Isn't it insensitive to attack one's military record for political gain?

Question

Especially if you do not know all of the facts? They attacked George W. Bush's military record and the results turned out to be false! Then of course John Kerry was attacked with the swift boat ads. Why? Can we not do better than this? I mean Any man or woman who has served bravely in the military deserves some credit! John Kerry was a Vietnam vet! He has seen more combat than most of us may never see! And I don't know the entire detail on the "phony soldier" deal. But I am cautious when it comes to questioning someone's military record! I think if someone is gonna make such accusations; they better have the ammunition to back up their claim! If not, then its just gonna prove that neither the media, nor politicians can be trusted! This is the behavior you would expect to see from school children! Not grown men!

Why involve politics in military service? Why not honor those who served? And why accuse someone of being AWOL when you don't know all of the facts? Do you understand that being AWOL is a very serious offense under the UCMJ and most likely the entire country would have known this a long time ago! Why is it all of a sudden these people are draft dodgers,AWOL, or phony soldiers? They would have been punished severely for such offenses!

Answer 1

If a person served in the military and was honorably discharged, we should thank and honor that person. That should be the end of it.

A couple of things though. Some of the Kerry attacks were justified, some not. Where the attacks were justified were a result of Kerry's attack on other Vets whom he accused of war crimes.

As for Cleland, his opponent in the campaign disagreed with his post 9/11 views on how to protect the country. His opponent was castigated for attacking a disabled vet. That was wrong. He wasn't attacking his service, he was attacking his post 9/11 views. Again, that is justified in a campaign.

Finally, if you are not up on the "phony soldier" controversy, you should be. Rush made his comments in response to men who had testified about atrocities committed in Iraq. These men said they were wounded veterans and told of how American soldiers were committing war crimes.

One in particular, Jesse MacBeth, had just been convicted of being a "phony soldier" and sentenced to 5 years in prison. MacBeth was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Al Qaeda and Al Jazeera were parading those comments to their people. And they were bogus. MacBeth was not a soldier, and there are others like him. Limbaugh was not talking about real vets and soldiers. He was speaking of MacBeth and his ilk.

So as I stated in the beginning, we must thank the vets and leave it there. Now if the vets go in front of the cameras and begin speaking, then whatever is said should be subject to the same scrutiny as anyone else. We shouldn't hear "You can't criticize what he said, he's a vet". We should be allowed to criticize the content of the speech. But criticizing the service is wrong.

Answer 2

Well, at least they both had a military record.

It is kind of a mute question or point for this upcoming election though. The pool of candidates on both sides this time is extrememly lacking in military experience. Let's face it - this is a big consideration when you go to the voting booth. How can you run a country with wars and be the head of the military with no experience? This is the first presidential election in 64 years in which hardly any major party nominee has prior military experience. Why is that? Because people recognized in the past that experience is needed.


Hillary - no experience
Barak - no experience (maybe that is why he said he would invade Pakistan)
John Edwards - no experience
Richardson - no experience
Biden - no experience
Dodd - does have military experience

Answer 3

I think that when someone enters the political arena, their credibility should be questioned. This goes along with their military record, their fidelity, or infidelity, their connections to political action committees etc. As a former Marine, if I made claims that I have 3 purples hearts, 2 Navy Crosses and a Bronze Star, (which I don't) to lend credence to my knowledge and commitment to the war, then you would have the right and the duty to determine the veracity of my claims. If I am proved to be a liar, or to have exaggerated my claims, then I brought that on myself by making the claims in the first place. Why isn't my service just good enough to stand on it's own, I know many Marines that I served with that have not yet been to war, is their service any less genuine than my own because they are stationed on Embassy Duty or Recruiting, or at 8th & I, and I having been in the combat zone, I don't think so, the fact that they are serving honorably and faithfully is enough for me.

Answer 4

I find it sad when people do that, especially when it is people who never served in the military doing the attacking. It just shows how desperate and sad the state of US politics have become when people on both sides are salivating to attack ones military record. There is more than enough fuel to attack someone on their political ideology there is not need to add personal history to it.

Answer 5

Yes, and Murtha, who spent at least a year in combat was attacked for not deserving a purple heart, Clelland was attacked as a non hero for allegedly picking up his own grenade, McCain was also attacked as a non hero because his plane was shot down.

Bush's entire record was not found, and it's likely, from the statements of guys in his unit and its secretary, that he simply went awol for the last year. However, Rather did not have enough information to make the accusations he aired.

Answer 6

You are painting with too broad a brush. Your ire should be directed at Democrats, who are the world champ much rakers.
The Dems tried to besmirch Mr. Bush's character by falsely accusing him of ducking the draft. Mr. Kerry, a Democrat, lied about his record and lied to Congress about activities in Vietnam. The Swift Boat Vets set the record straight.
The same left wing liberal loonies are trying to smear Rush Limbaugh with a false claim of saying a bad thing about a soldier.
Put the blame where it belongs.

Answer 7

What if they guy never served at all, or stated that he saw combat, but never left the states?

Answer 8

I agree. Those who attack our troops, are weak in the force.