I don't have much to offer here, it seems everyone is set in their ways. BUT, this got a little ridiculous. Are we all adults (or near to)? I'm not going to name any names but a few people took this entirely too far. I don't remember the name of the person (largely because I don't care), but please don't attack one of my fellow service-members integrity because of his political views. Just as you say "How can you repeat a lie?", he can say the same as you. Someone else said it already, but there is a lot of bullshit flying around both candidates. The only people who really know what happened are the people who were there. How do you know those articles you cite aren't skewed? Doesn't everyone have a political agenda during election years? I think everyone would be better going off of political records (voting records and performance in office) and not military speculation. That stuff happened 30 years ago, all we have today are fragments and skewed political articles. Why not look at Kerry's voting records and President Bush's 4 year term to determine who would be better as President? Did everyone already forget the AMAZING job President Bush did post 9/11? Maybe the Iraqi war was a mistake, that is a subject that has been debated over a million times. But didn't Kerry support it fully when the population was behind it?
I'll quit ranting, but use the facts we actually have instead of speculation over insignificant details from 30 years ago.
Now here is another thought. Maybe we should practice what the founding fathers put forth. I hate politicians!
Why can't people be statesmen anymore. The original idea was that all Americans serve one term for thier country, that is part of service to your nation, then go back to thier personal lives. I just don't understand why some people like a career politician. Can you not do anything else productive in society?
Why must my tax dollars pay for career and perks. (I know I was mad when congress got a 10% raise while I only got 2.2% for being in the military. and I pay taxes too, so I pay 5% of my own income to myself, the irony!)
I mean I vote for the team on the individual. Does anyone know who Kerry will use as his staff if elected?
I served under both Bushs, and I like thier team better, but that is IMO. Which thank goodness EVERYONE is entitled to!
Sorry for the long post. and I know most people won't be reading this anyway.
I don't have much to offer here, it seems everyone is set in their ways. BUT, this got a little ridiculous. Are we all adults (or near to)? I'm not going to name any names but a few people took this entirely too far. I don't remember the name of the person (largely because I don't care), but please don't attack one of my fellow service-members integrity because of his political views. Just as you say "How can you repeat a lie?", he can say the same as you. Someone else said it already, but there is a lot of bullshit flying around both candidates. The only people who really know what happened are the people who were there. How do you know those articles you cite aren't skewed? Doesn't everyone have a political agenda during election years? I think everyone would be better going off of political records (voting records and performance in office) and not military speculation. That stuff happened 30 years ago, all we have today are fragments and skewed political articles. Why not look at Kerry's voting records and President Bush's 4 year term to determine who would be better as President? Did everyone already forget the AMAZING job President Bush did post 9/11? Maybe the Iraqi war was a mistake, that is a subject that has been debated over a million times. But didn't Kerry support it fully when the population was behind it?
I'll quit ranting, but use the facts we actually have instead of speculation over insignificant details from 30 years ago.
The original service documents are included on the post - Go look at them!!!
Show me where Kerry lied!
I don't bs.
Suggesting Kerry sought and got his own medals is B.S. and an insult to service members.
The original documents, SWORN TESTIMONY are not fragmented or skewed.
Kerry voted for the bill authorizing force
1) WHEN all other options were depleted
2) AFTER weapons inspectors were finished with their jobs
3) AFTER getting support from KEY ALLIES,
4) If it could be proven Iraq was BEHIND 9/11 (Which the 9/11 commission headed by a REPUBLICAN senator found was false -read the report -it costs 10 dollars and is available at any bookstore)
5) and if there was a clear and iminent danger.
Furthermore it required Bush to present his findings to congress for debate BEFORE GOING TO WAR.
This was a prudent bill which Bush ignored.
To the detriment to our troops. -1000 more have died since the government was "handed over" to the Iraqis, and that's NOT COUNTING those who died in hospital rooms.
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
Now here is another thought. Maybe we should practice what the founding fathers put forth. I hate politicians!
Why can't people be statesmen anymore. The original idea was that all Americans serve one term for thier country, that is part of service to your nation, then go back to thier personal lives. I just don't understand why some people like a career politician. Can you not do anything else productive in society?
Why must my tax dollars pay for career and perks. (I know I was mad when congress got a 10% raise while I only got 2.2% for being in the military. and I pay taxes too, so I pay 5% of my own income to myself, the irony!)
I mean I vote for the team on the individual. Does anyone know who Kerry will use as his staff if elected?
I served under both Bushs, and I like thier team better, but that is IMO. Which thank goodness EVERYONE is entitled to!
Sorry for the long post. and I know most people won't be reading this anyway.
The original thought was that property owners got the rights included in the constitution. Property owners had the education and the time to become experts in governance. The responsibility of citizens is to be knowledgeable about their own government. Most people don't make that time - so we have career politicians.
BTW several of the founding fathers served more than one term.
P.S. Bush cut housing, refused to allow National Gaurdsmen medical benefits for their service in Iraq, and refused to lower taxes on hazard pay, etc. While CUTTING the VA budget - While we are AT WAR.
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
I think BOTH sides have stated misrepresentations, if not down right lies. This happens in politics.
But I will say that just because some things may be shown as dishonest or downright lies, it does not mean ALL things said are.
Oh, by they way…. Why do you keep calling them “Bush’s Group” when in FACT most of these folks are not “Bush’s Group” at all, but independent people.
And please keep your dictionary quotes to yourself, most of us know full well what words mean and if we don’t we know how to look them up. The same can be said about your posting of Awards.
I feel you are now only sporting for a fight, which I have done my best to defuse short of just letting you think you “won” by me not posting any more. But I see it has come to that point…. Think what you want. You have succeeded in pissing me off, and before I post something that may be inappropriate or that I may regret later because I posted out of anger, I will let you have your little “fun and games” as it seems you have a pattern of wanting.
See you in the Voting booth (figuratively of course)……
Still waiting to hear the answer to a very simple question.
THey are Bush Pioneers, and the same folks who did the dirty ad about McCain, and Cleland. McCain called it dishonorable and deceptive and called on Bush to denounce it. McCain has integrity and honor, Bush refuses to denounce it.
Again, where is the "misrepresentation" offered by Kerry?
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
It escapes me as to how this campaign has focused on what Bush and Kerry did thirty five years ago in a war of which most Americans today know very little, and would just as soon forget. They were both different men thirty five years ago. I was five.
In my opinion, what they did in Vietnam is irrelevant. John McCain was quoted recently as saying "I wish we would stop opening wounds from a war of more than 30 years ago and talk about the war we're fighting now," McCain told The AP. "I believe they both served honorably."
I agree.
I'm a Bush supporter, and a long-time Republican since Ronald Reagan. I study American history in my spare time and would say that the Democrats tend to be more cautious and less decisive when it come to military actions and the Republicans are the opposite. For me, I would prefer decisive over cautious.
It escapes me as to how this campaign has focused on what Bush and Kerry did thirty five years ago in a war of which most Americans today know very little, and would just as soon forget. They were both different men thirty five years ago. I was five.
In my opinion, what they did in Vietnam is irrelevant. John McCain was quoted recently as saying "I wish we would stop opening wounds from a war of more than 30 years ago and talk about the war we're fighting now," McCain told The AP. "I believe they both served honorably."
I agree.
I'm a Bush supporter, and a long-time Republican since Ronald Reagan. I study American history in my spare time and would say that the Democrats tend to be more cautious and less decisive when it come to military actions and the Republicans are the opposite. For me, I would prefer decisive over cautious.
Any idiot can be decisive, caution means making the BEST decisions.
A Cautious AND Decisive leader works best,
Decisive leader who never LEARNS from his/her mistakes, and refuses to even ADMIT them is the worst possible leader.
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
I'm reading Unfit for Command right now. The book is backed by 60 different officers and enlisted personnel who served with the Senator. They saw most of the actions that earned the Senator his awards. Seems to be some definite angry towards the Senator in the book. I really believe it boils down to what the Senator Kerry did after the war. Not the protesting so much but turning his back on his fellow sailors and calling them war criminals. Some wounds never die.
Now being a current active duty military officer, I have an idea of how awards are given and written. Many of yours standard awards (NAM's, COM's, MSM's, etc) are often written by the individual then chopped by the department head, the XO, and then finally the CO. These are your more basic awards for end of tour or performing your standard job above and beyond the norm. Now from what I'm getting from the book is Senator Kerry wrote everyone one of his awards, even his Purple Hearts Purple Hearts, IMO, should not be requested but given. He requested his first Purple Heart and it was turned down by the CO. The big question is who approved the first Purple Heart. It's a fact the wound was tiny, not life threatning and most likely caused by Kerry himself firing a grenade that exploded to close. The book is full of accounts like these that raise the question of what the truth really is.
With that being said, there are alwasy two sides to every story. Two people can witness the same event on separate sides of the street and have two very stories to describe that event. The only issue is more 60+ people see it the same way versus just a handfull for Kerry. Liking an officer and supporting him is different that having a competant leaders as well. For example, at our squadron, we have a certain pilot who is popular with several of the enlisted folks. He's nice, laid back, and doesn't quite call them on anything. Yet, from everyone else around him, he is no doubt one of the worst officers/leaders in the squadron. Always late, rarely stays a full day, rarely fly's, his work is usually behind and half-ass. He lacks discipline and military bearing. Not saying this is the same but just an example. Being in combat is certainly different than every day life back home so I'm not trying to take anything away from the Senator. He saw action that most of us will never experience or could even comprehend. He still deserves credit for that.
The other problem I have is if the Senator did not truly deserve these awards, then why were they approved? Meaning, his superiors are just as much to blame as he is. I understand his skipper wasn't there for the action so all he has to go on is the after action report. However, a little investigation by the eyewitnesses would have been key. Of course now I'm monday morning quarterbacking and I wasn't there as the CO or OIC. The books states that Kerry's superiors were so fed up with his performance and lack of military discipline that they simply wanted him out of there. Approving his 2nd and 3rd Purple Hearts perhaps was a way. So who's to blame? Not Kerry himself I say.
Senator Kerry has used his war record as a backing when he ran for office in the past. So all I can say is if he is going to use that as a reason as to why he will make a good leader, he should be ready for the assault. That's politics I suppose.
__________________
There are only three things the copilot should ever say:
1. Nice landing, Sir.
2. I'll buy the first round.
3. I'll take the ugly one.
I'm reading Unfit for Command right now. The book is backed by 60 different officers and enlisted personnel who served with the Senator. They saw most of the actions that earned the Senator his awards. Seems to be some definite angry towards the Senator in the book. I really believe it boils down to what the Senator Kerry did after the war. Not the protesting so much but turning his back on his fellow sailors and calling them war criminals. Some wounds never die.
Now being a current active duty military officer, I have an idea of how awards are given and written. Many of yours standard awards (NAM's, COM's, MSM's, etc) are often written by the individual then chopped by the department head, the XO, and then finally the CO. These are your more basic awards for end of tour or performing your standard job above and beyond the norm. Now from what I'm getting from the book is Senator Kerry wrote everyone one of his awards, even his Purple Hearts Purple Hearts, IMO, should not be requested but given. He requested his first Purple Heart and it was turned down by the CO. The big question is who approved the first Purple Heart. It's a fact the wound was tiny, not life threatning and most likely caused by Kerry himself firing a grenade that exploded to close. The book is full of accounts like these that raise the question of what the truth really is.
With that being said, there are alwasy two sides to every story. Two people can witness the same event on separate sides of the street and have two very stories to describe that event. The only issue is more 60+ people see it the same way versus just a handfull for Kerry. Liking an officer and supporting him is different that having a competant leaders as well. For example, at our squadron, we have a certain pilot who is popular with several of the enlisted folks. He's nice, laid back, and doesn't quite call them on anything. Yet, from everyone else around him, he is no doubt one of the worst officers/leaders in the squadron. Always late, rarely stays a full day, rarely fly's, his work is usually behind and half-ass. He lacks discipline and military bearing. Not saying this is the same but just an example. Being in combat is certainly different than every day life back home so I'm not trying to take anything away from the Senator. He saw action that most of us will never experience or could even comprehend. He still deserves credit for that.
The other problem I have is if the Senator did not truly deserve these awards, then why were they approved? Meaning, his superiors are just as much to blame as he is. I understand his skipper wasn't there for the action so all he has to go on is the after action report. However, a little investigation by the eyewitnesses would have been key. Of course now I'm monday morning quarterbacking and I wasn't there as the CO or OIC. The books states that Kerry's superiors were so fed up with his performance and lack of military discipline that they simply wanted him out of there. Approving his 2nd and 3rd Purple Hearts perhaps was a way. So who's to blame? Not Kerry himself I say.
Senator Kerry has used his war record as a backing when he ran for office in the past. So all I can say is if he is going to use that as a reason as to why he will make a good leader, he should be ready for the assault. That's politics I suppose.
Tell me this - how can 60 people serve on the same boat under the same command. The book is based upon the word of a proven liar, and another guy who was Nixon's hatchet man.
Kerry didn't call all Vietnam Veterans war criminals. He objected to illegal orders and joined protests after his commander refused to follow those illegal orders and was given the boot.
Again, when those kids at Abu Gharabe followed illegal orders, you call them war criminals, even when pictures show their commanders and contractors directing them, and even when the people who had enough honor to report them were ignored or dismissed. Now, you say Kerry "hates vietnam vets" when he did the right thing.
Kerry has supported every bill for veterans benefits and every law providing for the military. I think you need to look more closely at the logic of your statements.
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
I'm reading Unfit for Command right now. The book is backed by 60 different officers and enlisted personnel who served with the Senator. They saw most of the actions that earned the Senator his awards. Seems to be some definite angry towards the Senator in the book. I really believe it boils down to what the Senator Kerry did after the war. Not the protesting so much but turning his back on his fellow sailors and calling them war criminals. Some wounds never die.
Now being a current active duty military officer, I have an idea of how awards are given and written. Many of yours standard awards (NAM's, COM's, MSM's, etc) are often written by the individual then chopped by the department head, the XO, and then finally the CO. These are your more basic awards for end of tour or performing your standard job above and beyond the norm. Now from what I'm getting from the book is Senator Kerry wrote everyone one of his awards, even his Purple Hearts Purple Hearts, IMO, should not be requested but given. He requested his first Purple Heart and it was turned down by the CO. The big question is who approved the first Purple Heart. It's a fact the wound was tiny, not life threatning and most likely caused by Kerry himself firing a grenade that exploded to close. The book is full of accounts like these that raise the question of what the truth really is.
With that being said, there are alwasy two sides to every story. Two people can witness the same event on separate sides of the street and have two very stories to describe that event. The only issue is more 60+ people see it the same way versus just a handfull for Kerry. Liking an officer and supporting him is different that having a competant leaders as well. For example, at our squadron, we have a certain pilot who is popular with several of the enlisted folks. He's nice, laid back, and doesn't quite call them on anything. Yet, from everyone else around him, he is no doubt one of the worst officers/leaders in the squadron. Always late, rarely stays a full day, rarely fly's, his work is usually behind and half-ass. He lacks discipline and military bearing. Not saying this is the same but just an example. Being in combat is certainly different than every day life back home so I'm not trying to take anything away from the Senator. He saw action that most of us will never experience or could even comprehend. He still deserves credit for that.
The other problem I have is if the Senator did not truly deserve these awards, then why were they approved? Meaning, his superiors are just as much to blame as he is. I understand his skipper wasn't there for the action so all he has to go on is the after action report. However, a little investigation by the eyewitnesses would have been key. Of course now I'm monday morning quarterbacking and I wasn't there as the CO or OIC. The books states that Kerry's superiors were so fed up with his performance and lack of military discipline that they simply wanted him out of there. Approving his 2nd and 3rd Purple Hearts perhaps was a way. So who's to blame? Not Kerry himself I say.
Senator Kerry has used his war record as a backing when he ran for office in the past. So all I can say is if he is going to use that as a reason as to why he will make a good leader, he should be ready for the assault. That's politics I suppose.
How do you get a purple heart? I can post detailed regulations.
And how do you explain the huge number of veterans who don't get medals because the rest of their units were killed. You KNOW they just don't hand out medals. THere is an investigation which gets more demanding the higher you go up the chain of honors. You know that!! Can you go to the PX and order them?
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
Any idiot can be decisive, caution means making the BEST decisions.
A Cautious AND Decisive leader works best,
Decisive leader who never LEARNS from his/her mistakes, and refuses to even ADMIT them is the worst possible leader.
It's becomming apparent that your objective here is to dominate the thread with worthless rhetoric.
Would you call Jimmy Carter decisive? He was no idiot, but certainly not decisive.
Bill Clinton was cautious to a fault, has learned nothing from his mistakes and to this day refuses to admit them. "Caution means making the BEST decisions"? You mean like not taking the opportunity to take out Bin Ladin when Clinton had the chance? Would you consider his affair with an intern - IN THE WHITE HOUSE - a cautious act? These are the characteristics of the Democratic party. Their history in the White House speaks for itself.
Bush went to a champagne division as a pilot despite earning a 25% on a pilot aptitude test. THEN he learned to fly an obsolete aircraft, and couldn't even show up for a physical. And these guys are questioning Kerry's courage.
Do you know anything about flying coyote? I kinda do. Probably because I'm a navy pilot and fly an obsolete POS aircraft. I've even got one crash under my belt. Flying an obsolete aircraft (obsolete only because it was surpassed by the day's fighters like the F-4 and F-106) with an accident rate like the F-102 took skill and some balls. The then 2/1LT Bush had to fly jet trainers and the F-102 in formation, acm, intercept, IFR, night form, tac form, etc. That takes skill period and nobody was up there flying the aircraft for him. I've also missed a physical, but only by a month or so. Being active duty meant that I would be able to complete it at some point with certainty. Being in the gaurd or reserves and away from your assigned base could make it difficult. I guess my point is missing the physical doesn't mean **** and shouldn't. Flying the F-102 in the Air Gaurd took talent and courage because of the difficult nature of that aircraft and flying fighters in general.
Last edited by hmarv347; 09-06-2004 at 11:12 AM.
Reason: fixed quoted message to be a quote
)
Purple Hearts, IMO, should not be requested but given. He requested his first Purple Heart and it was turned down by the CO. The big question is who approved the first Purple Heart. It's a fact the wound was tiny, not life threatning and most likely caused by Kerry himself firing a grenade that exploded to close. The book is full of accounts like these that raise the question of what the truth really is. 
