Testimonial for Jim Webb

[rhatsaruck]

The following is from U.S. Marine Corps Col. Michael Duncan Wyly, Colonel (ret), Jim Webb's company commander in Vietnam.

Why I Would Vote for Jim Webb if I lived in Virginia
by Michael Duncan Wyly, Colonel, USMC (ret)
3 November 2006

If I lived in Virginia my vote would be for Jim Webb because I know him and came to trust him and saw and felt the confidence his Marines had in him while I was his Company Commander in combat in 1969. We were together every day and night; our relationship was professional, yet nothing missed my notice then because so much was at stake. I was asked recently by a reporter from the Norfolk Pilot, why, in my opinion, Jim Webb was so respected by the men he led in 1969; why they were so loyal to him and still are to this day. The reporter did not publish my answer so I want to make it clear, here.

My answer came implicitly without having to think: "Because they knew he would always be there for them, even at great risk; and he placed enormous value on human life." When I was his company commander he never hesitated to voice an opinion if he had an idea of a way to make a move more safely. The lives and safety of the men in his charge came first, and they knew it. When Dale Tucker, one of his squad leaders was shot in the abdomen during an ambush on the 20th of April, 1969, Lieutenant Webb went into the kill zone without hesitation, pulled him out, and gave him first aid. He performed similar rescues of several Marines on the 9th of May of the same year. That was the same day he risked his life to recover the body of Jim Ward, knowing how important this would be to Corporal Ward's grieving family back home. Lieutenant Jim Webb stayed with his men all that year and the acts I have described here characterized Jim's performance for the entire twelve months that he remained in combat before being ordered home.

As I have remained in contact with Jim through the years, the same characteristics that I came to know in `69 have continued to define the man he is. He is an intellectual as well as a man of strong character. As a novelist, his understanding of human nature, good and bad, is tangible; and his passion to see good overcome evil is compellingly clear. I have read all of his books and I recommend them to every American as a means of understanding your country better, and mankind better.

More importantly, I commend Jim to you as the leader this Country needs. Jim's ability to make decisions has been forged through a multiplicity of diverse life-experience that few men ever have. He makes decisions according to the dynamic and changing situation that life is and he can be depended upon to make the best decision for his Country that he holds so dear, and the men and women of Virginia, who like his Marines in 1969, are to him, his family.

Jim Webb embodies humanity's two greatest virtues, courage and integrity. Courage first. I place courage ahead of integrity because it is impossible to sustain the latter without the former. It often takes courage to tell the truth. In all the years I have known Jim Webb, even under the toughest pressure, he has never compromised on either. If Jim says it, it's true. And if it's true, he has the courage to say it - and he will.


That's one impressive testimonial.

I will be real curious to see how the active military vote in VA breaks for Webb vs. Allen.

I wonder why the Repubs haven't tried to "Swiftboat" Webb. Hey, there's still three days left.

 

[Rainsford]

I don't think a Swift Boat attack would have worked NEARLY as well on Webb as it did on Kerry. Not only did Kerry have his anti-war activism to bolster the untrue Swift Boat story, he also didn't strike most people as a "warrior" type. Of course Bush was the one most people associated with military bearing, despite the fact that he barely served in the air national guard, but honestly most people get their idea of what soldiers are like from movies...and Kerry was just enough off that profile to be an easy target. Webb, in contrast, did not have the kind of in-your-face anti-war activism that Kerry had and strikes a lot of people as a military type of guy. In fact, attacking him on Swift Boat like grounds would be silly, since it would draw even more of a contrast between him and Allen, who seems MUCH less military than Webb. Obviously there are a lot of assumptions and generalizations involved in political judgments, but that's the point, an attack that seems tailor made for one politician won't work as well on another.

 

[BoomerD]

Nice words from his Company Commander.
Don't know what the "issues" are in Virginia, (other than the national ones, but it sounds like he's a stand-up guy.
Maybe they just don't have enough to use against him to "Swiftboat" him like they did Kerry.
Semper Fi!

 

[ProfJohn]

Webb is a wolf in sheep?s clothing.
Any member of the military who looks at him and thinks what a great military guy he is and chooses him over Allen is making a big mistake.

The Republican Party is without a doubt the party for most of the military due to their long standing support of the military. Meanwhile, half the Democratic Party holds the military in contempt. Just look at the comments of Kerry, Kennedy and Durbin in regards to the military and their actions in Iraq.
Kennedy ?"Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."
Durbin ??If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime?Pol Pot or others?that had no concern for human beings.?
Kerry "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."

And you wonder why the right flipped out over Kerry?s ?joke? It is part of a pattern by the left to accuse American soldiers of awful crimes.

In case you don?t understand, Bush and Rumsfeld are in Washington. The people who are running these places being described as torture chambers are American soldiers. The places being compared to Nazi and Soviet gulags are run by the military.

If elected Webb will be keeping company with these three senators. To vote for Webb because he has a good history with the military and ignore the people who he will side with and vote with is just foolish.

BTW: Swift Boat worked because Kerry portrayed himself as one thing when his record said another.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Webb is a wolf in sheep?s clothing.
Any member of the military who looks at him and thinks what a great military guy he is and chooses him over Allen is making a big mistake.

The Republican Party is without a doubt the party for most of the military due to their long standing support of the military. Meanwhile, half the Democratic Party holds the military in contempt. Just look at the comments of Kerry, Kennedy and Durbin in regards to the military and their actions in Iraq.
Kennedy ?"Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."
Durbin ??If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime?Pol Pot or others?that had no concern for human beings.?
Kerry "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."

And you wonder why the right flipped out over Kerry?s ?joke? It is part of a pattern by the left to accuse American soldiers of awful crimes.

In case you don?t understand, Bush and Rumsfeld are in Washington. The people who are running these places being described as torture chambers are American soldiers. The places being compared to Nazi and Soviet gulags are run by the military.

If elected Webb will be keeping company with these three senators. To vote for Webb because he has a good history with the military and ignore the people who he will side with and vote with is just foolish.

BTW: Swift Boat worked because Kerry portrayed himself as one thing when his record said another.

Really? If I remember correctly, Kerry's record said that he performed his service heroically and deserved the medals he earned. Although you are somewhat right (but not in the way you meant those words), because Kerry didn't present himself as a tough-ass "war president" type who would encourage the terrorists to "bring it on". He was vulnerable BECAUSE he came off as someone a lot less "military" than his war record said he was.

As for the rest of it, typical generalizing bullshit from a guy who doesn't have a real point. Webb is in fact a Democrat, I don't see how that makes him just like Kerry, Kennedy or Durbin or any other "lefties" for that matter. I don't agree with the idea that liberals are anti-troops or that Republicans are pro-troops (they might be pro-war, but that's a whole different kettle of fish), but even if I did, Democrats have done a good job showing that each one of them is an individual who may or may not agree with the party line. You might be confusing them with the Republicans, who can EASIALLY all be tarred with the same brush unless they prove otherwise...their record speaks for itself.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Webb is a wolf in sheep?s clothing.
Any member of the military who looks at him and thinks what a great military guy he is and chooses him over Allen is making a big mistake.

The Republican Party is without a doubt the party for most of the military due to their long standing support of the military. Meanwhile, half the Democratic Party holds the military in contempt. Just look at the comments of Kerry, Kennedy and Durbin in regards to the military and their actions in Iraq.
Kennedy ?"Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."
Durbin ??If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime?Pol Pot or others?that had no concern for human beings.?
Kerry "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."

And you wonder why the right flipped out over Kerry?s ?joke? It is part of a pattern by the left to accuse American soldiers of awful crimes.

In case you don?t understand, Bush and Rumsfeld are in Washington. The people who are running these places being described as torture chambers are American soldiers. The places being compared to Nazi and Soviet gulags are run by the military.

If elected Webb will be keeping company with these three senators. To vote for Webb because he has a good history with the military and ignore the people who he will side with and vote with is just foolish.

BTW: Swift Boat worked because Kerry portrayed himself as one thing when his record said another.

Wow, that is quite a load you are shoveling there. If you don't want people to vote for Webb maybe you should actually, you know, talk about Jim Webb. Not Kerry and Durbin. It just goes to show that you don't have a leg to stand on by claiming that the military should prefer Allen to Webb.

If you want to blame Webb for the actions of other members of his party, then two can play at that game and trust me the Republicans lose.

 

[theeedude]

This one is pretty good too. Of course Reagan was a Democrat shill too, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEmjJIk8ga0&eurl=

 

[BoomerD]

So, Professional John is bashing our troops again? What a surprise. The right wants our fine men & women to serve in the armed forces, but if they get out and DARE to become Democrats, then they are now tainted?
While I won't go so far as to say that our elected leaders need to have military service, it IS a fine trait to have in someone who's going to help shape our national policies. Webb served in combat as a USMC officer. How many members of the Repig Chickenhawk brigade can claim that?

Kennedy ?"Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."
Durbin ??If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime?Pol Pot or others?that had no concern for human beings.?
Kerry "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."

So, are you saying these things are UNTRUE, or just that they should be kept secret? Anyone who has ever served in combat, knows about, has seen, or even may have participated in things that would be considered to be "atrocities", if exposed to the public.
Take a quick look back at Vietnam...MyLai massacre...NOT an uncommon practice, just well covered up...until Lt. Calley got caught. Intelligence officers routinely did their questioning of VC prisoners in helicopters. Pretty good way to get people to answer your questions, when they see the guy before them get thrown out of the aircraft from a couple thousand feet...
Does that get denied? Sure does, but it DID happen...fairly regularly...it was just kept covered up pretty well.

 

[jackschmittusa]

ProfJohn

So, instead of speaking out against atrocities and holding those accountable, you would:

a. offer blanket immunity to all involved

b. cover it up so citizens of the U.S. won't be dissapointed

c. Award medals to the superiors who caused these things to happen; higher the rank, bigger the medal

d. dismiss it as a common occurance, after all, why should we be any beter than the bad guys

e. declare anybody that has a negative opinion of these things as a traitor and lock them up for offering aid and comfort to the enemy

Did I miss any other options that those on your side of the fence seem to find appropriate?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Webb is a wolf in sheep?s clothing.
Any member of the military who looks at him and thinks what a great military guy he is and chooses him over Allen is making a big mistake.

The Republican Party is without a doubt the party for most of the military due to their long standing support of the military. Meanwhile, half the Democratic Party holds the military in contempt. Just look at the comments of Kerry, Kennedy and Durbin in regards to the military and their actions in Iraq.
Kennedy ?"Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."
Durbin ??If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime?Pol Pot or others?that had no concern for human beings.?
Kerry "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."

And you wonder why the right flipped out over Kerry?s ?joke? It is part of a pattern by the left to accuse American soldiers of awful crimes.

In case you don?t understand, Bush and Rumsfeld are in Washington. The people who are running these places being described as torture chambers are American soldiers. The places being compared to Nazi and Soviet gulags are run by the military.

If elected Webb will be keeping company with these three senators. To vote for Webb because he has a good history with the military and ignore the people who he will side with and vote with is just foolish.

BTW: Swift Boat worked because Kerry portrayed himself as one thing when his record said another.

Typically uninformed chickenhawkery. Webb only became a Democrat because he was so disgusted with the way his own Republican party was treating the military, by subjecting them to unnecessary risk by starting such a stunningly poorly-planned offensive shooting war in Iraq. James Webb's left baby toe knows more about the military and the needs of its servicemen than your entire body and soul ever will.

It's also absurdly flawed rhetoric to paint an entire party, including a man with Webb's tremendous military background, with such a broad brush based on isolated statements by a few of its members. Again, this is chickenhawk pretzel logic at its most transparent.

So I will ask yet again, in what sense are you a professor?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If elected Webb will be keeping company with these three senators. To vote for Webb because he has a good history with the military and ignore the people who he will side with and vote with is just foolish.

By this you say one must blindly vote for the Republican party in every race, regardless of how inept or corrupt the Republican running is, at least as long as they haven't been convicted yet.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
Webb is a wolf in sheep?s clothing.

Says the Bushwhakco neocon sycophant.

The Republican Party is without a doubt the party for most of the military due to their long standing support of the military.

Uh-huh! That's why they've got almost 3,000 dead and tens of thousands of wounded American troops in Iraq fighing a hopelessly misconceive, mismanaged war based on lies.

Yer doin' a heck of a job, Bushie and Rummie!

Meanwhile, half the Democratic Party holds the military in contempt. Just look at the comments of Kerry, Kennedy and Durbin in regards to the military and their actions in Iraq.

You might want to check the thread about The Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, and Marine Corps Times demanding Ronald Dumbsfeld should resign or be fired. In that thread, the best you could muster is to call their editorials "politically motivated." of course, you're just pathetically grasping at straw so I'll These quotes from the Military Times editorial address your lame attempts to dissemble and distract from the content of the article:

"We say that Rumsfeld must be replaced,? Alex Neill, the managing editor of the Army Times, told The Virginian-Pilot Friday night. ?Given the state of affairs with Iraq and the military right now, we think it?s a good time for new leadership there.?

The editorial was based on a decision of the publications? editorial board, Neill told the paper.

The timing of the editorial was coincidental, Neill said.
But he added, "President Bush came out and said that Donald Rumsfeld is in for the duration ? so it?s just a timely issue for us. And our position is that it is not the best course for the military? for Rumsfeld to remain the Pentagon chief.
.
.
Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.
.
.
For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake.

It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

So do these quotes from The San Francisco Chronicle:

What prompted the paper's new editorial, said Hodierne, who was in Qatar editing stories by the chain's 13 embedded journalists during the initial Iraq invasion in 2003, was President Bush's statement Wednesday that he planned to keep Rumsfeld and that the Pentagon chief was doing a "fantastic job."

That caused the paper to rush an editorial into print, said Hodierne, who stressed that the timing was not influenced by next week's election. "Nobody who is up for election Tuesday has any control over whether Rumsfeld stays as secretary of defense," he said.

When it comes to the best interests of the country and American troops, it's obvious you're on the side of those who don't give a damn about them. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[imported_Infidel]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The Republican Party is without a doubt the party for most of the military due to their long standing support of the military. Meanwhile, half the Democratic Party holds the military in contempt.

You have to be incredibly dishonest, because I know you're not that ignorant.

I cover the Senate so I decided to do my digging there and what I found will not surprise anyone. IAVA analyzed 155 Senate votes that have taken place since September 11, 2001 and, to calculate their ratings, looked at "?each piece of legislation that affected troops, veterans or military families." IAVA then matched each Senator's votes with the organization's own view of what constitutes true support for active troops, Veterans and their families.

IAVA assigned an 'A' through 'F' grade using the scale at left showing the percentage of time each Senator has indeed supported troops and Veterans. As someone who has watched Senate Republicans vote time and time again against legislation that would benefit military families, the results did not shock me in the slightest.

No Senator in either party was given an A grade by IAVA. Thirteen Senators received a rating of A- and all of those were Democrats. A total of 23 Senators were given a B+ rating and 22 of those were Democrats as well. The other was Independent James Jeffords of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats.

Cutting to the chase -- and, perhaps more than anything I've seen in recent years, truly defining the difference between the two parties -- is that the worst grade received by a Senate Democrat was higher than the best grade granted a Republican. GOP-lite Ben Nelson (D-NE) received the lowest grade of any Democrat with a B- while Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) managed a C grade from IAVA.

And, when I averaged the scores of both the Democratic and Republican caucuses by assigning the numeric midpoint of the letter grade received by each Senator, which party truly supports the troops was made remarkably clear: The 44 Democrats and Jeffords had an average military-support grade of B+, while the 55 Republicans, who beat their chests with disgusting regularity about how strong they are on military issues, averaged a pathetic D.

And how about the guys Americans will be voting on in two weeks? Republican Senator Mike DeWine -- you know, he's the guy who starts one of his campaign's television ads with "While they're fighting for us abroad, he's fighting for them at home" -- came in with a D+. His opponent, Democrat Sherrod Brown, was given a B rating for his military votes in the House, despite DeWine's bogus claim in an October 1 Meet the Press debate that Brown "has voted against funding for the military when it really counted."

Let's look at some of the other GOP stalwarts trying to keep their Senate seats this year by telling voters how much they fight for military families. George Allen (R-VA), Conrad Burns (R-MT) and James Talent (R-MO) couldn't manage to get over a D+. John Ensign (R-NV), Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Rick Santorum (R-PA) were all rated a lowly D- by the largest group dedicated to the troops and Veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, of those Republican Senators, only Burns has actually served in the military himself.

And here's more stunning hypocrisy: In May, 2006, while giving a speech at the Nevada Republican Convention, Mr. D-minus himself, John Ensign, said "Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy -- let me tell you, I say this without reservation -- they have hurt our military" and, of Kennedy, Ensign once said "Every time Ted Kennedy gets up and speaks (against the war) he undermines our troops."

Pelosi and Kennedy both received a B+ rating from IAVA.

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/10/v...group-proves-gop-does-not-support.html

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Webb is a wolf in sheep?s clothing.
Any member of the military who looks at him and thinks what a great military guy he is and chooses him over Allen is making a big mistake.

The Republican Party is without a doubt the party for most of the military due to their long standing support of the military. Meanwhile, half the Democratic Party holds the military in contempt. Just look at the comments of Kerry, Kennedy and Durbin in regards to the military and their actions in Iraq.
Kennedy ?"Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."
Durbin ??If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime?Pol Pot or others?that had no concern for human beings.?
Kerry "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."

And you wonder why the right flipped out over Kerry?s ?joke? It is part of a pattern by the left to accuse American soldiers of awful crimes.

In case you don?t understand, Bush and Rumsfeld are in Washington. The people who are running these places being described as torture chambers are American soldiers. The places being compared to Nazi and Soviet gulags are run by the military.

If elected Webb will be keeping company with these three senators. To vote for Webb because he has a good history with the military and ignore the people who he will side with and vote with is just foolish.

BTW: Swift Boat worked because Kerry portrayed himself as one thing when his record said another.

Typically uninformed chickenhawkery. Webb only became a Democrat because he was so disgusted with the way his own Republican party was treating the military, by subjecting them to unnecessary risk by starting such a stunningly poorly-planned offensive shooting war in Iraq. James Webb's left baby toe knows more about the military and the needs of its servicemen than your entire body and soul ever will.

It's also absurdly flawed rhetoric to paint an entire party, including a man with Webb's tremendous military background, with such a broad brush based on isolated statements by a few of its members. Again, this is chickenhawk pretzel logic at its most transparent.

So I will ask yet again, in what sense are you a professor?

And of course, you have to add the bit of irony about how extremely conservative Jim Webb is -- including when compared with Republicans. The truth is, he is both very conservatives and genuinely pro-military (rather than the rhetoric-only supporters).

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Infidel

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The Republican Party is without a doubt the party for most of the military due to their long standing support of the military. Meanwhile, half the Democratic Party holds the military in contempt.

You have to be incredibly dishonest, because I know you're not that ignorant.

I cover the Senate so I decided to do my digging there and what I found will not surprise anyone. IAVA analyzed 155 Senate votes that have taken place since September 11, 2001 and, to calculate their ratings, looked at "?each piece of legislation that affected troops, veterans or military families." IAVA then matched each Senator's votes with the organization's own view of what constitutes true support for active troops, Veterans and their families.

IAVA assigned an 'A' through 'F' grade using the scale at left showing the percentage of time each Senator has indeed supported troops and Veterans. As someone who has watched Senate Republicans vote time and time again against legislation that would benefit military families, the results did not shock me in the slightest.

No Senator in either party was given an A grade by IAVA. Thirteen Senators received a rating of A- and all of those were Democrats. A total of 23 Senators were given a B+ rating and 22 of those were Democrats as well. The other was Independent James Jeffords of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats.

Cutting to the chase -- and, perhaps more than anything I've seen in recent years, truly defining the difference between the two parties -- is that the worst grade received by a Senate Democrat was higher than the best grade granted a Republican. GOP-lite Ben Nelson (D-NE) received the lowest grade of any Democrat with a B- while Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) managed a C grade from IAVA.

And, when I averaged the scores of both the Democratic and Republican caucuses by assigning the numeric midpoint of the letter grade received by each Senator, which party truly supports the troops was made remarkably clear: The 44 Democrats and Jeffords had an average military-support grade of B+, while the 55 Republicans, who beat their chests with disgusting regularity about how strong they are on military issues, averaged a pathetic D.

And how about the guys Americans will be voting on in two weeks? Republican Senator Mike DeWine -- you know, he's the guy who starts one of his campaign's television ads with "While they're fighting for us abroad, he's fighting for them at home" -- came in with a D+. His opponent, Democrat Sherrod Brown, was given a B rating for his military votes in the House, despite DeWine's bogus claim in an October 1 Meet the Press debate that Brown "has voted against funding for the military when it really counted."

Let's look at some of the other GOP stalwarts trying to keep their Senate seats this year by telling voters how much they fight for military families. George Allen (R-VA), Conrad Burns (R-MT) and James Talent (R-MO) couldn't manage to get over a D+. John Ensign (R-NV), Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Rick Santorum (R-PA) were all rated a lowly D- by the largest group dedicated to the troops and Veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, of those Republican Senators, only Burns has actually served in the military himself.

And here's more stunning hypocrisy: In May, 2006, while giving a speech at the Nevada Republican Convention, Mr. D-minus himself, John Ensign, said "Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy -- let me tell you, I say this without reservation -- they have hurt our military" and, of Kennedy, Ensign once said "Every time Ted Kennedy gets up and speaks (against the war) he undermines our troops."

Pelosi and Kennedy both received a B+ rating from IAVA.

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/10/v...group-proves-gop-does-not-support.html

I think a big part of the factual disconnect is that "support the troops" does NOT mean "support the troops" to a lot of folks on the Republican side of the aisle. What it means is support the war. Don't believe me? How often have you seen comments by various Republicans suggesting that you can't support the troops unless you support President Bush's prosecution of the war on terror and the war in Iraq? The fact that many of them make those comments so often tells me that they don't understand the fundamental difference.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: senseamp
This one is pretty good too. Of course Reagan was a Democrat shill too, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEmjJIk8ga0&eurl=

Was Ronald Reagan lying ProfJohn?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Webb is a wolf in sheep?s clothing.
Any member of the military who looks at him and thinks what a great military guy he is and chooses him over Allen is making a big mistake.

The Republican Party is without a doubt the party for most of the military due to their long standing support of the military. Meanwhile, half the Democratic Party holds the military in contempt. Just look at the comments of Kerry, Kennedy and Durbin in regards to the military and their actions in Iraq.
Kennedy ?"Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."
Durbin ??If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime?Pol Pot or others?that had no concern for human beings.?
Kerry "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."

Interesting.

Republicans voted against body armor for our troops
Republicans voted to cut benefits for our veterans
And most of all: a Republican invaded a country for nothing, killing thousands of our young troops in the process.

And you wonder why the right flipped out over Kerry?s ?joke? It is part of a pattern by the left to accuse American soldiers of awful crimes.

The right flipped out because they always talk the talk but never ever walk the walk.

In case you don?t understand, Bush and Rumsfeld are in Washington. The people who are running these places being described as torture chambers are American soldiers. The places being compared to Nazi and Soviet gulags are run by the military.

Funny, Bush and Rumsfeld are demeaning our own soldiers by forcing them to perform these horrific acts.

If elected Webb will be keeping company with these three senators. To vote for Webb because he has a good history with the military and ignore the people who he will side with and vote with is just foolish.

BTW: Swift Boat worked because Kerry portrayed himself as one thing when his record said another.

A vote for Allen is a vote to keep letting our soldiers die in Iraq.

BTW: There is NO RECORD of anything claimed by Swift Boat.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: senseamp
This one is pretty good too. Of course Reagan was a Democrat shill too, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEmjJIk8ga0&eurl=

Was Ronald Reagan lying ProfJohn?

I believe this question deserves an answer ProfJohn.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Infidel

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The Republican Party is without a doubt the party for most of the military due to their long standing support of the military. Meanwhile, half the Democratic Party holds the military in contempt.

You have to be incredibly dishonest, because I know you're not that ignorant.

blah blah blah...

Pelosi and Kennedy both received a B+ rating from IAVA.

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/10/v...group-proves-gop-does-not-support.html

We already proved that this group is nothing by a front for the Democratic Party. Their founder gave the Democrat national radio address a while back.
Google "operation truth" and read up on its founder. Operation Truth became IAVA some where along the line. Most likely because Operation Truth became to clearly attached the Democrat and left wing establishement when people like Randi Rhodes of Air American started showing up and speaking at their rallies.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Typically uninformed chickenhawkery. Webb only became a Democrat because he was so disgusted with the way his own Republican party was treating the military, by subjecting them to unnecessary risk by starting such a stunningly poorly-planned offensive shooting war in Iraq. James Webb's left baby toe knows more about the military and the needs of its servicemen than your entire body and soul ever will.

It's also absurdly flawed rhetoric to paint an entire party, including a man with Webb's tremendous military background, with such a broad brush based on isolated statements by a few of its members. Again, this is chickenhawk pretzel logic at its most transparent.

So I will ask yet again, in what sense are you a professor?

You can point to Webb's record all you want. If he is elected he will vote for Harry Reid to be Senate majority leader. He will therefore help put the most liberal members of the senate in charge of key committees.
Being pro-troops and pro-military as a person means nothing when the people who you put in charge are quite the opposite.

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DonVito
Typically uninformed chickenhawkery. Webb only became a Democrat because he was so disgusted with the way his own Republican party was treating the military, by subjecting them to unnecessary risk by starting such a stunningly poorly-planned offensive shooting war in Iraq. James Webb's left baby toe knows more about the military and the needs of its servicemen than your entire body and soul ever will.

It's also absurdly flawed rhetoric to paint an entire party, including a man with Webb's tremendous military background, with such a broad brush based on isolated statements by a few of its members. Again, this is chickenhawk pretzel logic at its most transparent.

So I will ask yet again, in what sense are you a professor?

You can point to Webb's record all you want. If he is elected he will vote for Harry Reid to be Senate majority leader. He will therefore help put the most liberal members of the senate in charge of key committees.
Being pro-troops and pro-military as a person means nothing when the people who you put in charge are quite the opposite.

Could you describe to me exactly what you consider to be "pro-military?"

 

[Zebo]

I hope Webb Wins..good man great author. You guys should really read Fields of Fire, best war book ever. Allen is a POS saddist.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: CellarDoor
Could you describe to me exactly what you consider to be "pro-military?"

I am not questioning whether Webb is pro-military. Based on his career and books I would guess that he is.
What I question is anyone who would vote on his being ?pro-military? without realizing that he is also a Democrat and would therefore be associated with Kerry, Kennedy and Durbin.

Voting for a pro-military Democrat would be like voting for a pro-life Democrat. Sure, you get a representative who shares your view, but they would caucus with a large group of people who have a very different view.
No mater how pro-military Webb may be his one vote will never overcome the 40+ other Democrats who see things differently.

Pro-military? well I would not call many people in our government ?anti-military? However, there are those who support the troops in many ways, and those who just give lip service. Furthermore, anyone who makes the kind of statements that I quoted for Kerry, Kennedy and Durbin in this thread are certainly not ?pro-military?

You can vote for all the VA hospitals in the world, but when you compare the prisons being run by our soldiers to Nazi and Soviet gulags, or accuse the troops of terrorizing women and children or claim that Saddam's torture chambers are now reopen (and this was a direct comment on Abu Gharaib) you are not 'pro-military' in my book.

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: CellarDoor
Could you describe to me exactly what you consider to be "pro-military?"

I am not questioning whether Webb is pro-military. Based on his career and books I would guess that he is.
What I question is anyone who would vote on his being ?pro-military? without realizing that he is also a Democrat and would therefore be associated with Kerry, Kennedy and Durbin.

It sounds to me that what you're saying is that it doesn't matter what any individual politician stands for, it only matters what party they are in. Even if a Democrat agrees with you on every single issue, he is also a democrat and would therefore be associated with other democrats.