Bush and Cheney in Vietnam?

[gcy]

I was reading all this discussion of John Kerry?s service in Vietnam and all the different people saying that he did or did not deserve the Medals awarded to him for Bravery and getting shot-up during action against the enemy. I decided that I would check on Bush?s and Cheney?s Vietnam service and I was really surprise to learn that Bush and Cheney never made it to that war. Here are two guys who never fired a weapon against enemies of the US and criticizing Kerry?s service in Vietnam. The same two guys are leading us into a war in Iraq where Americans are dying. I guess it?s okay with them, their backs are not in the line of fire.
:disgust:

 

[Moonbeam]

But they do have the advantage of being assholes rather than sensitive though, right?

 

[EXman]

you get a medal (or metal hehe) for this original thought :roll:

They Polled Vets even they are Voting party lines ...

If this was such a big Deal OP then Bob Dole would have been President! Duh!
please mooove along! nothing to see here

 

[Perknose]

Not to mention their steadfast, unwavering certainty, no matter how wrong they might be!

 

[Vadatajs]

To squeeze off a shot
You're good fun at parties
You wear the right masks
You're old but you still
Like a laugh in the locker room
You can't abide change
You're at home an the range
You opened your suitcase
Behind the old workings
To show off the magnum
You deafened the canyon
A comfort a friend
Only upstaged in the end
By the Uzi machine gun
Does the recoil remind you
Remind you of sex
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill next
I looked over Jordan and what did I see
Saw a U.S. Marine in a pile of debris
I swam in your pools
And lay under your palm trees
I looked in the eyes of the Indian
Who lay on the Federal Building steps
And through the range finder over the hill
I saw the frontline boys popping their pills
Sick of the mess they find
On their desert stage
And the bravery of being out of range

Yeah the question is vexed
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill next
Hey bartender over here
Two more shots
And two more beers
Sir turn up the TV sound
The war has started on the ground
Just love those laser guided bombs
They're really great
For righting wrongs
You hit the target
And win the game
From bars 3,000 miles away
3,000 miles away
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
We zap and maim
With the bravery of being out of range
We strafe the train
With the bravery of being out of range
We gained terrain
With the bravery of being out of range
With the bravery of being out of range
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range

--Roger Waters The Bravery of Being out of Range

 

[GeneralGrievous]

Bush and Cheney haven't said anything. The swiftboat veterans are.

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Bush and Cheney haven't said anything. The swiftboat veterans are.

And the silence of Bush and Cheney is deafing on this issue. :roll:

 

[Ryan]

The whitehouse has said it will never refute or challenge Kerry's war record, and that is what they've done. They have never commented on it.

Or course Bush is not going to say anything about the Swiftboat vets. Had Bush have served and Kerry not, I don't think he'd do any different. These people are trying to get elected, not help elect their competition.

 

[glenn1]

Here are two guys who never fired a weapon against enemies of the US and criticizing Kerry?s service in Vietnam.

So what's your point? I can't play NFL football but I can tell you that the Detroit Lions suck ass. I can't build an ISP but I can tell you that AOL sucks ass.

Not only that, if you were serving in Vietnam, would you have wanted any of them on your squad? During my service days I worked with enough numbnuts as it was. I can imagine Lt. Bush pilot extraordinnaire dropping us on the wrong LZ, and Lt. Kerry leading the ODA onto the wrong objective and then putting himself in for the Legion of Merit during the AAR.

 

[MoFunk]

If Kerry didn't want hiw "war" record to be an issue, he should have never come out as a "war hero". I was not there, so I can't say for sure. I can only go by what I have read about his actions when he came home. I also find it humerous that there are a LOT of people comeing out and saying that they served with him and they all seem to agree with the swift vets, which they are all obviously lying and are all part of that vast right wing consiracy.

I on the otherhand do not care what happened in Nam. I do not care if he commited war crimes, or self inflicted his wounds, or if he had balls of steel and pulled a Rambo! When I go to the booth I will vote according to what is going on now, and watching Kerry is like watching a damn tennis match, back and forth, back and forth. I mean come on, take a side on an issue and stick with the damn thing.

I guess maybe I will vote for Kerry, before I vote against him.

 

[viivo]

Kindergarten logic: If military service is irrelevant in an election, and thus to the people, why are the smears on the candidate who served exclusive to it?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: MoFunk
If Kerry didn't want hiw "war" record to be an issue, he should have never come out as a "war hero". I was not there, so I can't say for sure. I can only go by what I have read about his actions when he came home. I also find it humerous that there are a LOT of people comeing out and saying that they served with him and they all seem to agree with the swift vets, which they are all obviously lying and are all part of that vast right wing consiracy.

I on the otherhand do not care what happened in Nam. I do not care if he commited war crimes, or self inflicted his wounds, or if he had balls of steel and pulled a Rambo! When I go to the booth I will vote according to what is going on now, and watching Kerry is like watching a damn tennis match, back and forth, back and forth. I mean come on, take a side on an issue and stick with the damn thing.

I guess maybe I will vote for Kerry, before I vote against him.

Name some issues on which Kerry has not been consistent.

Go ahead.

 

[gcy]

Originally posted by: viivo
Kindergarten logic: If military service is irrelevant in an election, and thus to the people, why are the smears on the candidate who served exclusive to it?

That's all they know is how to destroy, and it does not mean anything.

 

[chess9]

Kerry is a legitimate target on this issue. He has made a big deal of his military service, but I knew hundreds of Marines who never got anything more than a purple heart and a campaign ribbon in 'Nam and they did more nasty stuff in a single day than Kerry did in his two "tours".

But, the swiftboat captains have very little evidence to back up the book. I saw the author on MSNBC and our good friend Chris wasn't having any of it. The guy came across as a lying sack of political ****.

Anyway, it was common practice for politically well-connected kids to get fast promotions and medals galore. If Bush HAD gone to 'Nam he would have come home with a chest full of medals, uh, if he came home at all, and there's the rub. Kerry DID go to 'Nam and did risk his ass. (Once he sat on a ship, but he was there.) The swift boat captains are right wing Republicans who have a political axe to grind. If they were really interested in the truth they'd be complaining about all the sons of politicians who got special treatment in the military.

-Robert

 

[mastertech01]

I saw a lot of bronze stars handed out like candy in Desert Storm. It reduced the meaning of the award in my mind to virtually nothing. Medals have always been a point of controversy as so many have recieved them for doing a fraction of what others who never recieved them did. It has long been a point of being in the right place at the right time or a "who you know" thing. Without a doubt, many officers recieve awards more due to their position than what they did to earn them.

I think Kerry took advantage of his position to get high recognition for average deeds. I also dont hold anything against him for doing so, especially being a young relatively immature man, as so many participating in combat are.

However I feel NO man should boast of his awards, simply due to the fact that so many others did so much more with little or no recognition, and I feel it disrespectful to hold yourself above others because of what you wear on your uniform.

Many support soldiers served in non combat roles as well that any combat soldier with any integrity will tell you are as much the heroes as those who were shooting bullets. The great majority of those recieve no recognition.

These issues should never be brought out in political warfare on either side. It is a non issue on qualifications for president. Now if he had deserted and gone to Canada to live to escape service that would be an issue.Any veteran who feels he is more qualified to be president because of his service should be ashamed. He should feel extremely proud of his service, but no less proud than those who supported him in country and at home.

Perhaps a General who served not only in combat, but in the Pentagon, on national security, and as an ambassador could say he is more qualified than Joe Blow the Senator who has never governed a state or did more than show up for a vote on domestic issues in office could boast he is more qualified, but combat experience alone is not sole qualifier.

This issue should be put to bed on both sides IMHO.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
I saw a lot of bronze stars handed out like candy in Desert Storm. It reduced the meaning of the award in my mind to virtually nothing. Medals have always been a point of controversy as so many have recieved them for doing a fraction of what others who never recieved them did. It has long been a point of being in the right place at the right time or a "who you know" thing. Without a doubt, many officers recieve awards more due to their position than what they did to earn them.

I think Kerry took advantage of his position to get high recognition for average deeds. I also dont hold anything against him for doing so, especially being a young relatively immature man, as so many participating in combat are.

However I feel NO man should boast of his awards, simply due to the fact that so many others did so much more with little or no recognition, and I feel it disrespectful to hold yourself above others because of what you wear on your uniform.

Many support soldiers served in non combat roles as well that any combat soldier with any integrity will tell you are as much the heroes as those who were shooting bullets. The great majority of those recieve no recognition.

These issues should never be brought out in political warfare on either side. It is a non issue on qualifications for president. Now if he had deserted and gone to Canada to live to escape service that would be an issue.Any veteran who feels he is more qualified to be president because of his service should be ashamed. He should feel extremely proud of his service, but no less proud than those who supported him in country and at home.

Perhaps a General who served not only in combat, but in the Pentagon, on national security, and as an ambassador could say he is more qualified than Joe Blow the Senator who has never governed a state or did more than show up for a vote on domestic issues in office could boast he is more qualified, but combat experience alone is not sole qualifier.

This issue should be put to bed on both sides IMHO.

I'm sure that the decision to highlight his Viet Nam service was made by his election commitee, not him presonally.

 

[arsbanned]

So what's your point? I can't play NFL football but I can tell you that the Detroit Lions suck ass

Unless you are an NFL official, what's your point? This is an absurd comparison you're making. Bush and Cheney are sending people to their deaths in Iraq. They are committing military forces, and yet they have no experience whatsoever. It is relevant and no amount of ridiculous comparisons can change that FACT.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Bush and Cheney haven't said anything. The swiftboat veterans are.

And the silence of Bush and Cheney is deafing on this issue. :roll:

show me where either of them attacked kerry's war record.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Bush and Cheney haven't said anything. The swiftboat veterans are.

And the silence of Bush and Cheney is deafing on this issue. :roll:

show me where either of them attacked kerry's war record.

show me where either of them condemned the ads doing so. :roll: (hint: see the word 'silence' in Triple's post?)

 

[conjur]

Hmm...we're in the same boat we were in 4 months ago:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-27-kerry-fires-back_x.htm

Posted 4/27/2004 9:39 PM Updated 4/29/2004 12:05 AM
Attacked on defense issues, Kerry fires back

Why would Republicans pick a fight over who did what during Vietnam?

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, head of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, says they want to turn the story of a war hero into the story of a protester who "betrayed the country and its veterans." But she adds, "He won the medals. I don't think the Republicans won this exchange."

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: MoFunk
I guess maybe I will vote for Kerry, before I vote against him.

Please do! Vote FOR Kerry, then feel free to go back to your precinct and try to vote against him. Brilliant!

 

[GeneralGrievous]

show me where either of them condemned the ads doing so.

Where is Kerry condemning Michael Moore's movie? Or any Democrat for that matter?

At least Mccain has said something about the swiftboat vets.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

So what's your point? I can't play NFL football but I can tell you that the Detroit Lions suck ass

Unless you are an NFL official, what's your point? This is an absurd comparison you're making. Bush and Cheney are sending people to their deaths in Iraq. They are committing military forces, and yet they have no experience whatsoever. It is relevant and no amount of ridiculous comparisons can change that FACT.

I'm sorry, but being a soldier in Vietman for less than a year makes him no more qualified than Bush. Had Kerry been in the service for 20+ years, and achieved a high rank, I'd say he'd be more qualified, but he's not.

Kerry got as much experience from the war as Bush did from his national guard service. A few months in a war that failed does not make him overly qualified or an expert on modern day warfare.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: arsbanned

I'm sorry, but being a soldier in Vietman for less than a year makes him no more qualified than Bush. Had Kerry been in the service for 20+ years, and achieved a high rank, I'd say he'd be more qualified, but he's not.

Kerry got as much experience from the war as Bush did from his national guard service.

I tend to agree with you as to whether the experience itself makes him meaningfully more qualified, though I totally disagree that he and President Bush got the same amount of "experience" during the war.

What I do respect, and admire, is the fact that Sen Kerry volunteered for a Navy commission, and volunteered to go to Vietnam. I also appreciate that he had the stones to come back and criticize the war. I am a GI myself, and I know his conduct alienated and continues to anger a lot of veterans, but I see it as an act of moral courage, and that is a quality I do think is useful in a President.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: arsbanned

So what's your point? I can't play NFL football but I can tell you that the Detroit Lions suck ass

Unless you are an NFL official, what's your point? This is an absurd comparison you're making. Bush and Cheney are sending people to their deaths in Iraq. They are committing military forces, and yet they have no experience whatsoever. It is relevant and no amount of ridiculous comparisons can change that FACT.

I'm sorry, but being a soldier in Vietman for less than a year makes him no more qualified than Bush. Had Kerry been in the service for 20+ years, and achieved a high rank, I'd say he'd be more qualified, but he's not.

Kerry got as much experience from the war as Bush did from his national guard service.

OMG, that's just GOT to be a joke, right? :laugh: