Today on Blogcritics
Home » Is John Kerry An Anomaly or a Symptom?

Is John Kerry An Anomaly or a Symptom?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

On Monday of this week John Kerry caused a firestorm when he said:

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and do your homework, and make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.

Kerry could have easily apologized and said he made a mistake. If he had the issue would have likely blown over. Instead, he came unhinged when it was suggested that he had insulted the troops and when he finally apologized he only said he was sorry that his words were misinterpreted. I guess the rest of us should have gotten an education so we could interpret what he has to say. In his initial protestations, Kerry indicated he would never insult the troops when the fact is, he has done just that since the Vietnam War. Kerry attributes the gaffe to a blown joke. According to him he blew the punch line of a joke that was supposed to be a slam of the President. First of all, I fail to see how he could possibly see an insult to the president as a joke. He could have said that he meant to insult the president and I might have given him the benefit of the doubt. Regardless of what he meant to say, the fact is he said something offensive to the troops. This likely was an expression of how he really feels and was a classic demonstration of what is known as a Freudian Slip, at least that is what this uneducated soldier once heard an Ivy League elitist Northeastern Liberal say.

The question that people should be asking is, did John Kerry speak for himself or for the Democratic Party? It is easy to dismiss the expressions as those of one man who happens to serve in the Congress but I would submit that Kerry’s slip was a symptom of a much larger problem. That problem is that the liberals in this country are not for a united stance against our enemies and in their hatred of Bush they have forgotten that we are all Americans first. Country trumps party but the Democrats seem unable to grasp that concept. It is unfortunate but we have plenty of examples of this among the ranks of those who want to lead us into the hands of the enemy.

Throughout the history of this great nation we have overcome much adversity. We never lost a war where the majority of the country was behind the effort and those who fought. When our politicians came together and the country backed the troops we won. We beat the Brits, though they had a better Army, we won WWI, and WWII because everyone made sacrifices and everyone was behind those efforts. Changing attitudes about our role in the world and the general acceptance by the left that all solutions can be negotiated gave us a defeat in Vietnam despite the fact that we won every battle we fought. During Vietnam the country was divided and, more importantly, the politicians were divided. The troops became political tools for people like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Kerry actively protested the troops and demonized them. He met with the enemy and he told Congress that his fellow vets were rapists and killers. He has called our current crop of heroes terrorists and uneducated, regardless of what he meant, he said it. We lost Vietnam because people like Kerry could not give the men and women who were fighting the support that is needed. We lost our national will and the support of our elected officials and we lost the war. Democrats like John Kerry, Jack Murtha, and all the others who, when they are not demeaning our troops, are making plans to cut and run will, if they have it their way, lead America to the path of defeat.

There are over 50,000 names of brave men and women who died in Vietnam inscribed on a wall in DC. Those people did their duty and they paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we could live in freedom. It does not matter how we feel about any conflict, once we commit our troops we must back them 100% and we must win. We pulled out of Vietnam without a win. Not only did millions of Vietnamese die as a result of our departure but the honor of those who match up to the inscriptions was trounced upon and they truly died in vain. They fought as they were ordered and they never lost the will to win. They were betrayed by elected leaders and a fickle public that wants the benefits of a free society without the sacrifices those benefits cost. As was once stated, freedom is not free.

The disdain for the military seems to be systemic among the Democratic psyche. In addition to Kerry, there is Jack Murtha who declared that some accused service members were guilty of murder before charges were brought and before a courts martial was convened. He could not give the military the benefit of the doubt and would rather accuse them of crimes than let the judicial process run its course. Considering the fact that Jack Murtha accepted a bribe in the ABSCAM fiasco and escaped indictment by testifying against others, it is odd he would be so quick to pass judgment. Perhaps his years of corruption has removed any shred of honor he once held as a proud Marine and he is now a doddering old fool who can only think of ways to demean the military and to line his own pockets. Max Cleland, who blew himself up with a grenade he picked up in Vietnam, defends Kerry by stating that “John Kerry is a patriot who has fought tooth and nail for veterans ever since he came home from Vietnam.” John Kerry did not fight for the vets when he was in Vietnam and he damn sure did not fight for them when he returned, tooth and nail or otherwise. That grenade must have rattled Cleland’s brain loose and he missed Kerry’s “support” of the troops upon his rapid return from Vietnam.

These are the same Democrats who tell us that they support the troops. If this is their idea of support then we want them to stop their support right now. It is not hard to imagine that they feel their actions are support. They are constantly harping about being patriotic while doing everything they possibly can to prevent us from winning the war. There is no national unity because the Democrats will not unite around the idea of winning. Cutting and running is not proper mission planning and will only embolden the enemy to attack us again and this time they might just be successful in hitting the Capitol. At that instant it will be a bit too late for them to decide that they need to climb on board the idea of winning.

We can see that there is no unity in this country. In case the Democrats do not know this we are a NATION at war. This is not Bush’s war, this is America’s war. This country is in a war against an ideology that wants to kill or convert us and they will not stop until they are successful or until we kill them. You would never know we are a nation at war because every Democratic campaign ad references “Bush’s War.” They say we are fighting George Bush’s war, or that our soldiers are dying in “Bush’s war” and this is not correct. An overwhelming majority of the Congress voted to take action against Iraq and that action included acts of war. They knew this when they voted and that means this war is theirs as well. Since they represent us as a people it is our war. We are a nation at war and until the Democrats grasp that concept we will continue to have barriers along the way. Their hatred for George Bush and our military has clouded their minds. The same people who told us how evil Hussein was and how he had WMD when Clinton was President are now saying bush lied about those WMD. They are looking for every excuse to cut and run and once again tell our troops that they died in vain because the left in America did not have the stomach for a fight. I thank God every day that these same Democrats were not here when we had to fight for our independence as a nation. If they had been we would still belong to the Monarchy in England.

John Kerry is a symptom of a much larger illness. He can claim that he supports the troops but in reality his Freudian Slip allowed another look into his mind. He still holds the same opinions he held so long ago when young men fought and died in the jungles of Southeast Asia while he protested and accused. His opinion is that uneducated people join the service because he can not imagine why anyone would join the military, unless of course, they had aspirations of one day being President.

Powered by

About Big Dog

  • Valery Dawe

    “You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and do your homework, and make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

    How could Kerry’s obvious reference to the Idiot Bush be mistaken as an insult to troops sent to Iraq under false pretenses? Idiot Bush is undeniably stuck in Iraq but being the craven coward that he is he’ll come through without so much as a scratch.

  • Brent

    Never mind that if Kerry’s gaffe were “obviously” about Bush, he would have said Bush somewhere in the “joke”-in-question and we wouldn’t see any of this mild old- and new- media firestorm. (Personally, I think it’s already tired. I’m quite ready for 8 November.)

    You might not like the president, but when people in the senator’s own party and others sympathetic to that party’s causes both say that Kerry’s undermining the victory effort, he’s probably undermining the victory effort.

    Now that’s obvious.

  • Les Slater

    U.S. did not win the Korean War even though there was broad support.

    The Vietnamese won Viet Nam War. It wasn’t that Democratic presidents Kennedy and Johnson did not wholeheartedly support the war. They did. The war was supported almost unanimously by Republicans and Democrats as well as the population as a whole.

    The story was that we were defending democracy from the communists.

    The anti-war movement was very small.

    It wasn’t until the people of Viet Nam showed some staying power that some people started questioning the U.S. explanations of what the war was and what was happening.

    This, and the body bags fueled further questioning and protests.

    It wasn’t until the protest got quite large that the Pentagon Papers got leaked to the New York Times, which serialized parts of it. Here we learned that the U.S. intelligence learned that the elections promised for 1956 by treaty ending French involvement, were going to be won by the party of Ho Chi Min. Of course the elections were cancelled and the bloodbath began. The local stooges weren’t doing so well so in came the troops, excuse me, ‘advisers’.

    The politicians? Those like Edward Kennedy pretended to oppose the war, but just like today’s Democrats voted for all measures to authorize and continue it. It was and still is fully bipartisan.

    BTW, the protests were not against the GIs, but against the U.S. war. The major slogan was “Bring the Troops Home Now”.

  • MCH

    “We lost Vietnam because people like Kerry could not give the men and women who were fighting the support that is needed. We lost our national will and the support of our elected officials and we lost the war.”
    – Big Dog

    “Vietnam is a bad war. It can’t be won. We need to get out.”
    – the late Col. David Hackworth on Issues and Answers, June 27, 1971

    Hacks military record:
    ** 25 years in the U.S. Army
    ** served in three wars…WWII, Korea and Vietnam
    ** served four tours in Vietnam
    ** 2 Distinguished Service Crosses
    ** 4 Legions of Merit
    ** 4 Army Commendation Medals
    ** 10 Silver Stars
    ** 8 Bronze Stars
    ** 8 Purple Hearts

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Les, just a few things to help you out. The Korean war was not lost or won because it is officially in a cease fire. That is why soldiers who get stationed there are authorized to join the VFW. There was wide support for the war which eventually waned but then we had a cease fire.

    Saying the Vietnamese won the war is foolish, there were Vietnamese on both sides. That is like saying Americans won the Civil War. The South Vietnamese lost and America lost. There was growing anger at the war through the 60s and while Johnson was a supporter of the war he botched running it and decided not to run for office again. The fact is, the hippie movement came about when Johnson re-instituted the draft which is when people started to question things. This split the country and the anti war protests started. Your assessment of bring the troops home is shallow and many were spit on and called baby killers. John Kerry certainly did not just want the troops home as he accused them of being rapists and killers. This was also a time with other things going on that distracted us, the race riots, the civil rights movement, the deaths of Robert Kennedy and MLK.

    We have never lost a war in which we had full support. We lost Vietnam. Korea is in a cease fire and there has been no declaration of the end of hostilities. It does not matter if a person says they are against the war and then votes to fund it. That is how they play because none of them have the courage of their convictions. The fact is, if they are public about it they give our enemy hope that all they have to do is keep hanging on and we will give up. That is the very sentiment expressed by North Vietnamese leaders, they knew they were losing and a lot of their people were dying (10 times as many as we lost) and yet they knew if they held on long enough they would win as we lost the will. It did not help that Kerry and his VVAW helped them by parroting their views and meeting with them.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    MCH
    I did not fight in 3 wars but served 1 year less than Hackworth so it is not like I am some college student spouting off from the errant teachings of my lib professor.

    Hackworth said Vietnam is a bad war, It can’t be won. By 1971 he was right and that is because of the lack of support. We won every major battle and could have won that war but we lost the will to fight and win. By 1971 our country was so split that we could not have won anything. The military was in disarray and it took years to get them back to a real fighting force. This was due to the direct efforts of the anti war folks.

    It is nice you quoted Hackworth and as I stated by then he was right. I’ll bet you can not find him saying that at the beginning of the war or in the middle of it. No, because we were winning……

  • RedTard

    The capacity and will to win a war are two seperate and distinct things. The US almost surely had the capacity to win Vietnam and certainly has it in Iraq.

    These so called wars are becoming more like police actions. Our soldiers are doing more police work and less killing. Therein lies the problem. When we needed to defeat Germany or Japan we used nukes and other random acts of terror against civilians. Guess what, it worked then and it would work now. Reality is, we won’t do that becuase we’re not quite that scared or serious about winning.

    In a matter of minutes we could wipe Iraq off the map and leave a sea of glass, winning by default as no one within the borders would be alive to claim victory. That’s one simply undeniable fact which proves we could win. There are many other decreasingly violent ways to win which we could, but won’t, choose to pursue.

    If we’re going to have a police action against terror instead of a war against it we’d be better off letting our trained policemen here in the states handle it rather than sending our boys overseas to die and save a few hundred billion while we’re at it.

    I’d personally rather go with the police idea for now and avoid all that excess bloodshed. Pushed to the right extreme, another 9/11 or worse I’m not totally against applying real force against state sponsors. Speak softly and carry a big stick rather than bark loudly and follow with a war of half measures.

  • http://www.QuestionItNow.com/iraqb DTW 06

    Does Your Rep Support Out Troops?

    Just in time for election day, the Iraq Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) has released its official rating for every member of Congress.

    This scale will help American Voters determine how well their representative has or has not supported our fellow Americans who serve and have served in our armed forces. . Please visit this site before you vote.

  • http://www.diablog.us Davd Nalle

    I did not fight in 3 wars but served 1 year less than Hackworth so it is not like I am some college student spouting off from the errant teachings of my lib professor.

    That puts you about 2 decades ahead of MCH’s time in service. Unless you count his enthusiastic lip service…

    Dave

  • Valery Dawe

    “The military was in disarray and it took years to get them back to a real fighting force. This was due to the direct efforts of the anti war folks.” #6 Big Dog.

    If those evil anti war bastards had their way there’d be no mass murder anywhere. What’s needed now is a worldwide anti, anti war movement that has the will to somehow eliminate those stinking Peaceniks. A Final Solution must be found before War Industry profits start to suffer.

  • Bliffle

    Talk about supporting the troops, who was the weakling that called off the checkpoints and search for a US soldier in Sadr City? He was responding to Malikis demand that came from Sadr himself, formerly our Hated Enemy. It was GWB. No longer supporting Our Troops, apparently.

  • Nancy

    As I mentioned elsewhere, Bush can hardly appoint himself the voicepiece for respect & support for the troops, when it’s he himself that is busy cutting medical benefits for them on their return home, shorting troops actively in Iraq on such vital necessities as body armor, properly armored vehicles, etc. Bush is a typical GOP braggert, his big mouth flapping in the breeze as he CLAIMS to be their #1 defender, all the while in reality, behind their backs, he’s busy pulling the rug out from under them. Liar, hypocrite, thief; Dubya will never change. His gall is truly astounding.

    Kerry is an idiot, almost on a scale with Bush, the major exception being that Kerry at least had the balls to serve, while Bush hid out at the Texas Rich Boys’ Frat Club & Guard Unit. Kerry, like Bush, is a fool, a failure, & a loser, but at least Kerry has a sorry shred of authenticity & honesty, while Bush is totally devoid of either, an amoral schmuck who delights in posing as a flier, etc. all the while secure in the knowledge that neither he nor his will ever be in the slightest danger of any kind of risk; the ultimate coward who surrounds himself with fellow cowards like Cheney & all the others in the administration who couldn’t be bothered or were too yellow to serve.

    I don’t understand – I will never understand – why those who have served, as BD says he has, can even consider supporting a lying, bragging deserter & slick wanna-be Texas redneck poseur whose entire court is comprised of those who “had better things to do” (Cheney’s actual words on why he evaded the draft & got 5 deferments) than serve their fair share in the armed forces. Is Cheney saying that those who were wounded or who died in Vietnam didn’t have anything better to do than go over there to suffer & die? So explain to me, BD & all you other Bush-lovers: knowing the kind of cowardly scumbags they are, HOW in hell do you justify in your mind supporting these maggots, who have no problem sending others to die or be maimed, but who themselves hide out in in secure safety, & none of whom have kids or any other relatives serving? I’d really be interested in knowing & trying to understand the rationale you all use to achieve this. I’m ex-C.G. myself, and on the grounds cited above, I would sooner pump the WH crowd full of lead than give them even a breath of support of any kind, because I consider them dirt beneath my feet & traitors to the people & this country.

    Is it perhaps that you confuse the title of ‘president’ with the entity occupying the office? Are you unable to separate the two? Do you harbor unrealistic & surreal reverence for a political position, confusing it with reverence for the abstract of the US itself? If so, perhaps you should learn that these offices are occupied by politicians, the lowest of the low. The higher the office, the lower the occupant. The president is merely the biggest whore in the country, having simply sold out on a grander scale than most. Don’t confuse the abstract of the country, which deserves reverence & allegiance, with an office that has customarily been for sale to the highest bidder, and occupied by the biggest traitor/prostitute/thief/BS artist – and I include occupants of both parties in that assessment.

    If we’re all lucky, maybe someone will drop a nuclear power plant on DC & wipe out ALL the damned pols of both parties, along with the lobbyists, rats, & other DC vermin swarming the streets. In any event, we hopefully will be lucky enough that for the rest of the pre-election period, someone will put the kibosh on Kerry, & he’ll retreat to the obscurity he so richly deserves & keep his mouth SHUT from now on.

    It’s just a pity we can’t get the same from Bush.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Nancy,
    I do not share the view you do that Bush hid from service. He served in the Guard and I do not care how he got in, he served. He volunteered for duty in VN and was denied because he did not have enough flight hours. I have seen the available pay records and he split trained some of his drills so he was not AWOL as many claim. Many fine people have served in the Guard. I also reject the idea that Bush cut anything. Congress appropriates money. Bush has not cut any healthcare that I have seen and since I work with a whole lot of veterans I think I would have heard something. There was a shortage of body armor to begin with but there was no attempt to cut money for it. more was procured and sent over. You need to stop reading the DNC talking points memo and talk to the troops on the ground to get the real picture. Once again, if there are shortages look at Congress. They appropriate money. The president can only sign it and we know he has only vetoed one bill (one problem I have with him, not enough vetoes).

    I also reject your idea that we can not support the people that were elected to office based on some ill conceived idea that they were cowards. What do we do if the person elected for President never served and did not try to avoid service? Do we reject Hillary based solely on the fact that she never tried to join the service? Does she get a free pass because women were not required to sign up for the draft? If we did the lefties would go nuts.

    I also remember hearing the left vehemently defending Clinton who actually did dodge the draft and wrote letters saying how he loathed the military and then he protested in another country. The left defended all this with some clap trap about an unpopular war blah blah. You can’t have it both ways. Where was the hatred for him when he used connections to get into the ROTC and then got out when he knew he would not come up in the draft lottery?

    I served while Clinton was President and I did not say a bad word about him because he was the Commander in Chief, regardless of his past acts. He was the duly elected President of the United States and I respected that fact and the fact that many misguided Americans put him there because that is the way it is supposed to work.

    The same is true for Bush or any other president. The people put him there and that means he is our leader. You can wish to spread lead though I wonder if you had your gun loaded when the draft dodger from the last administration was there.

    The people we elect to office are humans nad all have failings but they were elected nonetheless. I can tell though, you suffer from BDS so it is unlikely this will mean anything to you.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Bliffle #11.
    We either want them to take over so we can leave or we don’t. Get it straight what you want. I am not in favor of removing the roadblocks but how long will we tell them how to run everything.

    This just means our troops need more liberal rules of engagement.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    #10 Valery,
    Murder is a crime. killing, as in war is not. John Kerry opposes the draft and he opposes an all volunteer force. How do you have a defense with that attitude?

    Mass MURDER was the 3000 people killed on 9/11.

    Hope that helps.

  • Nancy

    Thanks, BD, I do appreciate the response of your point of view. Yes, I do consider ANY draft-dodger to be fair game, and the more so the more said draft dodger tends to support sending others into danger that he himself assiduously avoided, a la Cheney. Actually, I would give women a pass, since they have not been required to serve, and the pressure has traditionally been on them to stay home, pop babies, etc. I don’t care that the Lefties go nuts about it, since I don’t consider myself to be tied to any ideology or group. If they want to go nuts, let them, that’s their problem. As for suffering from CDS, which CDS are you referring to? I know about 18 items that are referred to by those initials. Thanks.

    I do think you give the office of president far too much reverence. It’s just a title, and as I pointed out, the one occupying it, be it Clinton or Bush, has simply been the biggest BS artist, liar, and scumbag, willing to sell out to the largest number for the most money. But then I grew up in the “question all authority” time, and have gone downhill (so to speak) in souring on our Fearless Leaders since. Every year my personal rating & level of respect for these jerks gets lower and lower as their personal qualities get poorer & more abased.

    I suppose I shouldn’t use such hyperbole concerning filling some parties full of lead…or at least I should qualify it by saying, IF I thought I could get away with it, and IF I were to have even the remotest liklihood of reasonable opportunity, and IF I had at the time access & the inclination to do it – a combination totally unlikely, but in my dreams I sure would like to carry it out; it’s certainly far better than what most of them deserve.

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com Deano

    Is it just me or are there not more pressing issues to be debated during this election season than a poorly delivered, shallow joke?

    The only thing worse than Kerry’s chronic inability to keep his foot out of his mouth is the Republicans “holier-than-thou”, fans-a-twitter response…

  • Clark Westfield

    That article was nothing more than a rehash of Republican talking points with some Ann Coulter-like insults thrown in (Max Cleland’s brain shook loose because he blew himself up with a grenade).

  • Nancy

    Deano, the Republicans – the WH neocons masquerading as Republicans, that is – are desperate, so will fall on any excuse or pathetically minute incident they can possibly exploit in a negative way, that being the only tactic they apparently recognize, practice, & know, under the tutelage of Karl Rove, professional political maggot & lowlife scumbag.

    God knows NO ONE in congress on either side of the aisle has got any real accomplishments they can talk about, any REAL issues they’ve actually done any work on, in the past few years. Both parties have spent their time sqabbling about red herrings that really matter (sarcasm) like gay marriage, flag burning (how the hell many flags have been burned in the US in the past 10 years? Damned few, that’s for sure!), and other assinine, stupid, time-wasting distractions aimed at galvanizing the drooling, idiot segments of the voting public who can be counted on for knee-jerk, pavolvian reactions to such half-assed buzzwords, the very segment that really should be stripped of their voting rights, since they exercise neither intelligence nor responsibility in using them.

    How frustrating: those that SHOULD vote, won’t; those that shouldn’t vote, let alone be trusted with a burnt-out match, invariably do.

  • Clavos

    Nancy, #12:

    As I mentioned elsewhere, Bush can hardly appoint himself the voicepiece for respect & support for the troops, when it’s he himself that is busy cutting medical benefits for them on their return home, shorting troops actively in Iraq on such vital necessities as body armor, properly armored vehicles, etc.

    Nancy, you need to stop believing everything you read in the papers. As a Vietnam vet who is service-connected disabled, I have been a VA patient for a very long time. From direct personal experience and observation I can tell you that NO medical benefits have been cut for those who are injured in the service of our country. On the contrary, the VA’s budget has INCREASED annually during the Bush administration.

    Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Chairman of the Senate Committee for Veteran’s Affairs, has called for a an increase of $8.8 Billion (12,2% over 2006)in the VA budget for 2007, which, if approved, will result in an all-time record budget for the VA.

    The Department of Defense has repeatedly stated that the shortages of body armor and armor for vehicles, which have been resolved, were due to supplier’s inability to meet the sudden increase in demand as the war effort ramped up. As a participant in LBJ’s sudden escalation of the Vietnam war in 1965, my battalion was sent there lacking a number of essential pieces of equipment (we didn’t have body armor in those days), including certain types of weapons, so I believe the DoD on that score.

    Kerry is an idiot, almost on a scale with Bush, the major exception being that Kerry at least had the balls to serve, while Bush hid out at the Texas Rich Boys’ Frat Club & Guard Unit. Kerry, like Bush, is a fool, a failure, & a loser, but at least Kerry has a sorry shred of authenticity & honesty. (emphasis mine).

    Not in my book, nor that of the overwhelming majority of Vietnam vets — he’s a liar and slanderer, and I damn sure wouldn’t want him watching my back in combat.

  • Nancy

    Pfuuuut-! Neither would I (want him watching my back). I don’t want either of them, actually.

    I’m very glad to hear I’ve missed information on our vets. Last I heard via the NY Times, Wall St. Journal, New Republic, & WP (2 of them hardly considered liberal), such was the case regarding vet benefits. On this issue, I’d far rather be wrong than proved right, any day, by any one.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Nancy, That was BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).

    I believe that no one in Congress has done much of anything and that term limits will make that better. I would be happy if everyone of them were replaced with people who are not career politicians.

    You are hitting on something about people being allowed to vote. Instead of people who are politically tuned in being disallowed (as some would have by denying party loyalists) how about we disallow anyone who can not pass a literacy test, or can not state one item in the Bill of Rights, or does not have a diploma? That would help keep idiots from being elected by idiots. We can also require ID so that ILLEGALS will not be able to vote. These are great ideas…..

    There certainly are more important things to talk about in this election. Like, how many lawyers will get rich off stupid lawsuits that start on 8 November?

  • http://www.blogger.com Georgio

    Nancy ..Thank you for telling it like it is..listening to BD is like listening to a fundi talking about the bible THEY ARE BOTH WRONG..!

  • MCH

    “It is nice you quoted Hackworth and as I stated by then he was right. I’ll bet you can not find him saying that at the beginning of the war or in the middle of it. No, because we were winning……”
    – Big Dog

    General Douglas MacArthur, perhaps histories greatest miltary mind regarding jungle warfare, disagreed in 1961:

    “President Kennedy first began to have doubts about our military effort in Vietnam in 1961 when both General Douglas MacArthur and General Charles de Gaulle warned him that the Asian mainland was no place to be fighting a non-nuclear land war. There was no end to Asian manpower, MacArthur told the President, and even if we poured a million American infantry soldiers into that continent, we would still find ourselves outnumbered on every side.”

  • Bliffle

    In case anyone is REALLY interested in what is REALLY happening to U.S. troops, instead of stupid word wars, take a look:

    “WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Air Force is asking the Pentagon’s leadership for a staggering $50 billion in emergency funding for fiscal 2007 — an amount equal to nearly half its annual budget, defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute said on Tuesday.

    Another source familiar with the Air Force plans said the extra funds would help pay to transport growing numbers of U.S. soldiers being killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan”

    Look here

  • Nancy

    $50 BILLION for transport – ? What the fuck are they transporting them in/on – platinum vehicles? No transport costs that much.

  • Les Slater

    Big Dog #5

    “Saying the Vietnamese won the war is foolish, there were Vietnamese on both sides.”

    The people of Viet Nam were the target of U.S. aggression, both north and south. The people of VIET NAM, did indeed, win that war.

    “The Korean war was not lost or won because it is officially in a cease fire.”

    The Korean War started in 1945.

    On September 6, 1945, a government came to power in the whole Korean peninsula, declaring independence from Japanese rule. Its capitol was Seoul.

    On September 8, 1945 General Douglas MacArthur landed with troops and destroyed the Korean government in the south, declared English the official language, enforced all of Japan’s colonial laws and set up a puppet government.

    But the Korean War was part of a bigger war, WWII. The U.S. expected to pluck China and planned on invading it. Much of the U.S. forces in the Pacific were not demobilized. There was no transport scheduled to bring them home. There began, what turned out to a huge demobilization effort, organized by the troops themselves. The taking of China had to be put off till later.

    In 1949 the Chinese Communist Party under Mao routed the forces of Chiang Kai-shek but did not overthrow capitalist property relations.

    1950, with the witch-hunt under full swing, the U.S. military intervention in Korea was massively escalated. The time had come to settle things not only in Korea, but in China as well.

    The Party, under Mao, saw this threat and nationalized, overthrew, capitalist property relations. This was a defensive measure. China also aided the Korean people in repulsing the invasion.

    The war ended up in a stalemate, with the U.S. making no further gains in the area. The quest for China had to be put off indefinitely.

    China was lost! The U.S. actually lost that war, big time. 54,000 U.S. troops were killed.

  • Les Slater

    Nancy #16

    “IF I thought I could get away with it, and IF I were to have even the remotest liklihood of reasonable opportunity, and IF I had at the time access & the inclination to do it – a combination totally unlikely, but in my dreams….”

    If all those ‘IF’s were satisfied, it still would not be a good idea.

    If anything remotely like you described in your #12 happened, it would be considered a terroist attack, which would be the EXCUSE, just like 9/11, to crack down on democratic rights of most of us.

  • Clavos

    Les,

    What are you Communists going to do when China finishes its ride down the slippery slope towards Capitalism; a slide that’s accelerating exponentially daily ?

    All you’ll be left with is Kim Jong Il and Fidel, maybe Chavez, plus a few odds and ends here and there.

    Good luck.

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com Deano

    Clavos, I’m interested that you think China will automatically be a “friendly” nation even if they shed their “communist” skins…

    Some people are quite fond of linking democracy with capitalism as if the two were utterly dependent and irrevocably linked, and I strongly suspect they are not.

  • Nancy

    China will be friendly to NOBODY, that much is sure. They take seriously Sun’s admonition to have no friends but yourself. For proof, just consider their history: in 2000+ years, they have NEVER made a permanent alliance with anybody. States who did have connections did so only as vassal states – not allies. The only thing China will ever be depended on to do is kick any and all competitors (that’s us, babe) in the teeth, and rifle our pockets while we’re out cold. They are nobody’s friend…but their own.

  • http://adreamersholiday.blogspot.com Lee Richards

    Big Dog: First, thank you for your military service to our nation. You and every vet deserve respect and gratitude.(I’m USAF). Kerry certainly did make an idiotic statement, whether joke or not; to be fair, Bush has also made his share of blundered comments. Much of your article tends to oversimplify history: A caused B and the result is C. The times, places, events, issues and people you’re talking about really can’t be so easily summarized and analyzed. Two main points of disagreement overall: you seem to say that all Democrats, Liberals or whatever are soft on terrorists in your opinion, because they aren’t Bush yes-men 100% and dedicated to “winning”. Can you define what winning in Iraq means? Part of the problem is that the administration has no measureable standard that defines it or is reachable in our lifetime. Being patriotic Americans always has meant thinking for ourselves, questioning, debating, compromising, sacrificing sometimes, and working together to find the BEST way to tackle problems or enemies. “My country, right or wrong”, shouldn’t now be a principle a good conservative blindly follows. Sensible Republicans and Democrats need to ask questions,a lot of them, if it will keep us from making tragic mistakes.
    My second point of disagreement:You say we shouldn’t cut and run and, if this means just quit cold and leave, of course, we shouldn’t. But just because we are currently all following Bush around inside a room filled with powder kegs is no reason to ignorantly hand him a book of matches.

  • Bliffle

    Clavos: “What are you Communists going to do when China finishes its ride down the slippery slope towards Capitalism; a slide that’s accelerating exponentially daily ?”

    What do you mean “exponentially”? Do you mean “fast”, but think your argument is more distinguished, more persuasive, if you use a multi-syllabic word instead?

    Suppose I counter with a decceleration that is factorial? Who wins? Me or you?

  • Clavos

    I apologize if my choice of words annoys you, Bliffle. Language is one of my interests.

    I certainly didn’t mean to irritate you…

  • Clavos

    Deano,

    I don’t think I ever mentioned “friendliness” in my comment.

    I see nothing inherent in Communism that makes it “unfriendly.” In fact, there is much about it that’s admirable.

    However, as economic systems, Communism and Capitalism do seem to be incompatible.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Nancy #26, they are using Michael J Fox’s DeLorean. It costs a lot of money to generate 2.4 gigawatts….

    Les, Thanks for your service as well.
    No, I do not think we should blindly run around without a plan. Right now the best plan is to install a government and get them to a position where they can self govern. No matter what, there will likely be violence for a while until their own people get so fed up they put an end to it. I see it working if we can get all parties represented and get them exporting oil again so they can be self sufficient. Then, we can begin to draw down with a security force helping make sure the oil fields are safe and the money distributed fairly.

    I think we should have used a lot more troops to start. It was a cake walk to get the major part done but the follow on needed the extra troops. The problem is now if they send more they are lambasted if they don’t the complaints of not enough troops. I feel we should have a plan but no candidate has enumerated one.

    There is a story out today that the terrorists want the Democrats to win (their words in an interview) so we will leave Iraq and they can attack America. You can read that here.

    I really don’t think the donks will bring the troops home right away despite what they say. Many of them are making money off the war and they know the business is good for their districts. I am not saying that is a reason to remain, just a reality of politics.

    The past wars were all complicated and there are volumes of books about them. I summarized here and firmly believe that without national will we can not win. We are free to disagree but there are ways to do that without Kerry like remarks and Murtha accusations. There were people who disagreed with WWI WWII and other wars. They fought those battles in the proper places not in world wide newspapers.

    As for Democrats, more accurately liberals, they are soft on security. They believe that other countries will bargain in good faith. We found out the hard way with what Clinton and Carter (as an envoy) gave us with North Korea. The Clinton administration was soft and helped give us 9/11 though there is plenty of blame to go around.

    I don’t think all liberals are bad or all conservatives good. I just don’t agree with many liberal philosophies and think they are misguided, as I am sure they feel about my thoughts. Look at some of the comments here. It is asserted that I condone mass murder, that like Bible thumpers I am wrong, and other attacks that go after me and not the argument.

    I guess that’s what I get for joining the service instead of getting an education. I can’t figure out how I ended up with a degree in nursing though…..

  • Bliffle

    Clavos: “However, as economic systems, Communism and Capitalism do seem to be incompatible.”

    Even in China?

  • Clavos

    We’ll see, Bliffle…

    Their exponentially growing capitalism is certainly making significant changes in their society, and it (capitalism) is still barely in the initial stages there.

  • JR

    What’s the exponent? ‘Cause on a human timescale an exponential growth can look linear, or it could go fast enough to run into some limit that changes the nature of function. If the exponent is negative, it’s not even growing at all. So unless you can give us some numbers on your “exponential growth”, you aren’t saying anything meaningful.

  • Clavos

    OK. Obviously, nobody wants me to use the E word, so here it is again, with E word excised and exchanged for a lesser word:

    Their rapidly growing capitalism is certainly making significant changes in their society, and it (capitalism) is still barely in the initial stages there.

    Sheesh…

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption12

    How on earth is pulling out of Iraq going to allow the terrorists to attack America? If a terrorist in any one of the many other terrorist friendly states, or a terrorist already living within the U.S. or a terrorist living anywhere else in the world for that matter, wants to come to the U.S. and blow something up, our troop presence in Iraq is going to have no effect on his ability to do so. Your mistaken logic is that all the terrorists are located in Iraq and Afghanistan and that our troop presences there would prevent them from leaving those countries. Neither is true. There are thousands of terrorists outside of Afghanistan and Iraq. And the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq are quite capable of skipping borders into Syria Iran etc.

  • Steve

    I would like to thank Sen. Kerry for his recent comments. Hopefully he will botch ANOTHER election year…hopefully this turns into a bi-annual affair.

  • Clavos

    PETI is right. It doesn’t really matter where terrorists are; when they decide to come here (if they’re not already here), they won’t have any problems coming in.

    We know from both 9/11 and the number of illegals living here that it’s not very difficult to get into the US.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    It is not a matter of them getting here. If we stop fighting (and killing) them there then more will be available to come here.

    We need to fight them there, not here.

  • GEORGE VREELAND HILL

    George W. Bush and the Republican way of cover-ups, lies, and more!
    Bush will get what he wants no matter what.
    Bully.
    Break the law.
    Lie.
    Then come up with reasons why he is right.
    Well guess what?
    Bush is wrong!
    You do not spy on Americans without legal permission.
    That is KGB like.
    The courts are starting to agree.
    You do not go to war with another country without proof of the need for war.
    Iraq was no threat to the United States.
    Yes, Saddam Hussein was evil and had a lot of people killed, but how many Iraqi citizens have been killed since this war started?
    How many of our brave service men and women have been killed in Iraq?
    How many more will die?
    Iraq right now, is in the worst mess it has ever been in.
    This was not the case before Bush started this war.
    Hey Bush: This war is against terrorists, not with countries.
    WMD? Not there!
    Did you know that George W. Bush once made fun of the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction?
    He did, and in front of some shocked people during a black-tie event in 2004.
    He said…. (While looking under a piece of furniture) “Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere.”
    Then, while pretending to look out of a window, Bush laughed as he said….. “Nope, no weapons over there.”
    While he was laughing, there were men and women fighting and dying in Iraq because of WMD.
    George W. Bush should be removed from office because of that alone.
    Face it, Bill Clinton lied about having sex, and was impeached because of it.
    George W. Bush however, did far worse, as he laughed at the very people who are fighting for the United States of America!
    Bush laughs at a lot of things.
    While we were under attack, he just sat there.
    He has no clue about how to run things.
    Speaking of running, that is what many Republicans are doing right now.
    Running from their own corruption.
    How many are in trouble now?
    From Nixon/Agnew to Scooter and Cheney, all we get from Republicans are cover-ups, lies, and more.
    Even President Reagan’s defense secretary, Caspar W. Weinberger, who recently passed away, was so bad, that George H. W. Bush had to bail him out with a pardon to help save the Republican name.
    Face it…. the Republican Party is a disgrace.
    Time for a change.
    It is also time for us to take back our country from the Republican mess that YOU are paying for.

    I am,
    GEORGE VREELAND HILL

    * Here are some tidbits of note:

    President Clinton left us SO MUCH money.
    Bush spent it all.
    The United States is now in debt.
    In fact, we have borrowed money from China!
    Think about that.
    We owe money to China.
    A country that sides with North Korea.
    That is the Bush spending policy.
    Spend, and then owe.
    Bush is an idiot.

    Did you know that some Republicans will not have their pictures taken with Bush?
    True!
    They fear being seen with him.
    The GOP is falling apart.

    Mark Foley, a Republican member (now ex-member) of Congress, has sent many e-mails with perverted sexual content to a sixteen year old boy.
    This is the same man who while in Congress, backed a bill that was meant to protect children from child predators.
    Foley himself, is a man who preyed on a child with lust.
    What is also incomprehensible, is the fact that many Republicans knew of Foley’s behavior, and yet, did not take a hard stand against this until it became public news.
    If I had a teenage son and/or daughter, I would not want them to go near any Republican leader for fear of either or both becoming a victim of a sick Republican pervert.

    Dennis Hastert, is a typical Republican who thirsts for power.
    If he knew of Foley’s perverted actions with underage kids before they became public, then he must step down.
    However, since he thinks in terms of power more than helping people, he will not step down from his position.
    This is the Republican way.
    Personal power over the people.
    Hunger for money combined with cover-ups, lies, tricks, and more so they can keep their power.

    It is sad to see the total mess in Washington and overseas that these Republicans blame on others.
    Blame the kids who run errands for them as if to say…..”If if it were not for the page program, then those kids would not have been here for Foley and others to exploit them.”
    Blame Clinton for not doing enough with terrorists, while Bush keeps sending troops to Iraq while North Korea and Iran build massive weapon’s programs.
    Hey Republicans: If you did not like the job Bill Clinton did, then do something about it.
    After all, you have had six years to do it.
    Blame, blame, blame.
    The real blame is on the Republican Party.
    If they do not take responsibility and handle things, then maybe they should all step down.

    Ever since Bush has been in office, North Korea has been very busy with their missile and nuke programs.
    Because of this, they are now a grave threat to the world.
    Iran is also busy doing the same things, only they are more vocal about what they want to do with their weapons.
    What has Bush been doing during all of this?
    Sending troops to Iraq.
    Ha ha, that is real bright.
    There were no WMD in Iraq, but we are there anyway instead of going to where the WMD really are.
    If Bush just sits there like he did during 9/11, then we will have a catastrophic event somewhere in the world, or a nuke at the doorstep of Los Angeles.
    Bush has lost total control of things, and like Iraq, he has no clue how to deal with it.

    Our Republican leaders have failed to catch bin Laden, even though Bush said that his capture was a top priority.
    When it became evident that bin Laden was not going to be caught any time soon, Bush then said that it did not matter if we capture him.
    Say what?
    The fact is that Bush changed his mind to save face.

    We have left our borders open to let millions of rapists, thieves, loafers, and killers enter our country.
    These numbers are since 9/11.
    Much of California’s bad economy was blamed on Gray Davis, but the fact is, that illegals broke California.
    Why was that not stopped?

    In New Hampshire, during the 2002 election for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Robert C. Smith, the New Hampshire GOP hired GOP Marketplace of Virginia, to jam another phone bank being used by the state Democratic Party in an effort to turn out voters on behalf of then-governor Jeanne Shaheen on Election Day.
    John E. Sununu, the Republican candidate, won a narrow victory.
    Wikipedia, a free on-line encyclopedia, states that three men have been convicted of, or pled guilty to, federal crimes and sentenced to prison for their involvement as of 2006. A fourth is under indictment.
    However, investigators and those who have followed the scandal closely believe that there were more people involved at the national level.
    It has been suggested that some high-ranking Republican Senate leaders were aware, and more recently records showing phone calls from the political operative convicted of engineering the scheme have raised questions as to whether officials in the Bush Administration were involved as well.
    According to The Raw Story, the fourth man indicted in this phone-jamming scheme, will argue at trial that the Bush Administration and the national Republican Party gave their approval to the plan, so says a motion filed by his attorney.

    CIA leaks.

    Bush giving the finger to people.
    Would FDR have done that?

    Most of us have heard of Rush Limbaugh, the Republican wacko who can’t keep his foot out of his mouth.
    Limbaugh has been busy questioning the severity of the disease that Michael J. Fox is suffering from, known as Parkinson’s.
    Limbaugh based his knowledge on the matter by comparing the condition of Fox to a couple of people who also have Parkinson’s disease.
    Limbaugh is not a doctor, but thinks that he is an expert on Parkinson’s because of what he has seen.
    The fact is that Michael J. Fox supports Democrats and stem cell research, and Limbaugh is trying to make a fool out of him, thus making another voice for the Democrats look small.
    Limbaugh even mimicked the actions of Parkinson’s disease in front of a camera.
    Think about that!
    Limbaugh made fun of Parkinson’s disease.
    He did that to make the Democrats look small, and the Republicans look big and brave.
    Limbaugh, like other Republicans who have questioned the severity of Fox’s condition, are very sick people.
    They laugh at those who are sick if they are Democrats.
    Limbaugh has now blamed the media for the story after millions of people thought his actions to be repulsive.
    This is the same Rush Limbaugh who once make racial comments about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback, Donovan McNabb, who is African-American.
    Limbaugh is obviously an athletic supporter, except he is the kind you wear.
    Limbaugh is a typical Republican who will hurt other people to get what he wants.

    When Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for office, he said that he would fund his campaign with his own money, and not accept money from outside interests.
    Well, as we now know, he took MILLIONS from others while running for office.
    These “other” special interest people have more interest in their pockets and their own standing, than in the interests of California.
    Arnold’s interests are with wealth and fame.
    These “others” and Arnold go hand in hand.
    I think we also need an answer from Arnold as to why he took two jobs with muscle magazines so soon after taking office.
    This was at a time when California needed him the most.
    After all, he said he would be there for the people.
    Again, it seems that Arnold put himself ahead of California.

    Of course we can’t forget that when it gets close to election time, we always see many road signs that support Democrats start to disappear.
    Hum, I wonder what side the sign thieves are on?
    Is this the Republican way of gaining the edge?

    Republicans can’t stand the truth.
    When a topic comes up that exposes them, these cowards will discredit the reporter or change the subject in order to made themselves look good.
    Their tactics no longer work.
    The people are on to these Republican cowards who can’t fess up.

    My thoughts on Iran:
    Iran may be a threat in the future, but it is not a threat now.
    We have time to think about what to do with Iran.
    We need to start thinking about the best ways to solve problems in the Middle East, and not create new ones.
    Because Bush and the Republican Party have no clue how to fix the mess we are in with Iraq, it is best that he and they do nothing with Iran.
    Wait until the voters pick better leaders, and believe me, that will not be a hard thing to do.
    George Vreeland Hill

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    George,
    That had to be the longest nonsense that I have read in a long time. Did you copy and paste that from the DNC website?

    OK George, the only court that said the NSA wiretapping program was one with a liberal judge. The decision was overturned by a higher court. The program does not listen to Americans unless they are talking to terrorists and is well within the rights of the President as outlined in the Constitution and affirmed by courts who argued that the President had INHERENT right to do so. Oh, and that was in the cases where Carter and Clinton were listening.

    Mark Foley sent nasty IMs and he resigned and no Republican has defended what he did, just questioned the timing and how long the left held the IMs before they released them. On the other hand, Gerry Studds really had sex with a 17 year old and the Democrats applauded him when he turned his back on the rebuke he got from Congress. Humans have human failings regardless of party. If you want to go down this road George go ahead but no matter what Republican you bring up and no matter the charge I can find you a Democrat who did the same thing. They are all crooks.

    IN NH they played dirty tricks. In Michigan in 2004 Dems slashed tires on the vehicles Republicans rented to get out the vote, once again you can find bad people on both sides. Not getting it yet George?

    Rush, Terrible guy. He dared to question the sincerity of Michael J Fox who admits that he sometimes does not take his medication so he will appear worse. His movements were not the effects of too much medicine, but too little. As for your assertion that Fox is just out supporting candidates who favor stem cell research and mean ole Rush is picking on him golly gee Wally. Well George, hold on to your hat. Ben Cardin voted AGAINST stem cell research. Yes, that is right, he voted against it. Michael Steele supports stem cell research where the embryo is not destroyed. And the idea that ESCR is the most promising is speculation. The human liver that was recently grown came from adult stem cells. So learn what you are talking about first George and stop drinking the kool aid.

    George Bush once made fun of WMD. Damn near every Democrat who says there are none and never were are on record as saying that he had them and we needed to take him out, but that was when Clinton was in office.

    George, I could go on and address these items but I think you would be better off if you go take your medication and have someone lock you in your room for the night. Please do not read any more Howard Dean emails beacuse they are affecting your brain.

    I make this suggestion, if you are going to write something this big, consider posting it as an article. Second, how does this relate to the topic of the post???????

  • Clavos

    BD,

    He’s spamming. This is the second thread on BC He’s hit in the last few minutes with that crap.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    It does appear that he emptied his garbage can and found it largely full of canned spam.

    Dave

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Thanks Clavos.
    Damn, and I wasted some good stuff on him.

  • MCH

    “I did not fight in 3 wars but served 1 year less than Hackworth so it is not like I am some college student spouting off from the errant teachings of my lib professor.”
    – Big Dog

    I’m curious, Big Dog, did you ever serve in combat? And of your 24 years, how many years active duty, and how many were in the reserves?

  • Clavos

    I’m curious, Big Dog, did you ever serve in combat?

    I’m curious, emmy, did you ever serve in combat?

    Weren’t you a swabbie from ’70 to ’74? The war was on until ’72. How come you were playing games in Hawaii while people were fighting and dying the other side of the Pacific?

  • MCH

    First of all, Clavvy, is your name Big Dog?

    Secondly, I have never claimed that my service was anything but lackluster and mediocre, only that:

    1) it was more than the bellicose chickenhawks who spout their “support” for the war, while avoiding service and sending someone else to fight their battles for them;

    and 2) that at least I didn’t DESERT the guards, and then lie about it 28 years later, like your boy GW.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I wonder, MCH. Does your honorable discharge read something different from the one Bush has?

    Dave

  • http://lowether.blogspot.com Sam Jack

    Seriously: why bother about this except as a way to deflect attention from the impending mid-term losses, the scandals, and Iraq?

    John Kerry’s not even running for anything. This all seems like a few desperate pumps to the noise machine before.

    And all this wrangling over military service: you don’t have to have served in the military to listen to those who have, listen to those who know what they’re talking about, and use your brain.

  • MCH

    Re #9;

    “That puts you about 2 decades ahead of MCH’s time in service. Unless you count his enthusiastic lip service…”
    – Dave Nalle

    And about 24 years ahead of Nalle’s non-service. Unless you count his empty rhetoric from the safety of his fortified compound, 10,000 miles from the action.

    Bullshit like “If I would have served, I would’ve been the captain of a ship”…or…”The reason I didn’t enlist for Desert Storm was because I was too old, er…I mean…I was a newlywed and just starting my family, er…I mean…by the time I would’ve gotten out of boot camp and officer’s training school, the war was over…er…I mean…”

  • duane

    Wow. Deja vu. Weird.

  • Bliffle

    BD: “We need to fight them there, not here.”

    How many Iraqis have we had to fight “here”?

    Anyway, that legitimizes invading every other country on earth, a task too ponderous even for the drunken neocon contingent to consider.

  • Bill B

    So it seems the botched punch line was missing one word. Us. It was supposed to be get ‘us’ stuck in Irag.

    Obviously he was trying to hit on Bush. A bumbling screw up to be sure, but anyone who thinks he’d deliberately insult the troops intelligence is nuts. Anyone who doesn’t see that is ignorant. Most are shameless political oppurtunists.

    As for joking about or insulting the President, I’ve got no problem with that. He insults our intelligence daily.

  • Bill B

    So is this another example of how the repubs and Bushes team are making us and our troops safer. I can only say I’m glad they’re in power if they truly are better at supporting the troops than the dems.

    You can’t make this stuff up.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Sam,
    You are correct, one does not have to have served to know what they are talking about so Kerry’s claims to not listen to those who have not served (to paraphrase) is moot. I mentioned my service in response to the Hackworth comment.

    MCH 10 and 14. Not in combat. We had no war for a lot of that time and when we were at war, things did not work out though. I did not avoid going and actually wanted to go on a number of occasions (when they were looking for certain specialties).

    The first Gulf War my unit was stood up to go and then canceled a couple of times. In the current conflict I tried to go 3 times. My unit was moved to NH and my position went away. There was no spot for me so I ended up retiring, not because I wanted to but because there was no place for me. I had too much rank and there were no units with my specialty that also had a slot for my rank so I was gone.

    I would go today if they called me (I retired to the ready reserves in case they have to do a call up) and my troops who did go all know that. Not that I feel I need to explain this but the common perception is we are a bunch of people (chickenhawks as you say) who talk the talk. You can not go if there is no place for you. If you served, you know that. As a leader, I would NEVER ask my soldiers to do something I myself would not.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Bliffle,
    We have not had to fight them here because of the flypaper effect. We are there and they are attracted to the fight. In case you have forgotten, we were attacked HERE by al-Qaeda. We are fighting al-Qaeda there. There are a number of reasons for invading countries and I don’t know to whom you refer, but drunken neocon are two words that do not describe me, perhaps you are familiar with someone else.

    Bill B,
    He says it was a botched punchline and might well have been. If anyone makes a misstatement it is pounced on so if he botched it then this is the risk he took when insulting the President. He is allowed to do that but if he screws it up then he has to live with the results. It really only matters how the troops perceived it because often, perception is reality. You state that anyone who thinks he was deliberately insulting the troops is ignorant. Given his history of insulting the troops, why is it ignorance?

    The President insults our intelligence daily? He had higher grades in college than Kerry and yet we listen to him [Kerry] as if he wrote the history of the world. Kerry could not even get his “joke” right so maybe he did not pay attention in school….

  • troll

    obviously…if you have served that means that you have gone through a program of military indoctrination and therefore are brainwashed and incapable of independent thought

    vets should be banned from politics at all levels

    ‘seen and not heard’ I say

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Perhaps Troll,
    If you have not served you have no understanding of what it means to have to fight for freedom and therefore should be banned from politics.

    But, if we take what you say seriously, the donks keep saying Bush never served so leave him alone…..

  • troll

    BD – now we’re getting somewhere…if we combine our positions we will have done away with politicians altogether – a good plan – !

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    I am with you on that Troll. If we get rid of all the politicians we might actually get somewhere. Most reasonable people, regardless of slant, can come to a reasonable solution to problems. Politicians are not reasonable people….

  • MCH

    “MCH 10 and 14. Not in combat. We had no war for a lot of that time and when we were at war, things did not work out though. I did not avoid going and actually wanted to go on a number of occasions (when they were looking for certain specialties).

    The first Gulf War my unit was stood up to go and then canceled a couple of times. In the current conflict I tried to go 3 times. My unit was moved to NH and my position went away. There was no spot for me so I ended up retiring, not because I wanted to but because there was no place for me. I had too much rank and there were no units with my specialty that also had a slot for my rank so I was gone.”
    – Big Dog

    Big Dog, thanx for your service to our country. Since you didn’t see combat, I wonder if Clavos will call you an “REMF” or refer to your time as “vacation,” as he’s done to me?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Watch it BD…MCH has no respect for career military types like you and I…he’s spouted his BS before about how he got out and the rest of us stayed in suckling at the govt teat! Ask him!

  • Clavos

    Since you didn’t see combat, I wonder if Clavos will call you an “REMF” or refer to your time as “vacation,” as he’s done to me?

    No, emmy, I haven’t seen Big Dog stalk anyone on BC and call them a chickenhawk, or otherwise insult those who didn’t serve, so there’s no reason to.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    MCH, I myself would never call you those things though if people wanted to refer to me as such, it is a free country. We served so people can say what they want. I appreciate Clavos as I do all the commenters here. It is good to see differing opinions, and to do it (mostly) in a civil manner.

    I wrote past posts at my site Big Dog’s Weblog where I thanked Kerry for his service. It is what he did after that caused him problems.

    Thanks to you and to all vets who served no matter what capacity it was in.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Andy, that is OK. You and I serve so everyone can have an opinion. I wake up ever day knowing that my service allowed people to say what they want, even if I disagree. Clavos, thanks. I am not going to call vets names if they served honorably. People and opinions change. If I am a chickenhawk, so be it but I will be the first one out the door when they call my number.

    Lead from the front.

  • Bill B

    only matters how the troops perceived it because often, perception is reality.

    If this could possibly damage troop morale then I hope the full explanation is given to them. They deserve it. As far as ripping the CIC, the soldiers are adults, and many (if the # of vets running as dems in this election is any indicator) may well agree.

    You state that anyone who thinks he was deliberately insulting the troops is ignorant. Given his history of insulting the troops, why is it ignorance?

    The only criticism I’m aware of is actually of the military hierarchy and politicians who put soldiers in an untenable position. He cited the situations where some cracked under incredible stress and participated in ‘atrocities’. From what I’ve read this was the crux of his criticism. Did he get specific. I’m sure he did, but the bigger picture was about the position the soldiers were put in. This was the crux of his opposition to the war when he returned. If you have some specifics I can read please cite them. Your story has none.

    I bet you have that picture that was wided circulated leading up to the ’04 election of Kerry with Jane Fonda speaking at an anti war rally. If you do, be advised its a fake.

    President insults our intelligence daily. He had higher grades in college than Kerry

    The most recent, the denial that they’ve ever said “Stay the course”. Puleez. Does he think we’re idiots?

    As for schooling, I certainly have no direct proof but I wouldn’t be surprised if he had a lot ‘done’ for him. So many things in his life point to that possibility. Running out on his military committment, failed business ventures handed to him, to name a few. Now on the other hand if it’s legit, it simply points to being book smart and common sense poor. Either way not too pretty.

  • MCH

    “Not that I feel I need to explain this but the common perception is we are a bunch of people (chickenhawks as you say) who talk the talk.”
    – Big Dog

    The term Chickenhawk does not refer to a veteran, Big Dog, but rather to those who’ve never served who spout macho war slogans, pontificate military strategy, and slander anyone opposed to the invasion/occupation.

    The best example of a Chickenhawk is Rush Limbaugh, who repeatedly called Bill Clinton a “draft-dodger,” but himself evaded service during Vietnam with a medical deferment for a cyst on his ass.

  • Nancy

    I don’t believe I’ve ever seen BD refer to anyone on this website that way. JOM & others in that crowd, yes, but not BD. Mind you, I myself have referred to various pols as chickenhawks, but I think what is being discussed is calling another blogger chickenhawk, yes?

  • MCH

    “Watch it BD…MCH has no respect for career military types like you and I…he’s spouted his BS before about how he got out and the rest of us stayed in suckling at the govt teat! Ask him!”
    – Andy Marsh

    Yes, I did mention once that during my hitch I personally encountered a few guys who had to reenlist and make careers out of the military, after failing to make it on the outside.

    And I only reminded you that your 20 years did not include combat AFTER you called me a “fucking pacifist” and an “America-hater” for opposing the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Anomanly?
    Symptom?

    It’s far simpler than that.

    He’s an idiot.

  • Valery Dawe

    “Murder is a crime. killing, as in war is not…. Mass MURDER was the 3000 people killed on 9/11.” Big Dog # 15.

    So what you’re telling me is if, for whatever reason, ( oil, minerals, real estate, retaliation) an attack on a soverign state is HYPED as war, then the MURDER of 300,000 people MAGICALLY turns into LEGITIMATE KILLING. But if the attack is aimed at the US on 9/11, 3000 dead isn’t collateral damage, it’s mass MURDER.

    If I misunderstood your message let me know. Thanks.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Valery,
    You misunderstand.

    First, I do not agree with, nor is there credible evidence to show, that 300k people have been killed, especially by us. In addition, a lot of people who die there are killed by the terrorists we are fighting because they kill their own in the name of their religion of peace.

    We are attempting to kill only the bad guys but sometimes that does not work out.

    In war, if a noncombatant is accidentally killed it is not murder. The matter is semantics and that is all I was pointing out. You said killing and the impression I got is that you were saying it is a crime. Killing is not a crime, murder is. So the point is, if you think we committed a crime you need to say we murdered people, not killed them.

    The 9/11 victims were murdered because they were noncombatants and they were deliberately targeted. We don’t deliberately target noncombatants. Happens sometimes especially when the enemy does not follow the same rules that the SCOTUS makes us apply to them in captivity. They shoot from schools, Mosques, hospitals, and other protected buildings and then get the news cameras when we shoot back.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    BD, good explanation of the difference between war and terrorism as far as casualties go. Valery won’t pay any attention, but at least you made the effort.

    Prepare for the bizarre argument that if the US had not intervened in Iraq then no one would have died so we’re to blame for every death no matter who actually pulled the trigger and targetd the civilians.

    Never mind that Saddam was killing an average of 30-50 of his own people a day, and that a civil war would have eventually broken out even if we hadn’t intervened.

    Dave

  • Borat

    May George Bush drink the blood of every man, woman, and child in Iraq.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption12

    ME:
    “How on earth is pulling out of Iraq going to allow the terrorists to attack America? If a terrorist in any one of the many other terrorist friendly states, or a terrorist already living within the U.S. or a terrorist living anywhere else in the world for that matter, wants to come to the U.S. and blow something up, our troop presence in Iraq is going to have no effect on his ability to do so. Your mistaken logic is that all the terrorists are located in Iraq and Afghanistan and that our troop presences there would prevent them from leaving those countries. Neither is true. There are thousands of terrorists outside of Afghanistan and Iraq. And the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq are quite capable of skipping borders into Syria Iran etc.”

    Clavos:
    PETI is right. It doesn’t really matter where terrorists are; when they decide to come here (if they’re not already here), they won’t have any problems coming in.

    We know from both 9/11 and the number of illegals living here that it’s not very difficult to get into the US.

    Big Dog:
    It is not a matter of them getting here. If we stop fighting (and killing) them there then more will be available to come here.

    We need to fight them there, not here.

    Umm does anyone remember how many terrorists it took to kill thousands of people and crash planes into 3 buildings? I dont actually know the number but is 40 about right? Hmm does anyone want to estimate the number of people who want to cause America harm in the world? It’s a lot more than 40, and most of them are not in Iraq or Afghanistan. The ones that are in Iraq and Afghanistan have not had there ability to come here and harm Americans reduced by our troop presence in Iraq.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption12

    The Bush talking point “fight them there not here” is such a joke.

  • Clavos

    None of the 9/11 terrorists or their support elements were Iraqis.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Somehow, this went way off topic.

    This should bring us back.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    That’funny!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    that was supposed to say…that’s funny!…I fat fingered it…but it’s still funny.

  • Bill B

    I have to admit, that’s pretty good. Accurate too.

  • Valery Dawe

    “First, I do not agree with, nor is there credible evidence to show, that 300k people have been killed, especially by us.”

    Would it make any difference if I’d said the US murdered 3000 Iraqis? Still adds up to mass murder in my opinion.

    “We are attempting to kill only the bad guys but sometimes that does not work out.”

    I wonder if Saddam’s defence lawyers will use a similar excuse.

    “In war, if a noncombatant is accidentally killed it is not murder.”

    Yup! Call it WAR and you’re off the hook.

    “The matter is semantics and that is all I was pointing out.”

    No, semantics is the game you’re playing to make the mass murder of Iraqis by the US seem okay.

    “You said killing and the impression I got is that you were saying it is a crime.”

    I distinctly said mass murder. See #10.

    “Killing is not a crime, murder is. So the point is, if you think we committed a crime you need to say we murdered people, not killed them.”

    See #10 and CTC.

    “The 9/11 victims were murdered because they were noncombatants and they were deliberately targeted.”

    Deliberately lobbing Cruise missiles into Baghdad knowingly targeted and murdered civilians.

    “We don’t deliberately target noncombatants.”

    Someone convinced you the Invasion of Iraq was accidental??

    “They shoot from schools, Mosques, hospitals, and other protected buildings and then get the news cameras when we shoot back.”

    The US drops bombs and fires missiles from ships in the Persian Gulf. On IRAQI soil it deploys heavily armed US troops who murder IRAQI civilians and members of the IRAQI resistance. US Mainstream News organizations try to dupe US citizens into thinking that the invasion of Iraq and the mass murder of Iraqis is legitimate and incredibly some people still believe it.

    Pay no attention to Dave he’s been playing his crystal ball again.

  • Clavos

    Whew, Valery.

    You’re so far out in left field I’m surprised you have electricity, much less an internet connection…

    Are you seriously calling all US troops in Iraq murderers?

    The US drops bombs and fires missiles from ships in the Persian Gulf.

    Apparently not enough of them, or we’d be winning.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Well Val,
    The point is, war is hell (I did not make that up, someone else did). We did not invade the country and run around shooting at noncombatants. We went in to take out the man leading them. He violated UN sanctions for 14 years and he had WMD. He used WMD and he moved WMD before we got there.

    It is war, in case someone did not teach you that in school. We dropped two bombs on cities in Japan and ended the war. Were we murderers or did we win the war?

    Call it what you will and cry about the Iraqis all you want. I feel badly that some people who are innocent get killed but I have a hard time feeling that much for a society that straps bombs to their babies.

    What would you have us do, sit around and wait for more Americans to get killed? I hope we are never attacked again but if we are I hope the only people who die are the ones who oppose us protecting ourselves and the ones who want to appease the terrorists.

    I will be glad to continue fighting after such an attack but instead of shedding tears will be saying, I told you so.

    I don’t know how old you are or if you were politically minded during the last president’s reign but were you equally upset when he lobbed a missile into an aspirin factory and killed innocents or was that OK because it was Bill the donk and he could do no wrong?

    Our missiles are nearly pinpoint so collateral damage is minimized. If people are allowing the bad guys to live among them then they take the risk of getting whacked.

  • Valery Dawe

    “Are you seriously calling all US troops in Iraq murderers?” Clavos #88

    Sure, I’ll waste a few seconds replying to your boring predictable question, Clavos.

    I’m saying that the US troops in Iraq who murder Iraqis are murderers. Ask Dave for an explanation if you’re not sure what that means.

  • Clavos

    Valery, I’m awfully sorry that my questioning your slandering of the troops is boring to you.

    Good thing for you that generations of American military have preserved that right for you.

  • Valery Dawe

    “We did not invade the country and run around shooting at noncombatants.”

    Of course not! The US was invited into Iraq and began the visit by dropping bombs and firing Cruise missiles that BLEW PEOPLE TO BITS. Iraq WMD’s were with Mo’s Low Cost Moving & Storage so naturally they disappeared into thin air and therefore were never a threat.

    “We dropped two bombs on cities in Japan and ended the war. Were we murderers or did we win the war?”

    The US bombed Hanoi, murdered thousands of civilians and lost the war.

    “I feel badly that some people who are innocent get killed but I have a hard time feeling that much for a society that straps bombs to their babies.”

    But if those babies are murdered by Americans you’re still proud of YOUR society.

    “What would you have us do, sit around and wait for more Americans to get killed?”

    Call it what you will and cry all you want.

    “I hope we are never attacked again but if we are I hope the only people who die are the ones who oppose us protecting ourselves and the ones who want to appease the terrorists.”

    You could be a speech writer for the Iraqi Resistance.

    “I don’t know how old you are or if you were politically minded during the last president’s reign but were you equally upset when he lobbed a missile into an aspirin factory and killed innocents or was that OK because it was Bill the donk and he could do no wrong?”

    Pack Bill and Dubya off to stand trial for crimes against humanity.

    “Our missiles are nearly pinpoint so collateral damage is minimized.”

    The mass murder of human beings can be minimized further by not murdering them with missiles.

    “If people are allowing the bad guys to live among them then they take the risk of getting whacked.”

    You could be Osama’s speech writer.

  • Nancy

    BD #83 – that IS funny!

  • Valery Dawe

    “I’m awfully sorry that my questioning your slandering of the troops is boring to you.”

    Clavos, you should apologize for not knowing the meaning of the term ‘slander’.

    “Good thing for you that generations of American military have preserved that right for you.”

    And try not to be quite so tedious.

  • troll

    you guys are a bunch of intellectual pussy footers with your hair splitting about death

    BD says – *We dropped two bombs on cities in Japan and ended the war. Were we murderers or did we win the war?*

    my favorite (because most honest) man of war – bombs away himself who ordered them – said that our actions in Japan from the fire bombings to the nukes were murder on a vast scale and crimes against humanity

    war isn’t war until it’s total war

    I do wish jingoists would stop trying to sanitize the shit with their pro American emotionalism

  • Clavos

    Valery,

    I know very well what “slander” means, but you obviously don’t; so just for you, here it is, from the American Heritage Dictionary:

    slan·der Pronunciation (slndr)
    n.
    1. Law Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person’s reputation.
    2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

    Calling US troops murderers for carrying out the orders of their Commander In Chief is “a false and malicious statement.”

    Better tedious than foolish, Valery, try to wise up.

  • troll

    Val…Babe…

    with a good wind at his back and after a few beers Clavos can piss 5 feet…how ’bout you – ?

  • Clavos

    Downhill I can make it to 8 ft., troll.

    Plus, in the winter, I can write my name…

  • Valery Dawe

    “Calling US troops murderers for carrying out the orders of their Commander In Chief is ‘a false and malicious statement’.”

    Clavos falls back on the tired old…’we were just following orders’ line of pure crap which no more excuses the mass murder of Iraqis by US troops than does pretending the WAR label legitimizes wholesale homicide.

  • Valery Dawe

    Sad to say, troll, Clavos is suffering from more than cerebral shrinkage so you won’t be seeing his yellow name in a snow bank anytime soon. Perhaps if he got together with the Commander In Chief they could both manage to squeeze out the letters wmd in lower case.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    that’s a pretty typical liberal response there valery…can’t come up with a resonable response so try to slam the size of somebodies genitals…sounds like penis envy to me! Or are you just jealous that you can’t write your name in the snow…which…I guess…would be another form of penis envy!

%d bloggers like this: