Obama: Didn't serve in military because wasn't drafted
By Soren Dayton Posted in 2008 | anti-military liberals | Barack Obama | Military — Comments (131) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Barack Obama has wanted to be President for seemingly his entire life. But he thinks that people serve and protect our country only because of coercion. For real. Chatting with a bunch of liberal reporters, he said:
I didn’t serve as many people my age because Vietnam was over by the time I was of draft age and we had then moved to an all volunteer army.
He could talk about being called to serve the country in some other way. But he doesn't. He could talk about what else he has done. But he doesn't. Instead he says that he didn't serve because he wasn't forced to do so.
This raises real questions about whether Obama actually has experience or understanding to command our military. He claims he does:
Obama later said he will “cede to no one the ability to talk about veterans issues.” He said his grandfather was a veteran and vowed to “advocate fiercely” on their behalf.
How can he advocate on anyone's behalf when he doesn't even understand why they serve their country? That's an astonishing level of naive arrogance.
Given that Wright served in the military for six years, he might have praised the military while railing against the civilian leadership. Or, he might have suggested that the military was being used for nefarious ends and suggested that his parishioners avoid service. Or, he might have avoided it entirely. Your speculation, while reinforcing certain stereotypes prevalent in these parts, adds little to the conversation. Cute name for Obama, though; cute nicknames are all the rage.
Did the lack of military experience of Cheney and Rumsfeld bother you, too? Not to mention Bush's apparent lack of interest in his cushy National Guard slot?
If Red Staters really really wanted a military veteran to be commander in chief, they would have voted for John Kerry over George Bush. But they didn't.
Funny, how no one cared about military service four years ago when the advantage went to the Dems. Now that the roles are reversed, suddenly it's important? Funny how that works...
Bush's military experience was little different than Kerry's. Bush spent over two years on active duty. Now admittedly he didn't get three Purple Hearts (without losing a single day's duty for medical care) but neither did he abandon his crew.
Rumsfeld is a retired Navy captain and fighter pilot.
As to Cheney, he was married when he came into consideration for the draft and for the Vietnam era married men were not drafted. Obama didn't get married until 1992, 9 years after graduation and also after Desert Storm.
So I'm not sure what case you think you were making but what you have managed to do is violate our terms of service which prohibit self-beclowning on a weekend and egregious stupidity.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
There was no draft in 1992, or earlier to about 1972-3. Desert Shield/Desert Storm was a "come as you are" conflict. He could have served, but decided not to. Married or not, the service will take you, nowadays.
Cowardice asks the question, is it expedient? And vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question, is it right? - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Did the lack of military experience of Cheney and Rumsfeld bother you, too? Not to mention Bush's apparent lack of interest in his cushy National Guard slot?
Their patriotism wasn't in question the way Obama's is.
I'm sorry if that offends your liberal sensibilities. But given the far-left-wing crowd that Obama has been running with, from terrorist Bill Ayers to black nationalist Reverend Wright, and Obama's unique background, Obama has a lot more to prove to America than Cheney did in 2000. Obama has a lot more to answer for--and only 5 more months to do it in.
BTW, Rumsfeld did serve in the Navy.
It wasn't Republicans busting their humps to disenfranchise men and women who were serving overseas by having their votes disallowed in Florida, while at the same time doing everything they could to have the votes of convicted felons counted.
Service men and women know exactly where their support comes from, and it ain't from little lefties like you and your treasonous suck buddy John Kerry. I've had bike accidents that deserved a Purple Heart more than his "injuries" did, and the fact that you think that is an "advantage" says quite a lot.
And you wonder why your patriotism is constantly in question?
To attack a war hero about the validity of his honors. Just accept that John Kerry was a great fighter and get over yourself!
site...go on back over to your dumping ground...pfft..begone!
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
So John Kerry is what passes as a war hero on the left?
Again, you wonder why your patriotism is questioned?
Sure, everyone plays the crass partisan politics game, and the swift boating of John Kerry certainly destroyed him as a candidate, but is it based in reality?
Snopes has accounts of all of Kerry's medals, and they sound legitimate. In addition, there is discussion of swift boats in general and the fact that Purple Hearts were regularly given out for minor shrapnel wounds that did not impede service on a boat.
The veterans who signed up to talk against Kerry largely did so because of his actions after the war when he spoke against the war and threw his medals away.
Was he a war hero? No more than any other soldier, although the whole beaching the boat and shooting a Vietnamese soldier in the back while he was running for cover sounded fairly heroic. It sounds like swift boat patrols were fairly dangerous and numerous Purple Hearts were given out for minor bullet/shrapnel wounds.
It was rather foolish for him to campaign on his military service, as he set himself up as a rather large target given his actions after returning home from Vietnam. But, for people on this site to impugn his military service while simultaneously ridiculing those who question the class of those who would do so is... well, I'm not sure which word fits. Hypocritical? Ironic? Most of you who laugh at Kerry didn't serve, let alone get wounded by shrapnel while on patrol. But Kerry has a rich wife, and he's a Democrat, so laugh away.
RBT
That's one view, one that I have read on liberal sites for sure. It's a point of view that I don't think you'll get many takers of here on RS, maybe over at KOS or MYDD, but not here.
There is another view, one that says that common folks, veterans, families of those that have served and others recognized John Kerry for what he was, an opportunist without real respect for the military or those who had served honorably. Frankly for anyone who served on active duty, the Lt Kerry type is well known and well despised.
The spin that you are selling about John F'n Kerry did not sell well before, and I think the truth of the matter was seen by the electorate.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
And a damned fool to make his service the central issue of his campaign. He also apparently embellished his service (see the next comment about Cambodia) and this clearly did not fly with the electorate.
I also do not call him a hero, no more than any other soldier who served. But, the swift boaters who took him down in the public's eye did not generally serve with him, and those that did were responding to his actions after the war, not during - read the link in my previous comment.
If he hadn't been so anti-war upon his return, and if he hadn't embellished his accounts, and if he hadn't dithered about for a week, he might have withstood the swift boat attacks. But to use his electoral failure as an indicator of his actions in war is rank dishonesty. Call a pig by its name, and that will do. The tendency around here is to embellish and twist facts such that the narrative bears little relationship to reality. Contributors have to frequently remind you what a crappy compromise McCain is, now that you've decided to go all in for him - an example of this tendency to justify a choice by biasing one's perception of reality. This self-willed blindness is a major problem.
First of all, what do you know about what goes on "around here" anyway?
Why don't you link to what the doctor who attended to him said about at least one of his wounds? Or would that be "biasing one's perception of reality"?
Try again. Your little lectures and links are not that convincing.
I've been reading for about 3 years, mostly as a lurker - a previous account got banned for calling out Moe, something that almost happened again recently. My particular political philosophy runs towards small government, fiscal conservatism, and personal responsibility - I don't belong in either of the major parties. I also prefer to stick to facts and try to avoid the rank partisan spin that infects so many internet news sources.
Again according to Wikipedia, Kerry's first Purple Heart was probably caused by shrapnel from a grenade he himself fired. The other medals seem more legitimate.
It's difficult to tell, but in reading up on this the most obvious conclusion is that numerous veterans had it in for Kerry due to his actions after returning home from war, as I've said numerous times. This in no way reflects on his action during a time of war, which seem honorable and courageous. This, of course, does not fit into the narrative constructed by the right to destroy Kerry as a candidate. I don't have respect for Kerry as a politician, and he certainly could have acted better upon his return, but as a soldier he seemed to do all right.
That explains it. My guess is your previous banning involved a bit more than "calling out Moe" based on your commenting history here in your brief 2 week reincarnation.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Although somebody already took care of this one for me while I was offline.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Kerry cannot be disputed because by God the man is a traitor to his country and military men and women tend to find that the most egregious of offenses...he does not deserve the respect or honor of this country...period!
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
However, once he lost the election, it would seem he decided he had more to gain politically by attacking his accusers than in keeping his promise to release his records. He'd rather this dispute go on than do something to resolve it. I can't say for sure whether Kerry is right, but his actions subsequent to this seem designed to intensify partisan conflict than to vindicate himself. Even if he is right about his actions in Vietnam, his actions regarding the controversy are wrong and damaging the country.
Of course, if the Swift Boat veterans were right, Kerry would have reason to not release his records. Of course you can't prove anything by a negative, but my question is why Kerry doesn't keep his promise. His failure to justify breaking his promise rightly feeds speculation about his reasons - but worse it keeps the pot boiling.
I recall that the Rosenburgs swore until their death that they were innocent and became a cause celebre on the left for decades until Soviet records proved they were lying. Kerry (whether he's lying or telling the truth) clearly prefers to make himself a cause celebre for decades than to do what is in his power to controvert his accusers.
And that he behaves this way, this says boatloads about his character - and not for the good.
I don't like the man, but I hate ignorance more. Here's a damned link.
Here's the crux:
On January 30, 2005, long after your linked story dated April 21, 2004, John Kerry promised on national television that he would sign a Form 180, which is the official form to release all his military records - he promised that he'd do that, but he never did.
Here's the relevant transcript from that show:
MR. RUSSERT: Many people who've been criticizing you have said: Senator, if you would just do one thing and that is sign Form 180, which would allow historians and journalists complete access to all your military records. Thus far, you have gotten the records, released them through your campaign. They say you should not be the filter. Sign Form 180 and let the historians...
SEN. KERRY: I'd be happy to put the records out. We put all the records out that I had been sent by the military. Then at the last moment, they sent some more stuff, which had some things that weren't even relevant to the record. So when we get--I'm going to sit down with them and make sure that they are clear and I am clear as to what is in the record and what isn't in the record and we'll put it out. I have no problem with that.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?
SEN. KERRY: But everything, Tim...
MR. RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?
SEN. KERRY: Yes, I will. But everything that we put in it, Tim--everything we put in--I mean, everything that was out was a full documentation of all of the medical records, all of the fitness reports. And I'd call on those who have challenged me, let's see their records. I want to see the records of each of those people who have put up a challenge, because some of them have some serious questions in them, and it hasn't been appropriate...
So let's see now, by my calculations, his promise was 1,209 days ago and counting...
Again, I don't like the man, but attack him on valid fronts, please. All of this distortion of reality plays well to the base but has a tendency to alienate the independents. It worked well in 2004 but the rise of the political blogging class has mad it far more difficult to twist the facts. There are plenty of valid criticisms to be made on substantive issues, and these will be necessary to win.
Frankly I have little hope for conservatives in 2008, the GOP has been co-opted and the liberals are on the rise. Still, one can hope.
I don't really need to repeat what "From ME to you" says just below. We're just repeating the on-line conversation I had sometime back, except that I was on your side of the questions until I got beyond the headlines.
Sound like a variant of Richard Nixon's infamous modified limited hangout routine.
Again, Mr. Kerry hasn't cleared the air. This doesn't prove him guilty, but does prevent resolution of the accusations and keeps the pot boiling through his refusal to turn off the burner (i.e. release his records to the public). Again, that speaks volumes about his character.
We just don't know what you're hoping for. Check that - I think I do...
of the charges by providng proof. He hasn't yet. Sen. Kerry only released a limited portion of his records and only to the Boston Globe. The Globe then published selected excerpts from the portion that they were given. Sen. Kerry's full record has never been made public as he promised to do!.
of man he is and they did....you call it swiftboating I call it the truth and oh by the way has Kerry ever released those military records for that one million dollars he was bet? The bet was for him to prove wrong one thing the Swiftboat Veterans for truth said in their ads and as the link to the Boston Globe showed he said he would take that million dollars and guess what it's now May 25th and still he has done nothing to disprove them....but you go ahead and believe what you want because when a man will not even defend his "honor" with his "truth" well that man is SCUM!
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/11/16/kerry...
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
It supports every statement I've made, especially that while his wartime record was indeed something to be proud of his actions upon returning home soured the record and led to his fellow soldiers calling him out as part of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
The spat between oilman Pickens (surely a coincidence) and Kerry sounds like a good deal of posturing, with Pickens backing off and changing the bet after Kerry calls him on it. Here's another article that again supports my claim that Kerry served honorably but tarnished his record with his actions after he returned from war.
Partisanship has led to a form of insanity whereby the extreme partisans become blind to reality, twisting facts (but not breaking them) and creating a narrative only tangentially related to reality.
because Kerry promised to prove the Swift Boat vets wrong and give that 1 million dollars to veterans....he has not done so since what..that article was 11/07 so not only is he a liar he is again proves his disdain for veterans because he has not collected on the 1 million dollar bet....if he knew the truth which he does not he would have WON the money.
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
When John Kerry, the War Hero, went to Iraq to visit the soldiers, how many sat with him, ate with him, introduced themselves to him, had their pictures taken with him and were generally happy he was there? I mean, if ANYONE knows a War Hero when they see one, those guys would. Right?
Or maybe they have enough brains to realize that the person the Democrats asked us to elect to lead the country was a self-aggrandizing ass, who stood on the dead bodies of his fallen comrades to advance his political career as surely as I am typing this.
And that, my friend, is why DEMOCRATS will lose in November. You can piss on our leg and tell us it is raining all you want (as you attempted in your post), but we are smart enough to know the difference.
And you can cut out the "you didn't serve" crap. I didn't play in the NBA either, but I know when someone sucks.
You provide no sources, but this is expected. A brief google suggests that your claims about Kerry's Iraq visit are likely BS. This claim is bolstered because the military does not differ significantly in their political preferences from the general public.
Yes, Kerry screwed up his campaign by attempting to use his military service as trump. No, this does not justify the smears leveled against his military service.
I'm not pissing on your leg, it really is raining. Wake up, find some conservative principals and representatives who will stick by them, or lose. A Democratic supermajority promises to be as crappy as the Bush presidency has been; we need real leaders, not caricatures.
Snopes? The Boston Globe? Got any links from Pravda to bolster your claim? I'll tell you what - find one picture - ONE - of a crowd of happy soldiers around John Kerry when he was in Iraq and I will apologize. I'm waiting.
Also, any comments about why, since the military doesn't differ from the general public in their political preferences, Democrats were so eager to get soldier's absentee ballots in Florida thrown out in 2000?
Snopes got anything on that one, pal?
The nice thing about Snopes is that it provides sources. There's a link to a reporter discussing the specifics of the photo that led to the ridicule of Kerry, the AP article gives the general info, and the Editor and Publisher article buttresses the claims.
And damned if I know whether and why Democrats tried to disenfranchise the military in Florida. I linked to a military publication to demonstrate that the military tends to follow the general public in their political preferences - looking back, it looks like the link didn't quite go through, hopefully this works better.
And since you can't be bothered, here's a link of a happy soldier and several more standing around taking pictures.
and if I ever met him, I would punch him in the face for what he said in regards to us being too stupid to do anything better with our lives then "end up in Iraq."
I know the type, I deployed with one. He was CAB hunter to the extreme, and finally got his "John Kerry" purple heart - despite not even being hurt.
Have you added to the population of the McCain 2008 minicity yet today?
we're talking about John Kerry. So we're actually attacking a poseur and asshat.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
and then beg to have a nut case like Carter upgrade the discharge a decade later..
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
|
Sorry about the basketball reference but I didn't want to use anything that might connote violence! |
that's SHE shoots, SHE scores, isn't it?
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
Was no joke to fly - they lost many to accidents.
Why are we rehashing this? Didn't we already debunk the Rather files? See LGF http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/12526 for further schooling.
Kerry spent what, 3-4 months in country (after doing a divo tour on a destroyer)? Got his 3 Purple Hearts and rolled. Can't blame him for that. Then he decided that it wasn't worth it (threw somebody's-not his-medals at the White House)...until he wanted to run for President...Shady.
I mean really, comparing that to McCain? Oh, right, he was locked away and didn't learn the right lessons from Vietnam. Riiiight.
Jeff
Cowardice asks the question, is it expedient? And vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question, is it right? - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Which Congressmen and Senators who turned 18 after the draft ended in 1973, had enlisted in our military? From both parties?
Damned few, I think.
At least Obama is being honest: He didn't feel any particular compulsion to enlist.
Well, anyone who is younger than age 53 today, turned 18 after the draft ended, meaning that for them, military service was now only voluntary. So,how many other Congressmen who are younger than age 53 enlisted?
At the time Obama would have considered a stint in the military, at the end of the seventies, the military was in low esteem and struggling to regain its place in American life. I'm not at all surprised that doing drugs and being a fake Marxist revolutionary looked better and even more authentic to Obama. Heck, it looked that way to most young people then.
obama is restating the Harkin doctrine -- only a nut or an idiot would actually volunteer for the military!
Look, I understand that the loss of the chickenhawk meme has rendered you lefties somewhat at a loss. You thought you understood the military thing -- republicans avoided service and Democrates served. That won't work with mcCain r both his sons. Try to come up with something better, kay?
Meanwhile, our guy served and yours didn't. Deal with it.
You're not fooling anyone, Moby.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I'm NOT a lefty, and I'm NO fan of Obama. Go read my other posts.
But I am trying to be fair about this. There are a whole lot of Americans, from both parties, or no party, who did NOT enlist in the military after the draft ended. In fact, I'm one of them.
My 18th birthday just happened to occur six months after the draft ended. Patriotic as I am, I didn't feel compelled to leave school and go enlist, with the Vietnam War largely over. And I did not serve.
The whole "chickenhawk" argument is a cheap shot, when it's applied to the generation of folks born after 1955. With the draft ended, and with the U.S. never being in enough of an emergency to drastically increase the size of the army, the vast majority of today's adults have not served in the military and never will. That's a major change from the older generation, for whom military service was common.
Military service is going to be a rarity among Congressmen from now on. That's a reality.
of the population that doesn't choose to serve? Are they somehow not qualified to support the troops? As I write this from Iraq, where I have spent the past ten months and still have about five to go, I am pretty confident that both of these candidates are committed to serving our men and women that serve in uniform. Both men feel that while we are deployed we should have all the right equipment and our families are taken care of back home. Both men feel that once we choose to leave the service we should access to quality benefits through the VA and that we have good programs like the GI bill to help us chase the American Dream. The only real difference between the two is McCain has genuine concern that Webb's GI bill will entice more people to get out and use those benefits and should be instead linked to how long you serve. Obama thinks that after three years of service during a time of war you have earned your benefits and it will increase recruiting.
So what's really the issue here?
should not by itself be a factor.
Plenty of great soldiers make lousy politicians.
This argument is a subset of the larger "who are you to judge" argument.
I am not a woman, so I will never give birth. Does this mean my concerns about medical care during pregnancy are irrelevant.
I don't work in a bank, so does that mean my thinking on the financial system is irrelevant?
I am not on TV, so does this mean I can't comment on the commentators?
People running for President should exude a certain level of public service, but military service is hardly a requirement.
Of course, certain circumstances, such as draft dodging or on the other end of the continuum, heroism, are legitimate but non-dispositive factors.
This argument is a subset of the larger "who are you to judge" argument.
I am not a woman, so I will never give birth. Does this mean my concerns about medical care during pregnancy are irrelevant.
I've actually heard that argument from feminists: Men aren't allowed to have opinions on abortion or birth control because they're not women.
My attitude is, there's PLENTY wrong with Obama's politics. Specifically whether he would stand up for this country if Chavez or some other dictator started yelling "Death to America."
But military service isn't going to alleviate that. Reverend Wright served in the military. But I have some real questions about Wright's attitude toward America. The fact that he once wore a uniform doesn't reassure me.
And conversely, I never served in the military like Reverend Wright, but I have defended America as best I can, on every soapbox I can climb up on.
Redstate has chosen McCain, and the goal now is to spin everything to be as positive for McCain and as negative for Obama as possible to reinforce this choice. Recent campaigns are won or lost based on perceptions of character and persona as much as they are actual policy positions. McCain's strength is his military service and so his supporters will draw a sharp distinction between Obama and McCain on this every chance they get.
As far as the bill is concerned I wonder about this whole 3 years thing, since there seems to be a stop-loss program that is being used to keep soldiers in the military for extra tours of duty during a time of conflict - it feels like a non-issue, but I'm not in the military so maybe I'm wrong and you can get out immediately. Personally I think it would be good if they could raise recruiting standards back to where they were in the 90s.
I am new to this whole blogging thing, but I am really interested in finding a place where the candidate doesn't matter and the issues are what's important.
It's very possible, and happens quite often, where a new Soldier enlists and goes through basic training and advanced individual training in the first six months, then is sent to a unit scheduled to deploy immediately for 12-15 months, returns home for less than a year, and deploys a second time for another 12-15 month tour. Usually the second tour is only possible because the Soldier is stop-lossed and he or she ends up serving more like 3.5 years. So in a three year enlistment a lot of Soldiers (but not all) spend about 24-30 months deployed, many of which are fighting almost every day. Stop loss means just that--you ain't going anywhere but to Iraq/Afghanistan.
If that doesn't earn you the right to honorably get out and actually use your benefits, I don't know what does.
To be honest it's hard enough finding websites where you can even trust the facts. I read a cross section of conservative and liberal blogs and just try to be aware of the bias. Every once in a while you stumble across a gem of a story such as the recent offensive against al Sadr by Maliki back in March. Did Maliki win, or did al Sadr win? It's rare to see such an obvious contradiction on a single story, usually the spin is done via selective incorporation of facts.
As for foreign policy, McCain will stay in Iraq until we win. Obama wants a phased withdrawal over a year period or something like that (you can look at his website for specifics). McCain thinks we should isolate Iran, while Obama says we should engage in diplomacy. He is heavily criticized by the right for suggesting unconditional talks. The two opposing views on this are well represented by two op-eds in the WSJ, one by Joe Lieberman (pro McCain) and one by Joe Biden (pro Obama).
Good luck in your quest for truth.
I read from both sides and have to come to my own opinion because I can't trust anyone else's. The entire media and internet is filled with opinion, and very short on whole stories with facts. Everything is spin. Everything only tells one side of the story. We don't debate the issues--we already know what we want others to believe so we focus our argument on convincing others to see it the same way. Instead of the debate determining what's right, our prejudice determines what we will say or not say in the debate.
The system is broken.
because politics is about setting priorities and tradeoffs.
We don't have philosopher kings in this country. Ergo, there is a political process that involves selecting candidates.
Character matters.
What people have done in the past, matters.
We do not vote for a collection of policy positions. Otherwise, I would cast my vote for the Heritage Foundation with the Cato Institute as VP.
Otherwise, I would cast my vote for the Heritage Foundation with the Cato Institute as VP.
That made me laugh. On a side note, the Director of the Cato Institute did endorse Rudy Giuliani.
There are various eyes. Even the Sphinx has eyes: and as a result there are various truths, and as a result there is no truth.
~Friedrich Nietzsche
"Personally I think it would be good if they could raise recruiting standards back to where they were in the 90s."
So clever, and so untrue.
And maybe I think it would be good if we never elected another pitiful Democrat sex offender as President. You know - back to where we were in the 90's.
Recruiting standards have been lowered recently in an attempt to meet quotas. Recruiting standards were much higher during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. If you disagree, back it up.
Clinton was a perjurer, not a sex offender.
Spew more drivel, please.
Bill Clinton had a very credible charge of rape leveled against him, so I regard him as a perjurer, sexual predator and unconvicted rapist.
And as far as recruiting standards, if you posit the notion that they have fallen, YOU back it up. I look forward to the link from The Communist Workers Daily or an op ed from Noam Chomsky.
I now invoke the Hinz rule. Good day.
The actual enlistment standards have not changed. However, there has been an increase in CAT IV recruits from about 2% to about 4%. This might sound a little bad, but the statutory limit is something like 20%, so we are rather clearly meeting our standards.
Type in "CAT IV recruits" into google, and the first article that pops up shows why this is a major problem for the armed forces.
Cat IV recruits are less likely to succeed and require more hardware to achieve the same objectives as compared with higher category recruits.
I fully understand why CAT IV recruits are not the most desirable, and share your concern about allowing more to enlist. However, it is not the standards that have been lowered, only the "quality" of recruits, and even here, well within what is allowed by law.
But invoking the Hinz rule when you've made yet another factually unsubstantiated claim is weak. Standards have fallen.
- John Kerry was a War Hero, because Snopes says so
- John Kerry has refuted all the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth allegations by releasing his records, because the Boston Globe and Snopes says so
- The troops in Iraq were thrilled to see John Kerry when he visited, swarmed around him and cheered because Snopes says so - kinda, and here is a LINK for the PICTURE...oops, doesn't work...but you shoulda seen it, it was EVERYWHERE...
- Recruiting standards for the military have fallen, because Marty Meehan and the New York Times says so
- The military has the exact same political preferences as the population as a whole, because some guy from Ramapo College in New Jersey says so, except that is not exactly what he said
etc, etc, etc.
So thin, and weak, and transparent and boring. Sigh.
WAIT - The Weekly World News say George W. Bush is an alien - a SOURCE, so it must be so.
Off to a picnic, am I, and thank God Almighty for TRUE war heros, living and fallen.
*H/T to bs
Do an image search for John Kerry soldiers and you'll find several with apparently happy soldiers talking with him and getting their picture taken with him. I realize this might tax your limited research skills.
I don't think John Kerry was a war hero and stated so elsewhere, but he didn't go AWOL or skip to Canada or request deferments or get assigned to duty with a unit that would never see combat. He probably had a less than honorable discharge which was later white-washed, most likely not caused by actions during combat. Still, you would jump from this mixed review to holding an extreme stance that he could not have done anything of worth during combat because that would violate your perception of him.
Try searching for "Army recruiting standards" and you'll find a slew of articles on lower standards being used to help meet recruiting goals. The number of Cat IV recruits in the Army rose from 0.6% of new recruits in FY 2004 to 4.4% in FY 2005. In FY 2007 it was 4.1%. I referenced another article that points out how detrimental category IV recruits are on the military. (FYI that links to the Heritage Foundation).
As for the peer-reviewed journal article (published in Armed Forces and Society), it is not surprising that you'd attack real scholarly research with gusto. The abstract in full:
"The 2004 U.S. presidential election was a wartime contest that entailed a great deal of discussion about the role that previous military service plays in elections for both candidates and the electorate. Using polling data throughout 2004, this article examines party identification, candidate affect, and vote choice preferences among veterans and nonveterans in the electorate. Despite widespread assumptions depicting the veteran population as deeply Republican, those with military experience in 2004 largely mirrored their nonveteran peers in terms of partisan identification, warmth toward candidates, ballot intentions, and vote choice. One important exception manifested after the "Swift Boat" advertisement in September, which impelled significant numbers of veterans who identify with the Democratic Party to express the intention to vote for George W. Bush."
Like ducks in a barrel, except they're zombie ducks.
"...you'll find several with apparently happy soldiers talking with him and getting their picture taken with him"
Not during his visit to Iraq, unfortunately. Maybe you could provide some of those since I missed them. And since you are so good at research and links, a few articles would be helpful to clear that one up.
"I referenced another article that points out how detrimental category IV recruits are on the military."
Strawman. Cat IV recruiting is WELL within the recruitment standards that you degrade.
"...those with military experience in 2004 .."
...is the population being studied. This is hardly representative of active duty personnel, which was the subject of the comment. The methods used to come up with the conclusion are less than rock-solid ("polling data"? geez...), as a cursory reading of the abstract would indicate. The study is also one data point, in one election, at one particular time, and is being used by you to make a broad, sweeping generalization.
Zombie ducks, indeed. Good luck in your sophmore year, you are already debating like one.
Hinz rule FOR SURE this time.
during times of peace as well as war. During peace, it is usually restricted to a specific skill set (pilots, for example). The truth, if you care, is that stop loss was used more often under Carter and Clinton because budget cuts left the manpower levels too thin. I know, because it happened to me and my others in my squadron.
Overall recruiting standards have risen significantly since the 90's - across the board in all branches. From % HSDG (HS Diploma grads), to % with 2 and 4 year degrees entering the service have all increased. This is especially noteworthy since many high schools are graduating lower standard students.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
From what I can tell recruiting standards have been well below the average set by the previous decade since 2004. I imagine that Desert Storm/Desert Shield helped improve standards dramatically given our resounding success and lack of casualties, but recently we've had problems. I work with a lady who served as an officer in the marines for 6 years and deployed in Afghanistan, and she is of the opinion that the military has been trashed and most certainly could not handle another major operation. Sure, that is anecdotal, but there's a reason Admiral Fallon was so adamantly against hostile actions against Iran - we are not capable of dealing with that conflict if it escalates.
And I wasn't criticizing stop-loss, just suggesting that if there are fears that Webb's GI bill will decrease the average time served there are programs in place which are already being utilized that would make this a non-issue.
you really should recognize what the issue is.
In 2004, and in 2000, serving in the military, as a volunteer, was, we were told, a really important qualification for office. Those of us who could read the Constitution and look at the biographies of American presidents disagreed but we were just being partisan.
Now it seems that being a member of the military is not only not important, but, if we listen to Tom Harkin it is a negative.
Now what caused this sudden volte face? Obviously, in 2000 and 2004 the Dems had a candidate who they perceived had military experience (in one case a dope smoking reporter for Stars and Stripes who was the only E-4 in Southeast Asia with his own bodyguard and in the latter case an opportunistic poseur who managed to police up 3 Purple Hearts in 6 months while never losing a day in hospital/convalescence), in 2008 their candidate is a neo-Marxist.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
Do you think military service should be a requirement? Honest question. Do you think you should have to serve in the military to understand how to properly support the troops? I'm not saying there is any correct answer here because it's just a matter of opinion. I don't think there is anything wrong if someone believes that a requirement to be Commander in Chief of our military should have prior military experience. Is being a Captain in the Navy enough military experience to pass your threshold? I personally don't feel that way. I think after listening to both of the candidates talk about the real issues they both have a great understanding for how the military works and they have their own ideas of how and when to deploy it.
What it really comes down to is how they would use the military. McCain believes we are in the war of our generation against an enemy comparable to Nazi Germany. He believes that if our troops are moved out of Iraq too soon it will ruin the progress we have made and the rest of the Middle East will fall to al Qaeda. I think one big error McCain makes in his judgment is he seems to put everyone under the same umbrella--Sunni and Shia, Arab and Persian, Syria and Iran, Hamas and Hizbollah--but these are all different groups that should be treated accordingly. I have heard both al Qaeda and Iran compared to Nazi Germany, but the two of these groups probably couldn't be more different in reality.
Obama thinks that in order to get the Iraqi government to step up and take responsibility for their country we have to use our withdrawal as leverage to get them moving. He thinks that by keeping the regional players out of the process of rebuilding of Iraq we are making a huge mistake. He believes that we need to hold Syria and Iran accountable for helping the big picture because Iraq's success affects the entire region, especially its neighbors. He thinks that the war in Iraq has had a negative affect for US security and long-term interest in the Middle East because it has made Iran and al Qaeda stronger while hurting our military and our reputation in the world.
Is it smart to sit down with Ahmedinejad? That depends on how serious a threat you believe Iran to be. If you think Iran is the next Nazi Germany, then you probably don't think diplomacy will have any effect because it failed prior to WWII. But if you think Iran, while they are stronger today then in 2003, has not yet achieved the status of Nazi Germany, then you probably think there is time left to give stronger diplomacy a chance before we resort to WWIII.
I personally think Iran is a threat to its neighbors, but I think many people want to make Iran seem like a larger threat to Israel than they are. Israel is by far the strongest country in the Middle East, and has proven it many times in recent history. Israel has hundreds of nukes with many different ways to deploy them, while Iran doesn't have any and is years away from building one. Yes, Iran could have acquired one already, or could be trying to get one, but if they had it and they were serious they would have already used it. And if they get one in the near future and actually do use it Tehran will be completely destroyed by Israel's second strike capabilities, not to mention the retaliation from the West.
Sorry, got a little carried away. Good night from Iraq (1:26am).
How can you sit there and spew out that drivel about Iran being less of a threat to Israel than we think. You just ignore the fact that Iran's political and religious leaders have called for the out and out destruction of Israel. You ignore the fact that the Iranian president WANTS to start Armageddon because he believes it will bring about the appearance of the "Hidden Imam" , what he considers his "saviour". You also have to take into consideration the proximity of Iran to Israel. Once Iran goes nuclear they won't need a missile to hit Tel Aviv, they can smuggle one in quite easily. These people have shown they have no qualms about killing their own or anyone else's people.
Also, on another note, being a vet of the Navy and Marine Corps I found your posts comparing and contrasting McCain and Obama's "understanding" of the military quite interesting.
I know when John McCain was lying on the dirt floor of some Vietnamese "interview" room, his body broken and bleeding, that he was gaining a perspective on military life Mr. Obama
has no problem understanding and relating too. And I know for a fact that Obama has a clear understanding what it's like to
pilot an American jet while dodging air to air ordinance from Russian and Chinese made jets and to hear the flak from anti-aircraft battery's popping through the skin of your plane. And I am sure that Obama would have no problem with just the simple discipline and routine of on base life.
And if you think that as far as the military goes, the only differences between Obama and McCain are a few issues with
a G.I. Bill than you are sadly mistaken. Lets see about the
quality and quantity of our soldiers equipment after an Obama
administration runs this countries economy and military into the ground. The wholesale damage that Carter and Clinton did to our intelligence and out military will seem like small potatoes.
The damage Carter
let me add just one data point here on Obama.
He gave a commencement address today to Wesleyan University. The topic of the speech was national service and in the course of it Obama talked about his own experience a bit and tied it into the Kennedy legacy as he interprets it. (The thrust was a bit like Michelle's infamous directive to blue-collar women in Ohio to turn down those prestigious, six-figure jobs with corporations that they were mulling over, and instead work as teachers and nurses aides, etc. -- but more pleasantly expressed).
He called on the graduates to enter national service and spoke approvingly of the following:
The Peace Corps (he is very big on this)
The Foreign Service (State Dept)
Community organizing
Civil rights work
Anti-poverty and charity organizing
Teaching and tutoring
Environment and alternate energy work
Political activism
Notice anything missing here?
Yes, Obama failed to make any mention, in any part of his speech, of the men and women serving in our military. On Memorial Day weekend. In a time of war. A war we are winning. Not a single word.
Well, actually, there was one mention. I noted the discussion of political activism. It turns out that it's only national service when you work for certain candidates or causes. And those would be left-wing candidates and causes. Obama specifically mentioned poverty and peace.
What he said was:"In a time of war, you must work for peace."
And that was it, the only mention of war. Yes, PittsburghSoldier, be assured that as far as Obama is concerned, you are not performing national service. You are most definitely not serving your country. (But if I went to your recruiting center or your training or base camp and threw red paint around and screamed antiwar slogans, Barack would say I was serving my country.)
This speech illustrates better than anything else that Obama is not anti-war or anti-soldier, exactly -- he simply cannot conceive of a world in which military service is honorable.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You've identified the key issue - Obama's value system cannot conceive of American's military power as being valuable nor the people serving in the military as performing honorable.
It's not just a single acquaintance or a single speech - when you look at Obama over the years, you do get a coherent picture of his values and vision for America. And that is eclipse, abdication, and self-flagellation (for starters).
I am appalled that Obama could give a speech about serving your country (which was in the first paragraph of his speech), and not even mention military service. During Memorial Day Weekend, no less.
I guess he just doesn't believe in it.
There are millions of other Americans, myself included, who never served in the military, but who would not have made such a glaring omission.
To me, this is much more serious than the original issue of this discussion. Because it's what Obama believes now. You don't have to infer anything from his past track record.
0 for the banner ad.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Please check the posting rules, specifically the "purpose of this site" portion, and amend your signature tag accordingly. While we don't require that you support McCain or any other Republican candidate, this isn't a site to promote candidates who are running against Republicans.
------------
I went to remove it but it seems to already be gone? Mysterious
no?
I will probably vote for McCain, I'll have to bring my toothbrush and mouth wash to get rid of that nasty taste though.
The Bob Barr sig was just me venting over Mr. Straight Talk taking on global warming for his own. I was so pissed off I considered not voting for POTUS but I know better. It was like here's a Libertarian more conservative Republican than our own candidate!
Anyway as far as I can tell the sig is gone, I don't see it in My Account so I guess someone from Redstate removed it.
This is a conservative and Republican site. Always has been.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
...as far as distinguishing between directors and moderators (and then a third unnamed tier like you, Neil, with certain regulatory powers such as editing or banning).
A scorecard might be helpful to tell the players apart.
This was supposed to be a response to this comment of Neil.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
The original masthead for this site was "Collaborative Republicanism for the Masses," and the original posting rules stated that this was a place to advance and discuss Republican activism. Since then, we have changed the masthead and added "conservative" but it's still "conservative AND Republican."
I went ahead and nixed your sig. You can feel free to put something else up there if you want.
BTW, Bob Barr is just plain nuts. And now that he's officially LP he's not conservative whatsoever anymore.
------------
And a registered Republican. So Barr's nuts. And we are not lacking for those around here I know. I could make a great case that the behavior of quite a few of our "republican" representatives could be symptomatic of some type of psychosis. They sure don't seem to be in touch with reality, at least not any more so the old B. Barr. I could very easily be influenced by a guy who is openly talking about smaller government, tax and tort reform, fiscal responsibility and securing our borders etc. Kinda sounds familiar, like I heard it all somewhere before.....ahh well.
Look guys, I know Barr hasn't got a chance. As I said the sig
was more about frustration on my part with "our" nominee. And though on principle I could make a great argument that on issues Barr is more conservative than McCain, it doesn't mean he is more Republican. And that's not necessarily a good thing.
You violated a posting rule, the directors brought that to your attention in a rather low keyed manner and also cleansed the offending graphic - but nobody's angry at you for it. You've explained your reasons now.
What might get people agitated is if you continue to go on, because 1) it doesn't matter in the end why you did what you did; and 2) everyone agrees on the solution. Nobody's judging your personal conservative bona fides that I can tell.
Let's instead remember our fallen heroes.
Leon is a moderator, not a director (and technically I'm neither). So appeal to the Directors is available.
civil truth is correct that arguing with Leon about this is contraindicated though. Appeal is to the Directors via the Contact Form link up top (You know, two slots away from the Posting Rules link).
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
My full comment ended up in the wrong place, but can be found here
I just utterly disagree on the merits and/or conservatism of Bob Barr, but I really don't have the time or the inclination for a debate about that. And I'm really not all that upset in the slightest. And I'm sure that going forward you can find lots of creative ways to express your unhappiness with McCain that don't involve pimping LP candidates, and everybody will be fine.
So, cheers, hope you have a couple of cold ones and some grilled steak tomorrow with your family, and remember our fallen men and women.
------------
1. Frederick the Great once said that he had an ass that accompanied him on a hundred campaigns and in the end it was still an ass.
Of course military service should not be requirement for elective office. And there is something dreadfully wrong, and deeply unAmerican, about someone who thinks military should be required or who votes for someone based on that service. One would have had a right to look askance at someone who came of age 1941-45 and didn't serve, but outside that 4 year period I don't believe the average American had a duty to go in the military.
A president has a SecDef, service secretaries, the JCS, and service staffs to advise on military policy. Why we think being a junior officer or enlisted man would help inform that opinion in any meaningful way is beyond me.
BTW, I say this as a retired Army infantry officer.
2. Obama's position is just naive and runs in the face of everything we know about and have experienced in dealing with Iran.
Hezbollah is an Iranian client. Hamas is an Iranian client.Syria is an Iranian ally. I don't know how you can look at that and conclude that McCain has made an error.
How long do you think the UAE, etc., will wait before making their peace with Iran if we leave Iraq? Try fighting or even patrolling in the Persian Gulf without Dubai, Oman, Bahrain, etc. providing basing.
Regardless of how anyone feels about the how we got into the war we are there. Leaving short of a demonstrable success really is not an option we have.
3. So we increase our leverage by threatening to abandon them. I can see how that line of reasoning has a Martian logic type of appeal.
How does he plan to hold Syria and Iran "accountable". He's for abandoning our ally, Iraq, trashing our credibility with regional allies from Turkey to Saudi Arabia, and demonstrating to every terrorist organization in the world that we will cave in. Welcome to Jimmy Carter's second term.
3. Sitting down with Ahmadinejad is a great move if you want to undercut the democracy movement in Iran and his political opposition while strengthening his hand and encouraging his current behavior. If you don't like any of those outcomes than Obama's proposal is nothing short of stupidity.
4. Strength if fleeting, and judging from the dog's breakfast that Israel made of its last soiree in Lebanon I'd also contend that Israel is no longer prohibitively stronger than its enemies. One moderate sized nuke will finish Israel. This is not the case for Iran. This, and a professed willingness to use said nukes, is why Iran can't be allowed to possess them.
----------
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
It doesn't matter what Israel's retaliation would do to Iran. A couple of well-placed nukes would end the state of Israel as we know it and consitute a second holocaust.
On the whole Kerry-purple heart thing, I would note that Ronald Reagan never earned a purple heart, but he did take a bullet. At 70 no less!
Reagan is a beacon in our nation's history, and Kerry is a pimple. Libs, deal with it the best you can.
Least of all his naive arrogance. It is hourly, daily, and integral to what and who he is. It is expected and we are never disappointed.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
Mine was too, so I guess I'm covered.....
I'm really a draft-dodger..
(I volunteered)
in WWI near the end of the war.
Everyone else in his barrack died of influenza (Spanish flu). By the time my grandpa recovered from influenza, the war had ended.
Thank you and all our service people and military families!
Much better arguments against the Webb bill and to counter what Obama said on the floor.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
There not only wasn't a draft when I turned 18, I fell in the 18-month window of people that didn't even have to register with Selective Service. Yet, I saw joining the army as an opportunity to serve my country.
I also had to laugh at Obama's campaign going after McCain because he wasn't there for the Supplemental Bill vote. They had the audacity to
question Senator McCain's committment to the military
He wants to turn his weakness into strength
and his opponents strength into weakness.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
And usually backfires. He'd be better off not addressing the military at all.
But then, don't most democrats think our military should only be used for disaster cleanup? I suppose there's a place he can go with it.
Obama was born in 1961. He turned 18 in 1979, during what even veterans will concede was pretty much the absolute nadir of the all volunteer army. I had friends from military families who wanted nothing to do with the military during the post Vietnam, post Watergate, administration of Jimmy Carter (some even more so after having served in Germany or Korea and being exposed to a military that did not match their expectations or standards). There are reasons other than lacking patriotism for not serving or not reenlisting during that particular point in time.
So what if Obama didn't volunteer in those circumstances? It's hardly comparable to a fighting age patriot not volunteering after Pearl Harbor, or finding some reason to be otherwise occupied after September 11, 2001.
It doesn't even compare to dodging service during Vietnam. Compare Obama to Bill Clinton (we'll leave Rove, Cheney, Bush, etc., out of it to avoid muddying the issue with partisanship). When Clinton was the same age, there was a shooting war going on, not to mention a draft. Clinton had to work to avoid serving his country during Vietnam and someone less motivated to dodge the draft had to go in his place; it wasn't like that for Obama.
This is a weak issue. There are strong issues with regard to Obama - principally the gap between his ideological worldview and that of your average American. We only innoculate people against paying attention to the serious arguments when we make bogus ones.
Setting aside his failure to volunteer in an era when a lot of people chose not to volunteer, I do think there is a fair issue as to whether he understands what our military does and whether he can effectively lead and support them. I think in that respect he differs from McCain, who clearly totally understands those issues. But, we're not going to get to a real debate on that by focusing on whether he volunteered in 1979 to go sit in a barracks in Germany; that kind of red herring issue only distracts from focusing on what is a much deeper disconnect with mainstream America.
No one should have the worthiness of their service to our blessed country minimized. I come from a military family and tried to volunteer out of high school but my hearing loss was too great to be accepted. I still feel a sense of loss at being denied the opportunity. God bless you and every veteran.
Tim Schieferecke
I think you have observed on this site before that your service in a rifle platoon in Germany came at the nadir of the volunteer army.
Obviously, good and great people served during those times, but it was still a tough time for the military. I think it's hard to fault people aware of the then current situation for choosing against enlisting.
I was in the first part of ROTC and went to basic camp during the Carter years, I sis not sign up for the full hitch because it was such a miserable experience. The moral was horrible, the first night I was allowed to roam the base, three people tried to sell me drugs. I saw senior NCO's getting in fistfights with each other in front of the cadets.
He is right it was a horrible low point in our nation's military.
If I had known that in two years Reagan would come in and improve the pay, requirements, and moral of the military I might have stayed in.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
With all due respect, this is not about you. No one is nullifying your service. Peacetime soldiers are soldiers too, and their and your service is honored service to the country.
That said, it remains a demonstrable fact in the the late seventies and early eighties the US was not fighting an ongoing shooting war. No child of Obama's - and no child of anyone of similar age - will ever ask him, "What did you do in the war, Daddy?" because there was no shooting war. (Yeah, I know there was the cold war, but there's a reason they use the modifier.) That good people served during that time period doesn't change the basic fact that it was not wartime with general conscription or strong pushes for widespread enlistment.
It's plain stupid to attack someone for not signing up for the military during peacetime. Sure, people do sign up in peacetime, some for pure unalloyed patriotic reasons, and their service is honorable. You can honor their service without proceeding to the conclusion that those who did not volunteer during peacetime somehow lack patriotism, which seems to be the point of the thread.
Let's look at this argument in terms of the Republican "brand" (a stupid term in many ways, especially for Republicans to apply to themselves as it makes us look like soap merchants, but since it is the jargon of the moment, I will go with it.) Our brand has big problems. People from all parties dislike Bush at historically high levels. We are losing elections in places where, no matter what the local issues, we shouldn't be able to lose elections. A lot of people don't like us, don't trust us, and don't want to hear what we have to say.
In those circumstances, it behooves us to avoid striking at the capillary. We have work to do just to get to where people will listen to us with an open mind. We have to rebuild credibility, and focus on the core, true arguments that make us the right party to support. A specious argument that Obama is not a patriot because he didn't volunteer in 1979 is not that kind of argument. As is clear from the course of this thread, it is even counterproductive because it just inevitably dredges up a lot of issues about Bush and his advisors that are better viewed by us as no longer relevant, if they ever were, and muddies the water by making it seem that people like Markos Kouritsa have some kind of moral superiority that Obama can never have just because they served.
Here's the bottom line. McCain not only served, he was a bona fide hero, displaying extraordinary courage. Not many of us - and certainly not I - could have done what he did. It only detracts from his real heroics to muddy the picture with marginal attacks on Obama. Even if Obama had volunteered in 1979, there is scant chance he would have been a McCain. It's not just that McCain served - it's the way he served, and what that tells us about his character, and what kind of President he can be.
For some strange reason, Obama wants to take on McCain on military service and the ability to lead our Armed Forces.
When Obama says things like "McCain has too much military service to be the Commander in Chief", his lack of military service is fair game.
military is that he claims that because of his assertion that because he didn't serve he would be a better CIC. That "Mies van der Rohe" way of thinking that 'less is more' applied to military experience is frightening.
this one's for you:
thanks to you, the vision of the mad General Orlov in "Octopussy" remained a dream
And now back to the movie. The evil Kemal Khan having been dispatched, James Bond is being rowed to the island of the Octopussy cult to recover. "In, out, in, out..." :>)
a great service, as their presence was part of the deterrent (which included nuclear retaliation at the margin) that kept the Red Army from rolling westwards. This was true even in the 70's with all the post Vietname malaise in our military (which my friends saw first hand when they got out of ROTC) BTW, Reagan's leadership helped cure the malaise, even though he never won a purple heart
Veterans, we thank you, wherever you served.
I am against -> BHO !!
But I can say it has been the Dems and not the GOP that has been pushing for increased medical care for Vets the past several years and now increased educational benefits for our Vets.
since they are the ones who raped the VA system in the first place! Having spent years cutting and denying basic funding of both the health care and education segments of the VA budgets they should by now be ashamed enough to put back a small percentage of what they stole!
Oh, wait a minute Dems have no shame!! My bad!!!
and they will try to buy votes with some cash and programs. Reality is they are the ones who hollowed out the military infrastructure and diverted money from the VA for decades. There is no easy solution now that will fix the system in the near future.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
You are wrong, produce one fact to prove your point. I support the GOP but I am ashamed of their track-record.
Here is a excerpt from a veteran's website in 2003 -
Today the House of Representatives will vote on a resolution that if passed will devastate the Veterans Administration's budget and severely reduce its medical, disability, and benefit programs. On the verge of war in Iraq, the Republican Party has placed in its cross-hairs American veterans from earlier wars.
The Republican majority of the House Budget Committee is reducing President Bush's proposed budget by about $844 million in health care and an additional $463 million in benefit programs including disability compensation, vocational rehabilitation, education survivor's benefits, and pension programs from next year's budget. In addition to these cuts, the GOP is planning to cut $15 billion from the veteran programs over the next 10 years. The soldiers and sailors that are currently in harms way in the the Middle East, are about to have their future veterans' benefits and health care slashed. If, that is, the Republicans get their way.
According to the Veterans Administration, 28 million veterans are currently using VA benefits and another 70 million Americans are potentially eligible for such programs, a quarter of the county's population. With the economy in a downward spiral and unemployment rising quickly, an increased number of veterans will be turning to the Veterans Administration for assistance. Yet, the VA budget is about to shrink.
"As the nation expresses support for our soldiers and sailors on the verge of war in the Middle East, even from us who are deeply opposed to this unnecessary war," says Stewart Nusbaumer of Veterans Against Iraq War" (www.vaiw.org), the Republicans are expressing contempt by cutting the veterans budget."
Nearly a third of the Gulf War veterans have submitted claims to the Veterans Administration for disability, this is about 209,000 veterans. Gulf War II may have as many or more requesting VA assistance, but with a Veterans Administration that will be smaller and with less resources.
“This could mean the loss of 19,000 nurses, equating to the loss of 6.6 million outpatient visits or more than three-quarters of a million hospital bed days,†says Edward Heath, National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans. “But that is not all of the devastation that will
be caused by the proposed cuts. Congress will be reaching into the pockets of our nations service-connected veterans, including combat disabled veterans, and robbing them and their survivors of a portion of their compensation. Ninety percent of VA mandatory spending is from cash payments to service-connected disabled veterans, low-income wartime veterans, and their
survivors.â€
Is there no shame? - Commander Heath asked.
According to Congressman Lane Evens (D-IL), the ranking Democratic Member of the House Veteran's Affairs Committee, these cuts are picking up the slack for the controversial tax cuts, he stated. "These cuts must be made, so that our government can afford to provide a tax cut which will benefit only the wealthiest Americans, many of who never served in the military."
This is utterly humiliating to every veteran and every active duty service person. On the verge of war, the Republicans are stabbing veterans of earlier wars in the back.
Veterans and Family Members: Go to VAIW's Homepage , there is a Homepage button at the top of this page on the right. When on the Homepage, scroll down past the Operation Dire Distress announcemnts to the Statement of Purpose. Read the Statement, if you agree with its content, then Endorse VAIW by filling out the form just below the Statement. There is one form for Veterans and one for Family Members.
Note: Kate McLaughlin served in the US Air Force and the Force Reserve. She is currently a full time student and is studing nursing.
Posted Wednesday, March 19, 2003
argument...a other group? any other link? I mean really!
Do you not know they have liars who are associated with their group? Do you not know Jesse Macbeth? in the same 03 timeframe to try to get them noticed...he was actually in their commercials...short memory?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003739269_fakeranger08m...
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
Hey FWguy...we have a rule here for Young dudes..you have to tell us what Community College you went to...Only then will we reply to you...We are waiting
"As the nation expresses support for our soldiers and sailors on the verge of war in the Middle East, even from us who are deeply opposed to this unnecessary war," says Stewart Nusbaumer of Veterans Against Iraq War" (www.vaiw.org), the Republicans are expressing contempt by cutting the veterans budget."
You spilled the beans
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I do not believe that military experience is a prerequisite for being a good president, but it certainly helps.
Using this site as an analogy, I presume that most Redstate inhabitants are pro-military and have some understanding of the uniformed services as a result. So when we see the handles "c17wife" or "cvn-76," we already know something about that writer. (Speciallist, the spelling you use makes me wonder??)
In the same way, a President with a working knowledge of the components of the Defense Department can save precious time responding to the 3AM phone call if he/she does not have to be tutored on the basics.
If a candidate is not a veteran, he/she should respect the rubber-meets-the-road job of the military. I definitely would not vote for someone who associates with people who bombed the Pentagon.
SD
HopeBamma learned everything he needed to know about the military by listening to his pastor, the Rev. Wright in those 20 years he spent sitting in the pews of Wright's church. Care to bet what sort of message Wright delivered about the military?
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !