Should Bush's military record be an issue
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 09/09/04 - 13:28 Post subject:
| purple hayes wrote: | | Hey gang, what's this "election" thingy everyone keeps talking about, huh? |
I think it has something to do with legalizing marijuana. Just vote yes for everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 13:30 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: | | robp wrote: | | I don't think either candidate's military record should have a bearing on the election. |
If they were a 4 star general, or a highly decorated vet, would you think differently because of the obvious display of leadership or courage? Curious. |
That being said, Eisenhower probably would have never been elected President had it not been for his leadership during WWII.
|
|
|
|
|
megawill
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1552
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 13:31 Post subject: Re: Should Bush's military record be an issue
| camelia bedelia wrote: | during the election?
I know whether or not Kerry's military record is relevent has been discussed at length, but what about the President's record? Is his suspension from the Texas Air National Guard (and the supposed reasons for it) pertinent now? |
no, i'll give him a pass on that one...
but 1000 dead and 7000 injured and maimed to settle Daddy's vendetta should be an issue....
(find any wmd's yet?)...(and where in the flock is Osama?) 
---
megawill
|
|
|
|
|
kattzoo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 3813
Location: Happily at the back of the pack
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 13:33 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | Pug wrote: | | Cappy wrote: | | Neither candidate military records matter to me. What matter's to me is how they plan to move the country forward. |
Like Kat, i respect Kerry's service and respect his right to protest a war that he felt was wrong after the fact. But his ability to lead a swift boat 20+ years ago does not have much bearing (to me) to how he may be able to lead a country. Same with Bush's record. What can they do for the country now? |
I agree that whether or not Bush was a good pilot is irrelevant. But, to me, whether or not he skipped out on service he had sworn to do, used influence from above to cover it up and then lied about it does say a lot about what kind of person he is and what kind leader he might be. |
Definitely agree. I read that the memo where he was ordered to take the physical and refused since he had applied for nonflying status appeared today. His former LT had a copy of it in his files, or something of the sort. (I'm at work, half reading, half paying attention to the guest speaker) If that's the case, then Bush was telling the truth all along, and not AWOL, but suspended from flight status while awaiting transfer. Still not nuts about the working on campaign during war thing, but can live with it decades later.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 13:33 Post subject:
| Cappy wrote: | | elkid wrote: | | robp wrote: | | I don't think either candidate's military record should have a bearing on the election. |
If they were a 4 star general, or a highly decorated vet, would you think differently because of the obvious display of leadership or courage? Curious. |
That being said, Eisenhower probably would have never been elected President had it not been for his leadership during WWII. |
But like she said, that was an obvious display of leadership. That's a tough question to answer without belittling the service others who may not have been great leaders but were great soldiers have given. I think the question really is, where do you draw the line in "over and above the call of duty" recognition and how do you recognize someone for outstanding leadership without belittling someone of a lesser rank who also made a contribution just by being in the military?
In the civilian world, over and above is a little more easily recognized and people who are powerful leaders tend to stand out above the average man without that being a negative, if that makes any sense. Where were you going with that line of thought, Lauri?
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 13:33 Post subject:
If everyone believes military record is a non-issue, there why has there been such interest in dissecting Kerry’s? I know, "he made it an issue", but now that questions about Bush’s record are raised (again) the Repubs are back to “what happened 30 years ago isn’t relevant now”. Why is that?
|
|
|
|
|
purple hayes
Frightened Inmate #2
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 14462
Location: ON YOUR LEFT!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 13:37 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | If everyone believes military record is a non-issue, there why has there been such interest in dissecting Kerry’s? I know, "he made it an issue", but now that questions about Bush’s record are raised (again) the Repubs are back to “what happened 30 years ago isn’t relevant now”. Why is that? |
I never said that.
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 13:39 Post subject:
| genie wrote: | | Where were you going with that line of thought, Lauri? |
Exactly as I phrased it. If someone were a 4 star general, that points to leadership skills and ability. If someone had several purple hearts, that points to courage. I would think that, all things remaining equal, one would naturally lean towards selecting a person who's already demonstrated such positive traits.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 13:40 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | If everyone believes military record is a non-issue, there why has there been such interest in dissecting Kerry’s? I know, "he made it an issue", but now that questions about Bush’s record are raised (again) the Repubs are back to “what happened 30 years ago isn’t relevant now”. Why is that? |
A lot of the stuff I've heard discussed was mostly the Repubs criticizing Kerry for making it such an issue and parading around like some major league hero as opposed to getting down to the issues at hand, like what specifically he plans to do differently than Bush. Other than say the W means wrong. Honestly, I have yet to hear him outline a specific plan of action saying I want to do this, and this or that. Even the other night on the news they showed him saying "they said I was unfit for duty? Well how does a tour in Vietnam sound?" or something to that effect. I'm paraphrasing, but it's been the same old line from him and I think a lot of people are tired of it and want to hear what he plans to do to change everything he thinks is wrong with this country. He's all good for saying Bush did this wrong and that wrong and shouldn't have done this and yada yada, but I have yet to hear, "so what I am going to do to fix that is....."
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 13:40 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | If everyone believes military record is a non-issue, there why has there been such interest in dissecting Kerry’s? I know, "he made it an issue", but now that questions about Bush’s record are raised (again) the Repubs are back to “what happened 30 years ago isn’t relevant now”. Why is that? |
I dunno CB, and honestly I could care less what JFK, or GWB did or didn't do in the military 30+ years ago. Frankly I am sick of it. Issues ladies and gentlemen. Let's hear some talk about taxes, health care. Stuff that matters.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 13:40 Post subject:
| purple hayes wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | If everyone believes military record is a non-issue, there why has there been such interest in dissecting Kerry’s? I know, "he made it an issue", but now that questions about Bush’s record are raised (again) the Repubs are back to “what happened 30 years ago isn’t relevant now”. Why is that? |
I never said that. |
I wasn't referring to anyone specifically. But a lot of Repubs (and some people here) have been very critical of Kerry's military record. Why not the same interest in Bush's?
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 13:47 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | purple hayes wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | If everyone believes military record is a non-issue, there why has there been such interest in dissecting Kerry’s? I know, "he made it an issue", but now that questions about Bush’s record are raised (again) the Repubs are back to “what happened 30 years ago isn’t relevant now”. Why is that? |
I never said that. |
I wasn't referring to anyone specifically. But a lot of Repubs (and some people here) have been very critical of Kerry's military record. Why not the same interest in Bush's? |
Wasn't part of what has been debated, (and this kind of addresses what Lauri just answered me too, I think) the criteria for which a purple heart is awarded and how he actually got injured to get his? It sounds petty, but that lends even more validity to what she said. From my little knowledge of the military, you don't become a 4-star general just for showing up every day, you earn that. And I thought it was the same for purple hearts but it sounded like from what a lot of people were saying that it's not simply active combat injury that qualifies you for one. And what I mean by that is physically being engaged in battle, as opposed to dropping a box of ammo on your toe or something (an exaggeration but used only to stress my point) Does anyone out there know what the criteria is? The answer to that question seems to be part of the national debate from the little bit I've been paying attention to.
Last edited by genie on 09/09/04 - 13:49; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 13:48 Post subject:
You can get a purple heart by being shot in the ass.
I like the simply beauty in that thought.
|
|
|
|
|
purple hayes
Frightened Inmate #2
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 14462
Location: ON YOUR LEFT!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 13:50 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | I wasn't referring to anyone specifically. |
Are you stalking me? 
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 13:55 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: | You can get a purple heart by being shot in the ass.
I like the simply beauty in that thought. |
OK, that's what I mean. You're up on the front line and get shot in the ass while actively engaged in combat. Purple heart, no discussion. But here's another scenario. I'm cleaning my rifle back at base camp or whatever it's called and somehow manage to discharge it and you're standing in front of me and you get hit in the ass. Do you still get one for that because you were there on a tour of duty and got shot in the ass? Again, I'm exaggerating, but you see where I am going here.....
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
