Where is the Shame? (Excerpts from NYTimes Editorial)

[freeflydrew 0]

Here's are a couple paragraphs from an editorial in todays NY Times:

Mr. Cleland reminded reporters of the scurrilous attacks by Bush forces against Senator John McCain in the Republican presidential primary in 2000 and said: "Keep in mind, this president has gone after three Vietnam veterans in four years. That's got to stop."

In what is surely the most important election of the last half-century, we seem trapped in the politics of the madhouse. What is incredible is that these attacks on men who served not just honorably, but heroically, are coming from a hawkish party that is controlled by an astonishing number of men who sprinted as far from the front lines as they could when they were of fighting age and their country was at war.

Mr. Bush himself, the nation's commander in chief and the biggest hawk of all. He revels in the accouterments of combat. The story was somewhat different when he was 22 years old and eligible for combat himself. He managed to get into the cushy confines of the Texas Air National Guard at the height of the Vietnam War in 1968 - a year in which more than a half-million American troops were in the war zone and more than 14,000 were killed.

Vice President Dick Cheney, another fierce administration hawk. Mr. Cheney asked for and received five deferments when he was eligible for the draft. He told senators at a confirmation hearing in 1989, "I had other priorities in the 60's than military service." Many draft-age Americans had similar priorities - getting an education, getting married and starting a family.

Attorney General John Ashcroft. He is reported to have said, "I would have served, if asked." But with the war raging in Vietnam, he received six student deferments and an "occupational deferment" based on the essential nature of a civilian job at Southwest Missouri State University - teaching business law to undergraduates.

Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary and a fanatical hawk on Iraq. He was not fanatical about Vietnam and escaped the draft with student deferments.

I would like to see at least some of these men, in keeping with their positions as leaders of a great nation, stand up and say it is wrong - just wrong - to try and reap a cheap political gain by defacing the sacrifices of individuals like John Kerry, John McCain and Max Cleland, who put themselves in mortal danger in the service of their country.

It's one thing to decline to serve. It's quite another to throw mud at those who did serve - or to remain silent as allies hurl the mud.

The privileged classes no longer feel an obligation to put their lives - or their children's lives - on the line in defense of the nation. The very least they could do is insist that those who have put themselves in harm's way be treated with respect.

[storm1977 0]

Mr. Kerry too applied for student defferment.... He was refused. What would you have done if You were a student?


I don't know if I would call what Mr. Kerry did as honorable either. He is an admitted war criminal, and then he stabbed his fellow Vets in the back By preaching to congress on all the illegal things the "Soldiers" were doing.

Also, firing an RPG into a rock infront of yourself causing a little piece of shrapnel in your arm and then signing your own Purple Heart recommendation is not very honorable either.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[freeflydrew 0]

The point of the article is respecting those who served, and not attacking them for what they may or may not have done during there enlistment... but I guess you missed that point, eh?

[TheAnvil 0]

Ahhh...Kerry served...so he is immune from criticism.

Bzzzt. Wrong. He chose to bring up his service and mention it at virtually every opportunity. Now he's reaping what he sowed....

Still wish he would authorize a reprint of his book....

hehehehehehehe.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[freeflydrew 0]

Quote

Ahhh...Kerry served...so he is immune from criticism.

Mr. Cleland reminded reporters of the scurrilous attacks by Bush forces against Senator John McCain in the Republican presidential primary in 2000 and said: "Keep in mind, this president has gone after three Vietnam veterans in four years. That's got to stop."


I'm not trying to question the service records of those who have clearly served for this country... Bush on the other hand... (just joking)

[gemini 0]

Drew:

As a vet, I have no problem with people my age who received legal deferments or were able to joing the reserve or national guard and I do not question their motives. Out of my high school class of 512 only about 50 of us served in the military and we were available during the worst years of the war. Serving was not necessarily seen as honorable at the time by our peers. In fact it was almost 20 years before I would discuss my service with anyone outside my immediate family.

The country was in great turmoil at the time . If I was with a group of friends, half were always anti-war and the other half were more pro-US or pro-troops than pro-war. We avoided talking about the war because the issue was black and white, right or wrong; there was no middle ground or gray area; and you didn't want to lose all your old friends over it. This even applied within military units!

I volunteered to serve, but do not think less of those who did not serve or those who served in units that were not participating in the war. Is a soldier serving in the Old Guard in Washington or the Golden Knights less of a soldier than one serving in Iraq? I think not.

I do think less of someone who lies about or exxagerates their duty, abandons their post, and demeans those they served with for political gain.

Isn't it interesting that the normal tour of duty was one year, but two men with political ambitions were both able to leave after four short months. I will never be able to prove it, but I think they were simply building their resumes'.

Finally, it is my humble opinion that Mr Bush and his campaign have attacked political opponents not veterans. Some of his political opponents just happen to also be veterans.

Enough ranting...take care & blues,

Blue skies,

Jim

[juanesky 0]

Once again the NY times slamming Bush? Why did he not mention Clinton who did not serve AT ALL?.

Worse of all, as a commissioned officer, Kerry committed deriliction of duty by not charging his subordinates with the war crimes he says he saw taking place!!!.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Once again the NY times slamming Bush? Why did he not mention Clinton who did not serve AT ALL?.

Worse of all, as a commissioned officer, Kerry committed deriliction of duty by not charging his subordinates with the war crimes he says he saw taking place!!!.

Maybe because Clinton is not part of cabal that finds it acceptable to smear decorated war veterans for political gain.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Drew:


Finally, it is my humble opinion that Mr Bush and his campaign have attacked political opponents not veterans. Some of his political opponents just happen to also be veterans.

Enough ranting...take care & blues,

What rubbish. If they were attacking political opponents they'd be talking about political records, not war service. This is character assassination pure and simple. Another of their smear tactics is to attack opponents' wives.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Which is why he compared the President's ANG service to his own draft dodging at the Democratic Convention...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

If they were attacking political opponents they'd be talking about political records, not war service.

How long did sKerry spend talking on his time in office vs. his nam service at the DNC? Could it be his voting record is so bad he HAD to talk about something else?

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

If they were attacking political opponents they'd be talking about political records, not war service.

How long did sKerry spend talking on his time in office vs. his nam service at the DNC? Could it be his voting record is so bad he HAD to talk about something else?

At least he's not responsible for:

Record surplus turned into record deficit.
Poverty up
Bankruptcies at record levels (one filing every 19 seconds)
Uninsured Americans up
Unemployment up
Pre-emptive war under false pretenses
Mismanagement of said war
Campaign promises unfulfilled on Social Security
Violation of Geneva Conventions at Guantanamo
Loss of support of traditional allies
Flip flop on gay marriages
Flip flop on nation building

So, as bad as he is, he's 1,000% better than the incumbent President.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Record surplus turned into record deficit.
Poverty up
Bankruptcies at record levels (one filing every 19 seconds)
Uninsured Americans up
Unemployment up ***

of course 9-11 and clintons failure to take out the head of those responsible had nothing to do with it.

***Violation of Geneva Conventions at Guantanamo

funny how the lives that someone raped, killed and mained seems less to you. Is that a flip flop, comrad? I think it is. You should really stop reading move-on.org.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

Record surplus turned into record deficit.
Poverty up
Bankruptcies at record levels (one filing every 19 seconds)
Uninsured Americans up
Unemployment up ***

of course 9-11 and clintons failure to take out the head of those responsible had nothing to do with it.

***Violation of Geneva Conventions at Guantanamo

funny how the lives that someone raped, killed and mained seems less to you. Is that a flip flop, comrad? I think it is. You should really stop reading move-on.org.

Here's the address of your local US Attorney.

Paul Ignatius Perez, USA
400 North Tampa Street, Suite 3200,
Tampa FL33602

You can bring your evidence of war crimes to him and he will probably indict Kerry on the spot. Just think what a hero you will be for bringing this miscreant to justice at last.

Of course, under the Constitution, Kerry is innocent until proven guilty.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tbrown 26]

I don't know if I would call what Mr. Kerry did as honorable either. He is an admitted war criminal, and then he stabbed his fellow Vets in the back By preaching to congress on all the illegal things the "Soldiers" were doing.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Ahhh...Kerry served...so he is immune from criticism.

Still wish he would authorize a reprint of his book....

If you want to believe this site - ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=NewSoldier - you can read parts of it here.

Personally - with all the rhetoric and bullshit surrounding the candidates and Vietnam....I don't care anymore one way or another. There is enough noise that I won't use that as watermark to make any decisions.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....