Let's face it, they let Kerry make something he did for 3 months almost 40 years ago the centerpiece and just about only qualification for his run. And they made a big deal about the Bush AWOL hoax.
Shall we assume that military service will not be an issue with Hillary or Barack, just like it wasn't in '92 and '96? Shall we assume that their infatuation with it was completely phony and was simply following the standard pattern of Dem politics of personal destruction?
2007-01-20 10:52:03 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
yes
2007-01-20 10:54:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Turbo, how's it going mate? You've caught my attention.
Now, let's start with the fact that we have a damned terrible mess in Iraq. An absolutely discretionary mess. There are no WMD in Iraq. Fact. Iraq was not, therefore, a threat. Fact.
Other facts. Bush never served. Cheney never served. Rumsfeld never served. Pearle never served. Wolfowitz never served. Norqvist never served. Rove never served.
None of the architechts of the war know a damned thing about it first hand. And, what do we have -- a goddamned disaster. A disaster brought about absolutely by choice and absolutely by Republican leadership.
So, of course the opposing candidate had to talk about his relative experience. It had to be done as a return to reason and sanity. It was reactionary, and for good reason. Someone needed to remind Americans that there are some political leaders that actually have some credentials when speaking about war.
McCain is obviously another one. And, as I recall, he was shamelessly assaulted by the Rove machine in the 2000 Republican primary in the sleaziest sort of way.
The simple fact is that these chickenhawks have no honor. They have no valor. They peddle slime, and they run amok causing terrible messes that have to be cleaned up by responsible people such as Powell, Bush 43, Baker, McCain -- or on the other side Webb, etc.
Once the mess is cleaned up, and we have finally achieved something remotely approaching sanity in our Iraq policy, war credentials will not be as relevant.
And so? What does this prove, exactly?
I mean, how can a guy with military experience sit back and brag about the conduct of Cheney and Bush and all the neo-cons that got us into this mess -- including the abysmal planning, the lack of boots on the ground, the lack of proper armor, the disrespect for the fallen, the stripping of pay and benefits for veterans?
For God's sake, have some self-respect, sir!
2007-01-24 01:56:50 · answer #2 · answered by Murphy 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
One, Kerry served in Vietnam. Among his many qualifications, that one proved his willingness to serve his country in wartime. It got attention because, having served, he became an outspoken opponent of the continuation of the Vietnam war. Very much like the many, many people who have served in Iraq and returned home to speak out against this war.
Two, the 'Bush AWOL hoax' wasn't a hoax at all. The guy evaded active duty. The obsession with his military lack of service was because he was, and still is, willing to send others to fight and die in an illegal and unconscionable war, when he was unwilling to do so himself. That kind of hypocrisy always deserves to be the focus of attention, particularly when it manifests in the leader of a country.
You're correct on one point. For obvious reasons, military service will not be an issue with either Hillary or Obama. Democrats can be infatuated with other aspects of their resumes.
2007-01-20 11:31:21 · answer #3 · answered by functionary01 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Are you high. The reason nobody gives a s.hit if Clinton did military service is because _he did not put the U.S. on the military offensive against a country totally unrelated to Osama bin Laden and drain billions of our tax dollars for pretty much no reason_. How can you not conprehend that. (The situation that Bush has gotten himself into is called 'ironic,' for those of you who missed too much school. Where does someone like Bush, with no military background whatsoever, come off attacking a country for the total hell of it?) Again, in the same way, nobody cares if Hillary or Barack served in the military because ... THEY DIDN'T START POINTLESS, MISGUIDED, UNPLANNED WARS AND NEVER WILL IN THE FUTURE.
2007-01-20 11:28:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Your question is filled with so many inaccuracies that it's impossible to answer. Bush was AWOL--that wasn't a hoax--and whether he was AWOL or not, he never went to war. If he had--like Kerry, McCain, Powell etc.--he wouldn't have gotten us into this horrible tragedy called Iraq.
Each election has its own candidates and issues. I urge you to educate yourself before the next election by doing your own research in a variety of media and coming up with your own ideas. Vote for the canddiate who believes in the same principles you do and who will support issues that actually affect your life. Don't be misled by hype and spin and other people's biases.
America is a great country, but we cannot remain great without an informed citizenry. You have a civic duty to learn what government does, how it impacts your life, what issues are important to you and how you can support your candidate.
2007-01-20 11:00:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Who needs to focus on past military service when you've got the colossal Iraq blunder as an issue? Iraq and the candidates' views on it are going to take center stage, not past military service. Republican's support and drive toward the war is going to be an albatross around their necks, but potentially for a candidate like Hillary as well.
2007-01-20 10:58:03 · answer #6 · answered by Underground Man 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4924034461280278026&q=Why+We+Fight&hl=en You have absolutely no idea do you? See this documentary on "Why We Fight" and award winning film in 2005. The Presidents nor the house have any control over the Military Industrial Complex. It's way over their heads to try and put a stop to it.
2007-01-20 11:36:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I thought Bush was on a secret mission with the Swift Boat Vets
Go big Red Go
2007-01-20 10:57:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
It will be determined by the military background of the candidates. But rest assured that the dems will adopt a 'policy of the moment' to suit their purpose wether it is consistant or not.
2007-01-20 10:56:51 · answer #9 · answered by vaughndhume 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
WAIT!! Is this an issue with them? I can't keep track,...wasn't it a NON issue with Clinton? But then again, it was a HUGE issue with Kerry and Bush...hmmmm...but now, let's see...hmmm??
2007-01-20 11:21:27 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You can bet your sweet @*** it will. Dems don't follow the same standards they set for others.
2007-01-20 10:56:49 · answer #11 · answered by nope n 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋