth. I get it...

Problems with the spin. Since the truth in the essay wasn't particularly dramatic...

[Zero]

Originally posted by BTox


So where do you live, in a cave? I live close and occasionally work in NYC. I'd say your opinion is a distinct minority.



Problems with the truth because you disagree with the truth. I get it... If my opinion is in the minority, it just proves my superiority:D If you live in NYC, or work in the area, then yeah, life changed. The lives of people in Kansas, or Kentucky, or most of the rest of the country, didn't really change all that much...unless you count unfounded panic and paranoia.

And Krauthammer has a problem leaving out details when it doesn't suit his interpretation of the truth...like when he was smearing Dean back in December by dishonestly editing the transcript of his appearance on Hardball. There are llots more examples of Krauthammer's dishonesty, not that you would care about the truth when it conflicts with your biases.

[Zero]

Originally posted by WildCat

If the destruction of the WTC and 3,000 innocent lives doesn't change your outlook, what would it take? 30,000? 100,000?

When would you think it is necessary to take action? What action should I take? Shall I get in my ZeroCopter and go bomb Afghanistan? Jeez, people!!

And, IMO, one death would have been just as bad as 3000, or 30,000...the number of people killed isn't the point; reasoned and appropriate reaction is the point. That, and not using 9-11 as an excuse to screw over people that you have wanted to screw over for decades...like writing anti-union rules into a bad Homeland Security bill, or by lying and claiming that Republicans came up with the idea of Homeland Security. The idea was first drafted under Clinton, first proposed by Democrats, and opposed by Bush for months.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by shemp
Is this rich or what?! The same chickenhawk buttholes who spent years hammering Clinton about his avoidance of military service are now falling all over themselves explaining away Bush's similar lack thereof. What a bunch of maroons!!!

Military service was so important to them in 1992. Now it means nothing to them.

Pathetic hypocrites.

Amen Shemp!

[subgenius]

The "everything changed on 9/11" thing is misguided.
Absolutely nothing changed on that day. We faced the same threat from terrorists the day before and the day after. If it took the tragedy to make some aware of it, shame on them.
Yes, of course, you "do something" in response to such an action, but you do not push through a bunch of unrelated programs as a cover your ass move, and part of a completely different agenda.
Most of the security flaws exposed by the attack were there, and known, the day before. The shame was in not fixing them the day before and in "fixing" too much afterwards.
Some who say it changed everything also oppose the investigation into what happened to find out if there was anything more that could have been done, so that we can now do that. This tells me that its not about finding the truth but pushing an agenda.

On another of these derailed thread topics:
"Being against the drug war, I could give a rat's a$$ about opium production."

Well you might, because allegedly the profits are helping finance the Taliban and al Queda.

Just like the tens of millions we gave the Taliban shortly before 9/11 to supposedly stop growing opium, which the opium growers loved because all it did was raise the price of the product and their profits.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shemp
Is this rich or what?! The same chickenhawk buttholes who spent years hammering Clinton about his avoidance of military service are now falling all over themselves explaining away Bush's similar lack thereof. What a bunch of maroons!!!

Military service was so important to them in 1992. Now it means nothing to them.

Pathetic hypocrites.

It's running both ways. The New York Times excused Bill Clinton for his "draft dodging," and yet are all over Bush for his "desertion."

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Zero


Sorry...but I do think it is foolish in the extreme to act as though 9-11 changed anything that you weren't looking for an excuse to change...

This I happen to agree with. Particulary in the context of the Patriot Act.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Luke T.


This I happen to agree with. Particulary in the context of the Patriot Act.
Sorry Mr. T, but you know me, I kinda thick. Could you clarify what you mean? Tanx.

[peptoabysmal]

Paul Galanti learned of Kerry's [1971] speech while held captive inside North Vietnam's infamous 'Hanoi Hilton' prison. The Navy pilot had been shot down in June 1966 and spent nearly seven years as a prisoner of war."

"During torture sessions, he said, his captors cited the antiwar speeches as 'an example of why we should cross over to [their] side.'"

"'The Viet Cong didn't think they had to win the war on the battlefield,' Galanti said, 'because thanks to these protesters they were going to win it on the streets of San Francisco and Washington.'"

"He says Kerry broke a covenant among servicemen never to make public criticisms that might jeopardize those still in battle or in the hands of the enemy."

"Because he did, Galanti said, 'John Kerry was a traitor to the men he served with.'"

"Now retired and living in Richmond, Va., Galanti, 64, refuses to cool his ire toward Kerry."

"'I don't plan to set it aside. I don't know anyone who does,' He said. 'The Vietnam memorial has thousands of additional names due to John Kerry and others like him.'"


The Dishonor Of John Kerry (http://www.jayreding.com/archives/004276.php)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


The Dishonor Of John Kerry (http://www.jayreding.com/archives/004276.php)

So he can't criticise a war that he has come to believe is wrong, because it might cause some harm to captured men or those fighting the war. Nevermind the fact that over a million Vietnamese lives were in lost.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

So he can't criticise a war that he has come to believe is wrong, because it might cause some harm to captured men or those fighting the war. Nevermind the fact that over a million Vietnamese lives were in lost.

Oh yeah, and I'm quite sure there are a lot of former Cong who are losing sleep over what they did to us, too.

Aiding the enemy is the definition of a traitor, is it not? The article claims that Kerry's speech gave aid to the enemy. Your mileage may vary.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Oh yeah, and I'm quite sure there are a lot of former Cong who are losing sleep over what they did to us, too.

Aiding the enemy is the definition of a traitor, is it not? The article claims that Kerry's speech gave aid to the enemy. Your mileage may vary.

I see, so all wars by your country cannot be questioned, and orders must be blindly followed.

[clk]

That's a nice bit of spin you got there, pep. I found this excerpt especially ludicrous:
"'The Vietnam memorial has thousands of additional names due to John Kerry and others like him.'"

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by clk
That's a nice bit of spin you got there, pep. I found this excerpt especially ludicrous:
"'The Vietnam memorial has thousands of additional names due to John Kerry and others like him.'"

Perhaps you could explain the "obvious absurdity" of this statement for those of us not as enlightened as you?

Who am I to criticize someone Jimmy Hoffa (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/) is so fond of?

It would be piracy for me to take credit for the spin. The author is one Hugh Hewitt (http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/003300.html).

[clk]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Perhaps you could explain the "obvious absurdity" of this statement for those of us not as enlightened as you?


It's ridiculous because Kerry's anti-war statements did not cause the deaths of thousands of people. Do you agree with the statement in question? If so, could you please tell us how John Kerry's statements resulted directly in the death of thousands of people?


It would be piracy for me to take credit for the spin. The author is one Hugh Hewitt (http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/003300.html).

When I said "nice bit of spin you got there", I meant "you have a nice bit of spin in your possession". I wasn't attributing it to you.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by clk
It's ridiculous because Kerry's anti-war statements did not cause the deaths of thousands of people. Do you agree with the statement in question? If so, could you please tell us how John Kerry's statements resulted directly in the death of thousands of people?
Kerry's statements could have indirectly resulted in deaths. There are some who believe this to be the case. I don't know the absolute truth of this statement, but I believe it warrants further investigation and shouldn't be swept under the carpet because anti-war protestors are supposedly only capable of spreading peace and light throughout the world.


When I said "nice bit of spin you got there", I meant "you have a nice bit of spin in your possession". I wasn't attributing it to you.
Thank you for clearing that up. I wouldn't want any mods after me for copyright violations.

[clk]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

Kerry's statements could have indirectly resulted in deaths.

That's kind of like saying that someone who buys opium could have indirectly contributed to 9/11 because the opium money goes back to Afghanistan. Or that buying stock in a company that makes cigarettes could make you a killer...indirectly. Or that George Bush saying "bring it on" could have caused the death of US soldiers...indirectly. And so on.

[varwoche]

> But a man of so many pirouettes [Kerry] hardly inspires
> confidence as a resolute President

Resolute is so important that it you'll overlook Bush being a maniac and a doofus?? <g>

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

Kerry's statements could have indirectly resulted in deaths. There are some who believe this to be the case. I don't know the absolute truth of this statement, but I believe it warrants further investigation and shouldn't be swept under the carpet because anti-war protestors are supposedly only capable of spreading peace and light throughout the world.


Thank you for clearing that up. I wouldn't want any mods after me for copyright violations.

Sending hundreds of thousands of troops and B52 bombers to Vietnam, may have led to the deaths of over a million Vietnamese.

[clk]

Bumped for Imodium-AD. I mean Pepto-Bismol. ;)