"The New Soldier" by John Kerry et al

"Scott MacEachern" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:37:52 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

His indictment went well beyond "some". ...

? Well, no. It didn't, even given what you said yourself. But your
words were "....he condemned the US soldiers, airmen, and sailors who
fought there as being war criminals..." So, all of them?

A darned lot more than "some". How many US troops engaged in search and
destroy operations? He said they were war criminals. How many were involved
in conducting H&I fires? He said they were war criminals. How many fired .50
cal weapons at personnel targets? He said they were war criminals. How many
were in positions of greater leadership responsibility than he was, and
directed troops during the above kinfd of activities? he said they were war
criminals. Lots of categories, lots of "war criminals". In his view, that
is.


No, but you ought to be able to show where you voted for aq goodly
portion
of them.

How many? What's the proportion that shows that a vet _really_
supports the armed forces? He said in retrospect that he was wrong
about some of this, others -- MX and Star Wars for example, hardly
itty bitty systems -- he stands by.

I don't want a president who thought that the (F-15, Patriot, B-1B, cruise
missiles, etc. ad nauseum) were *all* wastes of taxpayers' money to develop
and field. Can you name any defense programs he actually *supported*?


- Kerry Voted Against At Least Eleven Military Pay Increases.

Given George II's record on hazardous duty pay for troops in
Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't think that you want to go there....

What utter tripe. A year ago Bush rejected the military pay raise cap
recommended by his own OMB (at 2%) and supported the concept of targeted
increases to get the enlisted pay rates increased even more than what the
more senior personnel are receiving this year. The hazardous duty pay
blather has no legs; revising the limits of areas that are considered worthy
of meriting hazardous duty pay is something that will always change as the
situation changes. Bush has been a big supporter of military pay raises, and
the fact of the matter is that Kerry has not.


Tell me, how do you think a Guardsmen walks into a military clinic and
gets
a dental exam without being in a duty status?

And, it appears, that was about all that he did.

Answer the question!

Strangely enough, the
dates that guy remembers him being in Alabama don't square with the
Guard's pay records there.

Were the dates in the records regarding the dates that pay was authorized,
or the days that he drilled?

Actually, I don't worry too much that Bush
ducked a little during that period: lots of people did it. It does,
however, rather grate to see him being set up as a paragon of
patriotism next to John Kerry during the period.

Compared to Kerry, he *is* a paragon of patriotism.

Kerry went to a
dumb-ass war,

So you say...no surpise in your choice of descriptive terms, given your
bent.

then opposed it when he got back...

While he was still a commissioned officer. When he came out with the crap he
offered up during his congressional testimony and made his later claims on
Meet the Press, they *should* have ordered his sorry butt back to active
duty and told him that, IAW the laws of warfare and the UCMJ, he had to
provide specifics in regards to his allegations of war crimes so that we
could investigate an prosecute any actual criminals, then prosecuted his
sorry ass for making false and unsubstantiated claims and lying under oath.

both admirable
things

You and I have differing views of what makes someone "admirable". I find the
Army aviators who landed at My Lai and placed themselves in between the
perpetrators and some of the soon-to-be victims as being "admirable"; they
dealt with a *real* war crime and took action to stop it. Kerry came home
and started spouting pure horse manure. Big difference.

and fulfilling the duties of a citizen, I'd say. Bush went into
a Guard very different than that today, and then became the Invisible
Man. Not much different than a lot of other folks, but not especially
commendable, either.

Huh? Your point would be...?

My point would be that you -- and a bunch of other people who should
know better -- are making politically-motivated attacks on a combat
veteran

No, my attacks would be conducted against Kerry if he was with *any* party.
I am an independent--I sometimes vote for democrats as well as republicans.
I refuse to give money to either party, and have never worked in any kind of
campaign support role. I *do* find Kerry's actions detestable, and for that
reason I am willing to argue the point. Had you been discussing the Ollie
North senatorial bid with me a few years back, you would have found my
opinion of North not far from the one I hold regarding Kerry. Stop acting as
if everyone who does not approve of Kerry has some kind of political baggage
affecting his/her views. FYI, I have been a bit uneasy with a few of GWB's
policy decisions, and my overall feeling for him has suffered over the last
couple of years. But if Kerry is the best the democrats can offer up to
oppose him, my vote will go to Bush.


because you're scared that he might win the election this
year.

Actually, I am not too afraid of that eventuality; I don't think he can win.
In the end, what may be the decding factor for a lot of folks may be those
images of him defaming the troops who served in Vietnam on one hand, while
puffing his chest out and bragging about those decorations he earlier tossed
over the fence on the other.

Brooks

One set of opinion polls and you morph into a Republiflunky. It
ain't pretty.

Scott