Where was the Democrats praise for war heroes in 1996?

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Excellent letter to the editor:

Approximately three-quarters of the way through his speech Monday night to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, former President Bill Clinton praised John Kerry's actions in Vietnam, saying that Kerry volunteered for service during the war while others, including President George Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney and Clinton himself did not see combat.

When I heard this speech, only one question came to mind: Where was Clinton's praise for war heroes in 1996?

Bob Dole, Clinton's opponent for re-election that year, volunteered for the Army in World War II, won two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and lost the use of his right arm due to injuries he suffered in combat. But in that campaign, military experience was irrelevant to Clinton and the Democrats, and combat experience was a non-issue.

But now, eight years later, Clinton is praising Kerry's military record as if a candidate's military record is of serious importance in a presidential race. What happened over these past eight years to change the minds of Clinton and the Democrats?

Link
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
I like Bob Dole. I don't remember anyone ripping him apart. That was a clean election battle, but Clinton was popular and impossible to beat. It also wasn't a time when 20 year old were dying daily for a chicken hawk. Times have changed, we need a leader, not a puppet.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Excellent letter to the editor:

Approximately three-quarters of the way through his speech Monday night to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, former President Bill Clinton praised John Kerry's actions in Vietnam, saying that Kerry volunteered for service during the war while others, including President George Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney and Clinton himself did not see combat.

When I heard this speech, only one question came to mind: Where was Clinton's praise for war heroes in 1996?

Bob Dole, Clinton's opponent for re-election that year, volunteered for the Army in World War II, won two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and lost the use of his right arm due to injuries he suffered in combat. But in that campaign, military experience was irrelevant to Clinton and the Democrats, and combat experience was a non-issue.

But now, eight years later, Clinton is praising Kerry's military record as if a candidate's military record is of serious importance in a presidential race. What happened over these past eight years to change the minds of Clinton and the Democrats?

Link

And then.... Clinton is not running for President.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Still no answer to the question. What has changed in the last 8 years that military service is now so important to Democrats? It clearly wasn't an issue for them in 1996.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Still no answer to the question. What has changed in the last 8 years that military service is now so important to Democrats? It clearly wasn't an issue for them in 1996.

How many US soldiers where killed in 1996 and how many US soldiers have been killed this year.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Still no answer to the question. What has changed in the last 8 years that military service is now so important to Democrats? It clearly wasn't an issue for them in 1996.

How many US soldiers where killed in 1996 and how many US soldiers have been killed this year.

That's a question, not an answer.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
How come you Republican's boasted about Grant's war record in 1868, but it wasn't important during 1860 with Lincoln? Huh? Huh? Huh?

what is 901 Alex. (Dead soldiers since Geedub started his crusade). There is the answer.
 

chrisms

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2003
6,615
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Still no answer to the question. What has changed in the last 8 years that military service is now so important to Democrats? It clearly wasn't an issue for them in 1996.

In 2003 we launched an invasion against Iraq. We are currently at war. With this fact in mind, it is important that the leader of our military have experience in the armed services so that he can empathize with the stress he puts on our soldiers, should they be sent into combat. In 1996 this was not as important because military operations were not as large as they are today.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Who cares? You could easily ask the same question about "nation building." Obviously it was way down on the agenda for Republicans back in 2000, yet now it's all the rage. What's changed? What about fiscal responsibility? Supposedly an important issue for this country's conservative base. Yet now we're facing a $445B budget deficit? Not just this year, but an average $400B deficit EVERY year since GWB took over. Record surpluses turned into the biggest deficits into American history. What gives Rip? What's changed?

Do you have any answers or just stupid questions?

Bottom line is, if you have military experience, flaunt it. If not, mumble something and jiggle the keys at the camera. I suppose the RNC will gloss over Dubya's "service" to this country as he could barely shake off the alcohol-induced haze to show up about half the time for his ANG duty.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Still no answer to the question. What has changed in the last 8 years that military service is now so important to Democrats? It clearly wasn't an issue for them in 1996.

How many US soldiers where killed in 1996 and how many US soldiers have been killed this year.

That's a question, not an answer.

If you need to spelt out for you times change. When were not at war having a war president isn't really important but when we are at war it becomes important.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: Todd33
How come you Republican's boasted about Grant's war record in 1868, but it wasn't important during 1860 with Lincoln? Huh? Huh? Huh?

what is 901 Alex. (Dead soldiers since Geedub started his crusade). There is the answer.

So in other words, Democrats are playing partisan politics with Kerry's service record?
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Still no answer to the question. What has changed in the last 8 years that military service is now so important to Democrats? It clearly wasn't an issue for them in 1996.

How many US soldiers where killed in 1996 and how many US soldiers have been killed this year.

That's a question, not an answer.

If you need to spelt out for you times change. When were not at war having a war president isn't really important but when we are at war it becomes important.

If that's true, why didn't the Dems nominate General Wesley Clark?

It appears to me that his military record is far more distinguished than Kerry's.

More about Wesley Clark:

In July 1962, At the age of 17, Clark entered the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York, beginning his 38 years in the U.S. military. Here Clark met Gertrude "Gert" Kingston of Brooklyn at a dance for the Navy. After graduating as valedictorian in June 1966, Clark married Gert, and became a Roman Catholic (Clark now attends Presbyterian services).

Two months later, in August, Clark left his wife again, this time to complete his studies as a Rhodes Scholar at Magdalen College at the University of Oxford. There he studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE), earning an M.A. in August 1968. Once home, he attended the Armor Officer Basic Course in the Army Armor School at Fort Knox until October and the Army Ranger Course in the Army Infantry School at Fort Benning until December.

The following year, Clark commanded A Company of the 4th Battalion, 68th Armor, 82d Airborne Division at Fort Riley, Kansas. In May, he was called to duty in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. For the rest of the year, Clark served in Vietnam as the Assistant Staff Officer (Assistant G-3) of the Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Infantry Division. In January, Clark was promoted to commanding officer of a mechanized infantry unit ? the A Company, 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division.

The very next month, February 1970, then 25, Clark was wounded by a sniper while the commander of a mechanized infantry company in a Vietnam jungle. Ambushed by the Viet Cong, Clark was shot four times (in the right shoulder, right hand, right hip and right leg) before he could find cover. He managed to shout commands to troops, who launched a counterattack and defeated the enemy force. Clark's wounds were treated, and he was flown back to the United States to recuperate at Valley Forge Hospital. There he saw his new four-month-old son, Wesley Jr., who had been born in his absence. He also was awarded the Bronze Star and Silver Star for his valor in Vietnam:

"As the friendly force maneuvered through the treacherous region, it was suddenly subjected to an intense small arms fire from a well-concealed insurgent element. Although painfully wounded in the initial volley, Captain Clark immediately directed his men on a counter-assault of the enemy positions. With complete disregard for his personal safety, Captain Clark remained with his unit until the reactionary force arrived and the situation was well in hand. His courageous initiative and exemplary professionalism significantly contributed to the successful outcome of the engagement. Captain Clark's unquestionable valor in close combat against a hostile force is in keeping with the finest traditions of the military service and reflects great credit upon himself, the 1st Infantry Division, and the United States Army."
After recovering, Clark continued his military career. From May to September 1970, Clark commanded the C Company, 6th Battalion, 32d Armor, 194th Armored Brigade at Fort Knox; from October of that year to May 1971 he commanded the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor, 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson. After this, Clark spent the June and July in Washington, D.C. as a Staff Officer in the Modern Volunteer Army program, working as a Special Assistant for the Chief of Staff. Clark later returned to West Point for three years as an instructor and Assistant Professor of Social Science.

After this, he graduated from the National War College and Command and General Staff College, as well as completing Armor Officer Advanced and Basic Courses and Army Ranger and Airborne schools.

From 1975 to 1976, Clark was a White House Fellow and served as a Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Later, he was an instructor and Assistant Professor of Social Science at West Point.

After recovering, Clark continued his military career, commanding the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor, 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, Colorado and later trained battalions stationed in Germany and Colorado. He was later promoted to general. During the Persian Gulf War, clark became Commander of the Army National Training Center, in charge of arranging the the 1st Cavalry Division's three emergency deployments to Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm. In 1994, Clark was again promoted, and started working with the Joint Chiefs of Staff as Director for Strategic Plans and Policy. During this time, Clark ensured that the United Nations and Department of Defense work during the invasion of Haiti.

In addition to the Silver Star Clark recieved for his Vietnam service, Clark also holds the Presidential Medal of Freedom, awarded by former president Bill Clinton for Clark's service in Kosovo. He also has recieived the Distinguished Service Medal.

In the Balkans
Clark headed the US military team during negotiations that led to the Bosnian Peace Accords at Dayton, under the overall leadership of Richard Holbrooke.

From 1997, he was head of the U.S. European Command (CINCEUR), responsible for about 109,000 U.S. troops and all U.S. military activities in 89 countries and territories of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. As Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR) he also had overall command of NATO military forces in Europe and led approximately 60,000 troops from 37 NATO and other nations in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

As SACEUR, he confronted Yugoslavia over Kosovo. NATO's 78-day bombing campaign ended with the Kumanovo truce, a withdrawal of Yugoslav military and police force from Kosovo, and the entry of NATO and other KFor forces. In December, 2003, he testified during Milosevic's trial. His appearance was not public and transcripts of his testimony were subject to U.S. review before being released, a precaution the U.S. didn't take when Madeleine Albright testified. Clark's testimony was sought because he had spoken with Milosevic for a total of more than 100 hours, in his role as the head of the U.S. military team during the Dayton Agreement negotiations and as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander in Europe.

Link
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Todd33
How come you Republican's boasted about Grant's war record in 1868, but it wasn't important during 1860 with Lincoln? Huh? Huh? Huh?

what is 901 Alex. (Dead soldiers since Geedub started his crusade). There is the answer.

So in other words, Democrats are playing partisan politics with Kerry's service record?

Of course they are. You think the Dems were going to exhalt Bob Dole when he was running against their candidate? Give me a break. Listen to what you're saying. You're getting your panties in a wad because the democrats are playing partisan politics...

...to try to win an election. You expect them to say "Well the other guy is just as good as we are, so vote for whomever you like!"

Get a grip!
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Both sides are playig politics with everything. Did you just fall off the stupid truck? Get off your anti-Kerry kick.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
I'm glad that you libs can admit how disingenuous you and your candidate are.

So, in other words, Kerry's service record in Vietnam is irrelevant in terms of this election.
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Originally posted by: Riprorin
I'm glad that you libs can admit how disingenuous you and your candidate are.

So, in other words, Kerry's service record in Vietnam is irrelavent in terms of this election.

Bahahaha please show me any other candidate, in history, present or past, from any party (or independent) who is any less "disingenuous"
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,894
10,721
147
Originally posted by: Riprorin
I'm glad that you libs can admit how disingenuous you and your candidate are.
A candidate playing up his strengths to the American voter? Get outta' town! Stop the presses! I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!! :roll:
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Riprorin
I'm glad that you libs can admit how disingenuous you and your candidate are.
A candidate playing up his strengths to the American voter? Get outta' town! Stop the presses! I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!! :roll:

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Well, Kerry (Democrats) has nothing to say about his years in the Senate, so he has to ramble on about Vietnam.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Of course the Dems are using Kerry's record for their benefit, just as Reps trumpeted George 1st's WW2 record against "draft-dodger" Clinton. It never became a major issue with Dole, because he was such a stiff of a candidate nothing could help him (though Rush & company never let up on Slick Willy). You always try to play up your candidate's advantages - it's called campaigning, just like war is, and it's not meant to be fair. It's meant to help your guy win. Don't expect W & friends to play nice with Kerry & Edwards. This is going to get nasty fast.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: Riprorin
I'm glad that you libs can admit how disingenuous you and your candidate are.

Physican, heal thyself! You take disingenuity to a new level with this thread (either that, or you're really as thick-headed as you'd have us believe, which I doubt).

Here's a hint . . . in 1996, the Democratic nominee was, not surprisingly, the incumbent President. Why would they have chosen to make a big production about Bob Dole's military record when Clinton had none? This is like asking, "Why doesn't Budweiser mention in their ads that 8 out of 10 drinkers prefer MGD?"

The Republicans certainly made a show of the elder Bush's distinguished combat record in the 1992 election, and Bob Dole's in 1996, yet now they are, surprisingly enough, not emphasizing the fact that Sen Kerry is a decorated Vietnam veteran, while they can't produce any record of President Bush's Alabama ANG attendance for an entire year. Doesn't that make them disingenuous?

If you really have a brain, you should start acting like it - threads like this are just embarrassing.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: Riprorin
I'm glad that you libs can admit how disingenuous you and your candidate are.

Physican, heal thyself! You take disingenuity to a new level with this thread (either that, or you're really as thick-headed as you'd have us believe, which I doubt).

Here's a hint . . . in 1996, the Democratic nominee was, not surprisingly, the incumbent President. Why would they have chosen to make a big production about Bob Dole's military record when Clinton had none? This is like asking, "Why doesn't Budweiser mention in their ads that 8 out of 10 drinkers prefer MGD?"

The Republicans certainly made a show of the elder Bush's distinguished combat record in the 1992 election, and Bob Dole's in 1996, yet now they are, surprisingly enough, not emphasizing the fact that Sen Kerry is a decorated Vietnam veteran, while they can't produce any record of President Bush's Alabama ANG attendance for an entire year. Doesn't that make them disingenuous?

If you really have a brain, you should start acting like it - threads like this are just embarrassing.

Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 8, 1964, accepting all contractual conditions of registering for the draft. Given Selective Service Number 3 26 46 228.

Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968
Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969
Bill Clinton dishonors order to report and is not inducted into the military
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States Army Reserves on August 07,1969 under authority of Colonel E. Holmes.
Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment
Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of Arkansas ROTC, September 1969
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with Army Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now AWOL and subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a) "registrant who has failed to report...remain liable for induction"
Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1, 1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction, is INELIGIBLE!
Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice under Public Law 90-40
Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a fugitive from justice

All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public laws, and various books that have been published, and have not been refuted by Clinton.

Gee, I don't recall Dole trumpeting his military service and bashing Clinton's draft dodging so let's not compare dems and repubs on this issue.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: Todd33
How come you Republican's boasted about Grant's war record in 1868, but it wasn't important during 1860 with Lincoln? Huh? Huh? Huh?

what is 901 Alex. (Dead soldiers since Geedub started his crusade). There is the answer.

Sounds about right. Riprorin, honestly, I agree with you on a number of ideological issues, but you're one of the biggest partisan hacks I've ever seen. If you toned down the rhetoric I think more people might listen to you.