Bitter, Bored Media Are Back On Bush

Just wait until the Kitty Kelly “fireplace fuel” hits bookstores next week. The Today Show already has her booked for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. I’m sure “Al-Qatie Qouriq” is already licking her chops over the opportunity to sling mud at the Bush family.

Dude, gays are like way over 2% of the populace. They are closer to like 10%. If you count their supportive parents, siblings, children, and friends, it is a problem. Y’all are so quick to write off very large groups of people on this site. 10% here and 13% there starts adding up. Republicans can easily get about 75% of the White male population, but this is the only constituency they have on lock. If they don’t decide that getting another group on board and loyal besides these men’s wives, then what? Divorce rates are going up, and single women prefer Democrats.

I don’t like the Constitutional amendment, but I buy the slippery slope argument when it comes to gay marriage, although a lot of people think it’s ridiculous. I think a lot of people with alternative views of what marriage can be, particularly polygamists, will try to insist that they’re lifestyles should be validated as well.

Dude, how’d y’all get off on a homosexual rant in the comment section of a post concerning George Bush’s hammering by the liberal media? That is SOOO gay!

Hey, I didn’t know the Globe was a 527 org.

I wonder if they’re doing a reexamination of anyone else’s record (NOT!)!

Hurry up Nov 2nd!

I lost my student deferment in 1967 and joined the Naval Reserve in 1968 thinking I’d rather serve aboard a ship than duck bullets in the jungle. After a few weeks of basic training and a year of attending once a week evening meetings, I was activated for the mandatory one-year’s tour of active duty. Ah, but the best laid plans of mice and men… my duty station was Chu Lai, Vietnam.

After my year’s active duty, I was to return to inactive status when I would continue to attend weekly reserve meetings. But in 1970 with the Vietnam War winding down, the U.S., found itself having much more personnel than needed and the cost of maintaining this surplus was high. Accordingly, reservists like myself all across the country were discharged and taken off the military payrolls. By 1974, even active enlistees in the services were being offered “early-outs.”

Now whether George Bush received favorable treatment in the National Guard, I cannot say. I can say that one does not learn to pilot jet fighters by reading Cliff Notes. It is intensive training and very time consuming. However, I would be shocked had President Bush not received favorable treatment in his life. If there are those among us that think sons of the wealthy and/or politically connected do not lead favored lives, well, get real!

If this favoritism is the issue, then the majority of our National leaders — past and present — should have never been allowed to hold office. And should we not take a close look at our corporate and foundation boardrooms as well? I’ll bet they are packed with the children of privilege… children whose fathers were well to do and had the means to send them to prep schools and elite private colleges where they rubbed shoulders with other children of privilege. Aren’t many of these chieftains the product of a privileged background and worse yet, they weren’t’ elected! This is totally unfair!

Shouldn’t we do something about this too? If these things really matter, then all our leaders in every facet of our society should be limited to persons having the worst of family backgrounds. That way we can insure that no person having a leg up on life will benefit from our democracy.

And surely this implies that parents, if they have their children’s best interest at heart, will abandon thoughts of financial security achieved by accumulating wealth and forget seeking the best in educational opportunities for their offspring to help them lead more fruitful lives for it may only serve to penalize and stigmatize.

Well, maybe it’s just me but every 10th person I know is gay or confused. The 10% number seems to be true at my workplace, in my schools, and my family (I live in TX) which is why I never doubted it’s truthfulness. I’d like to see that link.

I would be interested to know if every 10th person is an adulterer. It seems that follows right along the 10% rule of thumb for determining what constitutes deviant behavior.

I find it amazing that the AP went so far as to put their lawyer on the case of Bush’s guard service (to get the military records.) The LENGTHS to which they go, to uncover this non-story only underscores their total lack of interest in John Kerry’s Vietnam career – which he touts as the cornerstone for his fitness as Commander-in-Chief. If only half of what the Swift Boat Vets claim is true (I read the book, and I have drank the kool-aid, because I buy their version)… Kerry is the last person I would want as our leader. I couldn’t care less about Bush’s guard service, he’s already proven he can lead. More than anything, this story is just further proof that the liberal media is willing to do just about anything for “their” candidate.

Amazing how the main-stream media will never report that Kerry requested a referal himself – to go to Paris to sit out the Vietnam war. It wasn’t until that was denied that he went into the Naval Reserve, for the same reason as a previous poster here – low odds of going over, and if you did you were on the water, not walking through the jungle as a moving target.

Put that up against Clinton’ remarks at the Dem Convention that Kerry said “Send me”. And then he tries to claim 2 tours in Vietnam for his 4 months of service, where is the ‘investigative reporting’ on this one?

Also quite ludicrous is that these “journalist” idiots think most of us are sitting around today just flabbergasted by their new “revelations” about Bush, ready to throw in the proverbial towel now that they’ve completely destroyed his reputation with some swill from yet another trip through his military records. We’re all so STUPID, aren’t we? We haven’t even the pea-sized intelligence to be insulted, do we? It all gets more Orwellian by the day!

As if the Kerry’s Hindenburg-sized ego and arrogance aren’t enough noise to put up with on a daily basis during this seemingly eternal election jaunt…

At this point, 30-36 years later???

Both men have a record to consider. What they were doing before I got to kindergarten does not (especially in these cases) hold much water for me.

When do we get to talk about the ’80s? At least the ladies were wearing big hair then. I really liked big hair. I think it’s trying to make a comeback; You know, Beyonce, Nicole Simpson… did I mention that I really like big hair?

Now that I’ve contributed to this debate to about the same degree as the Boston Globe, I’m gonna go read the article explaining that the “Chechen Militants” (grrrrr. thanks for being among the first to point out the truth, LB) are neither “Chechen” nor “Militants;” a topic you may choose to discuss amongst yourselves.

James,
As La Shawn said, the issue is that the press goes bonkers to put Bush’s record under the microscope, but only look into Kerry’s when the outcry from the new media can no longer be ignored.
Is this latest bit of information page one news? And if so, why have none of the Kerry revelataions been thus treated?
And as other’s have pointed out, much of the veterans’ objections to Kerry are over what he did when he returned to the states, such as his sentate testimony and his membership (and active promotion of) in the VVAW.
Kerry has made his 4 month stint on the rivers of Vietnam central to his campaign. He doesn’t want to talk about his activism after the war, or before the war. He doesn’t want to discuss his senate record. Or his record as lt. gov. of Mass, or his time in the DAs office.
Basicly, the Kerry campaign only wants to discuss what they have said about John, and only if it is positive. Tough, it doesn’t work that way.
Now, back to Bush: he’s never made his service in the TANG part of his campaign, or made it a reason to bolster his fitness to command. And none of his fellow guardsmen have come forward and said he was a menace, a liar, filed false reports etc. Still, that being said, his record is also fair game. He released his, by the way.
Now, if Kerry released his records, maybe a good chunk of what the Swifties say can be disproved. But he hasn’t. And there are no indications that he will.

Not only calm, La Shawn, but it may,perhaps, have appealed to Mr. Lamb, Jr.,because (quoting from one of Mr. Lamb, Jr.’s comments of 3 days ago) your “commentary reminds me of that of the Southern Black women I grew up with in Virginia.”

“But let’s get sophisticated, shall we?” (another nod to Mr. Lamb, Jr.) Many of us who are contemporaries of both candidates, those of us who served in Vietnam and those who did not, have never judged a man’s fitness to hold the office of Commander in Chief by whether he was or was not “war-forged” (a term used by Mr. Lamb to describe Mr. Kerry). FDR, Wilson and Lincoln are prominent eaxamples of successful leaders who were not “war-forged.” As you note, “[m]ilitary service is not a prerequisite for honorable service as Commander-in-Chief.”

We were much more interested in what kind of a man the candidate is “today,” in light of the issues that face us “now.” John Kerry made his service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. He, therefore, invited attack on that basis; however, I, and many others, find the issue a side-show. Therefore, what he did as a young junior commissioned officer 36 years ago has little bearing on how he will defend the nation today as Commander in Chief. His life, and the life of George W. Bush, since then, and their recent actions, that indicate what kind of men they are currently, and what kind of leaders they are likely to be, are what we care about.

“Kerry served with distinction in Vietnam. Is it so distasteful to ask where Pres. Bush was during that time?”

It’s irrevelant.

Via The Professor:

This is the only place that you will get the full and true story of President Bush’s Air National Guard service. There are no UNANSWERED questions. There are no missing records. He did not miss any meetings. The truth is known. You can find everything in this article, in other publications but none of the others are complete. You have to put them all together to get the full story. It is a shame that our national “objective” media refuse to do their job and put the whole story together.

First, in answer to the charge that Bush was AWOL or missed meetings, George Bush was NEVER assigned to the Alabama Guard. This is a myth promoted by the “objective” media. Here is what really happened. Here is what the head of the Alabama Guard said.

Turnipseed states Bush was never ordered to report to the Alabama Air National Guard. He points out that Bush never transferred from the Texas Air National Guard to the Alabama Air National Guard. He remained in the Texas Guard during his stay in Alabama. This was confirmed by the Texas Guard. And Turnipseed added that Bush was never under his command or any other officer in the Alabama Guard.

Turnipseed added that Bush was informed of the drill schedule of the Alabama Guard as a courtesy so he could get credit for drills while in Alabama for his service record in the Texas Guard. There was no compulsory attendance. This was also confirmed by the Texas Guard.

–

And in 2000, George Mag – w/JKF Jr. at the helm – looked into the AWOL allegations and also found them wanting.

No there there.

If you encounter someone who thinks W was AWOL, just ask them if they know how TANG worked in the 60s and 70s. Or today. If they don’t know, how can they know he was AWOL?

If people want to concentrate of the job Pres. Bush is doing today as Commander-in-Chief, instead of his possible past military service, they cannot overlook, in my opinion, the ever rising death toll in Iraq, the low respect America garners worldwide, the nonexistent Iraqi WMD’s, the still-at-large Osama bin Laden, and the nonexistent connection between Iraq and the September 11th attacks.

Meanwhile, Americans endure color-coded terror threat levels, shoe-removal before boarding planes, daily tragedies of dead soldiers in Iraq, slaughtered Russian children, outsourced jobs, suicide bombers, and footage of Americans beheaded on the internet. Death, destruction and mayhem berate Americans every day on the evening news, coupled with Presidential rhetoric that always centers on killing terrorists, invading countries, and fighting abroad so we don’t have to fight here.

Americans are afraid.

Kevin, there are no reputable studies or unbiased polls I can cite as evidence of this pervasive national fear, but immediately after September 11th, our leaders were so afraid of terrorism, and of being called unpatriotic, that they passed the US Patriot Act, and allowed incredible encroachments upon our civil liberties. In the past weeks, Sen. Zell Miller articulated this palpable fear when discussing his support of Pres. Bush, asking “Which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower, and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?”

Just yesterday, Vice President Cheney went further, insinuating that a Kerry victory in November assists anti-American terrorists. “It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll get hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we’ll fall back into the pre 9/11 mind set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we are not really at war.” – Vice President Cheney, Sept. 7, 2004

To believe this rhetoric is nothing more than Republican scare tactics is cynical at best. I believe it resonates because the modern American electorate could care less what issues, understandable or not, terrorists have with us. We just want the terrorists dead. President Bush always reminds the public that when he visited Ground Zero on Sept. 14, 2001, the assembled workers and survivors on New York told him to do “whatever it takes” to eliminate the perpetrators of the Sept. 11th attacks.

Terrorism works when victims forsake their beliefs and principles to combat their oppressors. Americans have spent the past three years under President Bush remembering their fear and forgetting their freedom. America can do better.

LB, my apologies for this lengthy post.

I’ve been interested in the National Guard story for a while. I posted about it at my blog, The End Zone (at blogspot!)whose address I cannot put here;) Just goofing around LB! These are the Globe’s two possibly legitimate complaints-

1. A very technical, rules oriented complaint
‘’satisfactory participation” that included attendance at 24 days of annual weekend duty — usually involving two weekend days each month — and 15 days of annual active duty.
[...]
The regulations, Lechliter and others said, required that any scheduled drills that Bush missed be made up either within 15 days before or 30 days after the date of the drill.

Conclusion- Bush violated the exact Guard rules about performing his service during weekend drills. However, it may have been approved procedure in Texas to do so, or approved procedure for pilots to do so. The Globe has not investigated this aspect.

2. Bush agreed to join a Guard unit in Massachusets, and may not have done so so within 60 days. The Globe has more investigation to do, because Bush was honorably discharged after 5 years and 4 months of service. The Globe article doesn’t mention this discharge. It may have come within the 60 day time frame, or just after. Unknown at this point.

Overall Conclusion- Bush may or may not have violated his duty in either or both of these areas. The Globe should follow up and nail down their allegations. It is sloppy reporting and sloppy editing that they have not done so.
I question the timing. Did the Globe rush the story so they could break it in advance of the Sept. 11 ceremonies and remembrances?

The Globe investigate the story with the four reporters and one editor on their

“Globe Spotlight Team — reporters Stephen Kurkjian, Francie Latour, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Michael Rezendes, and editor Walter V. Robinson.”

And yet they do not have the story nailed down. Why is that?

oops! I see my blog address does get posted with my comment! I was “just fooling around” unfairly! Hmmm. Seems like I’ve heard that before…

I knew… I knew that this would be the most boring Presidential election in recent memory.

Discussion of meaningful domestic issues is nearly nil, with the occasional “They want tax cuts for the rich” that is typical from the democrats. Of course, this is in large part because the President has wholly endorsed everything that real conservatives have long fought.

Bush’s “war record” doesn’t bother me — unless some old postcards from this era suddely surface sent by GWB from Saskatchewan!

Having served as a regular army infantry officer in Vietnam, and later as a company commander in a Texas National Guard airborne unit….I’ll have to add my two cents. Much has been made of missing paperwork from Lt. Bush’s files…the implication being that it has “mysteriously” disappeared… i.e. coverup.

Non existant paperwork doesn’t surprise me at all. Despite doing our best to keep up with the mountains of personnel files, we in the National Guard of the period were still part time soldiers and trying to keep our heads above water on the required paperwork was almost impossible during one weekend a month, in addition to training and maintenance which was our primary mission. Many of us worked for free in our spare time trying to abide by the paperwork regulations but if the Associated Press was to check my company’s records from the period I’m sure they could find enough errors, mistakes and missing forms to fill a book.

Here’s a report from the Chicago Sun Times of Feb 11. Which newspaper writer’s name appears, next to charges that he distorted quotes? WALTER ROBINSON. COINCIDENTALLY, the very same Walter Robinson who wrote today’s distorted story in The Boston Globe! J’Accuse!

Chicago Sun Times-

“It all started with a report by the Boston Globe during the 2000 presidential election questioning Bush’s National Guard service. Walter Robinson cited retired Turnipseed, of the Alabama Air National Guard, as his source.

But in an interview , Turnipseed states that Robinson’s reporting of their conversation was either distorted or based upon his misunderstanding of how the military functioned at the time of Bush’s service. For Bush to be “AWOL” or “away without leave,” he would have had to have been assigned to a unit and under its command.

Turnipseed states Bush was never ordered to report to the Alabama Air National Guard. He points out that Bush never transferred from the Texas Air National Guard to the Alabama Air National Guard. He remained in the Texas Guard during his stay in Alabama. This was confirmed by the Texas Guard. And Turnipseed added that Bush was never under his command or any other officer in the Alabama Guard.

Turnipseed added that Bush was informed of the drill schedule of the Alabama Guard as a courtesy so he could get credit for drills while in Alabama for his service record in the Texas Guard. There was no compulsory attendance.This was also confirmed by the Texas Guard.”

Powerline is wondering whether the 18 August 1973 memo is fake.

The spacing, font and “th” are suspect in his mind.

I have to agree about the “th” there was no key on a regular typewriter at that time.

Now i see where all the ‘Kerry is phony’ flak comes from. American’s are unwilling to forget Kerry’s protest against this war, which as it turns out was one of the dirtiest, immoral wars carried out.

‘Could one perhaps draw the conclusion that someone who shows such utter contempt for his country, and such utter contempt for the military in which some of his compatriots are still fighting and being wounded or killed in, along with such utter contempt for his country’s attempt to show its gratitude for his service and sacrifice might be soft on terrorism?’

Translation – Kerry was a traitor and a wimp for speaking up against the Vietnam war. Give it a rest dude. Vietnam was wrong, and the US should NEVER have been involved in the first place.

‘Regardless of how John Kerry reacted in combat, regardless of his service medals (I don’t care if he was the Audie Murphy of the Vietnam War), it is his actions on the homefront that disqualify him from being able to hold the job as Commander in Chief. His treasonous, undermining, backstabbing, “rendering aid and comfort to the enemy” actions.’

So this hero, who did his duty and pulled out has no right to speak up against a war that he fought in, and no right to be a Commander in Chief? Yet Bush….who spent his ’service’ getting drunk with rich kids, failing to turn up for duty, and wearing medals he never earnt…is a perfect candidate for the role of Commander in Chief.

‘Calling someone a “John Kerry” ought to have the same connotation. ‘

Give me a break. Consorting with the enemy, and opposing the war. Am i the only one that sees a difference here?

Please tell me, Omar, why Americans should not protect innocent people (the South Vietnamese in that not-so-long-ago war and the Iraqis and Afghanis today) from oppression? Vietnam was NOT a civil war…it was communism’s attempt to force its iron fist onto a nation. We had Democrats in office back then who DID NOT DO THEIR JOBS, and we double-crossed the very people we’d promised to help. And guess what? Communism prevailed and millions suffered. Great idea!

When you’re the biggest dude on the playground, it’s your moral obligation to help the smallest people on that same playground. (Where did I read this?? I’m paraphrasing someone, but I can’t recall who.) America is the BMOC, and we have a duty to help those who cannot help themselves in such situations (note that I am not in favor of handouts to those who choose not to help themselves).

I imagine it’s the Judeo-Christian background of the US that gives us these ideas. A civilization based on helping the helpless (widows, strangers, orphans, handicapped, and the weak whether in body or spirit) is going to think such efforts are worthwhile. I’m sorry you don’t seem to comprehend the importance of it.

Benedict Arnold was arguably the finest combat leader of the Revolution. Unfortunately, he fell prey to the wiles of a pretty young wife of the Tory persuasion.
I wonder if Theresa will have as much influence.

As usual, Omar, you have things half-right. Yes, Vietnam was an immoral war; but it was so because we got into it in the first place (as you said) but it was immoral precisely because we got into it with no intention to win. We played around, implemented this and that nouveau idea and strategy, and lost 58,000 of our young men. Moreover, John Kerry gave aid and succor to the enemy with his actions upon his return (this has been proven).

LawWife, your ideas are the seeds of an absolutely dreadful foreign policy. Yes, it is necessary to fight in far-off places (yes, even Vietnam was for the noble purpose of stanching communism), but only for our national interest (remember that?) It is my great fear nowadays that the last vestiges of conservatism will be swallowed up in a Wilsonian/interventionist policy as you described: never-ending warfare.

‘Please tell me, Omar, why Americans should not protect innocent people (the South Vietnamese in that not-so-long-ago war and the Iraqis and Afghanis today) from oppression?’

Sure Americans should protect innocent people. What you are failing to realise is, Vietnam had nothing to do with oppression. It was to do with Vietnam pulling free from Imperialist domination. First France, and then the US….who poured millions of dollars into Diem’s South Vietnam…..who ironically was a dictator who oppressed his people. He got US backing on the grounds that he wasnt a Communist.

‘ Vietnam was NOT a civil war…it was communism’s attempt to force its iron fist onto a nation. ‘

This is an untrue assumption. Its a fact the US refused to hold democratic elections across the whole of Vietnam because they KNEW Ho Chi Minh would win.

‘We had Democrats in office back then who DID NOT DO THEIR JOBS’

You mean like secret ‘Democrat’ Richard Nixon? Heh….

‘When you’re the biggest dude on the playground, it’s your moral obligation to help the smallest people on that same playground.’

Ive pointed out already that the South Vietnam regime the US supported was a corrupt to the core oppressive regime, that didnt give a damn about the Vietnamese people. Diem was a Catholic that persecuted Buddhist monks, and supported forced conversions all over Vietnam.

‘Please do your research before deciding that Mr. Kerry did not consort with known enemies.’

So visiting a peace meeting in a neutral country (France) to seek diplomatic relations is ‘consorting?’ Well ill be damned. Id be enthralled if you actually took a look at what you were saying, and still agreed with yourself….Foreign policy isnt just about military intervention, killing everything that moves. ‘Diplomacy’ comes into it…somewhere.

‘As usual, Omar, you have things half-right. Yes, Vietnam was an immoral war; but it was so because we got into it in the first place (as you said) but it was immoral precisely because we got into it with no intention to win.’

I agree, to an extent. i think the original US plan was to prop up South Vietnam with advisors, supplies, and dollars. They got dragged into the war, but they made a decision to escalate, which would prove to be a big mistake.

The US however, didnt put some half assed effort into Vietnam. 500,000 troops were there at the height, and the bombings campaigns were huge. Its just the overall strategy was incorrect. A Politicians war, as i think you implied.

Omar,
“We had Democrats in office back then who DID NOT DO THEIR JOBS”

You mean like secret “Democrat” Richard Nixon? Heh.

As I recall, JFK got us into Nam after botching the Bay of Pigs, LBJ mucked it up and Nixon was left holding the bag. I don’t recall Nixon being the secret politician behind JFK & LBJ’s action.

Also, don’t look at Nam without taking into account all the world events (fallen dominoes) leading up to it. for example, expanding Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe–remember the iron curtain?

While most of the world may not have had a dog in this fight against communisim, we certainly did if for no other reason than that a significant portion of Americans have sentimental or familial ties back to those European countries in turmoil. So in that sense, LawWife is eminiently correct that Americans have an moral obligation to assist and protect innocent people. It’s one thing to have immigrants coming to America of their initiative to seek a better life, it’s another to have boatloads of refugees.

And then came Nam and the need to stablize the damage done by France’s de-colonization. The fact that we had to work with Diem is rather unfortunate given his excesses, but within the context of the times, regime change wasn’t a tactical option. And communist oppression was very much a reality in post-colonial Vietnam, not to mention NK, Cambodia and China.

The fact that it was a politician’s war is a carryover from the Korean War. However misguided that strategy was, the last thing we wanted, but got anyway was a mass of SE Asian refugees.

What Jean Francois did after returning home and while still a soldier was beyond the pale. No matter how you slice it, Kerry had no business talking to Vietnamese officials in Paris under any circumstances as long as his solemn oath was in effect, unless he was sent there to represent our government–NO, diplomatic envoy on behalf of Ted Kennedy doesn’t count.

If 10% of what he claimed was true, where is the outrage at his own personal war crimes? In my mind, chasing down and killing a half-naked wounded teenager in the back is hardly courageous, let alone capturing a woman and leaving a dead child behind.

But that’s war–neither pretty nor neat, tho we, above any other, do try to limit collateral damage and civillian loss of life.

Fortunately for us, post 9/11, “Homey” don’t play that anymore. If we fight, we’ll fight to win, unilaterally if need be. And my hope is that we will never ever be the “good people” standing around doing nothing while evil spreads unchallenged.

Evil is something that practically non-existent Armenia can attest to after 2500 years of invasion and oppression by neighbors. But then again, schadenfreude is an all too common human trait.

5th, I hear you.

Omar’s introduction to Americana wouldn’t be complete until he’s had the opportunity to sit down and listen to a few vets.

Tip to Omar: leave the punk attitude at the door and with a little respect, you may get to hear the rest of the story that pop culture conveniently failed to cover.

Btw, I was just in London yesterday and Punk still lives trudges on, albeit a little older, pudgier, flabbier, saggier and what have you. Have you ever seen a 40-something Nancy Spungen-wannabe with a graying mohawk? Not pretty.

La Shawn made a statement a few weeks ago: “Lets pray for victory and a swift end to this war.” (or something like that). This is my sentiments exactly, but I have not heard this, save for this courageous young woman.

It is my fear that the no-win thought evident in the Viet Nam era has not been wholly excercized, despite the recent drum-beats and flag-waving. Our defeat of Saddam’s Iraq was quick and decisive, but what are we doing there now? What are our objectives?

And, of course, Kerry would make things worse, contrary to the liberals’ bluster. He does not have an estimate of a definite conclusion earlier than five years. Combine that with U.N. intervention (a Kerry hallmark) and we have the makings of a true quagmire.

‘As I recall, JFK got us into Nam after botching the Bay of Pigs, LBJ mucked it up and Nixon was left holding the bag. I don’t recall Nixon being the secret politician behind JFK & LBJ’s action.’

What im saying is, Nixon didnt do any better of a job than any of the guys who came before him. Far from it.

‘And communist oppression was very much a reality in post-colonial Vietnam, not to mention NK, Cambodia and China.’

Im quite used to this somewhat arrogant attitude. Im not being patronizing, but in Vietnam and China, its a fact most people supported the ‘commies.’ As i said, the US was scared to have elections in Vietnam for this very reason.

‘Keep in mind, you are talking to a young man too young to remember the vietnam war, let alone who was president when.’

So what….. im a young man….and a Brit…….and so have no right to voice my opinions on Vietnam? How silly. American and military History is my major. Dont get saying i dont know who the Presidents were, or suggesting i know nothing about US history or Vietnam.

‘Tip to Omar: leave the punk attitude at the door and with a little respect, you may get to hear the rest of the story that pop culture conveniently failed to cover.’

I dont need your ‘tips.’ Im not a Punk, and never was. I link to Punk Voter as it encourages young voters to get out there and register. It doesnt mean i am a punk, or a pop culture whore.

Thanks SCSIwuzzy. My sentiments exactly.

Omar, I can understand “Rap the Vote”, but “Punk”? hehehe, poor choice methinks. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been there and done dabbled in the punk/anarchist Euro-scene, but then I grew up. As for my tip, it’s one thing to read and study all the literature, but if you look around you, there shouldn’t be any problem finding Nam vets for some first hand stories of the ins & outs.

As for myself, had the war dragged on a few more years, I would have volunteered as opposed waiting to being drafted, if college wasn’t viable, but that’s where I’m coming from.

And ‘growing up’ doesnt include becoming more conservative.

Hmmm, let’s see… Way back when Ernst Reuther was running for the office of West Berlin mayor, he was accused of being a communist. His reply was roughly translated as “To be a socialist in youth is to be an idealist, to be be one as a older man is to be a fool”.

Another adage: A conservative is a liberal that was mugged.

Im sorry Wuzzy, but i dont buy this. You are in effect just disregarding/ignoring all of my valid, backed up statements due to my age. You dont need to have lived through something to have an in depth understand of it. Thats an insane notion.

Unfortunately, your statements aren’t valid, that’s why we’re debating the points. After years of prosecuting the Nam war under democratic CINCs, Nixon had to try something different. His strategy may not have been perfect, but you have to realize that CINCs do not operate in a vacuum. That is, congress and the people also have something to say about the objectives.

More so, old Uncle Walter and friends in the media leveraged our military victory in Tet into a political defeat back home. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

In essence, all wars are political, but once a nation has determined that it needs to fight, then the politicians need to step back and let the military do their thing to win an unconditional surrender from the enemy.

There are plenty of reasons why this war was politicized (on both sides of the aisle). But the root can be traced back to the Korean War and notions of containment and international law (read UN), instead of absolute victory.

The issue of you not knowing your history, is that you’re repeating revisionist history. Just as Kerry claimed that he was in Cambodia when he heard Nixon deny any US involvement. Kerry threw that out there to pander to the anti-Nixon crowd.

Here’s a good quote I picked up somewhere–kudos to the originator;

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn’t have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Let’s clear up one point: President Bush didn’t start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. Let’s look at the “worst” president and mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. (nevertheless, had we lost, we’d be speaking German and heiling the fuhrer or speaking Japanese and hailing the sun king)

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. (more lives lost under LBJ than Nixon)

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, captured a terrorist who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people. We lost 1000 soldiers, an average of 500 a year. There were 137 US Soldiers actually killed during the fight to Bagdad. The rest were killed while trying to re-establish an Iraqi government that US, UN, French, German and even the Iraqis would like to see run their country. i.e.: Trying to replace the destroyed (mainly by Iraqi looters) power stations, fuel lines, telephones and get a functioning government and police force up to a point so that the military forces who attacked Iraq could be withdrawn. Of the 1000 plus deaths, about 25% are non combat related (illness, accidents etc). Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but…

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We’ve been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his car sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

NOTE: Thanks to Grenada, Panama and especially Gulf War I the public has gotten an unhealthy expectation of war being a bloodless affair. Throw in some politicking and all of a sudden you have an outrage over a casuality list that compares favorably to the first one and a half minutes of the Battle of the Somme.

“This is an unvalid invalid point. Military victories didnt win the war in Vietnam. The Tet offensive showed just how vulnerable the US was, and the overwhelming support the VC had in South Vietnam. Tet was a victory in this sense. You are looking at the offensive from an extremely dated viewpoint.”

There you go again. Tet was the VC’s last hurrah, but the media had convinced the general population, and you, that it was actually a defeat for us. There is plenty of documentation and even quotes from VC leadership that were surprised beyond their wildest dreams that their defeat had been turned into a victory by Kerry & friends.

“And YOU are megaphoning pre Vietnam theories that military victories = winning of the war. In actual fact, military ‘victories’ in Vietnam were hollow.”

As events would turn out, our tactical victories were indeed hollow only because our politicians had us fight with an arm and leg tied behind our backs and then surrendered the AO.

If the South was so VC loving, why did millions vote with their lives and rickety boats to come to the land that “oppressed” them. That Vietnam had a brian drain would suggest that your VC victory is quite hollow to the core.

If Vietnam didn’t happen, something else would’ve.

“Again, the writer ignores an important fact. This was solely a humanitarian mission UNLIKE Iraq.”

In war, bullets & bombs don’t care about such nuances such as humanitarian vs “aggression”. More people died under Saddam than Milosevic. You mean to tell me that there is nothing humanitarian about going into Iraq? Oh yeah–Bush Lied, People Died… How dumb of me, I thot we were there to kickstart the Middle East into the 21st century–something Bush Sr should’ve done the first time around. With your background & education, I imagine the Sunnis could use some help getting there and start becoming a productive member of the global village.

Rather than go around and around on this, I’m going to do a Nixon and pull out of this discussion. Hasta la vista, baby