Columnist: Draft Rush

[doc9464]

Re: Only if Franken gets drafted too

> Like FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and Bill Clinton? (None of them
> served in the military)

No they didn't. I don't think FDR, Wilson, and Clinton tried to do what Bush does. Bush has gone out his way to conflate his time in the National Guard with the way the National Guard performs now. When Bush was in, it was the "rich folks" way to get into the guard to avoid military service in Vietnam. Bush tries to show an indignant attitude about the National Guard like the time he spent getting his teeth cleaned was actual service. And Clinton, Wilson, and FDR didn't run around in a flight suit with an overpacked codpiece. This administration has no one who served at all. Rummy, Cheney, etc...all are "yellow elephants". They prove they know nothing and they disrepected the military people who did know how to prosecute a war. Finally FDR, Wilson, and Clinton had successful wars prosecuted.. while this Moron-in-chief has 1800+ soldiers dead for no legitimate reason. Plus the three presidents you mentioned didn't have to manipulate intelligence and lie to the American people to get into a war like this president did...

 

[doc9464]

Re: Only if Franken gets drafted too

> By Chickenhawks, I assume you are referring to PEOPLE of
> some kind......

There isn’t enough irony in the world to explain away the Republican Party’s simultaneous disdain for Bill “Draft Dodger” Clinton and their fawning adoration of George “A.W.O.L” Bush. Nor can it be explained that our current war in Iraq was sold to us by a whole host of men who—for one reason or another—found it in themselves to avoid the various wars of the past half century.
>
> So you are such an expert on war.... please inform us all.

>>> I don't claim to be an expert on war...like Rush and Hannity and all those other people squawking about how to handle the prosecution of a war.

> Have you served? I have not, but many other have not as
> well. If you have not, using your logic, you should have no
> opinion as well.

I can't give the military any advice, I just point out BS. No, I didn't serve and I am not issuing my opinions on military strategy. I just pointed out Jessie Ventura's ad. Its a good commercial that makes both our points. I have a problem with Rummy, Cheney, and Bush and Clinton because they all used their relative abiilities to avoid the draft. Clinton wasn't rich so he dodged (and admitted it) while Rummy, Cheney, and Bush act like they are wartime experts yet were the first to get out the service. Wolfowitz, one of the main architects of the Iraq war never served....Will all this lack of service, they ignored the advice of the vast military resources available to them to make the right decisions and ignored them. When this is pointed out, people like Rush, Hannity, and the other kool-aid drinkers act like they know better than General Sinchecki for example. Thats my problem.....not that I could suggest any better solutions.

I think these make a great point as well on the bs of the bush administration:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/troops.html
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/victory.html
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/damage.html
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/grunt.html

and ill add this chestnut from the election last year:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/political.html

> BLOGS... ugh why would I want to read a BLOG???? Just to
> read someones ramblings? I think I will pass.

up to you....but there are RW blogs that people use to further their beliefs as well.
>

 

[2001]

Re: Only if Franken gets drafted too

> > By Chickenhawks, I assume you are referring to PEOPLE of
> > some kind......
>
> There isn’t enough irony in the world to explain away the
> Republican Party’s simultaneous disdain for Bill “Draft
> Dodger” Clinton and their fawning adoration of George
> “A.W.O.L” Bush. Nor can it be explained that our current war
> in Iraq was sold to us by a whole host of men who—for one
> reason or another—found it in themselves to avoid the
> various wars of the past half century.
> >
> > So you are such an expert on war.... please inform us all.
>
>
> >>> I don't claim to be an expert on war...like Rush and
> Hannity and all those other people squawking about how to
> handle the prosecution of a war.
>
> > Have you served? I have not, but many other have not as
> > well. If you have not, using your logic, you should have
> no
> > opinion as well.
>
> I can't give the military any advice, I just point out BS.
> No, I didn't serve and I am not issuing my opinions on
> military strategy. I just pointed out Jessie Ventura's ad.
> Its a good commercial that makes both our points. I have a
> problem with Rummy, Cheney, and Bush and Clinton because
> they all used their relative abiilities to avoid the draft.
> Clinton wasn't rich so he dodged (and admitted it) while
> Rummy, Cheney, and Bush act like they are wartime experts
> yet were the first to get out the service. Wolfowitz, one of
> the main architects of the Iraq war never served....Will all
> this lack of service, they ignored the advice of the vast
> military resources available to them to make the right
> decisions and ignored them. When this is pointed out, people
> like Rush, Hannity, and the other kool-aid drinkers act like
> they know better than General Sinchecki for example. Thats
> my problem.....not that I could suggest any better
> solutions.
>
> I think these make a great point as well on the bs of the
> bush administration:
>
> http://www.markfiore.com/animation/troops.html
> http://www.markfiore.com/animation/victory.html
> http://www.markfiore.com/animation/damage.html
> http://www.markfiore.com/animation/grunt.html
>
> and ill add this chestnut from the election last year:
>
> http://www.markfiore.com/animation/political.html
>

Clinton admitted that he was a "draft dodger"??!! When was that?!
I must have missed that one!

Also, you mention "irony".....In 1992, we were told by the Clinton supporters: "So what if our guy didn't serve in the military? Since when is that a prerequisite in order to become president?" And yet, in 2004, Kerry's team played up his military service, BIG-TIME!!! As a matter of fact, so much so, that one would almost get the impression, that indeed, IT TAKES A FINE, OUTSTANDING, HIGHLY-DECORATED MILITARY MAN LIKE JOHN KERRY IN ORDER TO BE A SUCCESSFUL AND EFFECTIVE SUPREME COMMANDER FOR OUR NATION AND ITS TROOPS!!!!

Now I find that rather "ironic"!


> > BLOGS... ugh why would I want to read a BLOG???? Just to
> > read someones ramblings? I think I will pass.
>
> up to you....but there are RW blogs that people use to
> further their beliefs as well.
> >
>

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

Some more history

> > Like FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and Bill Clinton? (None of them
> > served in the military)
>
> No they didn't. I don't think FDR, Wilson, and Clinton tried
> to do what Bush does. Bush has gone out his way to conflate
> his time in the National Guard with the way the National
> Guard performs now. When Bush was in, it was the "rich
> folks" way to get into the guard to avoid military service
> in Vietnam.

I'll have you know that my dad, who grew up in a single parent, working class Catholic family in Cleveland joined the Ohio Air National Guard in 1972--after high school and before he was drafted. He wasn't a "rich folk" nor was he trying to avoid military service in Vietnam. He was based in Mississippi. I take personal offense to your implication there and demand you retract it.

Furthermore, you don't know much about the Air National Guard if that's your attitude. Although Bush was in the Texas and Alabama units, each was part of Air Defense Command--the front line air defense against airborne enemy bombers, escort fighters, and reconaissance aircraft from Soviet bases. Upon the normal transition into and out of Vietnam--even as late as 1968, F-102 squadrons from ADC were being sent to and based at Tan Son Nhut and DaNang--the Air National Guard ADC squadrons would be sent up to front-line ADC service as "defenders of the air" (the ADC slogan). To malign the Air Guard in this fashion for partisan political purposes is reprehensible, especially not knowing their history and command structure within the Total Force Complement.

> Bush tries to show an indignant attitude about
> the National Guard like the time he spent getting his teeth
> cleaned was actual service. And Clinton, Wilson, and FDR
> didn't run around in a flight suit with an overpacked
> codpiece.

No, but Clinton did wear the A-2 jacket like his life depended on it; it's the leather flight jacket popularized by Navy pilots. He even had a nameplate included on his. This is on top of his "Eisenhower" Air Force One jacket (a hot commodity among collectors, since only the POTUS staff who fly on Air Force One get one).

By the way--FDR was Secretary of the Navy, for what that's worth.

> This administration has no one who served at all.
> Rummy, Cheney, etc...all are "yellow elephants".

Nice talking point, but factually inaccurate.

From his official government bio:
"Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989."

Lest you think this was easy business, the Navy, between 1954 and 1957 was premiering some important and revolutionary carrier developments, including the angled deck, mirror landing, and steam catapults. It was also the dawn of streamlined, supersonic carrier jet development (the A-3, A-4, A-5, F4D, F7U, F8U/F-8, and the F3H, predecessor to the ultimate Naval fighter, the F-4 Phantom II), along with advanced AWACS and anti-submarine aircraft entering service (specifically the E-1 and the S-2).

> They prove
> they know nothing and they disrepected the military people
> who did know how to prosecute a war. Finally FDR, Wilson,
> and Clinton had successful wars prosecuted.. while this
> Moron-in-chief has 1800+ soldiers dead for no legitimate
> reason. Plus the three presidents you mentioned didn't have
> to manipulate intelligence and lie to the American people to
> get into a war like this president did...

What military people did Bush, et al. purportedly disrespect? There's a difference between disagreeing with a course of action (I assume you're referring to General Eric Shinseki) and publicly refuting points made by the General in front of Congress, and disrespecting. For each military leader's opinion, there's at least one other military leader who disagrees.

Gettysburg: General James Longstreet disagreed with General Robert E. Lee's attack strategy at Little Round Top, and at Pickett's Charge. It was a disagreement of strategy and tactics. Neither side was wrong, and Longstreet took his objections public to his officers. He didn't disrespect Lee--he disagreed with him.

Wilson launched a mis-guided attack against Mexico in 1915 that never did nab cross-border assailant Pancho Villa. Made a name for Blackjack John Pershing, which helped him in World War I. Oh, and if you think Iraq is a mess--imagine the outrage if WWI happened now. That's REALLY getting bogged down--enter the war in April 1917, get about two feet into France and stay stuck in trenches for a year and a half. And let's not talk about the long-range problems associatd with Wilson's forays into Central American and Caribbean nations (Haiti, Dominican Republic and Nicaragua).

FDR's war record is rightfully focused on World War II, because there wasn't anything else going on--that whole Depression thing and all.

Clinton's military success is mixed: Bosnia and Kosovo are successes, and the Balkans, once a new powderkeg of Europe and seemingly stabilized. Haiti was not a success. Despite Clinton's intervention in 1994, the country was basically "simmered" for the foreseeable future--about 10 years. Then the same problem started up again.

Clinton's response to international terrorism was lukewarm. His half-hearted attacks on Iraq in 1998 were mis-guided and based on bad intelligence (Sudan's aspirin plant?) There was no military response to the 1993 World Trade Center attacks, nor to the USS Cole bombing. There was no military attacks even contemplated, as far as we know, in response to any Islamic terror against US interests in Israel, or Jordan, or Egypt. There was no military response to IRA attacks in the early 1990s. And there was no military response to North Korean aggression against the DMZ in the 1990s. The only military response to East Asia was the token Seventh Fleet sail-by of the Republic of China when the ChiComs rattled the sabres in 1995 and 1997.

His Latin American record is similarly bereft of mounting success--FARC continues its communist-friendly terror campaign (financed by drug money as well as funding from the IRA, Hezbollah, the former PLO bag men, and the Cuban government, which acts as a bank for these interlocked international terrorist groups), and FARC off-shoots have been respobsile for attackes in Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia.

Just so we're straight on the facts.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Johnny Morgan on 08/18/05 07:31 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[doc9464]

Re: Some more history

> I'll have you know that my dad, who grew up in a single
> parent, working class Catholic family in Cleveland joined
> the Ohio Air National Guard in 1972--after high school and
> before he was drafted. He wasn't a "rich folk" nor was he
> trying to avoid military service in Vietnam. He was based
> in Mississippi. I take personal offense to your implication
> there and demand you retract it.

it sounds like your father served well. I won't retract my statement but i should say that "many" rather than "all" national guardsmen took the easy way out.
Johnny, I don't argue with you much because your arguments are based in fact and i am glad your dad did it right. There were thousands of "rich" sons sent to the national guard to avoid service in Vietnam..the "poor" sons probably ended up like your father who joined the Guard and still had to go. Bush didn't go and he could have..but you did say your dad was drafted. Bush wasn't and he used the Guard and an easy assignment to avoid going to Vietnam. Thats just the truth. I do honor your dad for his doing it correctly. My dad and older brother was in Vietnam. Neither was a guardsman....
>
> Furthermore, you don't know much about the Air National
> Guard if that's your attitude. Although Bush was in the
> Texas and Alabama units, each was part of Air Defense
> Command--the front line air defense against airborne enemy
> bombers, escort fighters, and reconaissance aircraft from
> Soviet bases.

I think Bush's service record is still highly questioned....rather gate or not. How many men from Bush's unit volunteered? probably quite a few, but Bush didn't and im looking for his words on why a "crack" pilot like him felt it was ok to let over $1 million be spent to train him and he decides to go off to work on a campaign. Im glad to support and prove that Bush was "skating". ill try to give you more to back me up here.

Upon the normal transition into and out of
> Vietnam--even as late as 1968, F-102 squadrons from ADC were
> being sent to and based at Tan Son Nhut and DaNang--the Air
> National Guard ADC squadrons would be sent up to front-line
> ADC service as "defenders of the air" (the ADC slogan).

I can't say you are wrong, but Bush didn't go.....and I have a question. Wasn't the F-102 obsolete and the F-4 was the fighter of choice?

To
> malign the Air Guard in this fashion for partisan political
> purposes is reprehensible, especially not knowing their
> history and command structure within the Total Force
> Complement.

i don't know as much as you have laid out, again as you know from our past debates, im glad to try to provide more supporting evidence. When you make a point, I have no problem debating you. Ill try to provide more info, but I must say I know a lot about military operations..but again Bush was not a "sparkling" example of what you are defending. Thats my point. Im not arguing with you that some men who served in the guard did perform honorable duties. There were many that didnt and used the guard to escape real duty. That cannot be disproven.

> No, but Clinton did wear the A-2 jacket like his life
> depended on it; it's the leather flight jacket popularized
> by Navy pilots. He even had a nameplate included on his.
> This is on top of his "Eisenhower" Air Force One jacket (a
> hot commodity among collectors, since only the POTUS staff
> who fly on Air Force One get one).

do you really conmpare Clinton wearing a jacket to Bush's defiling the military uniform......if so, then I won't argue that point. Ill say we have to disagree because you and others may have found that offensive. I just find what Bush did to be reprehensible and I won't back down on that.
>
> By the way--FDR was Secretary of the Navy, for what that's
> worth.

I was aware of that....but we were speaking of Military service. I don't think I have to defend FDR. World War II was well prosecuted. I don't think anyone would disagree.

> > This administration has no one who served at all.
> > Rummy, Cheney, etc...all are "yellow elephants".
>
> Nice talking point, but factually inaccurate.
>
> From his official government bio:
> "Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and
> NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy
> (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he
> transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval
> service in flying and administrative assignments as a
> drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby
> Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to
> the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989."
>
> Lest you think this was easy business, the Navy, between
> 1954 and 1957 was premiering some important and
> revolutionary carrier developments, including the angled
> deck, mirror landing, and steam catapults. It was also the
> dawn of streamlined, supersonic carrier jet development (the
> A-3, A-4, A-5, F4D, F7U, F8U/F-8, and the F3H, predecessor
> to the ultimate Naval fighter, the F-4 Phantom II), along
> with advanced AWACS and anti-submarine aircraft entering
> service (specifically the E-1 and the S-2).

If this is as you say, I back down on Rumsfeld. I am very much correct about Cheney, Wolfowitz, and others. Remember Cheney deferred 5 times and stated that he had "other priorties". This is a draft dodger at his best. Wolfowitz deferred i believe 2 or 3 times as as student. Ill double check that piece of info. And if you look at real heroes who served, Look at Bob Dole, Charlie Rangel, Max Cleland, John Kerry and Bush's dad. These gentlemen are worthy of much respect for their service. Id like to post results from a survey of who served in Congress. I believe there were more democrats that actually served. Do you know if Delay, Hastert, and other republican leaders served?
>
> > They prove
> > they know nothing and they disrepected the military people
>
> > who did know how to prosecute a war. Finally FDR, Wilson,
> > and Clinton had successful wars prosecuted.. while this
> > Moron-in-chief has 1800+ soldiers dead for no legitimate
> > reason. Plus the three presidents you mentioned didn't
> have
> > to manipulate intelligence and lie to the American people
> to
> > get into a war like this president did...
>
> What military people did Bush, et al. purportedly
> disrespect? There's a difference between disagreeing with a
> course of action (I assume you're referring to General Eric
> Shinseki) and publicly refuting points made by the General
> in front of Congress, and disrespecting. For each military
> leader's opinion, there's at least one other military leader
> who disagrees.

Shinseki was one, but he was not alone. There were many including Powell who disagreed with how the war was going to be prosecuted. theres enough information on google for that to be proven if you want to look that up...im not going to do that one...because i know thats general knowledge.
>
> Gettysburg: General James Longstreet disagreed with General
> Robert E. Lee's attack strategy at Little Round Top, and at
> Pickett's Charge. It was a disagreement of strategy and
> tactics. Neither side was wrong, and Longstreet took his
> objections public to his officers. He didn't disrespect
> Lee--he disagreed with him.

Lee probably didn't deserve any disrepect. Bush does.
>
> Wilson launched a mis-guided attack against Mexico in 1915
> that never did nab cross-border assailant Pancho Villa.
> Made a name for Blackjack John Pershing, which helped him in
> World War I. Oh, and if you think Iraq is a mess--imagine
> the outrage if WWI happened now. That's REALLY getting
> bogged down--enter the war in April 1917, get about two feet
> into France and stay stuck in trenches for a year and a
> half. And let's not talk about the long-range problems
> associatd with Wilson's forays into Central American and
> Caribbean nations (Haiti, Dominican Republic and Nicaragua).

Good points, debatable however and not just by me. There are so many thought on our first real "nationbuilder" to the positive and negative.
>
> FDR's war record is rightfully focused on World War II,
> because there wasn't anything else going on--that whole
> Depression thing and all.

Again, the prosecution of World War II is without argument here.
>
> Clinton's military success is mixed: Bosnia and Kosovo are
> successes, and the Balkans, once a new powderkeg of Europe
> and seemingly stabilized. Haiti was not a success. Despite
> Clinton's intervention in 1994, the country was basically
> "simmered" for the foreseeable future--about 10 years. Then
> the same problem started up again.

Are you blaming Clinton for Haiti....10 years later...you are stretching my friend. I'd rather have the 10 years of stability than the mess in Haiti in now on Bush's watch. We agree on the Balkans, Bosnia, and Kosovo....and to be fair, we didn't do well in Somalia as well.
>
> Clinton's response to international terrorism was lukewarm.
> His half-hearted attacks on Iraq in 1998 were mis-guided and
> based on bad intelligence (Sudan's aspirin plant?)

>> wasn't the best use of military resources on the aspirin plant..Desert Fox is debatable..but I remind you the inspectors were also disarming Iraq at the time...which may be a reaon why there were no WMD discovered and we still had Saddam contained in no-fly zones.

There
> was no military response to the 1993 World Trade Center
> attacks.

You do realize that the actual bomber and people who planned this bombing was caught. If you want to argue that there was a growing threat in Al Queda, I would agree but Clinton and his staff were very aware of the growing threat of terror unlike the way the Bush administration fell asleep at the wheel in 2001 despite Clarke and others warning them to be aware of terrorism as a huge issue.

nor to the USS Cole bombing.

Neither did bush...investigation continued into Bush administration...and if Im right were the bombers convicted or not? I honestly don't remember.

There was no military
> attacks even contemplated, as far as we know, in response to
> any Islamic terror against US interests in Israel, or
> Jordan, or Egypt.

Not sure what you mean....mind elaborating....

There was no military response to IRA
> attacks in the early 1990s.

Why did the US have to be responsible for the IRA? Besides Clinton worked on the Good Friday accords which started the process of the IRA shutting down. After Good Friday, IRA attacks declined quite a bit...and the effort to work with the political organization Shinn Fein..continued until recently ....now the IRA is disarming. This is a stretch if you want to blame Clinton for the IRA.

And there was no military
> response to North Korean aggression against the DMZ in the
> 1990s.

Im seeing a pattern here, you think that every response should be military. We all know we had an agreement with N. Korea. It has not been proven that they cheated but its certainly better than the way Bush has escalated this into a real nuclear challenge. North Korea is much more fearsome than they were in the 90's. They are active, very active in moving forward and Bush has proven he has no courage in dealing with them.

The only military response to East Asia was the
> token Seventh Fleet sail-by of the Republic of China when
> the ChiComs rattled the sabres in 1995 and 1997.

And Bush has done?????? Johnny, I think you are stretching here. Clinton or Bush didn't want to go to war with China. Bush didn't do anything with the Indians and Pakistanis and now hes sharing more nuclear technology with India..thats smart..not.
>
> His Latin American record is similarly bereft of mounting
> success--FARC continues its communist-friendly terror
> campaign (financed by drug money as well as funding from the
> IRA, Hezbollah, the former PLO bag men, and the Cuban
> government, which acts as a bank for these interlocked
> international terrorist groups), and FARC off-shoots have
> been respobsile for attackes in Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia.

Id say South America is the same now so whats your point. No one did anything in South America period. And Reagan did his thing illegally.
>
> Just so we're straight on the facts.

I think you have a grasp of history but you stretch a bit too far.
>

 

[dampier]

> "I don't agree with Rush Limbaugh and for some reason feel
> the need to share that fact with strangers."

Gee Sparky, the thread is called Draft Rush, people are discussing... uh... RUSH. The guy I was replying to asked:

"Does his inexperience in the matter cause his advice to be considered "dubious in value? If not, then what's your justification for your judgement on Rush?"

Perhaps the shiny keys, a cloud, a light breeze, or colorful paper clip distracted you from noticing.

I'm in the habit of actually answering the questions, not working up a sweat with the kind of hit and run one liners you managed.

 

[desertv]

Re: Some more history

> You do realize that the actual bomber and people who planned
> this bombing was caught. If you want to argue that there was
> a growing threat in Al Queda, I would agree but Clinton and
> his staff were very aware of the growing threat of terror
> unlike the way the Bush administration fell asleep at the
> wheel in 2001 despite Clarke and others warning them to be
> aware of terrorism as a huge issue.

Explain "Able Danger" please??? And Sandy Bergler's "pants stuffing" escapade???

 

[doc9464]

> Even Rush on toilets: "You think they had toilets in Europe
> before we came along? They didn't. They still don't have
> toilets in Europe that make any sense. Even after we're
> here. You ever been to Europe? Use some of their toilets,
> even in some of the finest hotels, it's amazing!"
>
> It is amazing that anyone trusts this guy.

i was in Europe twice this year....and I have to laugh. Toliets in older places flush with a small pull up lever, newer toliets look like the ones in america. If this person whose "genius is borrowed from god" can't operate a toliet...well I think i have given him more credit that he deserved and I don't even like the guy..LOL...i can't believe he said that. What a Maroon! LOL, Maybe its the drugs or maybe Daryn Kagan has to show him how to flush.

Just say no to Oxycontin...LOL

 

[2001]

> > Even Rush on toilets: "You think they had toilets in
> Europe
> > before we came along? They didn't. They still don't have
> > toilets in Europe that make any sense. Even after we're
> > here. You ever been to Europe? Use some of their toilets,
> > even in some of the finest hotels, it's amazing!"
> >
> > It is amazing that anyone trusts this guy.
>
> i was in Europe twice this year....and I have to laugh.
> Toliets in older places flush with a small pull up lever,
> newer toliets look like the ones in america. If this person
> whose "genius is borrowed from god" can't operate a
> toliet...well I think i have given him more credit that he
> deserved and I don't even like the guy..LOL...i can't
> believe he said that. What a Maroon! LOL, Maybe its the
> drugs or maybe Daryn Kagan has to show him how to flush.
>
> Just say no to Oxycontin...LOL
>

A Maroon?

A quick reference check of my Webster's, and it says that a "maroon" is a fugitive black slave from many centuries ago. Surely you're not saying that Rush Limbaugh is a fugitive black slave, are you?

I think you mean to say "moron", don't you?

You know something? I hate to say this, my friend.....but I think that the joke is on you!

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

Re: Some more history

> > I'll have you know that my dad, who grew up in a single
> > parent, working class Catholic family in Cleveland joined
> > the Ohio Air National Guard in 1972--after high school and
>
> > before he was drafted. He wasn't a "rich folk" nor was he
>
> > trying to avoid military service in Vietnam. He was based
>
> > in Mississippi. I take personal offense to your
> implication
> > there and demand you retract it.
>
> it sounds like your father served well. I won't retract my
> statement but i should say that "many" rather than "all"
> national guardsmen took the easy way out.
> Johnny, I don't argue with you much because your arguments
> are based in fact and i am glad your dad did it right. There
> were thousands of "rich" sons sent to the national guard to
> avoid service in Vietnam..the "poor" sons probably ended up
> like your father who joined the Guard and still had to go.
> Bush didn't go and he could have..but you did say your dad
> was drafted.

If I left that impression, I'm sorry--my dad joined the Air guard in the summer of 1972, after high school. He wasn't drafted--though his number was 25 or 28 or something like that. But this was mid-72: there wasn't much Vietnam left to fight. He would have made it out of boot camp in time for the withdrawal in January '73.

> Bush wasn't and he used the Guard and an easy
> assignment to avoid going to Vietnam. Thats just the truth.
> I do honor your dad for his doing it correctly. My dad and
> older brother was in Vietnam. Neither was a guardsman....

Thank them for their service to our country, and I appreciate your kind words and alterations.

> > Furthermore, you don't know much about the Air National
> > Guard if that's your attitude. Although Bush was in the
> > Texas and Alabama units, each was part of Air Defense
> > Command--the front line air defense against airborne enemy
>
> > bombers, escort fighters, and reconaissance aircraft from
> > Soviet bases.
>
> I think Bush's service record is still highly
> questioned....rather gate or not. How many men from Bush's
> unit volunteered? probably quite a few, but Bush didn't and
> im looking for his words on why a "crack" pilot like him
> felt it was ok to let over $1 million be spent to train him
> and he decides to go off to work on a campaign. Im glad to
> support and prove that Bush was "skating". ill try to give
> you more to back me up here.

I don't know exactly what Bush's status was. I know he was a pilot from 68 through 72, putting in his required hours. At any moment he could have been activated when one of the ADC units went to SE Asia, or transitioned to TAC fighters (like the F-4).

> Upon the normal transition into and out of
> > Vietnam--even as late as 1968, F-102 squadrons from ADC
> were
> > being sent to and based at Tan Son Nhut and DaNang--the
> Air
> > National Guard ADC squadrons would be sent up to
> front-line
> > ADC service as "defenders of the air" (the ADC slogan).
>
> I can't say you are wrong, but Bush didn't go.....and I have
> a question. Wasn't the F-102 obsolete and the F-4 was the
> fighter of choice?

True, Bush didn't go. And I have no clue if he would have been sent. It's probably true he got into the Guard because of connections. That's not his fault--the argument is with the system that existed back then. it no longer exists, so maybe we've made some progress.

As for the F-102/F-4 question: it's a good one. I was very surprised at the timeline too. The first F-102 ADC units went to Tan Son Nhut in 1962. These were tried in combat attack (!), but they were substandard (shocking, huh, for a dedicated interceptor). After that, when F-102's transitioned into and out of SE Asia, they were purely for air defense. The F-102 rotations lasted until late 1969, when all the front-line ADC units traded in their F-102s for either F-101Bs, F-106s, or F-4s in either interceptor or tactical fighter role. So, while the F-4 was the Vietnam workhorse, the F-102 shocking hung on until well into the war. (Sidenote: want to see a beautiful plane ruined? Check out an F-102 in SE Asia camo. Yuck!)

> To
> > malign the Air Guard in this fashion for partisan
> political
> > purposes is reprehensible, especially not knowing their
> > history and command structure within the Total Force
> > Complement.
>
> i don't know as much as you have laid out, again as you know
> from our past debates, im glad to try to provide more
> supporting evidence. When you make a point, I have no
> problem debating you. Ill try to provide more info, but I
> must say I know a lot about military operations..but again
> Bush was not a "sparkling" example of what you are
> defending. Thats my point. Im not arguing with you that some
> men who served in the guard did perform honorable duties.
> There were many that didnt and used the guard to escape real
> duty. That cannot be disproven.

But I think even serving in the Guard provides some military experience, even if just command structure, bureaucracy experience, drills, and soldier mentality that even without combat it makes a candidate that much more attractive. No veteran should be maligned if they served--unless there is some glaring problem. Bush may have one; Kerry seemed to have one too. But that's old news, and the questions are asked and mostly answered. And those that aren't don't matter now, 9 months later.

> > No, but Clinton did wear the A-2 jacket like his life
> > depended on it; it's the leather flight jacket popularized
>
> > by Navy pilots. He even had a nameplate included on his.
>
> > This is on top of his "Eisenhower" Air Force One jacket (a
>
> > hot commodity among collectors, since only the POTUS staff
>
> > who fly on Air Force One get one).
>
> do you really conmpare Clinton wearing a jacket to Bush's
> defiling the military uniform......if so, then I won't argue
> that point. Ill say we have to disagree because you and
> others may have found that offensive. I just find what Bush
> did to be reprehensible and I won't back down on that.

Not comparing it at all. Just stating--I have no opinion one way or the other. Personally, it was kinda cool to see the President in the flight suit, but I knew in the back of my head that maybe it just "wasn't quite right". We have a tradition, but by no means strictly enforced, against the "citizen CinC" appearing in uniform. George washington did when he took command of the militia against the Whiskey Rebellion (starting in Cralisle, PA and ending in my college hometown of Washington, PA).

> > By the way--FDR was Secretary of the Navy, for what that's
>
> > worth.
>
> I was aware of that....but we were speaking of Military
> service. I don't think I have to defend FDR. World War II
> was well prosecuted. I don't think anyone would disagree.

Agreed.

> > > This administration has no one who served at all.
> > > Rummy, Cheney, etc...all are "yellow elephants".
> >
> > Nice talking point, but factually inaccurate.
> >
> > From his official government bio:
> > "Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic
> and
> > NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S.
> Navy
> > (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he
>
> > transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval
> > service in flying and administrative assignments as a
> > drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the
> Standby
> > Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to
>
> > the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989."
> >
> > Lest you think this was easy business, the Navy, between
> > 1954 and 1957 was premiering some important and
> > revolutionary carrier developments, including the angled
> > deck, mirror landing, and steam catapults. It was also
> the
> > dawn of streamlined, supersonic carrier jet development
> (the
> > A-3, A-4, A-5, F4D, F7U, F8U/F-8, and the F3H, predecessor
>
> > to the ultimate Naval fighter, the F-4 Phantom II), along
> > with advanced AWACS and anti-submarine aircraft entering
> > service (specifically the E-1 and the S-2).
>
> If this is as you say, I back down on Rumsfeld.

Straight from the White House website. He used his Navy experience to get elected to Congress in the early 60s, and no doubt it helped when he was SecDef in '75.

> I am very
> much correct about Cheney, Wolfowitz, and others. Remember
> Cheney deferred 5 times and stated that he had "other
> priorties". This is a draft dodger at his best. Wolfowitz
> deferred i believe 2 or 3 times as as student. Ill double
> check that piece of info. And if you look at real heroes who
> served, Look at Bob Dole, Charlie Rangel, Max Cleland, John
> Kerry and Bush's dad. These gentlemen are worthy of much
> respect for their service. Id like to post results from a
> survey of who served in Congress. I believe there were more
> democrats that actually served. Do you know if Delay,
> Hastert, and other republican leaders served?

No clue. And as we get more years behind us, the question of military service as "part and parcel" of political office will be interesting. The first all-volunteer kids are reaching 50 within two years; many late boomers/early Gen X-ers are already in state elected office and are probably looking at federal office. What will be the standard then? It will be interesting to see that.

> > > They prove
> > > they know nothing and they disrepected the military
> people
> >
> > > who did know how to prosecute a war. Finally FDR,
> Wilson,
> > > and Clinton had successful wars prosecuted.. while this
> > > Moron-in-chief has 1800+ soldiers dead for no legitimate
>
> > > reason. Plus the three presidents you mentioned didn't
> > have
> > > to manipulate intelligence and lie to the American
> people
> > to
> > > get into a war like this president did...
> >
> > What military people did Bush, et al. purportedly
> > disrespect? There's a difference between disagreeing with
> a
> > course of action (I assume you're referring to General
> Eric
> > Shinseki) and publicly refuting points made by the General
>
> > in front of Congress, and disrespecting. For each
> military
> > leader's opinion, there's at least one other military
> leader
> > who disagrees.
>
> Shinseki was one, but he was not alone. There were many
> including Powell who disagreed with how the war was going to
> be prosecuted. theres enough information on google for that
> to be proven if you want to look that up...im not going to
> do that one...because i know thats general knowledge.

I guess we'll just leave this point as it is, and disagree on it.

> > Gettysburg: General James Longstreet disagreed with
> General
> > Robert E. Lee's attack strategy at Little Round Top, and
> at
> > Pickett's Charge. It was a disagreement of strategy and
> > tactics. Neither side was wrong, and Longstreet took his
> > objections public to his officers. He didn't disrespect
> > Lee--he disagreed with him.
>
> Lee probably didn't deserve any disrepect. Bush does.

Again, we can debate this until the cows come home. Who does deserve disrespect is J.E.B. Stuart, who was off wanting headlines while the 20th Maine held off Lee, Longstreet, Hill, et al. at Little Round Top. Stuart's location of the Union artillery might have helped the CSA. As it was, Stuart appeared about a day too late, and without a good excuse.

> > Wilson launched a mis-guided attack against Mexico in 1915
>
> > that never did nab cross-border assailant Pancho Villa.
> > Made a name for Blackjack John Pershing, which helped him
> in
> > World War I. Oh, and if you think Iraq is a mess--imagine
>
> > the outrage if WWI happened now. That's REALLY getting
> > bogged down--enter the war in April 1917, get about two
> feet
> > into France and stay stuck in trenches for a year and a
> > half. And let's not talk about the long-range problems
> > associatd with Wilson's forays into Central American and
> > Caribbean nations (Haiti, Dominican Republic and
> Nicaragua).
>
> Good points, debatable however and not just by me. There are
> so many thought on our first real "nationbuilder" to the
> positive and negative.

Wilson is one of those kinda hate or really hate guys. The only ones who like him are college presidents who have fanciful ideas of being the Chief Executive of the US.

> > FDR's war record is rightfully focused on World War II,
> > because there wasn't anything else going on--that whole
> > Depression thing and all.
>
> Again, the prosecution of World War II is without argument
> here.

Agreed.

> > Clinton's military success is mixed: Bosnia and Kosovo are
>
> > successes, and the Balkans, once a new powderkeg of Europe
>
> > and seemingly stabilized. Haiti was not a success.
> Despite
> > Clinton's intervention in 1994, the country was basically
> > "simmered" for the foreseeable future--about 10 years.
> Then
> > the same problem started up again.
>
> Are you blaming Clinton for Haiti....10 years later...you
> are stretching my friend. I'd rather have the 10 years of
> stability than the mess in Haiti in now on Bush's watch.

I think the Clinton intervention just put-off the situation. It may not have happened in 10 years; it very easily could have been 7, while still on Clinton's watch. My argument is that the 1994 action didn't solve anything--it just fomented the crisis.

But I opposed it in 1994 and opposed Bush's intervention too. Haiti's problem is corruption and French remnants. Once those are cured, then maybe it will be a stable area. Until then, stay away.

>We
> agree on the Balkans, Bosnia, and Kosovo....and to be fair,
> we didn't do well in Somalia as well.

Kosovo had its own problems (the Chinese embassy bombing), but some of that can be blamed on bad intelligence. (That's a trend in the 90s and the 2000s--the CIA needs work; until then, well, I guess it's the best we have.)

> > Clinton's response to international terrorism was
> lukewarm.
> > His half-hearted attacks on Iraq in 1998 were mis-guided
> and
> > based on bad intelligence (Sudan's aspirin plant?)
>
> >> wasn't the best use of military resources on the aspirin
> plant..Desert Fox is debatable..but I remind you the
> inspectors were also disarming Iraq at the time...which may
> be a reaon why there were no WMD discovered and we still had
> Saddam contained in no-fly zones.

Ahhh, but we attacked because Saddam had thrown out the inspectors. I'm not sure Saddam ever disarmed--but we don't know where they went. The UN admits he had some weapons, even into the early 2000s, but they can't find them. Who knows though. It will be one of those questions for eternity: our intel said he had them, and some intel said no. It's the USS Maine debate--there's really no affirmative answer.

> There
> > was no military response to the 1993 World Trade Center
> > attacks.
>
> You do realize that the actual bomber and people who planned
> this bombing was caught. If you want to argue that there was
> a growing threat in Al Queda, I would agree but Clinton and
> his staff were very aware of the growing threat of terror
> unlike the way the Bush administration fell asleep at the
> wheel in 2001 despite Clarke and others warning them to be
> aware of terrorism as a huge issue.

I know the bomber was caught, and is now serving life in prison. But Clinton and Bush both placed little emphasis on al Qaeda or terrorism. The 90s were the domestic decade--it happens. So were the 1930s. We as a nation got complacent. I hope we ALL learned (Europe too).

> nor to the USS Cole bombing.
>
> Neither did bush...investigation continued into Bush
> administration...and if Im right were the bombers convicted
> or not? I honestly don't remember.

No clue here either. I think the Saudis got them, no? And Bush had no reason not to attack--that was close enough to the election or inauguration to meet proximate cause in my book.

> There was no military
> > attacks even contemplated, as far as we know, in response
> to
> > any Islamic terror against US interests in Israel, or
> > Jordan, or Egypt.
>
> Not sure what you mean....mind elaborating....

Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc. We consider Israel a national interest and ally--I consider attacks by those terrorist groups to warrant US military response.

> There was no military response to IRA
> > attacks in the early 1990s.
>
> Why did the US have to be responsible for the IRA? Besides
> Clinton worked on the Good Friday accords which started the
> process of the IRA shutting down. After Good Friday, IRA
> attacks declined quite a bit...and the effort to work with
> the political organization Shinn Fein..continued until
> recently ....now the IRA is disarming. This is a stretch if
> you want to blame Clinton for the IRA.

The US doesn't need to be, but if it's going to be true to a battle against terrorism, it must include all of it. (Note: perhaps in these examples I shouldn't have singled out Clinton--it continues to this day. Myopic view of terror to Islamic terrorism is wrong.)

But before the Good Friday Accords (still not implemented, but that's not our fault), the IRA had like "one last hurrah" with the largest bombing campaign since the early 80s (post-Bobby Shands).

One person who should be held accountable here is Ted Kennedy, who gave and raised money for the IRA in the 70s and 80s. I understand his point, but he's smart enough to know what it was for.

> And there was no military
> > response to North Korean aggression against the DMZ in the
>
> > 1990s.
>
> Im seeing a pattern here, you think that every response
> should be military.

Not every--most, against weaker nations. In 1994, just after Kim Il Sung died, North Korea was very very weak. That would have been the perfect chance to unify. Oh well.

> We all know we had an agreement with N.
> Korea. It has not been proven that they cheated but its
> certainly better than the way Bush has escalated this into a
> real nuclear challenge. North Korea is much more fearsome
> than they were in the 90's. They are active, very active in
> moving forward and Bush has proven he has no courage in
> dealing with them.

The multi-party talks are nice, the point is you actually have to MEET and, well, TALK! Nice to see China and Russia finally come around though. North Korea's not a problem though, realistically--Kim Jong Il is so crazy, not even China deals with him. Given a good offer, Kim can be bought. The DMZ changes as of late help.

> The only military response to East Asia was the
> > token Seventh Fleet sail-by of the Republic of China when
> > the ChiComs rattled the sabres in 1995 and 1997.
>
> And Bush has done?????? Johnny, I think you are stretching
> here. Clinton or Bush didn't want to go to war with China.
> Bush didn't do anything with the Indians and Pakistanis and
> now hes sharing more nuclear technology with India..thats
> smart..not.

I agree here. I'm a big supporter of the ROC, and find the token 7th Fleet sail through the straits to be weakness, whoever's president. China would be a bad war.

> > His Latin American record is similarly bereft of mounting
> > success--FARC continues its communist-friendly terror
> > campaign (financed by drug money as well as funding from
> the
> > IRA, Hezbollah, the former PLO bag men, and the Cuban
> > government, which acts as a bank for these interlocked
> > international terrorist groups), and FARC off-shoots have
> > been respobsile for attackes in Peru, Ecuador, and
> Bolivia.
>
> Id say South America is the same now so whats your point. No
> one did anything in South America period. And Reagan did his
> thing illegally.

Not illegal. He had full authority to do so, and I supported that. Nicaragua is better now than it would have been under Ortega and the Sandinistas (commies). But that's another debate for the ages.

> > Just so we're straight on the facts.
>
> I think you have a grasp of history but you stretch a bit
> too far.

Maybe. I dunno. Can't wait until next time.

Pace.

 

[doc9464]

> > deserved and I don't even like the guy..LOL...i can't
> > believe he said that. What a Maroon! LOL, Maybe its the
> > drugs or maybe Daryn Kagan has to show him how to flush.
> >
> > Just say no to Oxycontin...LOL
> >
>
> A Maroon?
>
> A quick reference check of my Webster's, and it says that a
> "maroon" is a fugitive black slave from many centuries ago.
> Surely you're not saying that Rush Limbaugh is a fugitive
> black slave, are you?
>
> I think you mean to say "moron", don't you?
>
> You know something? I hate to say this, my friend.....but I
> think that the joke is on you!
>

obviously, you have never seen a Looney Tunes cartoon..Maroon is used in the place of Moron for something called "humor"...humor is so depleted on the right....thats the joke my friend....but thanks for trying to make me look stupid....LOL
...didn't "woik"...(humor version of work)

 

[coolidge]

> I'm in the habit of actually answering the questions

Too bad you never actually bothered while typing out those 500+ words.

Also, since you're "in the habit of actually answering the questions," answer this one that you've been avoiding:

<blockquote>
Who? Please cite a reference from someone on this web site calling Maloney a "unbiased credible journalist." Otherwise I would have to assume you're just trying to debate in an empty room and assuming you've won the argument when you don't hear a contrary opinion.
</blockquote>

 

[2001]

> > > deserved and I don't even like the guy..LOL...i can't
> > > believe he said that. What a Maroon! LOL, Maybe its the
> > > drugs or maybe Daryn Kagan has to show him how to flush.
>
> > >
> > > Just say no to Oxycontin...LOL
> > >
> >
> > A Maroon?
> >
> > A quick reference check of my Webster's, and it says that
> a
> > "maroon" is a fugitive black slave from many centuries
> ago.
> > Surely you're not saying that Rush Limbaugh is a fugitive
> > black slave, are you?
> >
> > I think you mean to say "moron", don't you?
> >
> > You know something? I hate to say this, my friend.....but
> I
> > think that the joke is on you!
> >
>
> obviously, you have never seen a Looney Tunes
> cartoon..Maroon is used in the place of Moron for something
> called "humor"...humor is so depleted on the right....thats
> the joke my friend....but thanks for trying to make me look
> stupid....LOL
> ...didn't "woik"...(humor version of work)
>

Oh, my! What a relief it is to hear you say that!

You had me going there for a second!

I kept thinking to myself: "Why is he calling Rush Limbaugh a runaway black slave??!!"

LOL!

Thanks for clearing that one up for me, Doc!