Should Bush's military record be an issue
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
purple hayes
Frightened Inmate #2
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 14462
Location: ON YOUR LEFT!
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 09/09/04 - 13:59 Post subject:
| genie wrote: | | I'm cleaning my rifle back at base camp or whatever it's called ... |
It's called a rifle.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 14:00 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. |
It would make more of a difference for me. To become a 4 Star General it would take a career of military leadership rather than a stint in the Guard or a single (abbreviated) tour of Duty in Vietnam. So, that sort of leadership would merit consideration during a campaign.
|
|
|
|
|
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 - 14:01 Post subject:
| purple hayes wrote: | | genie wrote: | | I'm cleaning my rifle back at base camp or whatever it's called ... |
It's called a rifle. |
No smartass, I meant the base camp part. 
My point is, I don't think someone should get what was originally designed as, if I understand correctly, a medal of honor for bravery for standing in the way of some dumbass who doesn't know how to properly clean a rifle and ends up shooting them. That was my point--as to what the specific criteria are for awarding the purple heart, other than the obvious combat wounds.
|
|
|
|
|
megawill
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1552
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 14:02 Post subject:
| Pug 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. |
It would make more of a difference for me. To become a 4 Star General it would take a career of military leadership rather than a stint in the Guard or a single (abbreviated) tour of Duty in Vietnam. So, that sort of leadership would merit consideration during a campaign. |
hmm, didn't seem to work for Wesley Clark...
---
megawill
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 14:02 Post subject:
| genie wrote: | | 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..... |
Yep.
| Quote: | How To Earn a Purple Heart
Which injuries are medal-worthy?
By Sam Schechner
In honor of war wounds
Yesterday, Bob Dole joined Republican critics who claim that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry doesn't deserve the Purple Hearts he won in Vietnam. Dole said, "three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds." But is bleeding even necessary? How do you earn a Purple Heart?
A Purple Heart is awarded to any member of the armed forces (including the Coast Guard) who is killed or wounded in action; the severity of the injury isn't really at issue. According to Navy regulations, a worthy wound is merely "an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent, sustained while in action. … A physical lesion is not required, provided the concussion or other form of injury received was a result of the action in which engaged." The other services' regulations include similar language, stipulating, as the Army's does, that "the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record."
In other words, a Band-Aid boo-boo is fair game, so long as enemy action is somewhere obvious in the causal chain. Bruises from bailing out of a plane that's been shot down could count; training injuries could not. (Interestingly, the Army rules that post-traumatic stress disorder doesn't count either.) |
|
|
|
|
|
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 - 14:02 Post subject:
| Pug 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. |
It would make more of a difference for me. To become a 4 Star General it would take a career of military leadership rather than a stint in the Guard or a single (abbreviated) tour of Duty in Vietnam. So, that sort of leadership would merit consideration during a campaign. |
I agree. I wouldn't make it my only criteria and automatically support that candidate, but it'd certainly add value to the political resume, just like a long string of high management positions with proven successful completion of objectives would count in the corporate world.
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 14:08 Post subject:
Some relevant thoughts on this topic, both past and present, courtesy of Josh Marshall at talkingpointsmemo.com:
Here's a note from a long-time social progressive/economic conservative who has gone increasingly progressive since Bush took office:
Bush's Guard service is a loser for the Dems even if the dereliction stories are entirely true, which they likely are. The problem is that nobody cares other than Democrats who despise Bush, and they seem like just a petty reaction to the Swift Boat ads. I would love for this election to be about the environment, choice on abortion, separation of church and state, invasion of privacy/Patriot Act, the economy, and the culture of fear the Bush admin is creating. But it's about Iraq and terrorism. Unfortunately, Kerry has done a terrible job of getting out any cohesive and compelling message about either. Here's what he needs to hammer for the remainder:
1. Bush is A TERRIBLE LEADER IN THE "WAR ON TERROR". He has failed in the hunt for Osama, misdeployed resources, and put off allies who are key to our long-term success against terrorism. Look beyond the macho swagger of Bush and see that he is completely screwing up this incredibly important long-term battle.
2. Bush and the neocon puppet masters deceived the nation into Iraq, then completely blew the execution of a horrible war, costing us more than a thousand soldiers and billions of dollars, killing countless innocent Iraqis, and creating a disastrous and extremely dangerous situation for America for years to come.
3. Bush has blown the economy.
4. Kerry is the man to put America and the world on course for a better future.
Kerry must not only make these points, he must be pissed off about them. Undecided voters are not compelled to vote by Kerry's suggestion that he can do Bush better than Bush. They, and the party voters we need to inspire to actually cast ballots, will respond to Kerry's passionate belief that Bush is seriously taking this country down a bad path and that Kerry can take us on a safer, more prosperous path. Unfortunately, Kerry's voting record on Iraq prohibits him from taking the real winning stand that the Iraq war was a horrible mistake. So he must refocus on the idea that Bush is a horrible president whose decisions are having disastrous consequences. Kerry has to want to lead this country, and he needs to show Americans that he wants badly to lead this country.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 14:09 Post subject:
| megawill wrote: | | Pug 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. |
It would make more of a difference for me. To become a 4 Star General it would take a career of military leadership rather than a stint in the Guard or a single (abbreviated) tour of Duty in Vietnam. So, that sort of leadership would merit consideration during a campaign. |
hmm, didn't seem to work for Wesley Clark...
---
megawill |
It got his foot in the door, though. If he wasn't a general he wouldn't have been in the primaries. I don't think he had any history of public service outside of the military.
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 14:11 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. |
I agree. I don't really care if they served, although I think it is a good thing to have served. But I don't care how hurt Kerry was when he got his purple hearts, if someone else was in a POW camp, if you were in charge of cleaning gun barrels, etc. Did you serve? fantastic. No? fine. However if something has been fudged, I do care.
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 14:11 Post subject:
I vote for whoever will give me free cheese and beer. Anyone else?
|
|
|
|
|
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 - 14:11 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: | | genie wrote: | | 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..... |
Yep.
| Quote: | How To Earn a Purple Heart
Which injuries are medal-worthy?
By Sam Schechner
In honor of war wounds
Yesterday, Bob Dole joined Republican critics who claim that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry doesn't deserve the Purple Hearts he won in Vietnam. Dole said, "three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds." But is bleeding even necessary? How do you earn a Purple Heart?
A Purple Heart is awarded to any member of the armed forces (including the Coast Guard) who is killed or wounded in action; the severity of the injury isn't really at issue. According to Navy regulations, a worthy wound is merely "an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent, sustained while in action. … A physical lesion is not required, provided the concussion or other form of injury received was a result of the action in which engaged." The other services' regulations include similar language, stipulating, as the Army's does, that "the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record."
In other words, a Band-Aid boo-boo is fair game, so long as enemy action is somewhere obvious in the causal chain. Bruises from bailing out of a plane that's been shot down could count; training injuries could not. (Interestingly, the Army rules that post-traumatic stress disorder doesn't count either.) |
|
Hmmm......still sounds like it leaves a lot of room for semantics and interpretation, no? So where in my scenario was there enemy action, other than miles away from where we were when I shot you in the ass by accident? See what I mean? Do they consider just being there, even if you're unloading a truck at the med tent and hurt yourself somehow, as opposed to getting your arm blown off by enemy fire, plausible grounds? Indirectly, there's enemy action, because you're at war, but the enemy was nowhere near where we were at the time you were shot, so how does that figure?
And as a therapist, I definitely do not like the idea that PTSD does not count. That's diagnosable and not easily faked.
|
|
|
|
|
robp
Pyromaniac
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 16242
Location: Waiting in line at the beer store...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 14:16 Post subject:
| genie wrote: | | Pug 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. |
It would make more of a difference for me. To become a 4 Star General it would take a career of military leadership rather than a stint in the Guard or a single (abbreviated) tour of Duty in Vietnam. So, that sort of leadership would merit consideration during a campaign. |
I agree. I wouldn't make it my only criteria and automatically support that candidate, but it'd certainly add value to the political resume, just like a long string of high management positions with proven successful completion of objectives would count in the corporate world. |
Courage is one of the main components of leadership. Courage alone doesn't not make one qualified to be a leader. A 4 Star General would presumably have both to have achieved that position but that still doesnt' automatically qualify them to be the leader of this country. In a way, a 4 Star General would have quite an adjustment to make in becoming president. In the military, said general is accustomed to his orders being obeyed, no questions asked. As president, every freakin' thing he opens his mouth about is going to be questioned, hounded and put down by approximately 50% of the people.
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 14:16 Post subject:
| Quote: | How To Earn a Purple Heart
Which injuries are medal-worthy?
By Sam Schechner
In honor of war wounds
Yesterday, Bob Dole joined Republican critics who claim that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry doesn't deserve the Purple Hearts he won in Vietnam. Dole said, "three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds." But is bleeding even necessary? How do you earn a Purple Heart?
A Purple Heart is awarded to any member of the armed forces (including the Coast Guard) who is killed or wounded in action; the severity of the injury isn't really at issue. According to Navy regulations, a worthy wound is merely "an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent, sustained while in action. … A physical lesion is not required, provided the concussion or other form of injury received was a result of the action in which engaged." The other services' regulations include similar language, stipulating, as the Army's does, that "the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record."
In other words, a Band-Aid boo-boo is fair game, so long as enemy action is somewhere obvious in the causal chain. Bruises from bailing out of a plane that's been shot down could count; training injuries could not. (Interestingly, the Army rules that post-traumatic stress disorder doesn't count either.) |
A Purple Heart can even be awarded for services rendered, while not falling in the category of a Silver Star, Bronze Star, etc., are deemed to have been a contribution for the good of the Armed Forces. It rarely happens, but it can in fact be earned other than by being wounded or killed in action.
|
|
|
|
|
robp
Pyromaniac
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Jul 2002
Posts: 16242
Location: Waiting in line at the beer store...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 14:17 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: | | I vote for whoever will give me free cheese and beer. Anyone else? |
Works for me....
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/09/04 - 14:19 Post subject:
| robp wrote: | | Courage is one of the main components of leadership. |
I love Courage.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
