So Dubya was the smart one...

...the US could have elected a right donkey had they plumped for Kerry. It's hard to be outwitted by Bush yet this guy seems to manage it. His latest foot in mouth episode could cost the Democrats dearly in the upcoming elections...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226490,00.html?sPage=fnc.politics/youdecide2006

RedPlanet

I doubt anybody is loosing sleep over it.
It's just the GOP trying to make hay over something, anything.
Kerry is a "decorated" Vietnam war veteran, what's George Bush?
A child.

Kerry is probably right you know.
I'd hazard a guess that the average intelligence of an enlisted man in USA, is.....subpar.
It'd be really interesting to quiz the rank and file on simple geography.

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote:

Kerry is probably right you know.
I'd hazard a guess that the average intelligence of an enlisted man in USA, is.....subpar.

He should know. He was soldier himself and is displaying all the symptoms of subpar intelligence. He clearly believes in giving us all a demonstration of his theory.

Of course the GOP are twisting it into something he didn't really say. The fact is that he walked right into it, and clealy spoke without thinking of the potential spins that could be made, is revealing.

metrovelvet

RedPlanet wrote:

I doubt anybody is loosing sleep over it.
It's just the GOP trying to make hay over something, anything.
Kerry is a "decorated" Vietnam war veteran, what's George Bush?
A child.

Kerry is probably right you know.
I'd hazard a guess that the average intelligence of an enlisted man in USA, is.....subpar.
It'd be really interesting to quiz the rank and file on simple geography.

Actually a lot of enlisted men and women are minorities or come from lower middle class to poorer backgrounds.

Calling them stupid and remarking on their low IQs has significant class, race and elitist connotations. So be careful....

But really how could Kerry who said something so stupid comment on anyone else's intelligence or education?

humanji

I'm surprised everyone missed this little gem :

[QUOTE-Dubya]"The members of the United States military are plenty smart and they are plenty brave, and the senator from Massachusetts owes them an apology," Bush said.[/QUOTE]

bobbyjoe

Think he just messed up a joke he was trying to say something about Bush's intelligence. Kerry wasn't a very good candidate someone better could have wiped the floor with Bush in the debates plus he has the charisma of a plank of wood. Could have been worse though he could have called them a comma in history.

humanji

And think of all the bushisms we'd have missed out on if Kerry won!

J.S. Pill

humanji wrote:

I'm surprised everyone missed this little gem :

Don't be under any illusions, that little piece was probably carefully constructed by some ivy league speechwriters. Mr. Bush's straight talking/everyman persona is one of his major selling points electorally. I think this gives him plenty licence to transcend the rules of grammar.

Sparks

RedPlanet wrote:

Kerry is probably right you know.

There's no probably about it.

Army moves to recruit more high school dropouts

Its Recruitment Goals Pressing, the Army Will Ease Some Standards

magick

the democrats will have to be v careful in the upcoming days/weeks before the election and make the case that the Republicons arent the party to lead the usa

Manic Moran

I've a college degree. I ended up in Iraq.

The big question is "How did Karl Rove engineer this October Surprise?"

Kerry is a "decorated" Vietnam war veteran, what's George Bush?
A child.

The majority of the military reverses that opinion, considering Bush to be the honourable veteran, (though getting awarded a Silver Star isn't anything to be sneezed at either), and Kerry to be the child-like performer with relation to prior military experience.

What I find particularly curious about this is the knock-on effect, which may be way out of proportion to the error. Kerry has cancelled his engagements for today: He was going to go out and stump up support for some Democratic candidates, yet suddenly associating with him has been seen as a bad move. Similar to Arnie not associating with Bush during his Governorship re-election campaign. CNN quotes a Democratic Strategist as saying "Kerry has already lost us one election. He should shut up until after this one"

On the one hand, I will accept that the jibe was targetted at Bush, not troops in general. Probably an honest, ad-lib error, and a political mountain is being made out of it regardless. (People keeping track of Kerry's speeches pre-2004, however, have noted that he has been negative about troops in general before). Indeed, even if he thinks the troops are sub-par on intelligence, what difference should it make? He's not running for office.

On the other hand, I think this says a lot of the depth at which campaigns run. Much has been made of Bushisms, or Quayleisms before him. Simple slip-ups, and yet it's common practise to put a lot of weight behind it. Well, if that's the way the game is to be played, so be it.

NTM

Hobbes

Amazing this is getting airtime in the US yet I have seen reports of voting machines mysteriously voting Republicans when you click the Democrats.

Kerry has already pointed out he was referring to Bush. What sort of fukin idiot of a politican disses the military. Answer none.

Dave!

"Smart" is such a strong word...

Slightly off-topic, but this gem couldn't be ignored...

"The Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses" -- GWB

Lurvely.

Sand

Amazing this is getting airtime in the US yet I have seen reports of voting machines mysteriously voting Republicans when you click the Democrats.

Kerry has already pointed out he was referring to Bush. What sort of fukin idiot of a politican disses the military. Answer none.

I dunno Hobbes - the precedent set for complete over reaction to comments made by political figures means that its a good thing Im not a politician because if I was I couldnt say Pot - Kettle - Black without being accused of KKK membership.

Manic Moran

Well, this didn't take long. The military's response.



NTM

flogen

The fact is that the Iraq war is not the place that highly educated Americans go to, nor is the army targeting this "market".... that said the comments by Kerry were careless; if it was a joke aimed at Bush he could have worded it a lot better than that, or just highlighted the disgusting fact that the US Army is aiming for school drop outs without wrapping it up in a little quip.

Manic Moran

flogen wrote:

The fact is that the Iraq war is not the place that highly educated Americans go to

Granted, I'm only part-way through my Masters, but do you mean to suggest that I am less educated than the audience that Kerry was addressing?

NTM

Hobbes

He might be referring to recruiters who have to hit monthly targets have been documented of power-canvessing poorer areas or schools where students are less likely to go onto college.

quick google..
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11/29/military_recruiters_pursue_target_schools_carefully/

I also recall a documentry on it. Just don't remember the name of it.

Sand wrote:

I dunno Hobbes - the precedent set for complete over reaction to comments made by political figures means that its a good thing Im not a politician because if I was I couldnt say Pot - Kettle - Black without being accused of KKK membership.

Man I wonder how many months you were sitting on that waiting to pull that post out. Almost seems like this post in the same thread.

Fact of the matter is the two are not the same. One is a known racist term while the other is taking a persons comments out of context.

And as I said only an idiot would openly critizise the men and women in the military unless they wanted to end thier political career.

It would be hilarious though if people changed thier vote based on Kerrys comments, considering he isn't running. Add to that some US TV station did a top 10 scandals of the current administration and only one of those (number 2) was a Democrat.

BlitzKrieg

Manic Moran wrote:

Granted, I'm only part-way through my Masters, but do you mean to suggest that I am less educated than the audience that Kerry was addressing?

NTM

I think Flogen might have not have worded his comment right. Those who go to Iraq either choose to go to Iraq for numerous honourable or other personal reasons. And then there are those were it is the best choice in a very limited selection of choices. Like someone addressed above, high school drop outs, low income minorities etc, the military offer a very realistic solution out of the many sinkholes in the American economy, while those who are educated and are clearly safe from these sinkholes can find other *safer* solutions to their paths.


So please dont feel any of these comments are an attack on your own intelligence or character.

Victor

Manic Moran wrote:

I've a college degree. I ended up in Iraq.

More than one person has commented in the negative on this.

The_Scary_Man

Whats interesting about this to me is the fact that the republicans managed to turn what was, when taken in context undeniably, a badly worded jibe at the Bush administration into an attack on the men and women in service in Iraq.

This truly is the age of the soundbyte. People take a single sentence totally remove the frame of context, apply a frame that fits their own agenda and Bingo! you've got a news story. What ever happened to journalists doing a little research?

On a slight aside I find it truly despicable that the republicans have pushed and are pushing the absolutely ridiculous idea that any attack on their mishandling of Iraq is an attack on the servicemen and women out there. First they put them in the line of fire on the strength of manufactured evidence then they cower behind them when their methods and strategies are called into question.

Truth be told this administration that likes to paint itself in the image of the guardian of the America's military might has set the US defence machine back twenty years since it took power.

Just a couple of days ago the House Majority Leader John Boehner refused to lay any blame for the crisis in Iraq at the feet of Donald Rumsfeld instead stating that it was in fact the generals on the ground who were in charge.

Any media frenzy there?

Didn't think so.

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote:

The majority of the military reverses that opinion, considering Bush to be the honourable veteran,

Huh?

The guy never served active duty in the military, and yet the military consider him a veteran over and above the guy who went to Vietnam?

How exactly does that work? "Oh, well, you're our boss now, so we'll accept you as one of our own despite your lack of active duty despite serving whilst our nation was at war. But that guy who went and picked up a gun to defend his country in a foreign country that didn't attack us.....like we're doing ourselves....he's an assclown" ???

What I find particularly curious about this is the knock-on effect, which may be way out of proportion to the error. Kerry has cancelled his engagements for today: He was going to go out and stump up support for some Democratic candidates, yet suddenly associating with him has been seen as a bad move. Similar to Arnie not associating with Bush during his Governorship re-election campaign. CNN quotes a Democratic Strategist as saying "Kerry has already lost us one election. He should shut up until after this one"

The media are desperate to find a way to "balance" their coverage. Up till Kerry's gaffe, the only way to really suggest GOP was getting on top of it would have been to talk about the effectiveness of the GOP dirty-tricks campaigns, which is kinda counter-productive when you think about it ("Look! Its gonna be a real race after all, cause these guys have sunk lower than you'd imagine to bring themselves back into the running. How can you not consider voting for the people who'd stoop this low....").

Instead, the press were handed a screwup by the Democrats to blow out of all proportion. Its all they've got on the "pro-Republican/anti-Democrat" shelf right now, so they're going to run it for every column-inch they can. whcih ultimately means there was no way out for Kerry. By withdrawing from supporting, he's increased the likelihood that any backlash be directed at himself rather than at the Democratic party and the candidates who are actually up for election (important point - Kerry ain't one of them).

Probably an honest, ad-lib error, and a political mountain is being made out of it regardless.

Compare to Bush's comment once about how the enemy never stops thinking about ways to harm America and neither do we....or his "bring 'em on" line, or any number of other gaffes. Mountain indeed.

Compare to Mike Stark being physically manhandled and all-but-beaten by offical party goons for daring to ask Republican candidate George Allen some tough-but-legitimate questions. Or the GOP running a flyer campaign where the anti-Democratic message flyer was designed to bear more than a passing similarity to a Sex-Offender Notification. The list goes on and its not pretty. These are all brushed aside as molehills....but as soon as a Democrat even hints at having actied with impropriety.....GAME ON!!!!!

On the other hand, I think this says a lot of the depth at which campaigns run.

If by depth you mean "lack of depth", then I'd fully agree. So much of American politics (or Western politics, or just politics in general) seems to revolve around whipping up emotional frenzy rather than about discussing the real issues. As General Wesley Clarke said "This election isn't about John Kerry. Its time to return to teh real issue: Iraq".

Its ultimately a damning reality that either side think its more important to get focussed on what Kerry said and who he might have meant when he said it, rather than focussing on the issue Kerry was discussing and asking whether or not he raised any valid points (albeit badly).

If he was talking abotu teh Administration, did he have a point, and is it a good point?
If he was talking about the soldiers, did he have a point, and is it a good point?

Slapping Kerry for expressing himself badly should take about 2 lines of any article on his speech. The rest should have been about whether he raised a valid concern, or was spouting hot air.

The problem is that any such review would be just more of the same. The only thing new in Kerry's speech was the gaffe. So naturally, thats all thats worth reporting on.

After all, its not like Americans want to discuss whats the right thing to do, right?

Frederico

I can't rephrase this any other way, the Republicans are complete scum and appeal to the lowest common denominator. They are just masters of twisting facts, lying, spinning, etc. They are just a ruthless group of individuals who hide behind smarmy smiles and always take the easy/dumb/violent approach to all issues. Not that I can say many good things about the democrats but they are a damn sight better than the Republicans.

flogen

BlitzKrieg wrote:

I think Flogen might have not have worded his comment right. Those who go to Iraq either choose to go to Iraq for numerous honourable or other personal reasons. And then there are those were it is the best choice in a very limited selection of choices. Like someone addressed above, high school drop outs, low income minorities etc, the military offer a very realistic solution out of the many sinkholes in the American economy, while those who are educated and are clearly safe from these sinkholes can find other *safer* solutions to their paths.


So please dont feel any of these comments are an attack on your own intelligence or character.

Indeed; apologies but I worded my comment poorly.

My point (as Blitz pretty much captured already) was that to uneducated people with no decent job prospects the Army is quite possibly the only viable career which gives them access to potential advancement in the future.
Of course people who are, in the words of George W. Bush, plenty smart, have gone to Iraq but they did so for reasons other than having next to no choice for a chance at a future.
I think Kerry made a stupid mistake where he could have raised a serious concern; the US Army is being kept afloat by a lot of people with no other choice and as a result it raises the question; does the US administration have a vested interest in ensuring that there are always people with no hope of a future besides war?

Manic Moran

bonkey wrote:

Huh?

The guy never served active duty in the military, and yet the military consider him a veteran over and above the guy who went to Vietnam?

Well, technically speaking, he must have been on active duty for a while: Initial Entry Training and Flight School would have been integrated Active Duty courses. He was just never sent to a war zone.

How exactly does that work? "Oh, well, you're our boss now, so we'll accept you as one of our own despite your lack of active duty despite serving whilst our nation was at war. But that guy who went and picked up a gun to defend his country in a foreign country that didn't attack us.....like we're doing ourselves....he's an assclown" ???

Yes. The difference is in how it was being presented. I don't recall Bush ever going around touting his Air Guard service much. Indeed, I think the only reason I ever found out about it is was because of the big "Did he shirk his service" brouhaha. At most it was "Yeah, I was in for a while. Didn't do anything particularly notable"

On the other hand, you have "I have a Silver Star and Three Purple Hearts" Kerry (Who apparently threw back his ribbons) who insisted on repeatedly shoving that fact down our throats so that we knew he was as big if not a bigger veteran than Bush. And, oh, by the way, he only did a third of a tour, and his comments in the 1970s were not complementary to the Army.

That may play well to civilians, but military types really hate blowhards. Most American servicemen (Possible exception of the "elitist types") really don't care if you were a high-speed Active Duty Airborne Guy or a reservist ammunition counter: You wore a uniform, you made yourself available, you did your job, there's nothing more to say. Honourable service. Indirectly, as well, Kerry was pissing off the Active Duty soldiers that didn't go to Vietnam, but went to Germany instead (or wherever). They saw as much action as Bush did, is Kerry somehow implying that their service was any less worthy?

NTM

Sparks

Manic Moran wrote:

Well, technically speaking, he must have been on active duty for a while: Initial Entry Training and Flight School would have been integrated Active Duty courses. He was just never sent to a war zone.

Technically speaking, he hasn't yet shown satisfactorily that he didn't go awol...

Yes. The difference is in how it was being presented. I don't recall Bush ever going around touting his Air Guard service much.

Yeah, he keeps *real* quiet about it.

Indeed, I think the only reason I ever found out about it is was because of the big "Did he shirk his service" brouhaha. At most it was "Yeah, I was in for a while. Didn't do anything particularly notable"

At most it was that he couldn't prove that he showed up for duty in texas between '72 and '73 for the air national guard.

On the other hand, you have "I have a Silver Star and Three Purple Hearts" Kerry (Who apparently threw back his ribbons) who insisted on repeatedly shoving that fact down our throats so that we knew he was as big if not a bigger veteran than Bush. And, oh, by the way, he only did a third of a tour, and his comments in the 1970s were not complementary to the Army.

He only served a third of a tour because he was injured three times, which got you sent home under navy regs at the time. And in that third of a tour he earned a silver and a bronze star, don't forget.
And who the hell said your comments post-army had to be complementary to the army? Especially given the time? Would he be the first soldier to criticise his deployment? Hell, even Rumsfeld was ambushed at a public conference by questions from serving soldiers criticising their deployment without the proper gear.

(and that's me assuming you meant "armed forces" instead of army, by the way - given that Kerry was in the Navy, you'd expect him to bad mouth the army )

They saw as much action as Bush did

I seriously doubt any full-time soldier saw as little action as the sandbags did.

metrovelvet

flogen wrote:

Indeed; apologies but I worded my comment poorly.

My point (as Blitz pretty much captured already) was that to uneducated people with no decent job prospects the Army is quite possibly the only viable career which gives them access to potential advancement in the future.
Of course people who are, in the words of George W. Bush, plenty smart, have gone to Iraq but they did so for reasons other than having next to no choice for a chance at a future.
I think Kerry made a stupid mistake where he could have raised a serious concern; the US Army is being kept afloat by a lot of people with no other choice and as a result it raises the question; does the US administration have a vested interest in ensuring that there are always people with no hope of a future besides war?

Lets not assume that those who joined the reserves also chose to go to Iraq. Im sure many signed up before all this started happenning.

The military provides one option towards getting an education, it is not automatically a sign of desperation. That Kerry made a remark in front of privaleged college kids who probably dont have to study that hard because Daddy will get them a job, that is if they can squeeze one in inbetween watching reruns of the OC, is deliciously extra stupid.

THirdly, some people like to join the military out of pure patriotism.

Whatever you think of Bush, we all know Kerry hates the military. He hasnt been shy about that.

Sparks

we all know Kerry hates the military

We all know that he hated what they were used for. I'm not sure we actually know he hated the military itself...

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote:

Well, technically speaking, he must have been on active duty for a while: Initial Entry Training and Flight School would have been integrated Active Duty courses. He was just never sent to a war zone.

Noted. I appreciate the clarification.

and his comments in the 1970s were not complementary to the Army.
...
That may play well to civilians, but military types really hate blowhards.

This was kinda what I was driving at. The military perspective seems to be more that Bush gets more respect because he's liked more by the military. I perhaps read too much into your use of the term veteran for Bush (assuming you meant Kerry wasn't a veteran), but on reflection you seem to have been saying that while they are both veterans, Bush is seen as the honourable one.

You wore a uniform, you made yourself available, you did your job, there's nothing more to say.

Apparently there is because Kerry isn't getting equal credit for making himself available and doing his job and nothing more to say. Indeed, its the opposite - he's getting knocked because there clearly is more to say.

Manic Moran

Sparks wrote:

Technically speaking, he hasn't yet shown satisfactorily that he didn't go awol...

Need I show you satisfactorily that I have not gone AWOL? If I recall, the biggest 'proof' of the AWOL was later shown to be a forgery. Caused a few heads to roll over at the news agencies if memory serves.

Yeah, he keeps *real* quiet about it.

What has a Navy picture from a couple of years ago got to do with Air Guard service four decades ago? I've seen a photo of himself in an F-102 cockpit, and that was about it.

He only served a third of a tour because he was injured three times, which got you sent home under navy regs at the time.

It was not a mandatory transfer. He could request to stay, and chose not to. Before you go saying "Who in their right mind would request to stay?" bear in mind that my unit had injured troops fighting their damndest to stay with their colleagues. These is much history of troops either breaking out of hospital early, or otherwise insisting on staying with their units, even with more serious injuries. This sort of thing is approved-of by troops.

And in that third of a tour he earned a silver and a bronze star, don't forget.

Nope. Not forgetting. I don't think any rational person is seriously saying that the valour awards were not earned. There's a difference, however, between earning awards for individual acts of bravery and how one acts overall in relation to service. The "Hero" of Black Hawk Down, the clerk (Stubbins) who was thrust into fighting was decorated for his action. He's currently serving 20 years in Leavenworth. You can be brave and an assclown at the same time.

And who the hell said your comments post-army had to be complementary to the army? Especially given the time? Would he be the first soldier to criticise his deployment? Hell, even Rumsfeld was ambushed at a public conference by questions from serving soldiers criticising their deployment without the proper gear.

He wasn't only criticising the deployment, mission, or equipment. His comments were directed specifically at the nature of the organisation itself.

""I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown [...] We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'"

Doesn't sound particularly complementary to the army at all. Since he was in the Service, he should be aware that the Army didn't particularly approve of war crimes as standard operating procedure.

(and that's me assuming you meant "armed forces" instead of army, by the way - given that Kerry was in the Navy, you'd expect him to bad mouth the army )

Fair point, but some of the comments go a little beyond ribbing.

I seriously doubt any full-time soldier saw as little action as the sandbags did.

Why? I met a draftee at a funeral recently who did his enforced enlistment entirely as an clerk in Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. (The most requested post in the US Army). I know a few Germany-based tankers that didn't see any action in their time in service either.

NTM

Sparks

Manic Moran wrote:

Need I show you satisfactorily that I have not gone AWOL?

Yes, if accused of it and you wish to clear your name...

If I recall, the biggest 'proof' of the AWOL was later shown to be a forgery.

Memory does not serve. One document amongst many was shown to be a possible forgery. (BTW, if we're talking forgeries, how's that yellowcake deal going?)

What has a Navy picture from a couple of years ago got to do with Air Guard service four decades ago?

The point was that he was using his military service record to bolster his political career.

It was not a mandatory transfer. He could request to stay, and chose not to.

And you're somehow saying that this was a character defect?
Unless you're posting from Iraq right now Manic, you've got a pretty self-incriminating case there.

""I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown [...] We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'"

Sounds valid enough to me, especially since he'd seen what he's talking about first-hand. But it does not sound like he's criticising the soldiers, he sounds like he's criticising the use of them as cannon fodder.

Since he was in the Service, he should be aware that the Army didn't particularly approve of war crimes as standard operating procedure.

When did that change then?

Why? I met a draftee at a funeral recently who did his enforced enlistment entirely as an clerk in Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. (The most requested post in the US Army). I know a few Germany-based tankers that didn't see any action in their time in service either.

Did they go home to their own beds every night during the week?
You can't say that weekend warriors were seeing as much active service as full-time soldiers, it defies reality.

Manic Moran

bonkey wrote:

I perhaps read too much into your use of the term veteran for Bush (assuming you meant Kerry wasn't a veteran), but on reflection you seem to have been saying that while they are both veterans, Bush is seen as the honourable one.

That's correct. I wasn't meaning to say that Kerry wasn't a veteran, which is obviously not true. Bush's campaign is just more 'gentlemanly' about it. Maybe if he had done more we might have heard more about it, and had that shoved down our throat too, but he didn't. The Kerry Campaign made damned sure we know that he had been awarded whatever. That may or may not have been Kerry's call, but he was tainted by association over it. Basically Kerry was perceived as making more out of is service than it was worth, and Bush wasn't.

Indeed, its the opposite - he's getting knocked because there clearly is more to say.

He's getting knocked because of the way he's saying it. He just needed to have said "I was in Vietnam, here's a picture of me looking all commandingly at the bridge of my craft", and that's it. The thing about most awards is that they're not really your fault if you earn them or not. You don't try to get wounded, and you don't try to put yourself in positions that result in getting Silver Stars. This is why troops object to the term of phrase "I earned a Silver Star" or whatever. You don't earn them, you are awarded them. Some people who are plenty brave come home with nothing at all simply because they were never put into a position where any bravery becomes apparent. This doesn't knock the respect that one gives a chap who is wearing the medal, as it is evidence that he is worthy of the respect, but that's far different from saying that "Just because I've got a medal and you don't, I'm better than you," which is the way that the campaign seemed to be running it.

NTM

Sparks

MM, how do you reconcile that belief that the Bush campaign was "gentlemanly" with the facts behind the whole Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign?

Manic Moran

Sparks wrote:

The point was that he was using his military service record to bolster his political career.

He arrived in an S-3. It's flashy, a chopper could have probably done the job just as well, but hey, I think the Viking guys probably appreciated the attention. If you're going to fly in one, you wear a flight suit. Nothing particularly dramatic or devious about that.

And you're somehow saying that this was a character defect?
Unless you're posting from Iraq right now Manic, you've got a pretty self-incriminating case there.

I am still in my unit, with my friends and colleagues who got shot at with me, (My 'band of brothers,' if you wish) and have not requested early release from duty. Kerry left his unit, and got out early.

Did they go home to their own beds every night during the week?
You can't say that weekend warriors were seeing as much active service as full-time soldiers, it defies reality.

I don't. You said "Saw action", not "saw active service." The two are different. In the cases of the draftee clerk at Schofield, a volunteer 2nd Cav tanker in the Fulda Gap in Germany, or Bush the Continental Air Defense Pilot in the Air Guard in Texas, they all saw the same amount of action, and all were available for use if there was a need for them. All is equally honoured service around here.

MM, how do you reconcile that belief that the Bush campaign was "gentlemanly" with the facts behind the whole Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign?

Don't need to. SBVT was a crowd knocking Kerry's service, I don't believe it did anything to 'grandiose' Bush's role. I don't believe there's been a 'gentlemanly' political campaign in the US in decades. I was referring solely to any references to military service in his campaign.

NTM

Sparks

Manic Moran wrote:

He arrived in an S-3. It's flashy, a chopper could have probably done the job just as well, but hey, I think the Viking guys probably appreciated the attention.

Oddly enough, the carrier crew later complained at being required to get within 30 miles of port and then wait for Bush to wake up and take his trip out on the Viking.

I am still in my unit

And if one of your unit at the end of his tour decided to return home rather than sign up for another tour, would you think ill of them?

all were available for use if there was a need for them

Something that's still in dispute with regard to Bush.

Manic Moran

Sparks wrote:

Oddly enough, the carrier crew later complained at being required to get within 30 miles of port and then wait for Bush to wake up and take his trip out on the Viking.

Yeah, the carrier was ahead of schedule by a couple of hours. When the whole S-3 idea was dreamed up, the carrier was supposed to be so far from land that a helicopter wouldn't be feasible. When this proved not to be the case, they decided not to change the plan. In any case, this is fairly irrelevant to the service argument.

And if one of your unit at the end of his tour decided to return home rather than sign up for another tour, would you think ill of them?

Never really came up. Everyone fought tooth and nail to stay.

NTM

Sparks

Manic Moran wrote:

In any case, this is fairly irrelevant to the service argument.

Not really. You said Bush didn't rely on his time in the service, I point out that he in fact used it in a staged photo op which kept servicemen from home after a ten month tour in a war zone.

Never really came up. Everyone fought tooth and nail to stay.

I'm not sure if that's dodging the question or answering it through implication.

Manic Moran

Sparks wrote:

Not really. You said Bush didn't rely on his time in the service, I point out that he in fact used it in a staged photo op which kept servicemen from home after a ten month tour in a war zone.

How did he use it? He could have served as a cook, and he'd still be in a flight suit if flown via S-3. Or he could have been a total civilian. Any time you see a journalist go for a joyride in the back of a military jet, he's in a flight suit.

If merely wearing the clothes is a claim about prior service, then how do you explain Clinton in a Flight Jacket?

I'm not sure if that's dodging the question or answering it through implication.

Bit of both, really.

NTM

Sparks

Manic Moran wrote:

How did he use it?

Oh come on. There are things that simply require too much suspension of belief to be given weight and one of them is the idea that Bush's time in the air national guard was never intended to be reflected by that photo op.

Bit of both, really.

So you're looking at your band of brothers and thinking "I love you guys, but if any one of you decides not to ask to come back to a war zone, you'll be a schmuck in my eyes?". What happened to showing up, doing your job and going home and that's all real soldiers want to see?

Sand

Man I wonder how many months you were sitting on that waiting to pull that post out.

Waiting to catch you out on a completly hypocritical post about how the media can twist someones comments into something completly different to what they intended? And give it far, far, far more attention than it deserves?

Well lets see.

You made your post about Snow being a closet member of the KKK because he referenced a Brer Rabbit tale on May 19th and I referenced your hypocrisy on November 1st so that would be ....166 days (thanks excel). You can convert that to months at your own leisure.

Cant say I didnt warn you though. Will you learn anything from it though? Probably not.

And as I said only an idiot would openly critizise the men and women in the military unless they wanted to end thier political career.

Thats funny - I dont recall you claiming that only an idiotic White House secretary would openly racially insult something like 20% of America. Or more actually, if you allow that Americans in general would find racial slurs objectionable in general.

Im sure the US miliatary arent 20% of the US population, though Id accept the US population find slurs on the US military to be objectionable in principle.

Personally, Im willing to accept Kerry tripped over his words - he lost to Bush so he cant be all that smart. Maybe someday others will share my ability to ignore short term political advantage in favour of the long term good of the political system. Pray with me Hobbes.

Add to that some US TV station did a top 10 scandals of the current administration and only one of those (number 2) was a Democrat.

Amazing even that the Bush administration can be associated with Democrat scandals - they're Republican afterall. Or even that the Democrats can be blamed for the current administration seeing as theyre not it.

BTW I reserve the right to correct this post as needs be.

Manic Moran

Sparks wrote:

So you're looking at your band of brothers and thinking "I love you guys, but if any one of you decides not to ask to come back to a war zone, you'll be a schmuck in my eyes?". What happened to showing up, doing your job and going home and that's all real soldiers want to see?

It's obviously going to be situation dependant, but I think the overriding feeling would probably be more a form of disappointment. Yeah, you'd feel good for the guy, he's going home and will be with his family, but why isn't he fighting to stay like the other guys?

NTM

Victor

Manic Moran wrote:

Yes. The difference is in how it was being presented. I don't recall Bush ever going around touting his Air Guard service much.

Because he couldn't.

I don't. You said "Saw action", not "saw active service." The two are different. In the cases of the draftee clerk at Schofield, a volunteer 2nd Cav tanker in the Fulda Gap in Germany, or Bush the Continental Air Defense Pilot in the Air Guard in Texas, they all saw the same amount of action, and all were available for use if there was a need for them. All is equally honoured service around here.

But the long standing allegation is that Bush welched on his responsibilities.

Yeah, the carrier was ahead of schedule by a couple of hours.

Weren't the crew complaining that Bush's stunt actually delayed them getting home?

Nope. Not forgetting. I don't think any rational person is seriously saying that the valour awards were not earned.

He's getting knocked because of the way he's saying it. He just needed to have said "I was in Vietnam, here's a picture of me looking all commandingly at the bridge of my craft", and that's it. The thing about most awards is that they're not really your fault if you earn them or not. You don't try to get wounded, and you don't try to put yourself in positions that result in getting Silver Stars.

So were they earned or not?

Surely someone in the Navy could 'easily' sit on an aircraft carrier / cruiser / whatever for their entire tour, whereas Kerry was very much at the pointy end of things and if he was repeatedly awarded then he wasn't exactly a workshy REMF.

I am still in my unit

Remind me. For the last few months which of the following have you been (a) downrange (b) driving a desk (c) doing computer support?

Manic Moran

Victor wrote:

Because he couldn't.

Yes, there's a top end limit, but I don't think he pushed it any more than reasonable, even given his limited action.

But the long standing allegation is that Bush welched on his responsibilities.

You can allege anything you want.

Weren't the crew complaining that Bush's stunt actually delayed them getting home?

I seem to recall so, yes. They could have been back a couple of hours earlier if they hadn't had to do Bush shuttle service.

So were they earned or not?

"Deserved" might be a better word.

Surely someone in the Navy could 'easily' sit on an aircraft carrier / cruiser / whatever for their entire tour, whereas Kerry was very much at the pointy end of things and if he was repeatedly awarded then he wasn't exactly a workshy REMF.

You miss the point. He had greater opportunity to show his mettle under fire. The vast majority of awards are from units at the pointy end. Not because they have the best soldiers, but because they are most likely to be in a position where any interesting actions would come up.

Remind me. For the last few months which of the following have you been (a) downrange (b) driving a desk (c) doing computer support?

Well, I'm off to Irwin for TCGST tomorrow. The emphasis was 'with my unit.' You should know as well as anyone that the primary motivating factor for a troop is the guy next to him, in his unit. Unit comes home, I come home with it. Unit goes out again in 2008/9, guess what? I go with it. Not on my priority list of things I want to do, but if my guys are going, I should too.

NTM

Victor

Manic Moran wrote:

Yes, there's a top end limit, but I don't think he pushed it any more than reasonable, even given his limited action.

What action did Bush see?

Well, I'm off to Irwin for TCGST tomorrow. The emphasis was 'with my unit.' You should know as well as anyone that the primary motivating factor for a troop is the guy next to him, in his unit. Unit comes home, I come home with it. Unit goes out again in 2008/9, guess what? I go with it. Not on my priority list of things I want to do, but if my guys are going, I should too.

But what of all the guys currently in Iraq. You aren't there for them.

Manic Moran

Typo. Actions.

They're not my unit. They're not people I was assigned to train with or lead.

NTM

Sparks

They're not my unit.

I don't think you can take that line and then criticise Kerry for returning home after being wounded in action three times while saving his unit from harm. Well. You can, but you have to accept being a hypocrite...

Liam Byrne

Mr. Bush's straight talking....

You're kidding, right ? Lying through his teeth about the reasons for invading Iraq, and (when challenged) changing his story 5 or 6 times is "straight talking" ????

You'd get more honesty and straight talking from Charlie or Bertie !

Nick_oliveri

Keith Olberman did a peice on this on MSNBC!

Watch it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq7JUi1lQc4

BlitzKrieg

Nick_oliveri wrote:

Keith Olberman did a peice on this on MSNBC!

Watch it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq7JUi1lQc4

Oh wow...that was very impressive.

Victor

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Oh wow...that was very impressive.

Olberman 2008.