In context, maybe my statement was too strong. It would have been better and more accurate to say a segment of the far left. I resent things like Nazi comparisons and always will. By and large those soldiers are good, very good people. Would loose their lives per Clintons’ orders, Jimmy Carters or the Bushs.

But none of that is a talking point or any other such OW foolishness. I have never seen a talking point.

And I actually think Clinton was good President (so did the country, evidently). Strong economy, welfare reform, lower unemployment.

Dugger

Clinton was a mediocre president. He might’ve been good if he’d kept it in his pants, but the rapid neocons in congress didn’t want him to be. Nobody can be a good president when a veto-killing majority of congress has blind hate for you. He did manage to get the budget balanced, and for that, I’m grateful. It shows that it can be done.

Dugger, you do so well sometimes. If you’d just avoid the talking points and neocon frames, I might almost like you.

Frame;

It’s called ‘projection politics’ and it is the bread=and-butter of Rovian
strategy. Make a dem’s strength into a weakness. Make a Republican
weakness into a strength. You gotta hand it to them. Pure genius
in concept as well as execution. It’s too bad they couldn’t put that
same genius to work in running the country.

As I said, he did much less than Kerry and Bush Sr and much MORE than Bubba. So what. Bubba was a pretty good Pres if you look at the record.

AS to Durbin, been over this many times with Quaker. He took an excerpt from a single FBI report and treated it as if were fact and then concluded that what US service men and women were doing was reminiscent of Nazis and (worse) commies. true he later apologized.

Dugger

Dugger

Dugger

You look for isolated examples of the left and then apply it to the whole of the left. Do we say that everyone on the right wants to kill all moslems, or kill the leaders and forcefully convert the rest to christianity because a few outspoken representatives of the right say that?

I seem to recall Sen Durbin saying that he associated torture with Nazis and not with American troops and ideals. I would agree with that and say an administration that puts American troops in the position where they commit acts of torture as part of their duty is sick, twisted and not representative of me.

Why are they forcing recruiters out? What can we counter with? National guard spying on protesters, underhanded recruiting tactics? etc.

Bush served. He refused direct orders to take his physical, was grounded and escaped responsibility the same way he got in. He disappeared at times and had the amazing priveledge of telling the military where and when he should serve. He was too well connected to discipline. Ever wonder why Bush’s record is so spotty and incomplete?

True, what he did is dwarfed by what McGovern and Bush sr did,

The way Bush served also doesn’t measure up to Al Gore’s service, or John Kerry’s. That didn’t stop your team from painting them as goldbricks and slackers.

Remember those comical purple heart band-aids on delegates to the last GOP convention? What about the characterization of Paul Hackett as a “staff puke” (this by a draft-dodging uber-right-winger, no less)?

You seem to be somewhat selective in what you’re willing to permit under the umbrella of “respect for soldiers.”

They are cetainly reviled by segments of the left. Perhaps you remember Corrigan’s post here using a Nazi descriptor to talk about the marines in Iraq. Perhaps you remember human shields in Iraq. Those weren’t Pat Bs bully boys. Perhaps you remember Durbin tossing about Nazi metaphors re Gitmo – run by the troops. How about banning recruiters on leftist-run campuses. Hw about forcing ROTC programs out. Paul Douglas Revak. Propositon 1 in SF. Gerardo Sandoval.

Quaker,

Bush served – no matter how hard you wish he didn’t. Flew the F-106. True, what he did is dwarfed by what McGovern and Bush sr did, but what Bush did dwarfs what Bubba did. Bottom line – he served in uniform and was a good pilot.

Also phein. Bush was honorably discharged – so the militiary would appear to disagree with you. And none of my military friends despise Bush and how do you account for stats that indicate the military strongly favored Bush last and and previous last elections.

Dugger

those oh-so reviled by the left

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/03/1583064.php
In addition to this disgusting sentiment brought to us by leftists, we can add highly disruptive protests, disparagement, and denial of access against military recruiters. Does the “left” hate the military? Most don’t, but enough do so that it makes an impression.

I’m a leftist. I’m a former 11B2P. Most of the people I served with would be leftists. None of us revile soldiers, and I don’t think you can produce any evidence to the contrary.

Bush served, so the chickenhawk argument doesn t apply to him.

Nonsense. Bush was a get-over. He’s still a get-over. If you’ve ever served in the military, you’ll know what that means, and you’ll know how Bush is despised within the military because of that.

He didn’t serve honorably, he didn’t serve in combat when he could have, and he walked away from his commitment. Thirty years later, nothing has changed.

Do I really have to go find–again–Bush’s remarks describing how he didn’t want to run away to Canada or blast his ears out with a shotgun, so he reluctantly took–for a while–a post in a “champagne unit” of the Texas Air National Guard?

Soft bigotry of low expectations indeed. Your team defends Bush as “having served” while deriding Al Gore as a goldbrick and John Kerry as a liar.

Have you any standards remaining?

Bush served? His family connections gamed the system for him. They got him in, got him in a unit of the rich and priveledged, and his service record was atrocious. He was grounded. He had no commendations, medals, or ribbons on his record. So yes, the chickenhawk label does apply to him, he hid from war.

That doesn’t make him a bad commander in chief, however. His incompetence does.

Dugger, put down the liquor.

Go fuck yourself Dugger.

Zappa,

You can call anybody anything you want. Soldiers, those oh-so reviled by the left, died for your privilege to do that. Bush served, so the chickenhawk argument doesn’t apply to him. And if you are eager to apply it to Cheney as somehow invalidating his thoughts and actions regarding war, can we assume anybody who didn’t serve has invaild opinions re the war. Yourself (I don’t know)? OW?. And Quaker? Then I have to wonder why the outrage from people who admittedly, have no ability (ala the chickenhawk argument) to judge ‘up’ from ‘down’ when it comes to the military and combat. You guys, like your reviled chickenhawks, can make no sense of any of this – you (the non-server) are clueless, right?

As a server, I know any intelligent human being can form intelligent or idotic opinions about the war, regardless of whether he or she served. That would include both Clintons, RR, Cheney, FDR etc.

Dugger, If I didn’t bottle the scotch, am I allowed to have an opinion as to whether it tastes good or not?

Um exactly, JWG. In Gulf War I we had a better, more thought out plan to do less than we do now. Doesn’t that make you stop and think?

we should all stop and think about why the first Gulf War did only last 45 days

Don’t forget the fact that we didn’t try to topple the existing power structure and set up a new government.