Who's This 'We,' Non-Soldier Boy?NY TImes Op-Ed

[KB]

By ROBIN TONER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/robin_toner/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: June 25, 2006
WASHINGTON

REPRESENTATIVE Patrick McHenry, a 30-year-old Republican from North Carolina, rose during the recent debate over Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) in Congress and declared that the struggle against "Islamic extremists" was his generation's great challenge. Unlike the "white flag" crowd on the left, he vowed, he would not shrink from the fight.

That was a little too much for Representative John Murtha, the senior Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, an ex-marine and Vietnam vet and also — in the current debate — a leading advocate of a speedy withdrawal of the troops.

"It is easy to stay in an air-conditioned office and say, 'I am going to stay the course,' " he said, angrily, after Mr. McHenry, who never served in the military, was finished. "It is the troops that are doing the fighting, not the members of Congress that are doing the fighting."

Behind that exchange was a demographic reality: The debate, which has consumed the House and the Senate for the last two weeks, was largely conducted by men and women who have not served. Twenty-five percent of the House, and 31 percent of the Senate, are veterans, the lowest proportions since World War II, according to the Military Officers Association of America.

Does it make a difference? Clearly Mr. Murtha felt it did, sharply criticizing some nonveteran hawks — notably Karl Rove (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/karl_rove/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the president's chief political strategist — for not understanding the reality in Iraq, the toll of "deploying people two or three times," the complexity of the mission.

"It's a very small segment that are making the sacrifices, and it's pretty easy to say, 'Let's keep them over there,' " Mr. Murtha said in an interview.

Some analysts have argued that there are clear differences between veterans and nonveterans in attitudes toward the use of American military power. Christopher Gelpi, associate professor of political science at Duke and co-author of "Choosing Your Battles," said his 1998-99 research showed that "veterans are very skeptical of the kind of mission that Iraq is: nation-building, a long commitment where our goals are really political more than military."

Moreover, Mr. Gelpi said, once the decision is made to intervene, veterans, like military officers, tend to lean toward using overwhelming force, an attitude of "let's do it right and do it large scale, or let's get out."

Still, there were vets in the recent debate who supported the idea of a timetable on troop withdrawal, and vets who endorsed President Bush's more open-ended commitment to American troops in Iraq (a debate that ended with votes beating back Democratic calls for withdrawal). For example, Mr. Murtha's Republican colleague, Representative Duncan Hunter, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is also a decorated Vietnam vet, and led the charge for the Bush position.

In fact, partisanship might explain more about lawmakers' positions than military backgrounds. William Bianco, professor of political science at Indiana University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/indiana_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org), said his study on voting patterns showed that, "in the main, veterans look like nonveterans in Congress, on any dimension we can measure."

And some historians dismiss the notion that military experience, in and of itself, grants lawmakers wisdom concerning war and peace. "Just because somebody in the 50's got drafted for two years and spent 18 months as a typist at Fort Dix doesn't necessarily give you any particular insight into issues of national security," said Dennis Showalter, professor of history at Colorado College.

But David King, associate director at the Institute of Politics at Harvard (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/harvard_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org), worries that there is, in today's politics, a shortage of people "with a background in the service who can speak truth to both military and political power." He cited Harry Truman (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/harry_s_truman/index.html?inline=nyt-per), who served in France in World War I and rose to prominence as a senator in the early 1940's from investigating military procurement.

Indeed, men like Mr. Murtha derive much of their influence — on Capitol Hill and with the public at large — from their status as tough-minded combat veterans. Mr. Murtha transformed the debate over the war last fall when he called for a withdrawal.

Some veterans say that combat experience — even more rare in Congress than general military experience — does make them different. "The world is a lot bigger after you've been in a war," said Bob Kerrey (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/bob_kerrey/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the former Democratic senator from Nebraska who lost a leg in Vietnam and won the Medal of Honor. "There's a lot less black and white, and a lot more gray."

Senator Chuck Hagel (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/chuck_hagel/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a Nebraska Republican and another decorated Vietnam vet, said combat experience "doesn't mean we're right, but we do bring a frame of reference when it comes to war." He added, "When you've never experienced war it's a little easier to be more cavalier about committing troops and not understanding the consequences of war."

Mr. Hagel, who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq but has voiced many doubts, was one of several veterans who seemed dismayed by the sharply partisan campaign-style oratory many politicians took to the debate. "Our men and women doing the fighting — and dying — deserve better," he said on the Senate floor.

Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern, calls this the era of "patriotism lite" on Capitol Hill — noting that not only are there few veterans, but also few lawmakers with children in the armed services.

That first statistic, at least, might change — the war in Iraq has produced a wave of veterans running for office now.

[Laconian]

Interesting, KB, thanks for the post.

[Hollis]

IMHO Murtha forgot he ever was a Marine. He is a 100% *****fide Politican.

I agree with the article just because a person served does not necessary gives them special knowledge.

[shocker1]

John Murtha "It is easy to stay in an air-conditioned office and say, 'I am going to stay the course,' " he said, angrily, after Mr. McHenry, who never served in the military, was finished. "It is the troops that are doing the fighting, not the members of Congress that are doing the fighting."

OHHH the irony!!! Murtha can say this and then accuse US troops of "cold blooded murder"? Military service does not give you absolute truth and understanding. This Iraq war has come to be from decades of US policy and for good reason. Bush enforced standing US policy that was already in place.




Now, let's imagine the future. What if he (Saddam) fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.
Bill Clinton 1998 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

[BlackRain]

Faulty logic syndrome again.

Yeah, I guess since Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and FDR (etc x 1 million) never served in the military they should not have ever been in a leadership position and have no right to make any military decisions.

[dangerclose]

Representative John Murtha (D-PA, unindicted co-conspirator ABSCAM) needs to find a new line besides the "That's easy to say, sitting in an air conditioned office."

Since when is prior military service a guarantee against poor judgement or in Murtha's case an early onset of alzheimer's disease? (Yeah .. Okinawa).

Of course that's easy for me to say .... sitting in my air conditioned office.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLChRkkwiZk&search=murtha%20okinawa

[Bert]

Faulty logic syndrome again.

Yeah, I guess since Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and FDR (etc x 1 million) never served in the military they should not have ever been in a leadership position and have no right to make any military decisions.
Indeed. With all this 'chickenhawk' BS, I'm wondering whatever happened to 'civilian control of the military'. I guess one would have to create a military junta to please the pundits.

[gaijinsamurai]

Like it's already been said, I don't think military service is necessarily a prerequisite for being in government. I myself would have voted for Howard Dean over John Kerry in the Oregon primaries back in 2004, had the nomination still been up for grabs (Oregon's primaries are notoriously late).
What is more important when it comes to conducting foreign policy and the decision whether or not to deploy troops is an understanding of wars, cultural issues, and regional politics. The fact that Colin Powell and Richard Armitage of the State Department were more hesitant to push for war may have been influenced by their time in uniform, but that is hardly the only reason.
I really don't think it should have been much of a surprise that the Iraqi adventure would end up such a quagmire, and I didn't need my "veteran status" to see that. Still, it does make me sick to see so many people who've never served talk tough about "going in and kicking ass" when it will be somebody else doing the tough part while they run their mouths.

[tyovan]

Faulty logic syndrome again.

Yeah, I guess since Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and FDR (etc x 1 million) never served in the military they should not have ever been in a leadership position and have no right to make any military decisions.

Lincoln did serve in fact. He never saw action, but he did serve.

"Governor John Reynolds commissioned Lincoln as a captain in the 31st Regiment of Militia of Sangamon County, 1st Division on December 20, 1832."

http://www.il.ngb.army.mil/Museum/HistPeople/Lincoln.htm

[Pandy]

Faulty logic syndrome again.

Yeah, I guess since Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and FDR (etc x 1 million) never served in the military they should not have ever been in a leadership position and have no right to make any military decisions.

You know what, it's the president's job to say "Go to War"... it's the general's job to make it happen. It's the way it should be.

[vryhpyammoadded]

LOL. Murtha wielding about his prior service to bludgeon other politicians makes me laugh. The guy sure is an attention whore. As far as I’m concerned, he can go shack up with Randy Cunningham, share old war stories and avoid damaging the country any more than they have already.

[WarriorMonk]

Lincoln did serve in fact. He never saw action, but he did serve.

"Governor John Reynolds commissioned Lincoln as a captain in the 31st Regiment of Militia of Sangamon County, 1st Division on December 20, 1832."

http://www.il.ngb.army.mil/Museum/HistPeople/Lincoln.htm

By this logic, Dubya's little "stint" in the Air National Guard is legit...or not...?

OnTopic: perhaps we should make military service a pre-req for US Senate, State Governors, and US President (not the secretaries) in the near future, to stop any sort of mucking about use of military might...

[Bert]

OnTopic: perhaps we should make military service a pre-req for US Senate, State Governors, and US President (not the secretaries) in the near future, to stop any sort of mucking about use of military might...
Yeah, and let's rename the post of President to 'Generalissimo'. :|

[Bia]

It's exactly why McCain would have been 1000 times better than prince GW

[angry cow]

I'll rip off Heinlein's idea cause I like it so damn much

I have no problem with limiting voting rights to those who have done some form of federal service. All other constitutional guarantees and the bill of rights would still apply, but you would have to serve the state to be able to vote or hold office. Possibly eliminating social security and replacing it with Veteran's Affairs.

The government would have to provide some form of federal service to all persons who desired it, regardless of disability, race, religion, ***, ideology, etc. Even if it was sweeping the floors of the Pentagon,

Taxes are paid by all permanent residents. Everyone living within the geographical borders of the US gets the same privileges unless they have earned citizenship, so everyone pays taxes.

Now accepting counter-arguments.

[ttunavy]

It's exactly why McCain would have been 1000 times better than prince GW

because he was a pow?

[Bia]

because he was a pow?
Because he actually served.

DUH

[Laconian]

The idea that prior military service would make a better President/member of Congress, or should be a requirement has too many "bad" examples in our history to be taken seriously.
I'll name three:
1. Jimmy Carter - A USNA grad, Carter's use (or lack of use) of the military and his budget cuts were some of the reasons the post-VN US military was filled with poorly equipped, poorly disciplined troops and the US military was a laughing stock.

2. Harry Truman - Although an artillery officer in WWI, he was never able to get past thinking like a battery commander. His distrust of flag officers and budget cuts following WWII, decimated the US military, directly leading to mass US casualties suffered early on in Korea from old munitions left on the shelf (bazooka and artillery rounds that dudded by the hundreds) . Supply officers were often sent to old battle fields of WWII to scrounge for parts for their units. YEAH, he fired Dugout Doug, but prior to that, he was not the military's friend.

3. JFK - A Navy LT, he was nearly courtmartialed for the PT109 incident and other indiscretions, but politics prevailed and he got the Navy Cross instead. As a President, he chose to involve the US in IndoChina, despite being told by the previous admin, that RVN was an unwinnable mess, stay away. He disregarded his military advisors, created a new cabinet postion for Max Taylor and let McNamara's whiz kids convince him all things military had a mathematical bottom line. Yes, he funded the early days of SF, but his lack of military knowledge (and the micromanaging of his successor) cost 59,000 lives.

[BlackRain]

The idea that prior military service would make a better President/member of Congress, or should be a requirement has too many "bad" examples in our history to be taken seriously.
I'll name three:
1. Jimmy Carter - A USNA grad, Carter's use (or lack of use) of the military and his budget cuts were some of the reasons the post-VN US military was filled with poorly equipped, poorly disciplined troops and the US military was a laughing stock.

2. Harry Truman - Although an artillery officer in WWI, he was never able to get past thinking like a battery commander. His distrust of flag officers and budget cuts following WWII, decimated the US military, directly leading to mass US casualties suffered early on in Korea from old munitions left on the shelf (bazooka and artillery rounds that dudded by the hundreds) . Supply officers were often sent to old battle fields of WWII to scrounge for parts for their units. YEAH, he fired Dugout Doug, but prior to that, he was not the military's friend.

3. JFK - A Navy LT, he was nearly courtmartialed for the PT109 incident and other indiscretions, but politics prevailed and he got the Navy Cross instead. As a President, he chose to involve the US in IndoChina, despite being told by the previous admin, that RVN was an unwinnable mess, stay away. He disregarded his military advisors, created a new cabinet postion for Max Taylor and let McNamara's whiz kids convince him all things military had a mathematical bottom line. Yes, he funded the early days of SF, but his lack of military knowledge (and the micromanaging of his successor) cost 59,000 lives.

Great examples.


November 1941: In Washington serving in Naval intelligence, John F. Kennedy begins an affair with Inga Arvad, a married Danish woman.

One you let out is RFK having an affair with a German Spy called Inga Arvad.

The great democratic leader of the USA was banging a woman who was Hitler's escort to the 1936 Summer Olympics.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

You have to serve to be able to vote/hold office ect ect?

Get the **** out.

That's all there is to it.

[KB]

The idea that prior military service would make a better President/member of Congress, or should be a requirement has too many "bad" examples in our history to be taken seriously.
I'll name three:
1. Jimmy Carter - A USNA grad, Carter's use (or lack of use) of the military and his budget cuts were some of the reasons the post-VN US military was filled with poorly equipped, poorly disciplined troops and the US military was a laughing stock.

2. Harry Truman - Although an artillery officer in WWI, he was never able to get past thinking like a battery commander. His distrust of flag officers and budget cuts following WWII, decimated the US military, directly leading to mass US casualties suffered early on in Korea from old munitions left on the shelf (bazooka and artillery rounds that dudded by the hundreds) . Supply officers were often sent to old battle fields of WWII to scrounge for parts for their units. YEAH, he fired Dugout Doug, but prior to that, he was not the military's friend.

3. JFK - A Navy LT, he was nearly courtmartialed for the PT109 incident and other indiscretions, but politics prevailed and he got the Navy Cross instead. As a President, he chose to involve the US in IndoChina, despite being told by the previous admin, that RVN was an unwinnable mess, stay away. He disregarded his military advisors, created a new cabinet postion for Max Taylor and let McNamara's whiz kids convince him all things military had a mathematical bottom line. Yes, he funded the early days of SF, but his lack of military knowledge (and the micromanaging of his successor) cost 59,000 lives.

and lest we forget...

George Washington
Andrew Jackson
US Grant
Rutherford B Hayes
Teddy Roosevelt

and ...Richard Nixon (USN), Gerald Ford (USN), US Army Air Corps training film star Ronald Reagan, and George Bush 41 (USN).

[sp2c]

but he isn't really saying that you have to have been in the military to make decisions about it, he's responding the "Unlike the "white flag" crowd on the left, he vowed, he would not shrink from the fight." which is a stupid thing to say especially for a politician

if mr mcHenry wants the US to stay in Iraq for the time being then that's all fine and well but calling everybody that doesn't agree a surrender monkey is something I'd expect on militaryphotos.net not the US congres

[Atlantic Friend]

The idea that prior military service would make a better President/member of Congress, or should be a requirement has too many "bad" examples in our history to be taken seriously.
I'll name three:
1. Jimmy Carter - A USNA grad, Carter's use (or lack of use) of the military and his budget cuts were some of the reasons the post-VN US military was filled with poorly equipped, poorly disciplined troops and the US military was a laughing stock.

Didn't the problem go back to Nixon and /or Ford ? Judging by Kissinger's book about his time in the White House, he clearly states the WH let Congress slash the credits that were supposed to be used for the modernization (or even the maintenance) of the ARVN militray capacities...


2. Harry Truman - Although an artillery officer in WWI, he was never able to get past thinking like a battery commander. His distrust of flag officers and budget cuts following WWII, decimated the US military, directly leading to mass US casualties suffered early on in Korea from old munitions left on the shelf (bazooka and artillery rounds that dudded by the hundreds) . Supply officers were often sent to old battle fields of WWII to scrounge for parts for their units. YEAH, he fired Dugout Doug, but prior to that, he was not the military's friend.

One way of seeing Truman's legacy, I suppose. The CIA, the USAF and NATO were also created during his watch.

[XShipRider]

IMHO Murtha forgot he ever was a Marine. He is a 100% *****fide Politican.

I agree with the article just because a person served does not necessary gives them special knowledge.

The US military is, and will always be, a tool of politicians. There is
absolutely zero need for one to have served to be a 'good politician.'

Sorry for the oxymoron.

[KB]

Didn't the problem go back to Nixon and /or Ford ? Judging by Kissinger's book about his time in the White House, he clearly states the WH let Congress slash the credits that were supposed to be used for the modernization (or even the maintenance) of the ARVN militray capacities...



One way of seeing Truman's legacy, I suppose. The CIA, the USAF and NATO were also created during his watch.

Marshall Plan, Berlin Airlift, successful counterinsurgency in Greece, Atoms for Peace, and desegregating the US military also come to mind.

[dangerclose]

Like it's already been said, I don't think military service is necessarily a prerequisite for being in government. I myself would have voted for Howard Dean ...

I stopped reading right there.

cuckoo .. cuckoo

[ElHombre]

i'll have to see if there's video. it would be fun watching rep. mchenry's head getting ripped out of his a$$ and back into reality. :lol:

[dangerclose]

Because he actually served.

DUH

Today's air national guardsmen are not "actually" serving I guess.

[Hollis]

Idea of national service need not be limited to military only. States would be able to tap into that resource too. Working can also enclude, Building homes, renovation of depressed areas, Highway work, Forest work, Parks, Hospitals, Teaching/mentor programs etc.

All would benefit the American People.

[Bia]

Today's air national guardsmen are not "actually" serving I guess.
Dont start ****tt with me please..

I said McCain...would have made the BEST president because he actually served compared to Prince GW.

we all know prince GW was hiding out avoiding incoming fire while McCain was paying the price of freedom.


One is a hero the other a coward....and our nation elected the coward.

[CPLHUNTER]

I stopped reading right there.

cuckoo .. cuckoo

LOL, I love Howard Dean

[Hollis]

Dont start ****tt with me please..

I said McCain...would have made the BEST president because he actually served compared to Prince GW.

we all know prince GW was hiding out avoiding incoming fire while McCain was paying the price of freedom.


One is a hero the other a coward....and our nation elected the coward.

I guess you are calling anyone who served BUT did not serve in RVN a coward. I don't buy that.

Then you have the millions of Americans who did not serve at all. I don't buy that either.

[Bia]

I guess you are calling anyone who served BUT did not serve in RVN a coward. I don't buy that.

Then you have the millions of Americans who did not serve at all. I don't buy that either.

WRONG...I am not saying that at all.

Read again...I'll type slower.

We all know GW was hiding out...avoiding combat.
McCain was not.

PERIOD.

[Hollis]

WRONG...I am not saying that at all.

Read again...I'll type slower.

We all know GW was hiding out...avoiding combat.
McCain was not.

PERIOD.

I don't know much about the unit he was in, BUt It was said among national Guard deployed to RVN that Unit/type of unit was deployed.

So the question was he hiding out? I think that can be said about a lot of other people whether it was true or not. Example Did I avoid the draft? The draft never touched me.

May be I'll type slower too, you know for a absolute fact he was hiding out or is it speculation? Kerry-ites all claimed GW was hiding out, I never saw proof on it. Maybe I hid out too.

[Bia]

I don't know much about the unit he was in, BUt It was said among national Guard deployed to RVN that Unit/type of unit was deployed.

So the question was he hiding out? I think that can be said about a lot of other people whether it was true or not. Example Did I avoid the draft? The draft never touched me.

May be I'll type slower too, you know for a absolute fact he was hiding out or is it speculation? Kerry-ites all claimed GW was hiding out, I never saw proof on it. Maybe I hid out too.

Arguing semantics doesnt change what we know.
GW....a clown prince who's daddy kept his sons nose clean....badmouthed McCain....a REAL american hero.

You guys wanna try and twist my words.....go for it.
Doesnt take away the shame of the truth.

[ElHombre]

So the question was he hiding out? I think that can be said about a lot of other people whether it was true or not. Example Did I avoid the draft? The draft never touched me.

May be I'll type slower too, you know for a absolute fact he was hiding out or is it speculation? Kerry-ites all claimed GW was hiding out, I never saw proof on it. Maybe I hid out too.

yes, bush was hiding out in the TANG. there were a lot of sons of the high and mighty of texas who were able to wrangle assignment to it. former texas senator llyod bentsen's son, for instance. hell, the lt. gov of the time has admitted that he was the one who made the arrangements for shrub.

it's okay to admit that the son of a political family was able to use his family's contacts to keep from being sent to vietnam.

[Hollis]

Arguing semantics doesnt change what we know.
GW....a clown prince who's daddy kept his sons nose clean....badmouthed McCain....a REAL american hero.

You guys wanna try and twist my words.....go for it.
Doesnt take away the shame of the truth.

I supported McCain in the 2000 Primary, I don't remember him ever attacking GW's military service.

Noone is twisting your words, I have never saw any facts to challenge GW service. Even Dan Rather of CBS tried with fake documents.

You Don't like Bush,that is your business. I would have prefered McCain in 2000, but it didn't happen.

I am not going to slam GW because of his service unless there is FACT to back it up. I know a lot of people who served in the Guard, all good Americans. Al Gore was even in RVN, his boss Clinton, well, we know about his service (to Monica). Kerry was in RVN, I find him to be a retrobate like Murtha.

I don't slam the other service. Ask your Dad, a Lot of Marines are live today because of the other services.

[Laconian]

Comparing service histories is a little much. Bush's dad hid him out in the TANG? Then why let him go to flight school and be a fighter pilot? Getting killed burning in in a jet is just the same as getting killed humping a ruck. He could have been a ground guy. McCain is a warrior, no doubt. But he is 3rd generation Navy (USNA) and a career naval officer, by his own accounts he was running to the sound of the guns. There aren't too many cats like that anyway...Gore worked in a press room, Reagan made training films, LBJ often inflated his military record to appear a hero.

Have former military Presidents done great things in office? Absolutely. Have these same Presidents also made mistakes in office? Most definately. Have non-veteran Presidents done great things? Yup. Have non-vets also screwed the pooch on occasion? Yup. More important than service for an Executive is the ability to understand a situation, receive advice from his staffers and make the right decision. Sometimes they will, sometimes they won't.

[Bia]

Ask your Dad, a Lot of Marines are live today because of the other services.
I cant....he died when was 12....
but I already know what he'd say.

[WARPIG]

Arguing semantics doesnt change what we know.
GW....a clown prince who's daddy kept his sons nose clean....badmouthed McCain....a REAL american hero.

You guys wanna try and twist my words.....go for it.
Doesnt take away the shame of the truth.

It is easy to make assumptions when you have no experience or knowledge. I know my share of extraordinarily courageous soldiers that have not been to OIF or OEF or any deployment for that matter. I also know more than my share of soldiers that have deployed into combat and don't deserve the honor of wearing the uniform.

My whole life is dedicated to my family, my soldiers, and my country. Probably in that order. But, what if I never set foot in combat? Coward? I see.. so the only way to not be labeled a coward is to serve in combat. Cool, I will have to reclass into an admin position and work from a hotel in Kuwait for a year so that I can claim to "have been there." Instant War Hero recipe.

I am not saying that Gdubya didn't find a way to miss Vietnam.. but simply assuming combat experience is the mark of a hero is just ignorant.

That being said... the guy doing all the macho talk from the Pentagon is not a soldier. Rumsfeld is uniquely out of touch with the military he manages, yet his president continues to back him up. That is called loyalty. It isn't a smart thing to do but in the face of all that criticism.. GW does not bend. He backs up his staff and stands by them. George's decision making is what should be under fire here. Sharp shooting his character simply discredits your arguement and holds very little weight.

[Bia]

I am not saying that Gdubya didn't find a way to miss Vietnam.. but simply assuming combat experience is the mark of a hero is just ignorant.
.
You guys are DAFT...

I NEVER SAID THAT.


Hopefully the CAPS will drum that in your heads.


we were discussing Pres that served vs ones that didnt.
I took it a step farther and mentioned I prefer ones that have served in combat.


YOU guys twist it......wankers.

[WARPIG]

It is easy to make assumptions when you have no experience or knowledge. I know my share of extraordinarily courageous soldiers that have not been to OIF or OEF or any deployment for that matter. I also know more than my share of soldiers that have deployed into combat and don't deserve the honor of wearing the uniform.

My whole life is dedicated to my family, my soldiers, and my country. Probably in that order. But, what if I never set foot in combat? Coward? I see.. so the only way to not be labeled a coward is to serve in combat. Cool, I will have to reclass into an admin position and work from a hotel in Kuwait for a year so that I can claim to "have been there." Instant War Hero recipe.

I am not saying that Gdubya didn't find a way to miss Vietnam.. but simply assuming combat experience is the mark of a hero is just ignorant.

That being said... the guy doing all the macho talk from the Pentagon is not a soldier. Rumsfeld is uniquely out of touch with the military he manages, yet his president continues to back him up. That is called loyalty. It isn't a smart thing to do but in the face of all that criticism.. GW does not bend. He backs up his staff and stands by them. George's decision making is what should be under fire here. Sharp shooting his character simply discredits your arguement and holds very little weight.

You guys are DAFT...

I NEVER SAID THAT.


Hopefully the CAPS will drum that in your heads.


we were discussing Pres that served vs ones that didnt.
I took it a step farther and mentioned I prefer ones that have served in combat.


YOU guys twist it......wankers.
Ah... now that I see it in caps.. that clears it up. Thanks.

This wanker didn't put words into your mouth.


I took it a step farther and mentioned I prefer ones that have served in combat.

Dont start ****tt with me please..

I said McCain...would have made the BEST president because he actually served compared to Prince GW.

we all know prince GW was hiding out avoiding incoming fire while McCain was paying the price of freedom.


One is a hero the other a coward....and our nation elected the coward


Your words.. not mine. My point was that just assuming that combat experience is the mark of a hero.. or that lack of means your a coward is ignorant.

Wait I said that already. Now I am putting words in my own mouth.. Dammit.. I BETTER START USING ALL CAPS.

NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU! I also would prefer a Leader with some experience in the military, combat, and a record as a combat leader as well. But, assuming that combat experience is skill that is automatically awarded like points in a video game is DAFT. Kerry had combat experience... he is an assclown. Condi does not have combat experience.. what? A coward. Or can you label a woman a coward? Hillary Clinton? I don't think she was in Vietnam either. Better tell her not to bother then.

Like I said.. I am not disagreeing with your opinion.. but your explaination doesn't hold any weight. Being condescending about it isn't really strengthening your point either.

[Hollis]

yes, bush was hiding out in the TANG. there were a lot of sons of the high and mighty of texas who were able to wrangle assignment to it. former texas senator llyod bentsen's son, for instance. hell, the lt. gov of the time has admitted that he was the one who made the arrangements for shrub.

it's okay to admit that the son of a political family was able to use his family's contacts to keep from being sent to vietnam.

I guess you can pull combat record upmanship with Bush.

[Hollis]

I have not seen anything that actually provide proof as to the Bush's Military service being less than honorable.

Even Dan Rather of CBS tried a eleveth hour tactic to bring new evidence to Bush poor service......... But that was easily proven to be fictious.

Ok you don't like Bush........... But so far noone has proved anything that his service was less than Honorable. I am Sure the Washington Post, New York Times, CBS with Dan Rather would love to get that information, if you have it.


All of you, critics of Bush's Military record, where were you with Bill Clinton....... ??

BS is Still BS...

[ElHombre]

I guess you can pull combat record upmanship with Bush.

no problem: i have not been in combat.

neither has bush. (hey, we have something in common!)

[ElHombre]

I have not seen anything that actually provide proof as to the Bush's Military service being less than honorable.

but curiously incomplete. seems the relevant records disappeared right around the time shrub decided to run for govenor.

[Hollis]

but curiously incomplete. seems the relevant records disappeared right around the time shrub decided to run for govenor.

Maybe they were beamed to area 51? I quess you were never in the military, records may disppear.... or do they. You would be surprise of all the records that are out there, ones personal records are just a small part. Wannabes get caugh in their lies, when they claim, "my records were accidentally destroyed, lost, stolen, eaten by a dog etc.

Read stolen valor on records and lies that don't hold up.

[ttunavy]

Because he actually served.

DUH

so did kerry and i think he would have been a crap choice. alot of the people i work with wouldnt make good leaders, serving doesnt give one some holy grail of knowledge and wisdom.

[ttunavy]

Dont start ****tt with me please..

I said McCain...would have made the BEST president because he actually served compared to Prince GW.

we all know prince GW was hiding out avoiding incoming fire while McCain was paying the price of freedom.


One is a hero the other a coward....and our nation elected the coward.


ahhh so now its not just that you have to serve but also be involved directly in combat:roll:

[WARPIG]

but curiously incomplete. seems the relevant records disappeared right around the time shrub decided to run for govenor.

My military record has quite a few holes in it as well. Missing jumps from the jump log, a commendation fell off of my file a few years back, my MOS conversion was missing from my file as well... . I'm not running for any office.

[Secret Squirrel]

Bush's dad hid him out in the TANG? Then why let him go to flight school and be a fighter pilot?

Yep, hid him is a good way to explain it. He was bumped up the list and given a cushy post. He was trained in an aircraft that was in the process of being removed from combat duty in Vietnam. It's no secret that most of the rich kids went one way and everyone else went the other...well most anyway..."The ****", aka Cheney managed to secure 5 deferments to avoid the draft.

[AOCBravo2004]

no problem: i have not been in combat.

neither has bush. (hey, we have something in common!)

So a NORAD mission in the middle of the Cold War doesn't count??? That F-102 wasn't exactly and easy aircraft to fly either.

Combat Experience does NOT make you a great leader, experience, instinct, and other factors make you a great leader. You still have that one percenter who is a combat vet, but was a total $hit bird, get's relieved, but hey! He is a combat vet.

[ttunavy]

My military record has quite a few holes in it as well. Missing jumps from the jump log, a commendation fell off of my file a few years back, my MOS conversion was missing from my file as well... . I'm not running for any office.

unfortunately people dont realize that fact. i was always told to make copies of all my awards and certificates because you cant rely on admin to get it all correct.

[Zvucni Efekti]

So a NORAD mission in the middle of the Cold War doesn't count??? That F-102 wasn't exactly and easy aircraft to fly either.

Combat Experience does NOT make you a great leader, experience, instinct, and other factors make you a great leader. You still have that one percenter who is a combat vet, but was a total $hit bird, get's relieved, but hey! He is a combat vet.

Even a one-percenter who has put his life on his line for his country has a lot more respect from me than a bunch of rich guys who got 'deferments'.

[AOCBravo2004]

Even a one-percenter who has put his life on his line for his country has a lot more respect from me than a bunch of rich guys who got 'deferments'.

I'll just say that the one percenter is lucky if he doesn't get his men killed because he is a total $hit bird.