Jeff, I reread my post and I don’t see where I was dancing around the subject. He was AWOL. He was absent for over 30 days (helping with a friend’s campaign) during a time of war when other men were dying. He was a coward, and a deserter (AWOL for more than 30 days). Any other man would have faced court martial or prison. Lucky for him his dad kept him out of trouble.
I love how tough little punks like you get… throwing out your little threats over the internet. A bunch of tough talk. Now I see why you like Bush. You are a sheep… you just keep towing that party line. Its about to get really heavy!
“Making threats over the internet? Pathetic, Jeff.”
It was not a threat, it was a fantasy. I’d love to debate with you face to face. I have a distinct feeling that none of you partisan stooges has ever had anyone debate you on the “merits” of your arguments to your face. It’s one thing to post someone else’s articles. It’s quite another to have your core beliefs challenged in person.
This is how I imagine the scenario would go. You would throw out your usual tag lines “Halliburton, AWOL, Cheney runs the government, blah blah blah.” I would systematically break down all of your misconceptions. I would go point by point right down to the essence of each charge. I would use supporting evidence to refute your regurgitated mantras. You would not be allowed to change the subject once your logic had been shown to be flawed.
As for the usual Democratic tactic (James Carville, McAullife, etc…) of trying to yell over my arguments when they have been exposed, that tactic would not be available to you. No threat there, either. I’m large and I can yell louder than any man I know.
The Democratic tactic of trying to marginalize the opponent would also be out of bounds. It would be hard to marginalize me. I stand out.
Roy, you’ve called me a “coward” and a “little punk” in two consecutive days. I am neither. That would also be unavailable to you as a “tactic” in real life. Not a threat, just a pleasant reality.
Hope I have clarified my position. I’m very excited about November 2004,
Jeff: Does it really matter? The bottom line is Bush served in the Air National Guard. Its the equivalent to the Eagle Scouts for weekend warriors. I’m not going to belittle Bush personally but its hard to say that this military vacation is anything like the real deal. I think the overall point is the nitpicking that goes on between the democrats and the republicans. Kerry really served. Vietnam was reprehensible and anyone that is going to poo-poo someone’s service because they protested a “war” that is clearly completely unjustified and outrageous is absurd. The rest of the Bush camp got multiple deferrments mostly due to their families financial status and connections. That is the only point. Personally I think both sides should shut up about it but then it wouldn’t be politics, would it?
I’m not defending Kerry personally, I’m just looking at the facts. If someone wants to protest a war, that’s their choice. The fact that Vietnam was a complete sham and so many people died because of it should simply justify these protests. I don’t think that someone that comes back from warfare turns into a pot-smoking tree-hugger. I think they realize the costs. Of course, if the personal costs were too much or the effect of the war on the person was more profound that normal, that is clearly a problem as well.
unfortunately, if someone wants to protest a war, it’s their choice as long as they aren’t still in the military which kerry was, and the reason i criticized him for it. another criticism i have of his campaign is how his war medals are constantly played up, but he took part in an antiwar protest where they supposedly threw away their medals. he flip-flopped on that point a few times, finally resting on the story that he didn’t have HIS medals but took medals of other vets who couldn’t make it to the “ceremony” and threw theirs away. i don’t know who i’m going to vote for, probably not bush, but you kerry supporters have got to stop b eing blind to the shortcomings of your own man.
The guard doesn’t keep very good records. Up until our deployment, we had guys that had been AWOL for 2-3 years. They have warrants out for them now. And on the other side there are people in my unit that have been there for years, and I’ve never even heard of. If he was reading manuals in an office and was an officer, it’s very likely no one paid attention to him. As for drilling in a different state, anybody can perform drill at any other unit they wish as long as a letter is sent to your home unit. As an officer, nobody probably worried about him and didn’t do documentation.
On the other side one of my buddies that just came out of active duty had all his records lost. Pretty much he didn’t exsist. They knew how much time he had in and that was about it.
Also don’t forget all the records in St Louis burned back in the 80’s. If you didn’t keep copies and re-submit, chances are they won’t have anybody’s record prior to that fire.
I know some say he was relaxing in the guard and was trying to skip out on combat. I’ve volunteered for just about every damn thing there is and been declined just about every time. As for documentation, you’ll be lucky if your name gets scratched on a peice of paper that gets lost two days later. I even volunteered for Bosnia and Kuwait while on active duty. Denied for both. Many times those of us that wanna do something just don’t have it in the cards for us.
Anyways just my experiance on the guard and documentation, non-bias. Personally I think big bird would be better than the two out there now.
I thought your last post was balanced. I don’t agree with some of your conclusions, but I think you were trying to be fair. I do appreciate that.
I’ve evaluated both candidates. This is ongoing. I believe I know a great deal about George W. Bush. Whether you agree with him or not, he will tell you where he stands and stick to it. I think that people do not give him enough credit. Apparently, he is engaging and takes a more active role in policies than some give him credit for. Does he have shortcomings? Yes, I think if he was a more stylistic speaker and used the press more effectively, he would be in a better position politically. If I was Karl Rove, I would encourage him to be more friendly to the press (yes they dislike Republicans, but he needs to charm them). I would do more press conferences.
As for John Kerry. I’m not sure anyone is really comfortable with where he stands on a given issue. I’m not trying to be partisan about this. Trully, I don’t understand how you can authorize military action in Iraq and then vote for and against the $87 billion reconstruction bill. This highlights a troubling pattern in this man’s post-Vietnam era political history. 8 bills with his name on it in 30 years. Zero bills having to do with national defense. I’m sorry guys, but, I fear for our country trying to successfully prosecute a war with someone as unpredictable at the helm. What will our allies/enemies think? Can they help but wonder what he will do next?
The positives of being John Kerry? I suppose some would argue that his number one is that he is not George Bush. I find that to be a disgusting argument, but I’m not unaware of some people’s thoughts. He did serve in Vietnam. I defer to his Vietnam comrades when “grading” his level of service. I supported our troops in that war and in all subsequent wars.
Again, thanks for your sincerity, looking forward to November,
JeffR
Your post talking about how you’d love to debate and “break things down point by point” (or something like that) made me chuckle.
Why? Because most of your posts are remarkably content-free. This Calhoun post is the first one I remember where you’ve actually tried to put forth some facts, and not just complain about what other people said, or repeat someone else’s vague talking points (“Kerry is a flip-flopper” and “George Bush is steady”). However, as I said earlier, the dates Calhoun gives do not jibe with the time period under question. As it stands now, it seems that most people who have seen the evidence believe that the issue of Bush’s service remains a historical question mark.
You also say you know a lot about George Bush. Oh really? As I said, your posts are fairly content-free, so I’m surprised to hear that. I wouldn’t have guessed it.
Don’t keep all that good pro-Bush information to yourself buddy, lets share.
tme, you do realize you just proved littlejay’s point about personal attacks in the “Unpatriotic to criticise President” thread started by Roy Batty, dont you?
JeffR
I’m surprised to see how excited you are about November! I guess you are a Kerry supporter after all! PM me, so we can plan a Kerry victory party together!
I hereby apologize for voting for Nader in the last election, as it was basically a vote for the worst president our nation has ever had. I knew he was a deserter and a coward, but I flipped the Nader lever anyway, thinking to myself, “so what? He get’s elected… He can’t possibly to THAT much damage in 4 years!” Ooooh, was I ever WRONG! The manager who works the 7-11 down the street would have done a better job managing the nation.
Jeff, I didn’t miss a second of it. Here is my review. He did an okay job. In my opinion he played it really safe. If you apply a little math to what he said though, you will find that he literally said nothing.
Examples (paraphrased):
“The soldiers are coming home soon.” (+1)
“The soldiers are going to have to extend their stay.” (-1)
sum = 0
“We are going to hand over complete sovereignity to the Iraqis.” (+2)
“We are going to help them find a candidate and run their elections” (translated, we are going to place someone sympathetic to US interests). (-3)
sum = -1
“We are going to completely rebuild Iraqi infrastructure” (+2)
(That’s all fine and good, but who is going to pay for it? The taxpayers!) (-1)
sum = 1
… And so on. You get the picture. He didn’t offer anything without later taking it away. He played it very safe. He didn’t really offer anything new, or offer any reasons or explanations for why he continues to keep Rumsfeld in his position, which the nation wants to know. The outline wasn’t very bold, and the explanations were safe at best. His speechwriters were hedging their bets, as they say.
It didn’t further compell me to vote for him. With the recent votes of no confidence from respected military leaders ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml ) my observation is that this recent effort by him is too little too late. There is just too much downhill momentum for him to turn it around. But don’t give up on Karl Rove though. I am still waiting for the “October surprise”! Either they will capture OBL or something on that level that will help him a bit in the polls. Rove is very clever, and he plays dirty, so you can be sure that it won’t be a cakewalk to the whitehouse for Kerry.
Jeff, still awaiting your rebuttal to my analysis of your hero’s great speech. Curious how you think it was so great. I think you accidentally had your TV on the Cartoon Network.
