Should Bush's military record be an issue :: RunningForums.com

RexRacer wrote:

thanks for that, Rex...I couldn't agree more...I'm not familar with Marshal, I'll have to check his website out...

---
megawill

robp wrote:

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.

Damn, now THAT is a really good point. I watched my uncle's family fall apart because he tried to "run" his household like he ran his troops in the army and it just didn't work. Way smaller scale, but that's an interesting twist to the argument.

As far as my stance on how someone got injured to get a purple heart, to me it does matter, because while I think military service in general is a great thing-including my nephew who just graduated top of his class in pilot school in March and is dying to get over to the Middle East and kick some ass (his words, not mine)-I wouldn't look at someone who was mortally wounded in combat the same way I would someone who got shot in the ass by an incompetent co-soldier.

How DID Kerry get his purple hearts? I can't remember what it was my roomie said he heard happened?

elkid wrote:

robp wrote:

Courage is one of the main components of leadership.

I love Courage.

But Victory is so much more rewarding.....

genie wrote:

How DID Kerry get his purple hearts?

That about wraps up the POTD, methinks.....

HERESY! Victory is good, but Courage is better. Packs a punch it does. Tonight I shall be sharing a few pints o' this with The Mystery Guest:

I'll preface my comments with the information that I am woefully underinformed with regards to the issues at hand, frankly, because I don't have time to pick the two of them apart.

Having said that, I feel that military records are not an issue if they are not MADE an issue. I feel that standing on the podium extolling your military career knowing full well that A) It was National Guard B) as an Officer which anyone will tell you is different than serving enlisted and C) You didn't complete your requirements is a NO NO.

Had he not mentioned it, hey, I wouldn't have cared either way. But he did. Therein lies the rub.

elkid wrote:

HERESY! Victory is good, but Courage is better. Packs a punch it does. Tonight I shall be sharing a few pints o' this with The Mystery Guest:

You had that sweet beer when we went though. You gotta try the St. Victorious. That stuff whoops azzzzz.......nothing holds a candle to my Raison D' Etre though....HH, witness??

I see your Rd'E and raise you

megawill wrote:

RexRacer wrote:

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.
Big words, no backing. Granted, Bin Laden is not in our hands. Al-Quada, to this point, has been rendered helpless in regards to the U.S. There have been no other attacks on U.S. soil and limited attacks elsewhere. Do you not think they would have dearly loved to pull something off at the Olympics? I don't believe he's put off any allies at all in the battle against terrorism.
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.
More big words. Saddam was given a chance, he failed to utilize it. Iraq was invaded based on current intelligence that said the WMD's existed and were on Iraqi soil. It's possible that intelligence was wrong. Even the other nations of the UN were convinced he had them.

Would this talking head care to elaborate on how Bush blew the execution of this war? Many of those innocent Iraqis were killed by insurgents and forces loyal to Saddam. I take it that he has a crystal ball also in that he already knows this situation is going to be dangerous and disastrous for America for years to come.

3. Bush has blown the economy.
This is total bullsh!t. It's not possible for one man to blow an economy or resurrect one. I live in the Midwest, one of the areas supposedly hit the hardest. I personally don't know a soul that is on unemployment. There are jobs out there for people who want to work. It may not be in the field they dreamt they would be working in but there are jobs there.

4. Kerry is the man to put America and the world on course for a better future.
Kerry has yet to prove he's decisive enough to lead a country and that he can actually put sensible policies to work.

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.

thanks for that, Rex...I couldn't agree more...I'm not familar with Marshal, I'll have to check his website out...

---
megawill