Thursday, September 02, 2004

I Think I'm in Love...THIS Woman's View

The liberal media is freaking out! They have no idea how to handle Zell Miller’s incredible speech last night except for claiming, ‘Women will be turned off by his angry and forceful tone’.

Who are these women? Where are these women whose genteel Jane Austen sensibilities will be turned away? I don’t know any of these women. I loved Zell’s speech –I actually thought it was the best of the convention. There were enough sound bites to last a life-time and the ‘challenge to a duel’ with Chris Matthews afterwards left me in need of a Depends…

Did you ever hear the old adage about women liking a man in uniform? Military, Policeman, Fireman…why is that? It’s because these men symbolize strength, courage, honor and a ‘manly’ quality that the stock-broker-in-the-suit-that-just-got-a-manicure just can’t exude. Even when women marry the suit –they dream about the uniform. We want our men strong –we want our men forceful, and we want to feel like they can protect us….even if we are quite capable of protecting ourselves. Zell Miller is a manly man. I like a manly man –I want someone that fixes his own toilet, mows his own lawn and changes his own oil.

So who are these wall-flower women that the media keeps referring to? Is there a woman who wants her man soft and submissive? Manicured and clean? Coiffed hair and un-calloused? Take a stroll down a romance novel isle in the book store…any suits on the covers? No…it’s dirty mechanics, sweaty cowboys (ah…the Marlboro Man), Confederate soldiers, Marines, Firefighters, Tanned Indians with black flowing hair and a buffalo skin loin cloth…the Starbucks and brief-case toting men are not there…the Birkenstock protestors crying about the evils of SUVs aren’t there –Why? Because women don’t fantasize about them… There is nothing sexy about dictating a letter to your assistant (well maybe in that weird James Spader movie…), but –as sick as it sounds- there is something very sexy about killing those who will kill us! Now, that’s a man!

Don’t believe the women’s magazines…I don’t want a ‘feminine’ man –I don’t want to see my man cry over a movie or a card –I don’t want my man to be afraid of anything (and if he is I don’t want to know about it)…and I don’t want my politicians soft either. I want them to fight to win –fight hard, fight often, fight dirty if you need to –but win!

So those women who want their men sensitive, pedicured and hair sprayed –please, vote for Kerry. You won’t find those men in our camp…Our men ride Harleys not windsurfing boards. We conservative women like our men like Zell Miller –loud and, yes, even angry when it comes to protecting his family and what he believes!


“Senator Miller, do you really believe that Senator Kerry would only equip our troops with spit balls?”

“That was a metaphor…do you know what a metaphor is?”

I think I'm in love...



122 comments:

Bigandmean said...

I'm in my office. Several people heard me laughing so hard at this and Jen's piece they peeked in to make sure I'm OK. I'm not OK! I'm laughing so hard I'm about to die! I'm rolling on the floor laughing.

In the meantime, I'm going to mount my hog and go buy me a uniform.

PS
Or should I say PMS. Several girly men I work with are not feeling well today.

leftyjones said...

You're so funny!
Cuddle up with Monty Burns...be my guest!
That speech was a riot...I agree, but apparently I'm the only one who wasn't drinking the Kool Aid.
If bitter, twisted and hateful old men do it for you....hey, I'm not going to bring you down.

I'll bet you had a sweet spot for Jesse Helms too, that lovable doughboy.

~Jen~ said...

Lefty, you are so funny when you are nervous.

*innocent smile*

~Jen~ said...

This article was a hoot Ala71. Thanks for posting it!!!

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

One nit to pick here is that I have met quite a few women who had a thing for suits on a man (and they have no clue why that fetish isn't all over the romance novel covers). Then again, I think when you scratch the surface of their fantasy, you'll find that it has more to do with Secret Service and FBI agents, or possibly mafia soldiers, and far less to do with stockbrokers or corporate salesmen. So yeah, the rugged archetype still holds--just not always in those particulars. (And here in MN, a hockey jersey also counts as a "uniform"!)

One of the things I knew I'd be sacrificing when leaving AF Special Ops, was the ability to show up to the beach in UDT shorts and desert tan boots, with Ranger and SEAL buddies, and pretty much OWN Spring Break. College football players had nothin' on us.

Hmmm... I wonder if it's too late to join back up...

ALa said...

CSMXF: Well, the guy that changes out of the suit into the uniform, or ripped jeans to mow the lawn, or chaps to go riding....that's all OK too....as long as he's not afraid to get his hands dirty...LOL!

~Jen~ said...

Ala71 - you need to find a sign for your blog with "Girly-Men" and the "Ghostbuster" slash through it.

*snicker*

this we'll defend said...

How do women feel about posers who fake it, though?

I hate the fake tough and the crazy brave.

I don't remember seeing the Cheney or Bush type hanging out at the Infantry School, and you can smell the testosterone 100 miles away from Fort Benning Georgia.

And Zell Miller is a turncoat to his own party because the backwoods, redneck, ignorant in-bred hillbilly assholes that make up a majority of his voters buy in to the "let's kick ass" kind of macho talk that Bush is so good at faking. He is one of them, so no surprise. How many people had even heard of Zell Miller before he betrayed what he claimed to stand for? Thought so.

I've been one of those few who actually kick the ass when the call comes. And my bullshit detector goes off every time Cheney, Bush, or Zell Miller start talking about heroism and sacrifice. And especially about bravery.

I don't need to play dress-up in somebody else's flight suit to prove I'm a man. Our President, though, is another story.

Paul G. said...

ALa71,

It's only infatuation.
He's not known as Zig-Zag Zell for nothing, and it's the Republicans here in Georgia that gave him the nickname.

ALa said...

TWD: Maybe you didn't know, but Zell Miller was a marine...
Paul: It probably is infatuation that will be replaced with George P. on Larry King tonight....

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

An independant political opinion here says that Zell Miller will probably not be much of an asset to the Republican presidential reelection strategy, at a time when they're trying to point out Kerry's flip-flops.

TWD: You seem absolutely convinced that unless one has graduated from the U.S. Army infantry school, that they're not in any wise a warrior. I know a few hundred SEALs, for starters, who would beg to differ. In my opinion a REAL wannabe is someone who belittles the accomplishments and feats of others in order to try to build up his own. But maybe that's just me. Maybe you'd have no problem telling a FDNY firefighter he's "not a man". I never will.

Jericho Brown said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jericho Brown said...

Why is it that every time I click on to this blog I am CONSISTENTLY appalled? Zell Miller just did the Democrats a favor. He showed middle America what the real heart of the Republican party consists of. Time to drop the facade of "compassionate conservatism." You can't act like you give a shit about the "common man" once every four years and expect the stupid people to keep buying it. Or maybe you can. We'll see in 62 days. Oh, and by the way ALa71, I believe in the first paragraph of your posting where you say, "Who are these women? Where are these women whose gentile Jane Austen sensibilities will be turned away?", what you meant to say was GENTEEL. But I've been known to be a nit-picker.

this we'll defend said...

Cigsmokman: don't know where you got that idea, but you are totally wrong. Not only do I not think that, you don't have to be a seal or a marine sniper or an army rifleman to be a man or a warrior. YOu don't even have to be a man to be a warrior. And I never said so.

I said I hate the fake tough. and the fakers don't hang around the infantry school, which was my school. I mention it because the republicans seem to suggest that all "manly" men are republicans, and all democrats are metrosexuals, with, as Ala71 put it, "sensitive, pedicured and hair sprayed." She said that those kind of men don't hang around the republican "camp."

Well, I was a rifleman, and I vote democrat. I know lots of others who do too.

I imagine the fakers and the well-manicured don't hang around Coronado NAB, or fire departments, police stations, etc. Or Fort Benning, Georgia.

They do hang around the RNC though. And George Bush is one of them.

It is another blatant attempt by the Republicans to claim that voting against Bush is against the military, against "manly" virtues, and against God. And it is a lie and this manly military christian man isn't afraid to say so.

The right can't win unless they lie. That should cause men of integrity who are concerned about this nation to vote against them. That alone.

~Jen~ said...

Ala71 - just have to sneak in here and say I have read and re-read this at least four times. I love this post!!!!! I couldn't agree more.

Jericho Brown said...

This we'll defend:

I am using your above comment on my blog. Hope you don't mind, but it's just what I consider one of the best, most precise, mnost concise synopses I've ever read about the real issues in this election. Thank you for such thoughtful insight. Everybody else (Jen, ALa, The Cigarette Smoking Man From the X-Files(thanks for specifying the show or else I woulda thunk it was the Cigarette Smoking Man From Gone With The Wind)), evolve a brain. Or have God finally get around to miracualously creating you one in less than six days.

~Jen~ said...

Jericho - I highly recommend spell-check.

Feel free to insult me, Ala71 and Cancer Man all you want. I'm proud to be in their company.

Paul G. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
girlgrey1 said...

you shame women everywhere. zell miller wore a suit last night didn't he? i feel sorry for women like you who perpetuate the myth that asshole = manly. i feel sorry for the women (if any) that you convince of that. i wasn't offended by zell's angry and forceful tone, but by his rhetorical manipulation. i get freaked out every time i hear these people speak. it is so orwellian it truly scares me [fear being a feeling i hope all humans can admit to having]. but i guess none of orwell's books had pictures of cowboys, soldiers, mechanics or native americans in loin cloths, so i'd wager you haven't read it.
ps. congratulations on that whole in love thing. you nabbed the only republican in office (claiming to be a democrat)who knows the meaning of the word metaphor. -gg

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

TWD,
T: Cigsmokman: don't know where you got that idea, but you are totally wrong. Not only do I not think that, you don't have to be a seal or a marine sniper or an army rifleman to be a man or a warrior. YOu don't even have to be a man to be a warrior. And I never said so.

C: Oh really? You never said THIS?:
T:: I don't remember seeing the Cheney or Bush type hanging out at the Infantry School

C: I see. You didn't say what you said and no one can prove that you said what you said. Noted.

T: I said I hate the fake tough. and the fakers don't hang around the infantry school, which was my school.

C: There you go, you just went and said it again. You measure all warriorhood and all manhood against the standard of having "hung out" at the infantry school.

T: I mention it because the republicans seem to suggest that all "manly" men are republicans, and all democrats are metrosexuals, with, as Ala71 put it, "sensitive, pedicured and hair sprayed." She said that those kind of men don't hang around the republican "camp."

C: I do agree that that implication can often be inaccurate. But it is an impression held by many, not merely by Ala71 but also by Democrats themselves--such as when they tried to squash the military vote in Florida in 2000. DEMOCRATS were assuming that military votes would tend to favor Bush. Now, are you going to lecture Democrats?

T: I imagine the fakers and the well-manicured don't hang around Coronado NAB, or fire departments, police stations, etc. Or Fort Benning, Georgia. They do hang around the RNC though. And George Bush is one of them.

C: I suppose you think the same of Tommy Franks, who's speaking at the Republican Convention as I type this. Look, W putting on a flight suit was to remind people that he WAS a pilot. Pilots are not infantrymen. Not all of them are extremely tough, though some of them are. Pilots are athletic, but what's required of them even more is a mental toughness--an acuity for precise decision-making. They are a different breed, certainly. They may not completely fit in with a circle of 11B earth agitation specialists as they slug back their whiskey. But you know what? A pilot's as fit as anyone else to lead. And a pilot is not "faking it" to put on a FLIGHT suit. That's what pilots wear. Now, if Bush had put on BDUs and grabbed a rifle and a ruck, and smeared the green sheen on his cheeks, I'd probably take as much umbrage at that as you currently do at his having worn what is appropriate for his background.

T: It is another blatant attempt by the Republicans to claim that voting against Bush is against the military,

C: There is a high-level truth to that actually. You see, when you promise to hold American foreign policy hostage to the whims of the United Nations, with France and Germany as final arbiters of what we will do and how, that's a formula for disaster on the battlefield. Rescue missions will await approvals in Europe, while U.S. service men and women will die. You'll get situations like the Black Sea Market battle at the Mog, as the U.N. jerks our people around on their pet errands. Now, contrary to the accusations of the Democrats, Bush has increased funding for the VA, and he has boosted military pay by 20% during his tenure thus far (according to Gen. Franks in his speech just now). It may be possible that Kerry will outspend Bush on individual soldiers, but I do feel confident that his foreign policy will be nothing less than murderous of people in uniform, in SPITE of his extreme hesitance to employ any use of force whatsoever to protect the American people.

T: against "manly" virtues, and against God.

C: Take a look at the protesters outside, TWD. What kind of religious faith do you see out on that street? What kind of manly men number among the pierced eyebrows and wet-noodle arms out there? Beyond even being masculine, how many of them even SHOWER?

Jericho Brown,
J: evolve a brain. Or have God finally get around to miracualously creating you one in less than six days.

C: I take it you can't formulate an intelligent or even remotely credible response to what normal people say about this, so this is your substitute. Thank you for sharing (and revealing).

Forseti said...

~Jen~

Why does Jericho get a pass, and I'm scolded and told to be a good polite little blogger?

One person is give free license to insult and another is chided and told to control themselves.

Forseti said...

CSMFXF
"C: Take a look at the protesters outside, TWD. What kind of religious faith do you see out on that street? What kind of manly men number among the pierced eyebrows and wet-noodle arms out there? Beyond even being masculine, how many of them even SHOWER?"

Maybe you should have tuned to a channel other than Faux, the protesters outside represented many many facets of American Society.
There were even protesters, protesting the protesters surely there were some of your manly men among these supporters of the Bush administration.

I have no concept of what a 'wet-noodle arm' is but what I hear coming from you is that if you don't look, or smell a certain way then your opinion somehow isn't valid in America.
That can't be what you meant.

Bigandmean said...

TWD, there are some tough fellows living in the hills of Georgia. You're probably safe in calling them lying inbred hillbilly assholes as long as you don't do it to their face. You should be safe in California.

You hate false tough? Go to the hills of NorthWest Georgia and repeat your name calling. Tell us what happens.

The hate speach spewing from the mouths of so-called compassionate liberals just astounds me.

By the way TWD, there's a rumor that you may have been to infantry school. Note that Zell Miller is a Marine but apparently has no need to remind people.

Bigandmean said...

Jericho,
What you meant to say was most. The word is not spelled mnost. But then, hey I can be a nit picker.

attillathehunnybun said...

TWD,
You're not man enough to hold George Bush's jock strap. Only a wimp has the need to constantly be reminding people about how tough he is. And for God's sakes, we know already that you were in the army. My father was a marine. I was in the navy. What the hell difference does that make?

Just put on a little plastic hair cover thing and go audition for a job at a luandry. If you get the job, maybe you'll get to see what a real man's underwear looks like. It's obvious that you wear panties.

militarymanstan said...

The so called compassionate left is sure as hell angry tonight. If any of you do go to Georgia don't start with the name calling or you'll be squealing like a pig. Ever see Deliverance?

militarymanstan said...

You're freaked out are you girlgrey? Just wait until W gets re-elected.

Oh, and you nailed us. We're all stupid. What else could explain your side not winning?

riceburner147 said...

I dont claim to be any kind of expert but i thought it was considered poor manners to remind another person on the internet about (esp) spelling and possibly grammar. How about going up a few notches on the civility and maturity levels here on this site. Anyone can misspell a word or use one incorrectly or have a typo. can we move beyond those kinds of things ?

ALa said...

girlgrey-
Let's see...when did I read '1984' --12th grade, oh and then sophomore year...OK, so your a sophomore in college (and before you come back next year and comment I have already read 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being' and Foucault...)
Right now I am reading a book with a nasty guy on the cover...It's called 'Unfit for Command'. And yes, Zell Miller was wearing a suit --but he was a marine (and you may want to look up Zell Miller’s record –anyone that worked for George McGovern’s campaign is definitely a Democrat). I am happily married to a manly man -who is not an asshole by the way or I wouldn't have married him.
Maybe you should go back to English 102 --the reason I put that metaphor quote was to show that the whole piece was a metaphor...the marines, the mechanics are SYMBOLS....

Jericho Brown said...

SMOKER: "I do agree that that implication can often be inaccurate. But it is an impression held by many (that Democrats are pussies), not merely by Ala71 but also by Democrats themselves--such as when they tried to squash the military vote in Florida in 2000. DEMOCRATS were assuming that military votes would tend to favor Bush. Now, are you going to lecture Democrats?

J-Love's reply: Like when the Repubs tried to qush votes in the counties with black majorities? Your point canceled out. NEXT.

Cancer-man:"W putting on a flight suit was to remind people that he WAS a pilot."

J-Love's reply: It was a goddam publicity stunt and nothing more than that and you people KNOW that. That you buy into it is the saddest part. If he was a real pilot he wouldn't have tried so hard to get out of going to Viet Nam.

Coffin-nail man:"You see, when you promise to hold American foreign policy hostage to the whims of the United Nations, with France and Germany as final arbiters of what we will do and how, that's a formula for disaster on the battlefield."

J's reply: This is classic Republican spin. By-passing the UN in 2003 in the rush to war is in no way a show of American strength. It is a display of arrogance. Nobody has asked the leaders of this country to let the UN decide when and where and how we conduct foreign affairs. All rational people wanted was to let the inspections work. W couldn't allow that to happen because HIS MIND WAS ALREADY MADE UP to go to war against Saddam (see numerous, WELL-CITED books on the subject, such as Richard Clarke's and Bob Woodward's).

Smokey:"Bush has increased funding for the VA, and he has boosted military pay by 20% during his tenure thus far (according to Gen. Franks in his speech just now)."

J: Great source. How 'bout this one? In speeches to the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion in August of '01, Bush promised reforms and improvements to health care benefits for veterans.

However, in January '03, the Bush administration's Department of Veterans Affairs announced that it would reduce access to its health care system in order to block over 150,000 veterans from enrolling in that fiscal year, due to a backlog of vets still waiting to receive treatment.

In March '03, Bush's VA budget was passed. It included raised charges for primary care and drug prescription co-payments, raised enrollment fees -- which had never before existed in veteran's health care -- and complete blockage of care for what the VA considers lower priority vets.

(Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010820-1.html, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010829-2.html. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4064-2003Jan16, Edward Walsh, "VA Cuts Some Veterans' Access to Health Care Huge Backlog, Long Waits Prompt Decision," Washington Post, 1/17/03. http://www.house.gov/strickland/vetsreport.htm#Proposals.)

You Got A Smoke, Man?: "Take a look at the protesters outside, TWD. What kind of religious faith do you see out on that street? What kind of manly men number among the pierced eyebrows and wet-noodle arms out there? Beyond even being masculine, how many of them even SHOWER?"

J's sagacious reply(I'm not a blonde so it's not an oxymoron when I use "sagacious"): You're a fucking retard.

BIG (and mean):"Jericho,
What you meant to say was most. The word is not spelled mnost. But then, hey I can be a nit picker."

J: That's called a typo, bam-o. What I pointed out in ALa71's word usage was the MISUSE of a word. Kinda different stuff, smart guy.

Attila: "You're not man enough to hold George Bush's jock strap. Only a wimp has the need to constantly be reminding people about how tough he is. And for God's sakes, we know already that you were in the army. My father was a marine. I was in the navy. What the hell difference does that make?

Just put on a little plastic hair cover thing and go audition for a job at a luandry. If you get the job, maybe you'll get to see what a real man's underwear looks like. It's obvious that you wear panties."

J: Thanks for bringing up the ACTUAL testosterone level on this blog. So much of it was faux I think we were all beginning to feel like pussies.

Arbitrarymanstan: "The so called compassionate left is sure as hell angry tonight. If any of you do go to Georgia don't start with the name calling or you'll be squealing like a pig. Ever see Deliverance?"

J: Good one with the Deliverance reference. Good to know forensics aren't dead in this country yet. And yet--still,none of you can give one explanation to excuse for all the blatant, DOCUMENTED lies pushed on the American people for the last four years. This is the real issue. Pussies, assholes, or the taint in between, we're all going to have to deal with the hellfire that befalls every last one of us when the people we're pissing off in the middle east right now are all grown up and have nothing better to do with their lives than extract vengeance on us for the the arrogance and the audacity demonstrated on a daily basis by the W. administration. Take that to the fucking bank. None of you are gonna be very manly when they've raped your wives and daughters, cut your fucking head off with a steak knife because you couldn't show a little fucking respect. He should have let the inspections take their course. End of story. Oh. And before any of you blockheads say anything like the following, I've cut you off at the pass, so don't even try it. TO THIS DAY, THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN AL QUEDA, WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11, AND IRAQ. NOT A SINGLE FUCKING CONNECTION. IRAQ-AL QUEDA= 0 connection.

ALa said...

The 9/11 Commission reports differs with that opinion...

girlgrey1 said...

ala71, you are right. there are no republicans in office who know the meaning of the word metaphor.

ALa said...

Posting in Fear and Anonymity (AKA-girlgrey):

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

~Jen~ said...

Forseti - I saw hope in you. You have written a few posts that I appreciated very much.

I see none of that potential in Jericho, hence, no attempt on my part to intervene in his meltdown.

Forseti said...

~Jen~

That feels too much like an EFing pat on the head.

~Jen~ said...

Forseti, no matter what I say to that person, it won't make a difference. Surely you can see that.

No pat on the head intended. I meant that sincerly.

~Jen~ said...

So...back to the subject before we got hijacked.

Ala71 - did I mention how much I loved this post?

LOL!

ALa said...

Jen -Thanks for the picture...it works much better! Wow, is everybody angry today --I feel quite calm and have sat back and smiled at all the frothing -whew!

~Jen~ said...

I knew you were going to like that one. So appropriate.

*very wide grin*

I am rather amused too.

Kat said...

Just a little FYI...Zell Miller is my kind of Democrat. Maybe the new Democrats don't understand the difference between new democrat and old democrat.

You see...Zell is an angry man. He said it. All the new democrats are listening to Michael Moore and Woopi Goldberg etc for their talking points about lying, misleading, Halliburton, war for oil, etc. As a matter of fact, I just heard Kerry actually give 4 points in his speech that are directly from the Michael Moore movie and Howard Dean campaign.

You see my problem. Some folks have totally disregarded the fact that we were attacked. Yes, they recognize that a tragedy happened on 9/11 but they don't recognize it as the start of a new war. They just see it as one of those things that we have to deal with. Some bad guys we need to catch.

Zell sees it like I do, that there are some bad guys who want to put an evil ideology in power over large parts of the world and the only way they can do that is by knocking us off. You don't do police actions or "diplomacy" when somebody wants to kill you. You go after them where ever they are.

Like Zell, the thing that pisses me off the most about the party I just left behind, is the failure to recognize this danger and come together with the other side of the aisle to do whatever it takes to defeat this enemy. End of story.

The new democrat wants to believe that this is just something we'll have to deal with when it happens. Respond to. REspond? I don't want simple response. I want offense. How the hell do you defeat somebody who wants to kill you by sitting in your house with the lights off and the doors locked, calling all your friends and talking about how this kind wants to kill you and what do they suggest. And what do they suggest? Open the door and let them in. Invite the guy to sit down for a cup of coffee and some discussion. You just have to know why he wants to kill you and then you can figure out how to keep him from doing it. Of course, your friends assure you, if, during this great conversation with your would be killer, you think you are in trouble, all you have to do is call them. Riiiiiggggghhht!

That's the New Democrat response.

And, hey!, by the way, this redneck from Missouri says, when a guy is banging on your door with a shot gun threatening to kill you, you go to the bedroom, get your .45 out, call the police and pray that they get there before you have to shoot the guy. But, if that guy starts shooting at you from the front porch, what are you going to do? Hide in a closet and hope the guy doesn't shoot you before the cops get there? In my world, that guy gets shot and then you explain it to the police.

That's the problem here. You all realize the US IS the police force of the world? Who are we going to call to arrest the bad guy while we cower in our closet?

TWD...I have to tell you, you cracked me up. For a guy that was in the infantry and then telling everyone about how fakers would be noticed, you were starting to go down the road towards fake bragging yourself. And dude, I would never question your service, but you realize attacking someone else and then puffing up your record doesn't sound too good? That's what you all are accusing the Republicans of. The difference is, you don't hear Bush or Cheney saying anything about Kerry directly or mentioning, for instance, Bush's service in the National Guard.

But, you did hear someone question kerry's service. And when that happened, it was attack Bush Cheney and then puff up Kerry's service. I listened to his speech tonight. He and Edwards mentioned his vietnam service 18 times.

You sounded just like them when you started attacking Zell Miller, which Ala rightly points out did honorable service in the marines, in combat I believe. And now he some sick old redneck guy? But Kerry can mention his Vietnam service 9 billion times and he's just a sensitive vet?

Seriously, can you not see your own hypocracy here? Pot calling kettle black?

Pull back into your rational self. You're much better at point by point debate.

this we'll defend said...

Cigsmokwhatever: you are simply wrong about everything. Especially your implication that I hold only riflemen in high regard even though I said otherwise. but hey, who cares what I said? It's what you thought that counts right?

So you should definitely vote republican. Anything else would tax your brain. Ooops, did I say tax? Sorry.

As far as Northern GA - that's where the Mountain Phase of Ranger school is. Can't say many Army guys like it much.

The guys in Deliverance vote republican. You bet. Relatives of yours?

And the protestors? Lump them all into the Democrat camp if you want. I can see that having more than two choices is difficult if not impossible for the Republican mind. Republicans or Democrats. If somebody isn't a Republican then they MUST be a Democrat, right? Appeasement v. Invasion. Well, they are the only two options we have so invasion is better, right? With us or against us. Good or evil. Two legs bad, four legs good.

Things sure are simple in Republican land.

George W. Bush - simple solutions for complex problems.

this we'll defend said...

Kat, you say :Some folks have totally disregarded the fact that we were attacked. Yes, they recognize that a tragedy happened on 9/11 but they don't recognize it as the start of a new war.

Yes. That is the bush administration. They haven't fought the war on terror but a war with Iraq, and as a result we have played into terrorist hands and helped terrorist recruitment. Thanks for pointing out how the Bush administration couldn't tell the difference between the threat from Saddam and the threat from Osama. Which is why I'm voting Kerry - I want to win, not have a prolonged "war against terror" forever and ever. I don't want "yellow alert" and duct tape. I want Osama's head on a pike outside the White House. Bush doesn't. So I'm voting Kerry.

You say: You don't do police actions or "diplomacy" when somebody wants to kill you. You go after them where ever they are.

Yep. Even if that is Pakistan or Egypt. Which is why I don't like Bush. He went to the one place we knew they weren't, and pulled resources out of Afghanistan to do it. didn't he know we were attacked on 9/11?

YOu say: the thing that pisses me off the most about the party I just left behind, is the failure to recognize this danger and come together with the other side of the aisle to do whatever it takes to defeat this enemy.

I didn't know you were now a democrat but used to be a republican. welcome to the land of reason!

You say: I want offense. How the hell do you defeat somebody who wants to kill you by sitting in your house with the lights off and the doors locked...?

Well, I guess if the bad guy is kicking in your front door, you could do it the Bush way and shoot at your neighbor out the back door. YOu never liked your neighbor anyway, and he MIGHT help the bad guy kicking in your front door.

You say: I don't want simple response.

Well, that is all you are going to get from W. Simple solutions to complex problems.

You think Democrats are weak. You think we want flowers and kumbaya instead of getting Osama. That is because you believe what you are told by the right wing who have NOT BEEN FIGHTING A WAR ON TERROR, BUT A WAR WITH IRAQ. Try reading or learning about the Democratic party from democrats for a change, instead of learning about them from Fox, where protestors and hippies and pacifists are all Democrats, but people like Sam Nunn of Georgia or ME aren't. Don't tell me what my party platform is - I know what it is and you are F'ed up about it. Read it and realize it is everything you say you want, without the dumbass diversions and mistakes and obfuscation of the Bush team. I don't want to fight a war on terrorists, you are right. I want to WIN the war with terrorists. And that is the main difference between the parties.

You say: The difference is, you don't hear Bush or Cheney saying anything about Kerry directly or mentioning, for instance, Bush's service in the National Guard.

Good lord, you must not even be watching FOX. Where do you get your news? Did you even watch the convention? It was kerry-bashing 24/7. Jeez.

And yes, it pisses me off a little bit that a decorated combat veteran can't mention his record. Should he be ASHAMED of it? Is it a NEGATIVE in your book? Because it sure is in the Republican camp. Kerry shouldn't talk about his combat record? HE HAS ONE.

His commitment to defend this country is questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq.

Cheney made fun of Kerry just last night - calling him unfit to lead. I guess five deferments and having "other priorities" is what is required to lead our troops. I guess hiding behind Daddy while MEN go to fight is the Macho men point of this entire discussion.

I'm not beating my chest. I'm just sick of men who hid, who sought safety while other men did their duty, and then turn around and play hero. I'm not playing hero either, but damn if I will accept the fake tough when they try and swagger their way over me.

Paul G. said...

ALa71,

This would be your Iraqi - al Qaeda connection.

The 9/11 Commission Report page 66

"The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

free0352 said...

I've posted on CB's old sight but never on this sight. I suppose since his is now gone I should move on. Ok, to join this little talk I'll display my manly man credentials. I'm a Marine Sniper, I've fought three wars in three years,on three continents, I'm going back in June (Re-called to duty) In my spare time back home now that i'm a mere reservist, I'm also a deputy Sheriff.
I think i'll be voting Bush this year. I seem to remember the military six years ago when i came aboard. My barraks was condemed and filled with roaches and rats (zero exageration) The infantry school that certain other blogers seem to enjoy refering to could not provide 7.62 mm ammunition for qualification with the 240g machine gun due to budget cuts (but hey, we had a tax surplus!) I was constantly deploied upon leaving infantry school for my unit because my commander and chief seemed intent on sending me on every errand the United Nations could think of, and while I was being fierd opon I was personal whitness to the government go to extravigant legths to cover casualties up. Now keep in mind I was ordered into harm's way by a fat draft doger. I was given as a young private an unclear mission, no tools to acomplish it, and when i came home no one even new what we'd done. "I thought there was only an air war in the balkans?" was a common look of suprise when asked how I got those cool scars on my left arm. Then followed the looks of dout. I wasn't honored, I was forgotten. Our hummvee's we're ten years old and barely ran, our weapons were worn out, our ships were commissioned in the 60's and we're all slowly sinking, moral was low, and the general state of affairs sucked. Then came Bush, and while all these problems are not perfectly corrected yet, I have seen the effort made by the Presedent and I tell you the effect has been drastic, and continuing to improve. he's moved mountains. The congress still likes to stab us in the back (Types like kerry and Sen Clinton, their voting record justifys this opinion.)but on the whole it's a differant world. In both Afganistan and Iraq i had a clear mission, the best that could be done for giving us the tools, as coming back from an eight year rape of the military takes twice as long to correct, and the honor and effection of a nation. I'm going back to iraq and I tell you this. I'm a reservist now, and proud of it. Bush was in the gaurd. to demean his service by infering it wasn't good enough is absurd, and insulting to all reservists and gaurd folks who in my opinion sacrifice a great deal more than the active guys...and i've been both! while kerry's vietnam record is much touted, he shit on all his brothers when he came home and that fact is not up for debate. Its on freek'n video for those who wish to watch. when he threw his meddals away (who cares how he got em')he threw us in the service and that title away. Now he wants to reserect it for his own ill gain. not on my watch! I will NOT serve under John Kerry...one screwed up war protester was enough. I'm sick of hearing the dem's silly ideas of how to win wars, and govern people. it all boils down to a bizzare need in the left party to have every one love one another and be all things to all people, encluding murderers overseas. the funny thing is they only succed in being nothing to no one, and having many attacks in many differant forms blatantly perpitrated on our homes, while we sit up at night wondering where our paychecks went. what good is one of kerrys promised new jobs when i don't keep my friggin wage because it went to provide some crap social service in another state or god forbid another damn country! the unemployment numbers are out for this quarter, and it's 144,000 new jobs...with employees who will see money in thier bank acounts instead of the federal governments. Courtesey of George Bush. It's the Democrats who sound week and angry, not the Republicans. Even our token dem is mad as hell :) they are mad because their are two americas. the old and dangerous one of the clinton administration, and the one of the future. there will be war for many years to come, and I garantee iraq is hardly our last stop. there are MANY campains ahead, and this is but a single part. Read about world war two, we didn't win in europe and throw in the towel. we are going after far more than mere terrorist murderers (i resent the term terrorist, call em' what they are) we are at war with all rouge nations, and the fools who work in thier interest covertly to subvert and destroy our people and culture. Bush knows the only way this war can be won is by draging the mid east, kicking and screaming need be, into the modern, western world. by doing so, they will no longer care about Jihad, and more about building thier own nations. we in the Marines call it death by McDonalds. the dems call this arrogant and unilateral. I for one call it a victory strategy. i will not stand by and consider the feelings of my enemy in the process of defeating him. i also will not apoligize for our methods of defeating him. i saw one president set this country up for disaster by time and again ignoring the obvious and gathering threat. I hope america doesn't place another fool who has no idea how to win a war in office. the key to the middle east is strength, if you look weak the enemy will capitalize on that weakness. they have learned from experiance that democrats are weaklings..and fear bush because what ever you say...we know he will bomb the shit out of people.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Jericho's back. Color me shocked.

J: Like when the Repubs tried to qush votes in the counties with black majorities? Your point canceled out. NEXT.

C: Hold up. You mean you don't think you can win an election without convicted felons packing your ballot boxes? My point sustained even more firmly. NOW next.

C::W putting on a flight suit was to remind people that he WAS a pilot.

J: It was a goddam publicity stunt

C: Sure it was. But now, you see, you're moving the goalposts. TWD was claiming it was a LIE on Bush's part, and FAKING to have put on a flight suit. He would have you believe that Bush never flew a plane, and you went along with that assertion. You've been proven wrong so now you wiggle into your next dialectic bunker, "oh, it was a publicity stunt". As if politicians are never allowed to do a publicity stunt. As if John Kerry playing hockey's not for publicity. As if his snowboarding wasn't to try to get the Mountain Dew vote.

J: If he was a real pilot he wouldn't have tried so hard to get out of going to Viet Nam.

C: Yes, he should have spent four months and some change there with a video camera filming his exploits and then bug the hell out of there after three arm scratches, and THEN slander all the OTHER veterans about how they're supposedly "war criminals". Yeah, that would have made him a "real pilot". Should he then have thrown his fighter jet over the White House lawn?

C::You see, when you promise to hold American foreign policy hostage to the whims of the United Nations, with France and Germany as final arbiters of what we will do and how, that's a formula for disaster on the battlefield.

J: This is classic Republican spin. By-passing the UN in 2003 in the rush to war is in no way a show of American strength. It is a display of arrogance.

C: And your man will be so "non-arrogant" that he'll get our people killed needlessly as he asks "mother may I" with every policy decision.

J: All rational people wanted was to let the inspections work.

C: The inspections still weren't unrestricted. Blix was moving heaven and earth to make it seem they were, because he didn't want a war to launch due to his not being able to do his job, but that didn't make it so.

J: You're a fucking retard.

C: More deep revelations on just how little recourse you have to logic and reason. Your arguments fail, so you resort to playground word games. I pity you.

J: we're all going to have to deal with the hellfire that befalls every last one of us when the people we're pissing off in the middle east right now are all grown up and have nothing better to do with their lives than extract vengeance on us for the the arrogance and the audacity demonstrated on a daily basis by the W. administration. Take that to the fucking bank.

C: The argument is actually bankrupt. Radical Islam attacks, and then if we retaliate we're "pissing them off", so we have to stop, be passive, and just sit here and take it. In reality, radical Islam has revealed itself to be our enemy, and through the speeches of their leaders they have announced that they have taken the "convert or die" stance to the entire Muslim world. We in America are not special because we did anything in particular to "piss them off". All we're doing is not bowing to Islam. And Russia is in the same boat, as evidenced by the four terrorist attacks they've had in the past three weeks. In fact, everyone who isn't bin-Laden's brand of Muslim, is in the same boat.

You think you can schmooze them out of attacking us, and you're mistaken. You think you can buy them off with baksheesh, and you're mistaken. You think we can be hostile to Israel (like Russia had become) and make them stop attacking us by the old Bedou saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Well that only worked for a short period of time, with them. Eventually, the terrorists always come back to the point that you're not praying to Mecca five times daily, so you're voted off the Islamic island. For many of them it's not even really "hatred". Just a logical (in their view) assessment: you are either submitting to Allah, or you're not.

J: None of you are gonna be very manly when they've raped your wives and daughters, cut your fucking head off with a steak knife because you couldn't show a little fucking respect.

C: With Bush policy they won't get that chance. With Kerry's policy he'll be waiting for the fax from Chirac approving action to prevent it.

J: TO THIS DAY, THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN AL QUEDA, WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11, AND IRAQ. NOT A SINGLE FUCKING CONNECTION. IRAQ-AL QUEDA= 0 connection.

C: The only "connection" required is that there are people there who want to murder us. And there are.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

TWD,
T: you are simply wrong about everything.

C: Well thanks for clearing that up. I feel so proven wrong now, LOL.

T: Especially your implication that I hold only riflemen in high regard even though I said otherwise. but hey, who cares what I said? It's what you thought that counts right?

C: It's actually what you said that I was looking at. Every time you disparaged and belittled others, it was to the effect of "I don't remember hanging out at the Infantry School". Perhaps you should have instructed me that it was a metaphor, and asked me if I knew what a metaphor was.

T: So you should definitely vote republican. Anything else would tax your brain. Ooops, did I say tax? Sorry.

C: You do make a compelling argument for me to vote Republican. You and Jericho are showing me quite clearly the stuff Democrats are made of, and it's not impressive in the least. I ordinarily would be repelled from Republicans by their social restriction agenda, but you're motivating me to hold my nose on that.

T: Appeasement v. Invasion. Well, they are the only two options we have so invasion is better, right? With us or against us. Good or evil. Two legs bad, four legs good.

C: Hehehehehe, clever. Admirably so. You almost had me believing your straw man of the faulty dilemma fallacy. But I think I recall being clearer than that in my critique of what I think Kerry will do--not so much "appeasing" the enemy, but asking permission of foreign powers before ever DOING anything about them. And my source from this is Kerry's own speeches, not Republican talking points.

T: George W. Bush - simple solutions for complex problems.

C: Kerry's solutions are simple too. Beg permission of other nations for us to defend ourselves. And the enemy itself is very simple--convert or die. There is simplicity all around, and now we shall see which of the tectonic plates of global politics will slide over the tops of the others, in years to come.

ALa said...

free0352-
Thank you for posting! I really enjoyed reading your unique perspective on this -being active duty, first responder and reservist. Also, of course, thank you for your service!
We have had the debate here about funding under Clinton vs. Bush -I am not/have not been in the military, but all the numbers and research about this (from military websites) definitely supports the fact that Bush has done a lot more.
A Democrat on MSNBC summed it up perfectly for his party last night when he said, "We need to spend money on more art and less bombs..."
That's a pretty thought dude, but there is a war going on and we can't win with coloring contests!
Keep us updated about your re-deployment ...I guarantee WE will not forget you!

~Jen~ said...

Howdy free0352,

Fantastic post Sir. Your voice is most welcome here.

~Jen~ said...

Ala71 - we posted at exactly the same time! GMTA!!!

Kat said...

Let's be clear here...I'm a Democrat, voted democrat for 16 years. Strictly party lines. Now I vote Republican.

TWD:Yes. That is the bush administration. They haven't fought the war on terror but a war with Iraq, and as a result we have played into terrorist hands and helped terrorist recruitment. Thanks for pointing out how the Bush administration couldn't tell the difference between the threat from Saddam and the threat from Osama.

Kat: This is where we have a problem. You see, I happen to read the papers and know who's been arrested and killed and where. Maybe you've lost track of the fact that we are picking off Al-Qaeda guys every day?

So, let's talk about Osama. Basically, he's number one on my "dead or alive" list and wouldn't mind "dead". But guess what, you just pointed out another problem with the party. While simultaneously saying we should go after all these other countries "allegedly" harboring Al-Qaeda, even if some of those countries are actively going after them (like Pakistan), you are saying that Iraq posed no danger and acting like we should go after a whole host of other countries. We should attack Egypt, our ally, even though they are arresting and killing Al-Qaeda left and right?

Does that make sense to you?

Further, you and the others like to go on about no terrorist connection, particularly Al-Qaeda. Zarqawi was in Iraq in 2001. That's a full two years before we invaded. He was treated at the MAJOR Ba'athist reserved hospital in Baghdad. Saddam, who's secret police know everything, didn't know that? That's freaking naive and dangerous.

I think we agree we go after these guys where ever, but the other problem here is assuming that Osama is THE ONLY person we need to get and this problem is a done deal. No more enemy. That is naive also. The enemy is propagating as we speak. They have so many cells and recruiters, we can't just go after the one guy. It's like going after the mafia. you get the lower, slower fish and move up the ladder.

You claim we helped terrorist recruitment. Dude, since we have been attacked by these assholes for the last 14 years or longer, exactly how were they being recruited before that some how is accelerated now? Do you even know why they attacked us? Did you ever read their manifesto? This isn't about our policies in the ME, and barely about our presence there. These guys want to create a national Islamic state. It wouldn't matter what the west does because our very existance precludes them from doing it unless we are non-existant or too weak. This is a whole hell of a lot of guys who have been indoctrinated in this program, not just one turbaned asshole named Osama. That's where reality splits. This whole region has to be taken apart and put back together, either through military or economic pressure. This is definitely NOT a live and let live issue.

How about the fact that we are fighting them in Iraq right now with our military, our fighting forces? Not here with our cops and firefighters? Is there something wrong with opening a second front against the enemy? Maybe you'd like to go back an advise Roosevelt not to declare war on Germany because they didn't attack us?

TWD: Well, I guess if the bad guy is kicking in your front door, you could do it the Bush way and shoot at your neighbor out the back door. YOu never liked your neighbor anyway, and he MIGHT help the bad guy kicking in your front door.

Kat: Right after I shot the bastard kicking in my door, if I found out my neighbor was standing to the side telling him where my hidden extra key was and what room my children slept in, or supplied the first bastard with a crow bar and gun or let the guy sleep in his garage while he waited to attack me, I'd shoot his ass too.

TWD: You think Democrats are weak. You think we want flowers and kumbaya instead of getting Osama. That is because you believe what you are told by the right wing who have NOT BEEN FIGHTING A WAR ON TERROR, BUT A WAR WITH IRAQ. Try reading or learning about the Democratic party from democrats for a change, instead of learning about them from Fox, where protestors and hippies and pacifists are all Democrats, but people like Sam Nunn of Georgia or ME aren't...etc

Kat: I read what they say and I studied what they did. The candidate here is Kerry. Not you or Sam Nunn. The party platform says what it wants, but Kerry's record is something else. It's not his service or his medals that are at issue for me. I've read his speeches in the Senate. You are deluding yourself about his character. He is a "peace at all costs" kind of guy. Prosecuting military action is not his strong suit, regardless of his military service. He's been down on US action for 20 years. That's not including his "war atrocity" speech to the Senate.

And yes, I have a problem when the current party embraces assholes like Michael Moore and the rest of the "the US is trying to build an empire" folks. These people have been throwing shit on my country and the Democrat party embraced them. And we aren't just talking about people that protest Iraq. We're talking the whole gamut of "the US is evil" folks including the war in Afghanistan as "quagmire". And yes, I think that you are deluding yourself if you think the democrats are going to go after Egypt or Pakistan or any other country we count as allies because that would be totally insane and there are at least a few sane people left in the party.

Frankly, the next country on my list is Iran since we know for a fact they are harboring Al Qaeda and have NO intention of handing them over and are planning to go nuclear. But Kerry's idea is to do a North korea program which guarantees they will go nuclear with OUR materials. Great plan.

The difference in the countries you are listing is whether they are giving direct aid to the terrorists and whether they are participating in capturing or killing these folks. You don't invade countries that are helping you. By your standard, we need to invade France, Spain and Germany since they are constantly turning up al Qaeda cells. Of course, they aren't really interested in handing them over to us either since we have the death penalty. Maybe we should invade them?

The party is weak in it's candidate and weak in it's platform. And, if you had ever visited my site, you would know that I research information and don't listen to the news to get my candidate information. I've got issues with both parties, but my main issue is Kerry and the rest of the conspiracy theorists.

TWD: Good lord, you must not even be watching FOX. Where do you get your news? Did you even watch the convention? It was kerry-bashing 24/7. Jeez.

And yes, it pisses me off a little bit that a decorated combat veteran can't mention his record. Should he be ASHAMED of it? Is it a NEGATIVE in your book? Because it sure is in the Republican camp. Kerry shouldn't talk about his combat record? HE HAS ONE.

Kat: yes, I watched the convention and not ONCE was his Vietnam service mentioned besides saying he served honorably. Even Zell Miller honored his Vietnam service. The entire discussion centered around his voting record for the last 20 years. Is that suddenly off limits because he served in Vietnam? Were you watching the convention or did you just get your news from watching Kerry's post convention speech, whining about attacks on his character?

Not ONCE did anyone say he lacked patriotism, but they did question his plan to protect the US when he consistantly votes against military action ANYWHERE accept Afghanistan, where he had no choice if he ever wanted to be elected. And of course, HE DID vote to go to Iraq, even if he "nuanced" his vote. That is just the stupidest freaking phrase I've heard in a long time. When the bill says "authorize force" that's what it means. There is no "nuance" when you vote "yes". It is what it is and now he's trying like hell to back track because he needs to keep his anti-war base if he wants to win this election, but "nuancing" even that because he knows that some folks think it was a good idea to get rid of Saddam. That's not consistent and it's certainly doesn't prove anything accept he doesn't want to say what he really believes because he would start losing some folks.

In regards to Kerry's service record, nobody said he couldn't talk about it, but when a guy makes it his entire "Security" platform and says it 18 TIMES during this last speech and 23 times in the convention speech, do you think maybe he's over playing his hand?

And do you believe that is all it takes to be the commander in chief? Because, that is all he has to run on. He keeps saying it because he needs that to off set his freaking voting record. DO YOU reasearch anything or just get your talking points off the DNC website?

You now what else is funny, I bet, based on your own comments, if some guy you knew in your unit started campaigning republican and he was saying a bunch of bullshit about his service, you'd be the first to out him. So...what is the difference if his combat associates do the same thing? he made his service THE point of his qualifications and that is fair game in my book.

But let me remind you that Bush nor Cheney directly attacked his service and neither did Miller. Since you all can split hairs about Michael Moore and Moveon.org or any other 527 or independent attack dogs, why not the Republicans about the SBVTs? That's seriously hypocritical.

Again, maybe you should go on CSPAN and actually listen to what was said so you would know the TRUTH instead of getting it from CNN or the DNC.

TWD: Cheney made fun of Kerry just last night - calling him unfit to lead. I guess five deferments and having "other priorities" is what is required to lead our troops. I guess hiding behind Daddy while MEN go to fight is the Macho men point of this entire discussion.


Kat: Yes, Cheney called him unfit to lead, but he talked about his voting record AGAIN and not his military service. And, I might point out, your candidate had a deferment, too. How do you think he finished Yale? How about his attempt to get a second deferment to study in Paris? he was turned down. He had no other courses he could take so it was enlist or be drafted. He enlisted. Good for him. He served. Good for him.

Does that do a damn thing to fix his voting record? No. You want to keep throwing that up as a red herring, like your candidate, as the reason he's being attacked by Bush Cheney as unfit to lead, you go ahead. The reality is out there for anyone to read and hear.

And speaking of fakers, what are you going to do if the military comes back and says he's sporting some undeserved medals? For instance, the navy doesn't award "V" for valor/combat with the Navy Silver Star because the silver star automatically implies meritorious service under combat situations. Your hero has it plastered all over his site. Or the FOUR bronze stars when the Navy record only indicates TWO? They are investingating as I write.

Hopefully, that is just an accident on either Kerry's part or the Military. I'm willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. But..if it turns out he did something wrong, like inflate his service record, you can bet I won't let it alone since that proves he's a liar, too.

In regards to Cheney's deferments or Bush's record. As far as I can tell, all three of them were trying like hell not to go. Kerry just ran out of options. Bush was not combat ready. He didn't have enough flying hours, so, even if he had been in the regular Air Force, he wouldn't have went. None issue. Cheney, Bush and Kerry all had deferments to go to college. Cheney went to graduate school, in the states, and was deferred. Cheney was married by the next occassion for draft and they weren't taking married men at the time. When they changed that, his wife was pregnant and they weren't taking married men with children.

According to the Democrat talking points, he some how had that planned just to stay out of Vietnam. What a load of crap. Was he supposed to stay single and have no children just so he could go serve his country?

For the record, my Dad got the same deferment. Maybe he's a coward too? Is that how you paint with your brush? If you didn't serve, whatever the reason, your a coward?

My brother has served and still serves for 16 years, currently in the Air National Guard, and hasn't once been sent to a combat station. Does that make him less a man in your book? Maybe 10 years from now he runs for office, is he ineligible because he wasn't sent somewhere to be shot at?

Now, I know you aren't really meaning that, but that's how you come across. Further, before this little conversation, I never once mentioned the guys service record, nor do I support the SBVT attack, per se. But I will not say these guys can't talk when they served, too. Frankly, doesn't matter what they say because my problem is the guy's voting record.

However, I will repeat, if it turns out he is lying like hell about his service and the medals, I will roast him like a Thanksgiving day turkey.

Further, I don't see you back tracking on your comment about Zell Miller's "cowardly" attack on Kerry. Since you obviously didn't read nor hear his actual speech, I think you should do so before you make further aspersions on the guy. His entire speech was based on Kerry's voting record and that is fair game. Further, he certainly does not fall under the "chickenhawk" category you like to throw around since he served and then some.

You don't like it, too bad. That's what this election is about. Who has done what while in office.

Zell's the kind of democrat I would have voted for, not Mr. Nuance.

So...I am a democrat and I am abandoning my party because the candidate sucks and so does their idea of going after our enemies. And you know what? I supported Edwards in the primaries. Not because he was cute, but because he was standing by his vote to go after Iraq. Now, he's nothing but a panderer running with the big flipper. Now HE's changed HIS stand and I think that kind of thing is what turned me completely off with no hope of getting my vote for a Democrat this election.

I will not vote party lines when the candidate does not support my major agenda issue, regardless of what you believe they will do.

To Ala..I'm so sorry for taking up so much of your comment section.

ALa said...

Kat-you know you are always welcome to as much space as you need!
Your rationale is always more even-tempered than mine and you have more weight (to talk to the other side -as they think I am 'just towing the party line') as you were once a Democrat though (like Zell Miller -my boyfriend) no one will believe that...If someone joined in that said they were a Republican voting for Kerry...they would certainly believe that though...sigh...

Jen: Do you realize that it is the second time we have posted at the exact same time ...once on your blog...RIGHT minds think a like! LOL

ALa said...

Kat-you know you are always welcome to as much space as you need!
Your rationale is always more even-tempered than mine and you have more weight (to talk to the other side -as they think I am 'just towing the party line') as you were once a Democrat (though like Zell Miller -my boyfriend) no one will believe that...If someone joined in that said they were a Republican voting for Kerry...they would certainly believe that though...sigh...

Jen: Do you realize that it is the second time we have posted at the exact same time ...once on your blog...RIGHT minds think a like! LOL

~Jen~ said...

Ala71 - I still think we were twins seperated at birth.
BigandMean, you got some 'esplainin' to do. *wide grin*

Kat, your analysis is always thought-provoking, factual, and beautifully laid out. Are you a teacher? If not, you would have been a terrific one. I think I mentioned it once before, but in case I didn't, I am damn proud to have you on our side of the issues.

Jericho Brown said...

New Guy with the military credentials: "Bush was in the gaurd. to demean his service by infering it wasn't good enough is absurd, and insulting to all reservists and gaurd folks who in my opinion sacrifice a great deal more than the active guys"

Jericho's reply: There has STILL not been one person to confirm they served with Bush in the guard. He was there in name only. I can't understand why people in the military are so willing to blindly follow a guy who used his money and position to get out of the very shit that you are in. It's baffling. Really. I'm fucking baffled.

New Guy with the military credentials:"while kerry's vietnam record is much touted, he shit on all his brothers when he came home and that fact is not up for debate"

J's reply: Just because he spoke out on war atrocities, which even your halloed Tommy Franks admits to having seen occur, does not mean he shit on everyone over there. That's Republican spin. He did what anyone of conscience would do after being in that kind of traumatic experience: he tried to make sure it would never happen again. And for the record: The Viet Nam war was bullshit. It was a lost cause fought for the wrong reasonsand even the people who waged that war have said as much (see the documentary The Fog of War). I'm not saying that the soldiers over there should be shit on or spit on or ignored, as far too many were when they came home, but I am saying that the ones who took part in atrocities, the raping and murder of women and children, should get what any other criminal faces. That's all Kerry was doing. Use your brain. Look at the situation, man. It's not as cut and dry as Bush & Corp. would have you believe.

New Guy with the military credentials:"I'm sick of hearing the dem's silly ideas of how to win wars and govern people. it all boils down to a bizzare need in the left party to have every one love one another and be all things to all people, encluding murderers overseas. the funny thing is they only succed in being nothing to no one, and having many attacks in many differant forms blatantly perpitrated on our homes, while we sit up at night wondering where our paychecks went."

J: Bush has overseen the largest loss of jobs since Hoover (president at the beginning of the Depression).

New Guy with the military credentials:"what good is one of kerrys promised new jobs when i don't keep my friggin wage because it went to provide some crap social service in another state or god forbid another damn country!"

J: Dude! I think you're a Democrat and don't even know it. One of the Dems' main gripes has been that Bush has been sending jobs overseas. KERRY wants to stop it. Welcome to the fold, brother.

New Guy with the military credentials:"the unemployment numbers are out for this quarter, and it's 144,000 new jobs...with employees who will see money in thier bank acounts instead of the federal governments."

J; That's a meaningless number when he started out by losing over a million jobs. A million minus 100,000 is still 900,000. Still bad.

New Guy with the military credentials:" I garantee iraq is hardly our last stop. there are MANY campains ahead, and this is but a single part. Read about world war two, we didn't win in europe and throw in the towel. we are going after far more than mere terrorist murderers (i resent the term terrorist, call em' what they are) we are at war with all rouge nations, and the fools who work in thier interest covertly to subvert and destroy our people and culture."

J: I can't speak for the more radical left-wingers who condemn our even going into Afganistan, but the problem I have with Bush is that he gave FALSE reasons for going to war against Saddam. That's what it boils down to.He said he was an immediate threat and he wasn't. He can try to make it like, "well, it's a good thing anyway that we invaded because Saddam's a dick," but it doesn't change the fact that we went there on false pretenses. This is the problem. You're right, it is going to be a long war with many probable fronts. But there better be damn good evidence that the next country we invade is an immediate threat or else why don't we all just get labotomized now, bury our heads in the sand and let three or four guys and their corporations decide the fates of millions if not billions of people. Because that's what you guys are basically saying. Let Bush do what he decides is the right thing and I trust completely that his rash decision-making is the right decision. Personally, I'd like a guy in the White House who's going to think a little bit more about possible repercussions before he initiates combat, sending our brothers, sons, parents into the line of fire.

New Guy with the military credentials:"Bush knows the only way this war can be won is by draging the mid east, kicking and screaming need be, into the modern, western world. by doing so, they will no longer care about Jihad, and more about building thier own nations.

J: Israel thought it would be so easy with the pesky Palestinians, too. It didn't quite work out that way though, did it?

Now onto my good buddy pot-smoking hippie from Woodstock:

I said: "Like when the Repubs tried to qush votes in the counties with black majorities? Your point canceled out. NEXT."

You said: "Hold up. You mean you don't think you can win an election without convicted felons packing your ballot boxes? My point sustained even more firmly. NOW next."

Conclusion: You sir, are a racist. Wake up call! All black people aren't convicted felons. Though it's probably really easy for white suburban assholes to make such an assumption since they're so unaccustomed to ever seeing a black person in real life.

You: "Radical Islam attacks, and then if we retaliate we're "pissing them off", so we have to stop, be passive, and just sit here and take it. In reality, radical Islam has revealed itself to be our enemy, and through the speeches of their leaders they have announced that they have taken the "convert or die" stance to the entire Muslim world. We in America are not special because we did anything in particular to "piss them off". All we're doing is not bowing to Islam. And Russia is in the same boat, as evidenced by the four terrorist attacks they've had in the past three weeks. In fact, everyone who isn't bin-Laden's brand of Muslim, is in the same boat.

You think you can schmooze them out of attacking us, and you're mistaken. You think you can buy them off with baksheesh, and you're mistaken. You think we can be hostile to Israel (like Russia had become) and make them stop attacking us by the old Bedou saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Well that only worked for a short period of time, with them. Eventually, the terrorists always come back to the point that you're not praying to Mecca five times daily, so you're voted off the Islamic island. For many of them it's not even really "hatred". Just a logical (in their view) assessment: you are either submitting to Allah, or you're not.

Me: This is the most intelligent thing I've ever read by you, smoker. I'm not being sarcastic, either. I agree almost entirely with everything you've said in those two paragraphs. My only issue with it is that it kinda defeats all you've stated about Iraq. Iraq was not a Muslim country. In fact, for that reason Osama Bin Laden condemned Iraq and declared a Holy War on Saddam. He considered Saddam a traitor to Islam just like he does the Saudis and anyone who, like you said, is not submitting to Allah. The people you are talking about are the people I wholly condone going after. Unfortunately for your party's platform, Saddam should not have been on that itenerary.

You: "The only "connection" required (between Iraq and al Queda) is that there are people there who want to murder us. And there are."

Me: Again, a little problem with your logic, big guy.People the world over want to harm Americans. It's the jealousy that comes with being the richest, most powerful nation in the world. The ones we need to focus on are the ones capable of doing the most immediate harm. There is innumerable evidence to show Saddam is no such person. 11/2/04: The End of an ERROR

______________________________________

free0352 said...

Hey cig smoker... "You think you can schmooze them out of attacking us, and you're mistaken." Damn funny! Couldn't say it better. LOL, thats grand ;) Hey, I know these people, give em' the respect they've earned, treat them like the enemy and kill them. the hight of liberal arrogance to beleave we can con or buy them off. Bush is arrogant! let me tell you guys. Iraqi's hate us because we're fighting a war in thier back yard. The same Iraqi's also love us because we're fighting a war in thier back yard. The same damn Iraqis. Make sense? of course not...its the middle east for christsakes! Like liberals are so fond of pointing out, thier culture is differant. The same liberals that point that out -Constantly- don't understand it. Make sense? of chourse not...they are liberals! look, to the Iraqi mind we are the devil. the american satan. how would you liberals like it if the direct representative of lucifer won the ellection against bush. "hey, that rotten bush is gone, and now we get the devil :) I mean litterally satan, cause they think that is what we are. Shite muslems looooovvvvee to suffer, and beleave the reason arab promanince in the world is at an all time low is allah is punishing them for allowing our evil, decadent western world to exist. so they got liberated by the devil. SUPRIZE! they don't like it! Slowly they are learning we are not the devil, and can be pretty cool. so they start to warm up, and then ten zillion iranians, arabs, serians add nasum show up and beging the fighting anew right back in thier back yard, again. at this point they just don't want to be used as shields anymore and for EVERYBODY TO GO THE FUCK HOME NOW!!!! that is why iraq is the way it is.
radical islam exists because the previlant feeling in the muslim corner of ol mother earth is that if you don't kill americans and thier rich, turncoat arab allies, or really help somebody else do it, you will go to HELL for not taking part in jihad. there was this waky imam whos name i can't spell nor pronounce that declared jihad on the west...specifically us. in a religion like shiite islam where imams religiously or spiritually CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED WRONG UNDER ANY FUCKING CIRCUMSTANCES AND THIER WORD IS TAKEN TO BE THE WORD OF GOD this creates problems for us. it's not so much the 17 virgins and money and all that jazz that drives the terrorist, it's pretty much the threat of HELL that does it. some imams have come out in favor of the ol u.s. and said to stop the killing. their word is interprited by these nut jobs as corrupted lies out of the devil's mouth and the speakers of this should die too, hence attacks on pakistan and saudi arabia. now look liberals, they bought this line hook line and sinker. they are fanatic. there is a whole country of these fellas in iran to look forward to. they will not be bought off or talked out of jihad in exchange for your social give peace a chance bullshit in exchange for eternity in HELL. so lets kill them all and be done with it shall we?

Kat said...

Jericho...you just lost some credibility. You have now proven that you watch too much TV ads and don't know where to find the reality. stop reading moveon.org. Try this on for size:

"And Bush’s unemployment rate, even at its worst level of 6.4% in June, was much lower than the previous four spikes in the jobless rate: 9% in the Ford administration (May, 1975), 7.8% in the Carter administration (July, 1980), 10.8% in Ronald Reagan’s first term (November and December of 1982) and 7.8% in the administration of Bush’s father (June, 1992)."

Comparing the Bush economy to Hoover's Great Depression is just silly, and implying that tax cuts are not contributing to job growth deserves an "F" in Freshman economics.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=101

By the way, before anyone quotes anything about your candidates claims on economic growth, spending, job losses or gains, voting etc, I highly recommend you look up your points on this website. Very non-partisan and everyone's ads get bashed.

Kat said...

I just noticed Jerichos other claim about Bush sending jobs over seas and Kerry is going to save them. Please take your foot out of your mouth or your eyes off the DNC talking points:

"A Kerry ad released July 20 returns to a theme he and his Democratic allies have been pushing for months: a claim that tax incentives to locate jobs overseas is a big problem that is Bush's fault and that Kerry promises to fix.

Kerry's latest ad -- all positive -- paints his tax fix as the centerpiece of a plan to create jobs -- the "lifeline for America's families." The negative side, blaming Bush, has been seen earlier in ads such as a Media Fund spot first aired last March saying "Bush's policies have encouraged the loss of nearly 3 million jobs" and "he supported tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas."

But recent Labor Department data underscore what even Democratic economists have said for some time -- outsourcing jobs overseas, or "offshoring," accounts for just a small fraction of the many millions of jobs that are lost each year even in a good economy."

(...)"There are no official figures on the total number of jobs that have gone overseas, but in May 2004 the Labor Department made its first-ever report on the portion of "mass layoffs" attributable to "overseas relocation." Their survey showed that only 2.5 percent of major layoffs in the first three months of 2004 were a result of outsourcing abroad .
That survey only covers companies that have laid off 50 or more workers at one time for 30 days or longer, and so may not be representative of all companies and all job loss. But it gives scant support for Kerry's theme.

Trying to assess whether offshoring might actually be a larger problem than the Labor Department figures indicate, veteran Democratic economist Charles Schultze tried another approach. He reasoned that if America's production needs were increasingly met by foreign outsourcing (and cheap imports) this would be shown as a rise in the value of U.S. imports relative to the overall economy, as measured by Gross Domestic Product, or GDP. But what he found was that the ratio wasn't rising at all - it had leveled off since 2000. He concluded that "there is nothing in the data to suggest that large increases in. . . offshoring could have played a major role in explaining America's job performance in recent years. "

"Another assessment comes from Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the economics department at Princeton University and also a governor of the Federal Reserve. In a speech at the end of March he estimated that the total number of jobs lost to "offshoring" at roughly one percent of all jobs lost.
Bernanke estimated that over the past decade the US economy lost an overall total of about 15 million jobs each year for all reasons, while creating an average of about 17 million new jobs each year - a huge rate of "churn" as countless businesses fail or downsize while others grow or are created. Of that 15 million annual gross job loss, he said the portion due to outsourcing is quite small. Bernanke cited a 2003 study by the Wall Street firm of Goldman, Sachs & Co. that estimated outsourcing abroad had averaged between 100,000 and 167,000 jobs per year since 2000. And he said offshoring would remain a minor factor even if the figure grew larger:"

Check yourself jericho, you're going into the spin zone and it aint pretty.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=225

free0352 said...

NOW FOR MY NEW FRIEND JERICHO

For starters, you are right, i was a dem and raised one. And like Zell I feel the dems LEFT me for a wacky socialist agenda that boggles my mind.

Second, Standing up for you allies and keeping your word in a signed mutual defense treaty with south vietnam is not bullshit, but i will defer and agree to some points that the war got fucked.

third, kerry shit on his brothers by calling them war criminals. speak, knock yer self out i say, but dont' tarnish the service by demeaning the very symbols of a great institution by tossing them at public structures, second a whole lotta vets felt pretty shit on man. he called the majority of guys in country war criminals dude. in the service i'm in officers correct shit like that and i've done that a few times myself as an nco. that just shows me he was a shitty officer, but i really don't know i wasn't there. his shipmates on that swift boat said he was cool, so whatever. he he saw these crimes, he broke the uniform code of military justice by not acting. which is criminal. what u don't do is go before the friggin congress. he volunteered, he put on the uniform and all the trapings. after the war he shit on us all further by denying us the tools of our trade. in the senate he voted against so much shit we needed it would take a book to type it all. kerry forgot us and went on to office and uses us when it suits him. this pisses vets off something fearce.

if the 144,000 or whatever jobs is nothing, may i submit to you the 1.7 million created since august. ressessions can and have happened to presedents of both parties and often beyond thier controll. bush delt with his well. ask dem carter about double didget unemployment. our rate at this time is like 5.2% the same as it was in 1994. under someone elses watch.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU DEMS TO STOP TAKEING MICHAL MOORE'S WORD FOR IT AND LOOK AT HISTORY DAMN IT! There were MANY REASONS FOR WAR WITH IRAQ. bush WAS dumb for only selling hard corps one of them, but it seemed he had to concentrate on the u.n. which din't give a shit sadam fired at planes patrolling the no fly zone in iraq over 4000 times, more than once a day, for ten years. they didn't care that we had a legal and binding surrender argreement out of sadam that said comply or we will go back to beating the shit out of you again (hint...he didn't comply with any of it) the u.n. didn't care that we would be the people to contain this fucker and his kids for generations. but as far as weapons of mass destruction go, when i saw the mass graves with bodys scared and torn up from the mustard gas, my personal thought was not "Nope, no WMD here!" you can fit most of sadam's serin gas in two oil drums. NOT HARD FOR YOUR BATHIST BUDDIES TO SMUGGLE INTO JORDAN, NOW WAS IT SADAM, especially when he had years to figure out how to do it and not get caught in the mass confusion of a war. And cut bush some slack, even IF i'm wrong about the WMD and so is bush, can you blame the guy for taking the word of every major intelligence agency in the world not counting our own? hey man, they had chemical ali using the shit for fucks sake on CNN, uh, i think it was safe to assume. he didn't lie, he acted on intel, and it wasn't the only reason he acted.

the palastinian remark.....
ok, we also arn't trying to move in to iraq either are we? you don't see californians building houses in mosul like you do see israli's building houses in gaza. but don't start the palastinian argument with me cause u will intellectually hury yourself on that one. death by mcdonalds it is, but iraqi's get to sell the bigmacs and own the stores.

keep trying dude...you'll get there some day.
"I just don't get how ellecting a presedent who aids the lawmakers in taking money away from the people somehow makes the people rich?"

free0352 said...

NOW FOR MY NEW FRIEND JERICHO

For starters, you are right, i was a dem and raised one. And like Zell I feel the dems LEFT me for a wacky socialist agenda that boggles my mind.

Second, Standing up for you allies and keeping your word in a signed mutual defense treaty with south vietnam is not bullshit, but i will defer and agree to some points that the war got fucked.

third, kerry shit on his brothers by calling them war criminals. speak, knock yer self out i say, but dont' tarnish the service by demeaning the very symbols of a great institution by tossing them at public structures, second a whole lotta vets felt pretty shit on man. he called the majority of guys in country war criminals dude. in the service i'm in officers correct shit like that and i've done that a few times myself as an nco. that just shows me he was a shitty officer, but i really don't know i wasn't there. his shipmates on that swift boat said he was cool, so whatever. he he saw these crimes, he broke the uniform code of military justice by not acting. which is criminal. what u don't do is go before the friggin congress. he volunteered, he put on the uniform and all the trapings. after the war he shit on us all further by denying us the tools of our trade. in the senate he voted against so much shit we needed it would take a book to type it all. kerry forgot us and went on to office and uses us when it suits him. this pisses vets off something fearce.

if the 144,000 or whatever jobs is nothing, may i submit to you the 1.7 million created since august. ressessions can and have happened to presedents of both parties and often beyond thier controll. bush delt with his well. ask dem carter about double didget unemployment. our rate at this time is like 5.2% the same as it was in 1994. under someone elses watch.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU DEMS TO STOP TAKEING MICHAL MOORE'S WORD FOR IT AND LOOK AT HISTORY DAMN IT! There were MANY REASONS FOR WAR WITH IRAQ. bush WAS dumb for only selling hard corps one of them, but it seemed he had to concentrate on the u.n. which din't give a shit sadam fired at planes patrolling the no fly zone in iraq over 4000 times, more than once a day, for ten years. they didn't care that we had a legal and binding surrender argreement out of sadam that said comply or we will go back to beating the shit out of you again (hint...he didn't comply with any of it) the u.n. didn't care that we would be the people to contain this fucker and his kids for generations. but as far as weapons of mass destruction go, when i saw the mass graves with bodys scared and torn up from the mustard gas, my personal thought was not "Nope, no WMD here!" you can fit most of sadam's serin gas in two oil drums. NOT HARD FOR YOUR BATHIST BUDDIES TO SMUGGLE INTO JORDAN, NOW WAS IT SADAM, especially when he had years to figure out how to do it and not get caught in the mass confusion of a war. And cut bush some slack, even IF i'm wrong about the WMD and so is bush, can you blame the guy for taking the word of every major intelligence agency in the world not counting our own? hey man, they had chemical ali using the shit for fucks sake on CNN, uh, i think it was safe to assume. he didn't lie, he acted on intel, and it wasn't the only reason he acted.

the palastinian remark.....
ok, we also arn't trying to move in to iraq either are we? you don't see californians building houses in mosul like you do see israli's building houses in gaza. but don't start the palastinian argument with me cause u will intellectually hury yourself on that one. death by mcdonalds it is, but iraqi's get to sell the bigmacs and own the stores.

keep trying dude...you'll get there some day.
"I just don't get how ellecting a presedent who aids the lawmakers in taking money away from the people somehow makes the people rich?"

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Jericho,

J:: Like when the Repubs tried to qush votes in the counties with black majorities? Your point canceled out. NEXT.

C:: Hold up. You mean you don't think you can win an election without convicted felons packing your ballot boxes? My point sustained even more firmly. NOW next.

J: Conclusion: You sir, are a racist. Wake up call! All black people aren't convicted felons.

C: No, but the votes "quashed" were the votes of convicted felons. It doesn't matter what race they were, and your obsession with their race shows your own true racist colors more than anything else.

J: My only issue with it is that it kinda defeats all you've stated about Iraq. Iraq was not a Muslim country.

C: What were they, Baha'i? Hindu?

J: In fact, for that reason Osama Bin Laden condemned Iraq and declared a Holy War on Saddam.

C: I must have missed all those al-Qaeda attacks fielded against the Muhabarat.

J: He considered Saddam a traitor to Islam just like he does the Saudis and anyone who, like you said, is not submitting to Allah.

C: But seriously, though, he wasn't DOING anything about it, because bin-Laden knew that Saddam would not have pussy-footed around with any al-Qaeda types like Zarqawi if al-Qaeda ever made good on that anti-Saddam banter they whispered to each other from the safety of campfires in Afghanistan. Remember what Saddam did to Moqtada al-Sadr's FATHER? Yeah, that one who got all Hezbollah on him and tried to do what al-Sadr recently tried to pull in Najaf? Well, you see, Saddam first had Sadr Sr. and his SISTER brought into custody. Saddam's men raped the sister while making Sadr Sr. watch. And then, piece by piece by teeny tiny piece, they carved chunks of flesh off of Sadr Sr.'s body. They got it on video with full sound of all the screams, and send that video back to Najaf. SUDDENLY, the Shiites in Najaf were nice and quiet. Imagine that.

No, Osama didn't want to mess with that at all. Unlike many of the west's assessments of him, Osama's not really a "madman".

J: Unfortunately for your party's platform, Saddam should not have been on that itenerary.

C: Our big difference is that to you if we have one enemy it's absolutely impossible to have any other enemy on the planet. I'm capable of wrapping my mind around the boggling concept that Osama and Saddam, while not allied to each other, COULD BOTH be motivated enough to murder Americans as to coordinate attacks. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend (at least for today)!"

C:: The only "connection" required (between Iraq and al Queda) is that there are people there who want to murder us. And there are.

J: Again, a little problem with your logic, big guy.People the world over want to harm Americans. It's the jealousy that comes with being the richest, most powerful nation in the world.

C: I'm not talking about France wanting to see our economy deteriorate enough to where they gain trade advantages over us. I'm talking first degree murder. Not even surly Frenchmen want us quite as dead as that. And Germany may "hate" us in the way you describe, but it's not a murderous hatred. It's the sort where they might give our tourists there some wrong directions, or spit in their coffee before serving it to them. It's not the type of posture over which you go to war.

J: The ones we need to focus on are the ones capable of doing the most immediate harm.

C: The harm Germany could have done to us in 1941 was far less immediate than what Japan could have done, and did. But we were fighting Germans anyway, because we also, at that time, understood them to be an ADDITIONAL ENEMY.

J: There is innumerable evidence to show Saddam is no such person.

C: You seem to think Saddam was this pro-American cheerleader just gaga over the red, white, and blue, but that just isn't the case.

"Does [America] realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?"
Saddam Hussein, September 29, 1994

"[W]hen peoples reach the verge of collective death, they will be able to spread death to all..."
Al-Jumhuriyah, October 4, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)

"[O]ur striking arm will reach [America, Britain and Saudi Arabia] before they know what hit them."
Al-Qadisiyah, October 6, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)

"One chemical weapon fired in a moment of despair could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands."
Al-Quds al-Arabi, October 12, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)

"Although Iraq's options are limited, they exist...Iraq's present state is that of a wounded tiger. Its blow could be painful, even if it is the last blow..."
Al-Quds Al-'Arabi, June 9, 1995 (State-controlled newspaper)

"[The U.S.] should send more coffins to Saudi Arabia, because no one can guess what the future has in store."
Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Radio, June 27, 1996

"If [other Arab nations] persist on pursuing their wrongful path, then we should — or rather we must — place the swords of jihad on their necks..."
Saddam Hussein, January 5, 1999

"Oh sons of Arabs and the Arab Gulf, rebel against the foreigner...Take revenge for your dignity, holy places, security, interests and exalted values."
Saddam Hussein, January 5, 1999

"[Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti] blood will light torches, grow aromatic plants, and water the tree of freedom, resistance and victory."
Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Radio, January 26, 1999

"Whoever continues to be involved in a despicable aggressive war against the people of Iraq as a subservient party must realize that this aggressive act has a dear price."
Saddam Hussein, February 16, 1999

"What is required now is to deal strong blows to U.S. and British interests. These blows should be strong enough to make them feel that their interests are indeed threatened not only by words but also in deeds."
Al-Qadisiyah, February 27, 1999 (State-controlled newspaper)

"[Iraqis] should intensify struggle and jihad in all fields and by all means..."
Iraq TV, October 22, 2000 (State-controlled)

Yeah, that Saddam, he was just a warm, loving, group-hugging, pro-American fuzzball. *smirk*

J: 11/2/04: The End of an ERROR

C: The beginning of the end, anyway--for America, if you get your way, or for Osama's faction of Islam, if you don't.

The Oracle said...

Give 'em hell, Zell!

Paul G. said...

free0352,

I'm not going to thank you for serving, I'm not that hypocritical.
Your serving for your own reasons, and that should be enough satisfaction for you, not some lame thank you from a jerk who doesn't have a clue what you have or haven't done.
Let it be enough that I tell you good work, and that I feel that service is an obligation not to be taken lightly by the sevicemember or the public.
I served the country myself, under bad administrations, and more bad, and yes no one but myself and my comrades in service will ever know what it is I did, and that's why I stay in touch with a number of them.
One thing I remember when I was in, was that it was considered very bad form to blow our internal business in public, and just as bad to blow in public about politics.
Apparently the world of blogging and the ability to speak 'anonymously' in public has changed the official view of what is still in my opinion bad form.

You were not ordered into harm's way by a fat draft doger, you were ordered into harms way by the lawful orders of the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces.
If you were following anything other than lawful orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over you, you were violating your oath of enlistment.

As a serviceman your entitled to your opinion, and to express it, but tieing it to service as you have is not so very different than what many accuse Senator Kerry of doing is it?

And before anyone says how dare I, remember it was free0352 that put his service out there.

Kat said...

So Paul, let me ask you...you never said anything derogatory about an officer after he was no longer your commander?

That would be near unbelievable.

And, you are right, he was following lawful orders by the Commander in Chief, he didn't say otherwise. What he complained about, as many soldiers do, is the lack of materials and decent housing and such that was provided or not provided, in this case, during the tenure of the previous president.

Further, he is not complaining in front of his commrades in arms, but, as you noted, an anonymous space. Further, he is certainly not saying anything about the current commander in chief beyond stating he believes in his mission.

Yes, he did put his service out there and frankly, I don't see anything that deserves an insult. You have decided that, since he doesn't agree with your political agenda he is a fair target. The same thing you complain about the treatment of Kerry.

Now that we have explored tit for tat, I guess that makes you less than perfect. Thanks for helping us work that out.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Paul, out of boredom with other things I was doing tonight, I've decided to answer your post to "Free" as if it were addressed to me, just to see what shakes out. Bear with me.

P: I'm not going to thank you for serving, I'm not that hypocritical.

C: Hey, you don't have to thank me for it. You PAID me for it. You also sent me to college and guaranteed the loan on my house. I think we're already even.

P: Your serving for your own reasons, and that should be enough satisfaction for you, not some lame thank you from a jerk who doesn't have a clue what you have or haven't done.

C: I do have to admit, cash is certainly better than gratitude. ;)

P: Let it be enough that I tell you good work, and that I feel that service is an obligation not to be taken lightly by the sevicemember or the public.

C: No fun, no fun, no fun... Will this have to mean Kid Rock on the USO tour again this year?

P: One thing I remember when I was in, was that it was considered very bad form to blow our internal business in public, and just as bad to blow in public about politics.

C: What I remember being briefed was that we couldn't campaign in uniform or on a military installation. I didn't get the memo that we weren't allowed to voice our opinion about various political topics, ever. Did that come out in the newer regs?

P: Apparently the world of blogging and the ability to speak 'anonymously' in public has changed the official view of what is still in my opinion bad form.

C: Are there any blogs by any particular service members that you want to shut down because you disagree with them? And you're saying your party is the "free speech" party, right?

P: You were not ordered into harm's way by a fat draft doger,

C: Hehehehehe, Free wasn't, but I was. That's okay though. At least I didn't have to sleep with Monica OR Hillary. (We were considering passing around a collection hat to get the Commander in Chief a halfway decent-looking hooker.)

P: As a serviceman your entitled to your opinion, and to express it,

C: Even though it's "bad form" to do so?

P: but tieing it to service as you have is not so very different than what many accuse Senator Kerry of doing is it?

C: I must have terrible reading comprehension. I completely missed the part where he said that because he's in the military, that makes him better than other people, more qualified to speak, or more suited to hold public office. I'll have to reread his comments after I post this.

P: And before anyone says how dare I, remember it was free0352 that put his service out there.

C: I guess I'm not leftist enough to get all huffy and sanctimonious and lecture people with a grand "HOW DARE YOU" every time I see an opposing viewpoint.

Paul G. said...

Kat,

Please find the point where I made an insult.
DO IT
Also was I talking about my former commander to a worldwide audience of civilians? While I was still a service member?
And did I ever bad mouth a commander???
I really don't recall ever doing so except while they were my commander and in the company of my fellows, not to the world once they were no longer my commander, it didn't matter and once I was no longer a service member, it mattered even less.

If I bring a subject up, I expect that others will probably comment on it.
Being a serviceman does not exempt me from that.

Bigandmean said...

Paul,
You were in the service? Damn, who knew?

Paul G. said...

CSMFTXF,

First let me comment on your new
?:
C:
posting style from a readers viewpoint it's downright painful, from a BLOG standpoint it's extremely wasteful of space. Please consider following the example of the person your replying to. id est consider the reader as much as you do your ideas.

Second, jumping to the end of your 'detailed analysis', my posts are not feigning piety or righteousness and hence are not sanctimonious, I'd hardly call them huffy as a person can't get out of breath while typing.

Now moving back to your attempt to communicate via punch list.

You are correct, you cannot campaign in uniform or on a military installation.
But you can't wear a unifom online or in a print article right?
Wrong, when you announce your military affiliation in connection with your opinions or a campaign you are doing just that, you are putting a uniform on your personal opinions and coloring the publics opinion of all other members of the military sharing your opinion or not.
A dangerous precident if it's allowed to continue.
I saw Officers and Enlisted get remote duty for doing just that in the 60's and 70's.
There are no blogs I want shut down because I disagree with them, you are attempting to 'word stuff' what I said.
A service member is almost as entitled to free speech as anyone else, you were in the service and you know what I mean. Most of your rights are still in place, but some are modified or adjusted or defered, one is permanantly lost (you cannot sit on a draft board).
My party for free speech? You are making the assumption 'I' have a party. You are also 'word stuffing' again making an implication that I said anything about restricting free speech, I was criticizing, one association of the military to politics by a servicemember, two disrespect of the office of the President of the United States and Commander in Chief by a servicemember.
A former President still carries the title of President and although a civilian or former service member, or even a servicemember is entitled to express a negative opinion of the person who holds the office, a service member in uniform (remember we have established identification as uniform), is not.
Let free0352 try and do the same thing in public, but make the forum a local newspaper and the subject of derision free0352's recently retired squadron commander.
free0352 is anonymous but identified as a member of the squadron.
Because he's anonymous in the local paper does that make it ok? Or just something he can't be caught at? What does it do in the sphere of public opinion towords all service members?
See what I mean? The chain of command goes all the way from the airman to the commander in chief, and the actions of one service member reflects on all members.

Yes free0352 is entitled to his opinion, and to express it, no he is not entitled to bad form. I just covered why.
free0352 is not a civilian and has identified him/herself as being in a special classification, that of a soldier and responsible for maintaining the image of the service, above and apart from partisan politics.

No, you do not have terrible reading comprehension, it appears to be somewhere about that of a typical college sophimore. I think the difficulty lies with some of your associative skills.
The military career references in your Blogger profile indicates that your associative skills should be exceptionally sharp though, so I'm going to have to infer that you are being intentionally disassociative due to being bored.
The statements and inferences from a number of quarters claim that candidate Kerry is somehow puffing up, exploiting or otherwise using his military service to prop up his public image.
The statements are that he should not have paraded his service, his record or his fellow veteran crew members into public view in thier support of a friend and comrade they believe in.
Please review everything else I've written in this post.

A veteran civilian is entitled to speak openly and freely on issues of politics, doing so is a matter of individual judgment and not subject to military review and reflects only on the individual.

A service member due to the special place they hold in society and obligations to their fellows cannot exercise opinion so freely.

You don't see active duty officers on the dias at political conventions, in uniform, or in civilian clothes. Did you ever wonder why?

Paul G. said...

Bigandmean;

Sarcasm! This time I get it.

Paul G. said...

for the reference of those who didn't see this,
"Now keep in mind I was ordered into harm's way by a fat draft doger."

It is in 'free's first post in this topic on this blog.

I will call a serviceman out for this kind of thing, no matter which former commander in chief they are talking about, the same way I insist that a Wal-Mart manager display the American Flag properly.

It's not politics, it's honor.

Kat said...

Paul..You're right. You weren't insulting, you were chastising.

In regards to the "fat draft dodger", since I voted for him, I will now take this moment to apologize to Free and any person that served under his command as I had no idea that my vote would result in the torching of our military and how important it would be in our future.

Since he was only a president to me, I do not accord him any special treatment. He did some good things and he did some things we must regret.

In regards to insisting that the Wal-mart manager hang the flag correctly, I can say thank you as the flag at least has never dishonored us and therefore, deserves every honor.

Frankly, Free is free to speak his mind as far as I'm concerned. As long as he does not disobey lawful orders from the commander in chief, his political views, separate and wholey his own, are perfectly acceptable. As I am not in the military, I find this to be a non-issue and hardly a smirch on someone's honor.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion on the matter and it is nice to see some people still hold something (like the flag) in a place of honor.

redleg said...

Free

welcome. I can see you get it. We have tromped the same ground. Many people think Clinton did notabuse and neglect the militayt but we saw it while we were there. Thanks for bringing it out again.

And TWD, last time I checked we were involved in many different nations fighting the war on terror (however misnamed we might agree it is). Iraq is one theater. Afghanistan and Pakistan are getting attention too, just not with the full armored division on the border you seem to prefer. Heavy. Army. Think. You have obviously never been there by this and other posts. Too mountainous, high altitude and Pakistan doesn't control Waziristan and other places dominated by the ethnic Pashtun. You can't put 350k troops into the Stan-- it just ain't possible. These countries that are for us are doing the best they can, and I do remember quite a few terrorists rolled up by Pakistan in the last few months.

And your post about Zell did come off like you disparaged everyone who had not hung out at the infantry school. Personally I hated the guys that hung out at the school. I went there, got my training and went back to my unit-- Fort Benning and Fort Sill both. Your tone drew the fire, but I understand your intent, wrong though it is. Zell is understandably angry at where and what his party has devolved into. And you're angry about that. And that many Americans seem to agree with Zell.

Did you see Gen McPeak try to defend Kerry as a CNN analyst? Went right back to the Vietnam Service. If Kerry can figure out a better was to show himself to be the 9/10 candidate he better start trying.

Good luck Free and I think we'll be in the same part of the world soon.

this we'll defend said...

During the Clinton era we continuted the downsizing begun during the Bush era. It did not speed up or go deeper than envisioned by Pentagon planners during the Bush I administration.

During the Clinton era we had the following examples of neglect of the US Army:

the Joint Readiness Training Center constructed the Shugart-Gordon MOUT complex.

The NTC moved from BN to entire BDE force-on-force rotations.

The NTC purchased the OSV.

The M4 was adopted and began replacing the M16.

The Army completely replaced the M60 machine gun with the M240B.

The Army purchased the Stryker and planned on 6 BDE teams as part of 'transformation' to the objective force - a plan killed by the Bush administration.

The CH47 upgrade program passed.

The AH-64 Apache Longbow was fully funded.

The Navy commissioned 2 more fast sea-lift ships to help the Army quickly get heavy forces to the battle.

And during a time of unprecedented economic growth the Army's re-enlistment rates and the quality of enlistees remained incredibly high. (standards are now dropping - almost 1/4th of infantry trainees this year have only a GED and the NG has indicated that the reserves will shortly suffer the lowest re-enlistment rates in decades).

But one guy wrote that there wasn't enough ammo for qualification on the M240. My guess is that this was more due to mismanagement on the part of some school cadre than an ammunition shortage. My units had more than enough ammo to fully qualify soldiers, plus enough for numerous live-fire exercises. I did see poor ammo management at other units, though. Some better coordination between the G3 and the G4 would solve his M240B ammo problems better than blaming a president.

Of course, NOW is when we have the ammunition shortages:
from http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-17/1093325900144970.xml:

Staff Sgt. Don Allen, a combat instructor, said his trainees watch demonstrations of the M203 grenade launcher, the Squad Automatic Weapon and the .50-caliber machine gun, but not everyone gets to actually fire the weapons.

"It's financial," said Allen, a combat engineer who fought in Iraq last year with the 8th Marines. "I wish I had the money for them to shoot actual rounds. When I went through this training in 1995, we all shot every weapon."

END OF QUOTE

The previous poster's allegation (oft-repeated along with numerous other lies the right-wing tells) of Clinton-era neglect of the military is untrue. The military that invaded Iraq was a result of the Clinton era, just as the military 2 years into the Kerry administration will be the result of the current occupant of the White House.

The marine sniper (Free) writes that Clinton "seemed intent on sending me on every errand the United Nations could think of." He also writes of his Balkan experiences. I for one didn't even know many Marines were involved in the Balkans, so I thank him for informing me, but I am quite sure it was not a UN mission. Perhaps he meant other deployments. There were many. Of course everyone knows that the military is stretched thinner than at any time during the Clinton era, and even after several years of such deployments the Bush administration still insists that the 30K increase in Army end-strength is "temporary." And that 30K could have already been in the force but that would have resulted in larger deficit projections, so we made do with fewer soldiers and the burden falls upon soldiers to do constant repeated tours in harm's way with only brief pause while over 100,000 reservists serve tours over 1-year long, some of them repeatedly. But our deputy sherriff didn't catch the change from his despised Clinton era I guess. If you have a huge portion of your reserves on active-duty for years at a time YOU DON'T HAVE A RESERVE. See, a reserve is there for emergencies, not for long-term committments while you keep the active-duty force the same size. It is all due to politics. But Bush loves the military so.

This same Marine says that "Congress stabbed us in the back." His disrespect for Congress is shared by another "hero" Marine, Ollie North.

Congress serves as the most direct representatives of the American people. We elect Congress locally, not nationally, and that body represents the People more than any other because there are many more of them. Despising "Congress" rather than individual representatives or Senators is to despise democracy and the American people.

To compare Bush's guard service with Guardsmen today demeans the reservists who voluntarily enlisted, with no draft to avoid, all the while knowing the likelihood of deployment. The guard in Vietnam was a usually a way to avoid combat. Anyone that says otherwise ignores the fact that Guardsmen didn't deploy to Vietnam and everyone knew it. And they ignore how the five-year waiting list (that Bush mysteriously jumped over) to join the Guard disappeared and was replaced by personnel shortages in the reserves by 1974. The draft ended in 1973. I'm sure there is no connection - no, none at all.

This "Marine" also writes that he will NOT serve under Kerry. Again, he sure has respect for democracy.

I put "Marine" in quotes because his post is so outrageous (including his hints of Marines in combat in the Balkans) that I doubt if he is telling us the truth.

And all the rest of this post (the many comments that followed) I'm not touching because it rehashes what I've discussed already - the "war on terror" = war in Iraq and Bush good Kerry bad pointless debate. I would like to point out that Jericho Brown provided SOURCES, which I really appreciate. Thank you Jericho - those attacking you won't change because truth is relative for them.

tescosuicide said...

Paul you nazi, this is easy - You thank the man for serving because he plays an integral part in providing YOUR freedom.

Paul G. said...

TWD,
"Congress serves as the most direct representatives of the American people. We elect Congress locally, not nationally, and that body represents the People more than any other because there are many more of them. Despising "Congress" rather than individual representatives or Senators is to despise democracy and the American people."

Well said.
It must be a Marine thing as you say because the poster boy for this message thread has advocated, openly, on his congressional website the repeal of the 17th amendment which allows for the direct election of U.S. senators.
The confused old man has gone so far as to introduce legislation to do just that.

Paul G. said...

tescosuicide,

Why call me a Nazi?
Ever meet a Nazi?
Not the new flavored halfwit nazi. The good old fashioned boot stomping mien furher type?
Nope, did't think so.
I have, played chess with him for 10 hours one evening in Germany. He had just been released by the Soviet Union after surviving decades in the prisons.
I've also met Poles, Jews, and British and American servicement who were abused by the Nazi's.
I've met with Jews who hid they're background and stayed in Germany and out of the death camps while watching proud hones people go to thier death.
You don't know what a Nazi is peckerhead.

Paul G. said...

Kat,

"As I am not in the military, I find this to be a non-issue and hardly a smirch on someone's honor."

Correct you are a civilain and don't wear that uniform so it's not your honor being smirched.
You are blatantly guilty of what you accused me of, since his opinion agrees with your it's just fine.
Did you read the part of my post to cigarette smoking man and the forum being a local paper?
This issue goes far beyond simple opinion it goes to the honor of the service and it's ability to perform it's constitutional function.
A service member is not a civilian damnit.
Look up the 'The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012', it's written by a military officer and won a Joint Chief's of Staff award.
Read the paper before you read any commentary about it.

Bigandmean said...

Paul,
I've known some nazis. Some nazis were friends of mine. Paul, you're a peckerhead.

Paul G. said...

Bigandmean,

And I have no doubt you know what your talking about.
Mirrors make great instructors.

Bigandmean said...

TWD,
The Marine who posted here disagrees with you and you conclude that he must not be a Marine...just pretending. Do you really have to resort to that type of schoolyard trash talk every time? Couldn't you simply respectfully disagree rather than attack his integrity?

Bigandmean said...

Go hug your teddy bear Paul.

Paul G. said...

Bigandmean,

After I have it dry cleaned.
It got kinda nasty when it was up your ass.

~Jen~ said...

Someone needs to up his meds.

Paul G. said...

Jen, someone needs to teach Bigandmean some manners.
If he wants into someone elses name calling party (I didn't call anyone a nazi), he'd better be prepared to take it and not send his little girl out to fight his fight for him.

~Jen~ said...

Now that's funny.

tescosuicide said...

Paul,

NAZI
Noun 1. Nazi - a German member of Adolf Hitler's political party
German Nazi
Brownshirt - a member of the Nazi SA which wore brown uniforms
fascist - an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views
storm trooper - a member of the Nazi SA
Adolf Eichmann, Eichmann, Karl Adolf Eichmann - Austrian who became the Nazi official who administered the concentration camps where millions of Jews were murdered during World War II (1906-1962)
Goebbels, Joseph Goebbels, Paul Joseph Goebbels - German propaganda minister in Nazi Germany who persecuted the Jews (1897-1945)
Goering, Goring, Hermann Goering, Hermann Goring, Hermann Wilhelm Goring - German politician in Nazi Germany who founded the Gestapo and mobilized Germany for war (1893-1946)
Rudolf Hess, Walther Richard Rudolf Hess, Hess - Nazi leader who in 1941 flew to Scotland in an apparent attempt to negotiate a peace treaty with Great Britain but was imprisoned for life (1894-1987)
Heinrich Himmler, Himmler - German Nazi who was chief of the SS and the Gestapo and who oversaw the genocide of six million Jews (1900-1945)
Adolf Hitler, Der Fuhrer, Hitler - German Nazi dictator during World War II (1889-1945)

Adj. 1. Nazi - relating to or consistent with or typical of the ideology and practice of Nazism or the Nazis; "the total Nazi crime"; "the Nazi interpretation of history"
2. Nazi - relating to a form of socialism; "the national socialist party came to power in 1933"
national socialist
3. Plushie Freak - Paul

tescosuicide said...

It's a shame about TWD... I used to think his comments were so well thought out and intelligent. Such a shame. Maybe he'll PASS the bar exam next time and he won't be so bitter.

Paul G. said...

tescosuicide found an online dictionary to plagerise, and of course finding that he didn't know what all the words meant he copied, pasted and added his own glue sniffing addition to the meaning of nazi.

Hey, pesticide.
In a free democratic capatalistic society are we all now required to thank servicemen?
That would really be kinda Nazi now wouldn't it?

Ok, maybe in your book it's 'disrespectful'.
I'm really surprised that someone who thinks he's so punk is so Stalinistic.

Sieg Heil(Victory and Good Life)! my little friend.

Paul G. said...

Bigandlean,

"You don't know what a Nazi is peckerhead."

You really need to give me some warning when your making an attempt at humor.
The peckerhead thing at the end made it look lke a simple insult.
You were playing off the 1988 Lloyd Bentsen(another entertaining Texan) "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." bit.

Can you do me a favor and preceed these searing whitizisms with something like *Texas Shitkicker humor alert*.

Although I lived in Texas (3rd grade to 10th & USAF Basic training) and consider it one of my homes, I never managed to grasp Texas Humor.
Picking dogs up by thier ears, blowing up frogs with firecrackers, and A&M Aggie jokes, somehow it all went right over my head.
Kinda like Abu Ghraib.

British humor I get, 'Great White North' humor from Minnesota, Wisconsin and the UP I get, Even Sienfeld.

Texans don't really have a sense of humor, they just think they do. It doesn't make them bad people.

tescosuicide said...

So sad Plushie Paul.



pesticide??

~Jen~ said...

Paul, you live to stir up trouble, dontcha.

I find it vastly amusing.

Keep up the good work!

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Paul,
First let me comment on your comment on my new
?:
C:
posting style from a writer's viewpoint. This is the quoting method used for TV show transcripts, magazine interviews, and theatre scripts. Most people in the literate world are familiar with how it works. If it's "downright painful" to you then you really can't be helped. You'll have to go through life raging at CNN.com, Yahoo.com, and every mainstream source of dialogue everywhere, be it on the Internet or in literature. I refuse, though, to take your problem, and turn around and let it become my own.

P: when you announce your military affiliation in connection with your opinions or a campaign you are doing just that, you are putting a uniform on your personal opinions and coloring the publics opinion of all other members of the military sharing your opinion or not.

C: John Kerry salutes and says "reporting for duty" and that's what, chopped livah? He was IN UNIFORM when he slandered his fellow Vietnam veterans, too, by the way. You seem to have no problem whatsoever with THAT. This odd point you try to make that you "mentally put on the uniform" by mentioning your military status, wouldn't a disclaimer very clearly re-remove said perceived "uniform"?

P: A dangerous precident if it's allowed to continue.

C: You guys see Adolf Hitler hiding behind every pop-up ad. Knock it off already. Normal people understand that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a soldier just doesn't want to hide the fact that he's serving his country at the time he voices his opinion. And your bete noire's soldiers in the Wehrmacht, they were certainly NOT allowed to speak their opinions, in Germany. They only had one opinion, and that was Adolf's. It seems like your demand, that they be mindless opinionless robots, is much closer to a Nazi approach to military blogging, than anyone else's.

P: I was criticizing, one association of the military to politics by a servicemember, two disrespect of the office of the President of the United States and Commander in Chief by a servicemember.

C: You're right. Kerry did say some extremely slanderous things of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, both the former and sitting President of the United States, back in 1971. Thanks for reminding us of that.

P: Yes free0352 is entitled to his opinion

C: You're flip-flopping. You just expended kilobytes of bandwidth, snipped by me (but can be referred to by exercizing the scroll bar back to your comment), that he wasn't.

P: no he is not entitled to bad form.

C: Which reg is "bad form" in, BTW?

P: The statements are that he (Kerry) should not have paraded his service, his record or his fellow veteran crew members into public view in thier support of a friend and comrade they believe in.

C: Here is where your own mnemonic retention of what you've read, slips away. The statements were actually to the effect that if he does do such a thing, that's fine, but it also makes it fair game for other veterans who served in that same capacity, to speak their piece about what they remembered. Nothing more, nothing less. And Kerry's response is to try to squash their speech with lawsuits. "The party of free speech" (so long as it's THEIR speech).

P: You don't see active duty officers on the dias at political conventions, in uniform, or in civilian clothes. Did you ever wonder why?

C: If they were in civilian clothes, how would you even know? Clinton used to have some around as a part of the security detail, to supplement the Secret Service. But they were in suits.

tescosuicide said...

PP
BTW, I actually shortened the definition from the page I read it from, it had a lot more about plushies. I’m also not going to lay out my credentials to satisfy your silly comment. I will say this, I have absolutely no stuffed toys at all dude.

Paul G. said...

It's nice to be able to identify the AOL losers and Mircosoft Cache victims by their posts.
My profile picture doesn't have me holding a teddy bear and hasn't since before you donkey's started to make something out of it.
That photograph is from a light moment in my military service, a take off on *M*A*S*H* and the character Radar. It's humor you sad little pest pots.

Paul G. said...

pesticide,

Don't bother.
I've never seen you make an actual contribution to a conversation and I wouldn't want to see you hurt yourself by trying now.

Paul G. said...

Guy with the cigarette name that is way too long,

"I refuse, though, to take your problem, and turn around and let it become my own."

Fine when your dialog is actually the transcript from a TV show, I'll start reading it again.

tescosuicide said...

Did you think we might just be too scared to look at your freaky profile more than once??

I dig your contribution..... insults, bad language, poor grammar, freaky plushie stuff.....

Paul G. said...

Spectracide,

Go build a wall and beat your head against it.

tescosuicide said...

No need PP. It sure sounds like you're getting there though.

Paul G. said...

Infanticide,

Sharp one.
Your Gods gift to the entire shaved nutsack generation.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

TWD,

T: During the Clinton era we continuted the downsizing begun during the Bush era. It did not speed up or go deeper than envisioned by Pentagon planners during the Bush I administration.

C: That's only half of the equation. Bush Sr.'s planners had envisioned a much smaller operational tempo than existed under Clinton's terms. To that extent I think Bush Sr.'s planners made a huge mistake--in assuming that once the Soviet Union settled into the dust the whole world would be this big shining happy place full of shining happy people. They were only half right, in that the non-shining angry people were at least not funded and fueled by the Kremlin. But the FARC was still riled up in Columbia. The Somalia operation he bequeathed to Clinton turned out to be a first class flustercuck thanks to the lack of a good solid term of agreement regarding what U.S. forces there will or will not do. And a few other things happened that I can't mention here which amounted to loose ends the Bush Sr. administration didn't tie, which required rather expensive and unaccounted-for military intervention.

For Clinton's part, he threw gasoline onto Bush Sr.'s fire by adding to the operational tempo, making demands of the military to go build schools and hospitals in Bangladesh and elsewhere at a time when there just plain wasn't the funding and resources to do such things.

It isn't so much a problem that Clinton "cut" the military--but rather, that he heaped workload onto it that ought not have been heaped, without a corresponding funding increase.

And when it comes to base closures and some of the finer points of general DoD budgetary trimming, Legislators from *BOTH* sides of the aisle stepped up to defend their backyard boondoggles and their favorite corporate welfare programs. The V-22 Osprey, worst experimental aircraft ever to not take off from the test pad, was still pushed through because a certain Senator and group of Representatives liked the dollar amounts going into their districts. The Base Realignment and Closure program (BRAC) failed to close dozens of bases identified by the Pentagon itself as no longer needed for military purposes. And the C-17 was ramrodded through the budget in spite of reports like this that came out in 1994:

http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao94115.htm

So while I would point one pinky finger of blame in Clinton's general direction for a mismatch of mission load and capability in the 1990s, a number of beefy blame fingers I align with various other points of the compass.

T: The military that invaded Iraq was a result of the Clinton era, just as the military 2 years into the Kerry administration will be the result of the current occupant of the White House.

C: It's refreshing to see an acknowledgment on the part of someone from the left, that the policies of a previous presidential administration have about a two-year lag time in effect and "legacy". Are you now prepared to validate that 9/11 came at a time when Clinton policies and priorities and plans were still in effect?

T: See, a reserve is there for emergencies, not for long-term committments while you keep the active-duty force the same size. It is all due to politics. But Bush loves the military so.

C: You would have absolutely hated Thomas Jefferson as president.

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

(Then again, to be fair, Jefferson would not be very much attuned to the exigency of invading Iraq with a militia!)

Seriously though, I do think it's a valid criticism that so much has been demanded of so few enlisted service men and women. But steps have already been announced to mitigate the pain of this deployment, by pulling forces from Germany and Korea. I knee-jerk toward being a little leery about the Korea side of that equation, but in a way it can make sense to have a lower troop strength there, not only to diffuse tensions but also to have less risk of losing that many in a nuclear first strike by the North against the South of that peninsula.

Overall, though, the current administration is "doing more with less", very much the way the Clinton administration strove to do, and usually did. It's a smaller, leaner force than it ever was since World War II, and has a daunting task ahead of it relative to its size. But in modern times, technology can multiply the effectiveness of a given number of troops, just as in the business world a higher-technology machine can multiply the value added per unit of labor.

T: The guard in Vietnam was a usually a way to avoid combat.

C: Mmmmmmm, not necessarily. There was a public perception of that, but it wasn't very accurate:

http://www.ngaus.org/ngmagazine/vietnam1002.asp

T: I would like to point out that Jericho Brown provided SOURCES, which I really appreciate.

C: Some sources being more equal than others, in the left-wing Animal Farm.

Paul G. said...

spikey,

"insults, bad language, poor grammar, freaky plushie stuff"

Let's see;
insults, "Nazi" Your contribution.

bad language, cover your ears I know your not used to hearing such things being in the construction business, I'm sorry I offended your punk sensibilities.

poor grammar, well first calling someone on grammer is impolite in blogging.
But I'll overlook your rudeness and let you know that you have to actually write to produce bad grammer, not something you do.

freaky plushie stuff, Well my nephew has a teddy bear and I have my picture taken with it and that's somehow sick in your mind.
Thanks for letting us know what secret little pervsions you subscribe to.
I had never heard of the concept until you brought it up.
Quit staring into light bulbs and try and develop some cogent thought, your fears are not mine and your values are questionable at best but mostly your ability to interact with others is sociopathic.

ALa said...

Geez...I leave for the day (and had a beautiful lunch along the river that separates PA from NJ at an outside cafe with a cute Irish waiter with Justrose)...and look what happens!
Everyone go to your corner and calm down. It does none of any good (though it may be funny) to name call and let the testosterone bubble to unprecedented levels...
This is why men need us....

tescosuicide said...

Plushie, get a grip man. I mentioned the foul language as well as the poor grammar to hopefully wake you up. Foul language is commonly used when no other word can be substituted. Poor grammar is used when you're ignorant. You see the connection? So don't try insulting MY intelligence when yours is obviously in question. My device is hetero porn, not stuffed toys.

Paul G. said...

Infestation,

Gosh, thank you for all of your concern for my image.
I was under the impression that you you didn't like me.
Now I learn it was all out of a deep abiding sense of love for your fellow man.

Thank You

tescosuicide said...

Look plushie, I said HETERO - What you do on your own time is your business. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Paul G. said...

Are you going to devolve completely?
I can't watch it.

this we'll defend said...

wow, this topic sure went to hell.

Cigsmokman: I disagree with your points, especially your insinuation that the guard wasn't a draft-dodging device, but I don't need to call you a nazi to disagree. Or suggest you stuff a teddy bear up your fourth point of contact. etc. And you seem to disagree with me about every point I made, yet you didn't insult me once. Bravo.

As for the "marine" - I'm not saying I suspect his bonafides because of his opinions, but because his story doesn't ring true. For instance, identifying himself as a Marine sniper (they usually say they are a Scout/Sniper after the great training that Marines give them at Scout Sniper school, one of the best courses in any force in the world). He speaks of being in combat in Europe as a Marine during our Bosnian deployments. I don't know many soldiers that came under fire, much less Marines. He suggests he can't give all the details, but admits his missions (given to him with little direction no less) were given to him as a private. Do privates go out on these supposedly super-secret missions? He also repeatedly disses a former commander in chief and says flat-out he WON'T serve under Sen. Kerry if he is elected by the people. I know Marines that are ultra-conservative, that HATE Clinton, and that would go ballistic on his ass for even suggesting such a thing. Which is why I think we have a phony in our midst. He doesn't seem to be talking the talk, which is why I doubt he walked the walk. My BS detector went off.

As for the insult-trading - I bash with the best of them, but with FACTs people, not 3rd grade playground bullshit. Cigsmokman and I disagree. I don't call him names. 91ghost and I disagree. I would gladly buy him a beer were we to meet. ALa71 and I REALLY disagree. And I LOVE visiting her site. And Bigandmean and I seem to disagree on everything - and he has come to my defense against silliness, insults, or just plain bad facts on more than one occasion.

This blog, like mine, is a place to discuss how we disagree with each other, to toss accusations and replies back and forth, in a civil, respectful manner. This isn't a hate-site, a Free Republic "bash those that disagree" site.

It is totally ok to bash the hell out of somebody with FACTS - I bashed Tom quite hard quite a few posts ago. And occasionally still do. But there is still a line we should avoid crossing. When "Nazi" starts flying around we should heed ALa71 and all take a timeout.

Let's restore the civility and decorum that has characterized most of the discussions on these (and related) posts. If you can't keep it civil and it degenerates into "you are a poopy head" "no, YOU are a poopy head" then you should give yourself a time-out.

Kat said...

Yeah...I would suggest some tone down the testosterone, as amusing as the comments have become.

One thing, TWD, you just did what you hate about the SBVTs and now, what the Dem party did to them, questioning their credentials as military.

Are you or were you ever a Marine Sniper? And, I don't find it hard to believe that Free was given orders as a private. He does leave out the part where he probably had a sgt or someone as a spotter.

If I'm not mistaken, snipers are usually two man teams and can be deployed as such, without the support of an actual unit, in the field to take on whatever actions they were required.

During Bosnia conflict and directly after that, I believe our military was instrumental in picking off and picking up and number of Serbian commanders, particularly those involved in war crimes.

So, I don't find his story hard to believe and I also understand that these are the groups that are being repeatedly deployed (and would be under Kerry as well) to perform small actions in the Afghan and Iraqi field. Newsweek did an article on a small, 5 man team living up in the mountains of Afghanistan on the border of Pakistan and talked about their general mission(s) although, they did not give specifics about targets.

So, again, I don't find his story hard to believe. Maybe you just don't like that he insulted Clinton?

And yes, I agree that the issue with the military stand down actually started with Bush I. I think, me included, we were deluded into thinking that the major enemy was gone and we wouldn't need such a large standing military. Guess we were mistaken. And yes, Clinton did heap jobs on the military while it was in the middle of re-sizing (note, re-sizing not downsizing because I agree also that technology makes a big difference in what we can accomplish and how many people it would actually take).

Bigandmean said...

We in the return to civility movement agree with TWD, ALA71 and Kat. In the immortal words of Rodney King, can't we all just get along?

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

TWD,

T: And you seem to disagree with me about every point I made, yet you didn't insult me once. Bravo.

C: I'm too busy trying to be logical to waste energy with the playground school of argument, and it seems you are too. Back atcha on the Bravo.

T: I know Marines that are ultra-conservative, that HATE Clinton, and that would go ballistic on his ass for even suggesting such a thing.

C: My guess would be just quietly and firmly stating to him that "YOU WILL OBEY THE LAWFUL ORDERS OF THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, MARINE." In their usual quiet and firm way, about two inches from their nose and with a voice that can shake the moon off its orbit. Sometimes you get an officer who's an asshole, but that doesn't mean when he tells a junior officer to tell a senior NCO to tell you to tell a junior enlisted kid to do it, you don't keep after the kid to get it done. That's my way of agreeing with you, LOL.

I wouldn't necessarily say someone is "phoney" just because he says something you wouldn't expect from a Marine though. Sometimes a few bad apples slip into the cart, like when three Marines gang-raped a 13 year-old Okinawan girl while I was there, doing quite a nasty number on U.S./local relations. It would have been absolutely grand if they were phoney and not real Marines, but they were. Well, not REAL real Marines, but you know what I mean.

Paul G. said...

I would like to take a moment offer apologies to Ala71 and the more civil Bloggers here for the events of yesterday.
The initiators of the F-fest won't bother to do so.
I also feel that it is appropriate to note from which side of the aisle the attack against me came from.

Is there any excuse for following them down their path of vilification and insult?
I really don't know, but on occasion I suppose it is possible that your opponent should be made aware that you can fight them on any and all battlefields they choose to confront you on.

A charge of Nazi is not a light one, bigandmean's choosing to make light of it shows how little regard he has for those who fought against them in the War of the greatest generation.
Prickhead is a form of personal attack on individual.
Nazi is an invective with connotation of death by design to innocents and groups by and for the most evil of intentions.

This has been typical fare from these individuals against my views.
I have been repeatedly attacked in this manner, on this BLOG and others by those who seem to fall back to name calling to attempt to deride and discredit the individual rather than defend their point of view with logic, even if they cannot grasp mine.

When they cannot convince or contrive an argument that causes me to concede they resort to these tactics and honestly I'm tired of quietly ignoring and tolerating it.

ALa said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ALa said...

Paul:
I'm going to take a guess that it was this that started the name calling:
"I'm not going to thank you for serving, I'm not that hypocritical.
Your serving for your own reasons, and that should be enough satisfaction for you, not some lame thank you from a jerk who doesn't have a clue what you have or haven't done", says Paul.

I know that I felt offended -as I did thank Free for his service, and don't think I am a hypocrite or a lame jerk for doing so. I LOVE these (military) boys...being the mother of two young sons, I feel that these boys are sacrificing SO much so my boys may not have too (though it seems they will both want to...).

You have your reasons for saying what you did --you have served, but I think that if you re-read it, in light of previous comments, you will see that it was belittling. I am always sincere in thanking ALL of you for your service...

Paul G. said...

ALa71,

I respectfully disagree.
And I would have respectfully disagreed with anyone who put it the way you did, and not called me a Nazi.

I belittled someone else by calling myself a jerk?
I think the rest of my statement makes it pretty clear that I was identifying.
I was identifying the 'parrot' speak seen so commonly these days.
The statement good work means a lot more from a veteran that went ahead of you than some phrase like thank you.
Thank you is what you say when someone holds a door open for you, or passes the salt, not when they put their life aside for the defense of the Republic.
I also identified with the knowledge that civilians and other service members do not know what a GI really does.

I did not say that these men and women do not deserve our respect, that is an inference and an easy one to make in a time when we have a President that has set a mood of “Your with us or your against us”.
But it is not something I said.

“it was this that started the name calling“, no the name callers started the name calling, your statement indicates that I did and that the assault on me was somehow justified.

Again, I respectfully disagree.

ALa said...

Paul:
I (speaking only for myself) did not think that you were calling yourself these things (hypocrite and lame jerk)...I felt they were aimed at me (as I was the only one who had thanked Free for his service). Does saying thank you sound hollow?...Of course it does, and in no way can it begin to express the gratitude and debt that I feel I owe all that do serve. Many people also feel that saying 'I'm sorry' rings quite hollow after the loss of a loved one --but to say nothing leaves the one who has lost that loved one feeling isolated. There are no appropriate communications for these instances --so we must take what the language affords us...and I believe that if it is said with heartfelt sincerity and empathy --that will ring true through the 'platitude' the words may suggest.

Paul G. said...

ALa71,

Your ommission indicates that you still believe that it was I that started the name calling and the attacks of Nazi were justified in response to your interpretation of my use of jerk.

Fine, It's good to know where you stand

tescosuicide said...

Stop crying dude.

Paul G. said...

CBFTW is back.

tescosuicide said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ALa said...

Paul -I don't like anyone calling anyone else a Nazi...This is a term that shouldn't be taken lightly (though the left seems to use it quite a bit). I wasn't omitting it, I actually was only selfishly thinking of the bit that pertained to me. So, yes, I think you started the name calling...but, no, tesco shouldn't have called you a Nazi --Aren't I FAIR & BALANCED!!!!!?

Paul G. said...

No, and nobody would be here on your BLOG if you were Fair or Balanced.

If you wanted an apology, you've got it.
As I said before my statement was intended to be directed at myself, no one else.
If that was their interpretation I sincerely apologise.

I can see how you may have taken it as an attack on yourself when explained as you have.
I am sorry for the insult, please accept that it was unintended.

Bigandmean said...

Paul,
You're right that no one should have called you a nazi. And you shouldn't have retaliated with calling him a peckerhead.

I tried to defuse the name calling by making a joke, but it was not altogether one of my better efforts and was made at your expense. I do apologize for jumping into something that wasn't my business and making fun of your picture. I periodically have to re-learn a lesson I learned long ago about not using attempts at humor that may be hurtful or harmful to another. I may disagree with you on politics, but I never want to be a source of pain or agitation for anyone.

I thought it was big of you to apologize to Ala71. Let's start over and all make an effort to maintain civility.