PDA

View Full Version : US Senate Avoids "Nuclear Option"



Rojo
05-24-2005, 12:14 AM
Seems like there are a number of people of both sides who are upset by this compromise. Count me as one of them. Why the Democrats want to give "moderate" Republicans cover is beyond me.

Guys, they're still Republicans!

Nuclear Option Avoided (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20050524/pl_nm/congress_judges_dc)

US Senate deal averts historic showdown on judges By Thomas Ferraro and Joanne Kenen
23 minutes ago



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Fourteen Senate moderates struck a deal across party lines on Monday to avert a historic confrontation and pave the way for confirmation of several of President Bush's stalled judicial nominees.

The deal, which pointedly urges the White House to consult with the Senate in picking judicial candidates, was reached with less than a day to spare before a showdown vote on a possible rule change so controversial it has been dubbed the "nuclear option."

Republican leaders had threatened to strip the minority Democrats of their power to block Bush's candidates for the federal courts.

Had Republicans prevailed -- and it was unclear whether they had the votes -- Democrats vowed to retaliate by raising other obstacles that could have tied the Republican-led, 100-member chamber into knots.

"Armageddon has been avoided. Thank God," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), a New York Democrat.

Signed by seven Democrats and seven Republicans, the "memorandum of understanding" declares that procedural roadblocks known as filibusters against judicial nominees will only be used in the future "under extraordinary circumstances."

"Each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether the circumstances exist," the 14 senators agreed.

The issue has assumed major political significance because at least one retirement is expected from the Supreme Court in the near future.

Special-interest groups from across the spectrum had joined the battle, as the federal courts decide many cultural and social issues, such as abortion rights and gay rights.

CONFIRMATION VOTES

The group of moderate senators committed to clearing the way for confirmation votes on three long-stalled nominees to the federal appeals courts -- Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor. Their backers have long maintained that they have majority support, but Democrats called them too conservative.

The group explicitly did not commit to allow votes on two other nominees, William Myers and Henry Saad, so they may have to be scuttled.

With some conservative and liberal groups opposed to compromise, Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), a South Carolina Republican and one of the negotiators, said, "People at home are going to be upset at me for a while."

The moderates crafted their deal a week after talks between the Senate's top two leaders broke down.

"This agreement is based on good faith, good faith among people who trust each other. And it's our complete expectation that it will work," Ohio Republican Sen. Mike DeWine (news, bio, voting record), flanked by fellow negotiators, told a news conference in announcing the accord.

"We have lifted ourselves above politics," said Sen. Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), a West Virginia Democrat who took part in the talks. "I say, thank God."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the deal represented "progress." He added, "We will continue working to push for an up-or-down vote on all our nominees."

A simple Senate majority is needed to confirm a nominee, but 60 votes are required to cut off a filibuster.

The bipartisan accord provided enough senators on both sides of the political aisle to enforce a carefully worded compromise.

Republicans had accused Democrats of unprecedented obstructionism by blocking 10 of Bush's appeals-court nominees in the last Congress.

Democrats had fired back that Bush and his fellow Republicans were trying to pack the courts with right-wing extremists and ignoring Senate customs on bipartisan consultation and compromise. Democrats also noted that they had helped confirm about 200 other Bush judicial nominees, most of them to lower courts.

In their agreement, the 14 lawmakers urged the White House to consult with members of both parties before submitting judicial nominees for consideration.

"Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the 'advise and consent' process in the Senate," they wrote.

MORE HUMILITY

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, embraced the compromise and said it should deliver a message to Bush: "He should have a little more humility."

"We're not looking to pick a fight with President Bush; he shouldn't be out looking to pick a fight with us," Reid said.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, accepted the accord but noted it fell short of what he said is the Senate's duty to give all nominees an up-or-down vote.

"I fundamentally believe that it is our constitutional responsibility to give judicial nominees the respect and the courtesy of an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate," said Frist, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate who has been under pressure from right-wing groups to get more conservatives on courts.

The Senate on Tuesday, as previously scheduled, will vote on Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice, to a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A Frist aide said the Senate would move swiftly on other nominees as well.

Ravenlord
05-24-2005, 12:46 AM
Guys, they're still Republicans!
best of example of the country WILL die. massive polarization.

pedro
05-24-2005, 01:19 AM
I have mixed feelings about this. I suspect had it come down to it, the GOP would have been able to get rid of the fillibuster, which I think would have been a mistake, despite the fillibusters infamous track record of helping to derail civil rights legislation in the 50's and 60's.

RedsBaron
05-24-2005, 08:07 AM
Don't be too upset Rojo. Chief Justice Rehnquist will probably retire before long, setting up an epic confirmation battle for his replacement on the Supreme Court. You can really hate Republicans then.

GAC
05-24-2005, 10:10 AM
Isn't compromise also a good form of diplomacy? This whole situation was sad and hilarious. Our Founding Fathers are still probably shaking their heads in disbelief and saying we should have stuck with England. :lol:

Rojo
05-24-2005, 01:12 PM
best of example of the country WILL die. massive polarization.

And this "compromise" didn't help. It allows the Dobsonites more power than they deserve because it took heat off the GOP moderates.

Rojo
05-24-2005, 01:14 PM
You can really hate Republicans then.

I don't hate Republicans, I just want the Democrats to run the country (could they do worse?).

RedsBaron
05-24-2005, 01:48 PM
I just want the Democrats to run the country (could they do worse?).
Short answer: Yes, they could do worse IMO. I realize you hold the opposite opinion and I have neither the intention nor the time to engage in post-counterpost on the issue. We just disagree.

bomarl1969
05-24-2005, 02:44 PM
I don't hate Republicans, I just want the Democrats to run the country (could they do worse?).

If the democrat has the name of Al Gore, John Kerry, or Hillary Clinton then the answer isn't yes, it would be something like "this country is on it's way to hell." I swear if Hillary Clinton is a future president I am moving to the Bahamas or Mexico because I refuse to live under her.

registerthis
05-24-2005, 03:02 PM
If the democrat has the name of Al Gore, John Kerry, or Hillary Clinton then the answer isn't yes, it would be something like "this country is on it's way to hell." I swear if Hillary Clinton is a future president I am moving to the Bahamas or Mexico because I refuse to live under her.
OK, can I save this post then? I'll buy your ticket, wherever you want to go.

And, BTW, that's not just because of your political affiliations...I got sick and tired of hearing the Alec Baldwins and barbara Streisands of the world threaten to move somewhere else if Bush got elected. You know, I htink they're all still here.

And while we're on the subject of Hillary-bashing, I think a lot of Republicans simply have a blind hatred towards her, as they did with Bill Clinton. Her policies are actually quite centrist in nature--more so, even, then Kerry's...but the republicans were hellbent on labelling her an ultra-liberal during the 90s, and in spite of her actual politics, they succeeded.

bomarl1969
05-24-2005, 03:07 PM
And while we're on the subject of Hillary-bashing, I think a lot of Republicans simply have a blind hatred towards her, as they did with Bill Clinton.

You're right and wrong. I can't stand (I don't hate) but I can't stand Hillary. Love Bill though, would vote for him in a heartbeat, even though yes I am Republican. And BTW, I can't stand Bush either. I didn't vote for either Kerry or Bush in the election BUT I did believe Bush to be the lesser of the 2 evils.

Falls City Beer
05-24-2005, 03:12 PM
You're right and wrong. I can't stand (I don't hate) but I can't stand Hillary. Love Bill though, would vote for him in a heartbeat, even though yes I am Republican. And BTW, I can't stand Bush either. I didn't vote for either Kerry or Bush in the election BUT I did believe Bush to be the lesser of the 2 evils.

Wow. Another Bush backpedaler. The numbers continue to grow.

Voter remorse for Bush is unbelievably high. I love it. :devil:

bomarl1969
05-24-2005, 03:19 PM
Wow. Another Bush backpedaler. The numbers continue to grow.

Voter remorse for Bush is unbelievably high. I love it. :devil:

Obviously you didn't read my post. I'm not a Bush backpedaler, I didn;t vote for EITHER he or Kerry, but out of the 2 I do like Bush better, actually out of Kerry, Bush, and Clinton I would take Bill Clinton anyday.

registerthis
05-24-2005, 03:22 PM
Obviously you didn't read my post. I'm not a Bush backpedaler, I didn;t vote for EITHER he or Kerry, but out of the 2 I do like Bush better, actually out of Kerry, Bush, and Clinton I would take Bill Clinton anyday.
So you voted for neither? (Can't see you going for Nader.)

I always remember what my HS government teacher told us: If you don't vote, you lose your right to complain.

bomarl1969
05-24-2005, 03:41 PM
So you voted for neither? (Can't see you going for Nader.)

I always remember what my HS government teacher told us: If you don't vote, you lose your right to complain.

I agree with that statement, that's why I did vote. I just couldn't give my support to either Kerry or Bush, that is why I voted for Nader, that and the fact I KNEW he wouldn't win!

bomarl1969
05-24-2005, 03:43 PM
I always remember what my HS government teacher told us: If you don't vote, you lose your right to complain.

Then again, tell that statement to my father-in-law. He hasn't voted since he was drafted and fought (very well I might add) in Vietnam. He has every right to complain, even if he doesn't vote. The government did force him to put his life on the line so therefore I feel he has every right to complain.

registerthis
05-24-2005, 04:19 PM
Then again, tell that statement to my father-in-law. He hasn't voted since he was drafted and fought (very well I might add) in Vietnam. He has every right to complain, even if he doesn't vote. The government did force him to put his life on the line so therefore I feel he has every right to complain.
He complains, but effectively does nothing about it? What good does that do?

bomarl1969
05-24-2005, 04:38 PM
He complains, but effectively does nothing about it? What good does that do?

HOW ABOUT PUTTING HIS LIFE ON THE LINE WHEN HIS COUNTRY TOLD HIM TO IN ORDER TO PREVENT A FREE COUNTRY FROM FALLING PREY TO COMMUNISIUM? Doesn't that give him enough of a right to complain about our government...I think so and who the hell are we to question it?

RBA
05-24-2005, 04:44 PM
HOW ABOUT PUTTING HIS LIFE ON THE LINE WHEN HIS COUNTRY TOLD HIM TO IN ORDER TO PREVENT A FREE COUNTRY FROM FALLING PREY TO COMMUNISIUM? Doesn't that give him enough of a right to complain about our government...I think so and who the hell are we to question it?

Sounds like John Kerry. But some people thought he was treasoneous to complain about our government. A lot of people questioned his actions; right here on this board.

WVRed
05-24-2005, 06:58 PM
Sounds like John Kerry. But some people thought he was treasoneous to complain about our government. A lot of people questioned his actions; right here on this board.

Difference is, John Kerry was trying to make a difference in our nation by running for President. Even though he was questioned, he was running for political office instead of refusing to be involved in our political system.

I respect John Kerry for doing service in Vietnam and coming back to try and make this country a better place(even though I may disagree with his views). I cant say the same for someone who comes back and does not even cast a vote for change.

Even if you disagreed with Nam, you could always have went with the other party.

Unassisted
05-24-2005, 07:32 PM
Mostly, I think this is a sign that both parties could stand to have more level-headed moderates in both houses of Congress.

I still can't see how the Democrats really compromised here. Seems more like they simply knuckled under to avoid this nuclear option.

Someone implied above and I've heard elsewhere that this is more about setting the stage for the Dems having a say in future skirmishes over Supreme Court nominees (Scalia or Thomas for CJ) than any deep-seated concern over this handful of nominees.

GAC
05-24-2005, 08:07 PM
If the democrat has the name of Al Gore, John Kerry, or Hillary Clinton then the answer isn't yes, it would be something like "this country is on it's way to hell." I swear if Hillary Clinton is a future president I am moving to the Bahamas or Mexico because I refuse to live under her.

Feel safe. No matter how much she tries to play the chameleon over the next few years, she'll enjoy the support of her base but never even come close.

Rojo
05-24-2005, 09:06 PM
I still can't see how the Democrats really compromised here. Seems more like they simply knuckled under to avoid this nuclear option.

A lot of Democrats are happy with the deal, in fact the are more happy Dems are than Republicans -- who thought they'd get everything.

The Democrats did walk away with the fillibuster in tact and two nominees tossed over. This despite the fact that they weren't going to win the NO vote.

However, I think this is sacrificing a strategic advantage for a tactical "win" (and not much of one considering the most noxious nominees get their places on the bench).

By allowing a vote on the option, the Democrats could have made the GOP look bad, divided the wings and maybe given themselves a chance to defeat moderate Republicans like Snowe, Collins, Chafee, etc....

RBA
05-24-2005, 09:09 PM
Feel safe. No matter how much she tries to play the chameleon over the next few years, she'll enjoy the support of her base but never even come close.

On the otherhand, many thought the same about President George W. Bush. ;)

RedsBaron
05-24-2005, 09:35 PM
Feel safe. No matter how much she tries to play the chameleon over the next few years, she'll enjoy the support of her base but never even come close.
While I disagree with another poster's assertion that Mrs. Clinton is a centrist, I do not believe that her election to the Presidency is impossible, either. Mrs. Clinton is probably as much a centrist now as Ronald Reagan was in, say, 1979, which is to say neither one was or is. Reagan was right of the American political center and therefore many assumed he was unelectable. They were wrong. Mrs. Clinton is left of the American political center and many assume she cannot be elected to national office; this too may be an error.
At this point, more than three years before the 2008 Democratic convention, I believe Hillary Clinton is the front runner for the Democratic nomination, and, while much could happen between now and then, I have trouble seeing any other Democrat denying her the nomination. She already has the party's left wing pretty much sewed up and therefore has the liberty to make feints to the center; other contenders must first play to the Democratic base, that is the left, rather than immediately attempting to go to the center.
Now to win the general election, Mrs. Clinton would need to carry a state or two which eluded John Kerry, but that certainly is not impossible IMO. While the G.O.P. nominee may start out favored in such "red" states as Ohio and Florida, Prsident Bush's margin of victory in those states was not such as to make a Democratic victory in one or both states improbable.
Republicans also have the problem which Democrats, in their glee over Bush's relatively poor polling numbers in the spring of 2004 seemed to forget: You can't beat somebody with nobody. The Republicans do not have an obvious successor to Bush in 2008, and a divided party that election is not out of the question, depending upon who the nominee is.
Am I predicting that Hillary Clinton will be elected President in 2008? No. However, I do favor her to be the Democratic nominee, and anyone nominated for President by either of America's two major political parties absolutely has a chance of being elected IMO.

Mutaman
05-24-2005, 09:56 PM
I don't hate Republicans, I just want the Democrats to run the country (could they do worse?).

Not me, I really hate Republicans. Dam Hypocrites. Unfortunatly, I don't think too highly of the Democrats either.

RedsBaron
05-24-2005, 10:37 PM
Not me, I really hate Republicans. Dam Hypocrites. Unfortunatly, I don't think too highly of the Democrats either.
With all due respect, I believe that Republicans have very sincere beliefs regarding dams and other means of flood control. I have no criticisms of Democrats regarding dams, either, for that matter. ;)

RBA
05-24-2005, 11:18 PM
With all due respect, I believe that Republicans have very sincere beliefs regarding dams and other means of flood control. I have no criticisms of Democrats regarding dams, either, for that matter. ;)

I think the Democrats came up with the TVA and the Hoover Dam (named after a Republican who put us in the Great depression) was built as a WPA (Roosevelt/Democrat program) project. ;)

Mutaman
05-25-2005, 12:09 AM
I think the Democrats came up with the TVA and the Hoover Dam (named after a Republican who put us in the Great depression) was built as a WPA (Roosevelt/Democrat program) project. ;)

Every time I'm in Vegas, somebody says "should we go see the Hoover dam or should we continue to gamble and drink and ect?" I have yet to see the Hoover dam.

M2
05-25-2005, 02:12 AM
RB, as a leftist I consider Hillary Clinton to be a centrist, more of a do-nothing politician than a centrist, but still a centrist when she actually does something.

Frankly, there's very few pols remaining on the left. I'm thinking the Democratic party moto should be "We're slightly less rapacious, domineering and unconcerned about individual liberties than the Republicans."

And I don't think she's got anything wrapped up in terms of a Democratic nomination, certainly in terms of left wing support. If anything she's deep into the pockets of the party's large donors, who aren't particularly left wing. But what does she stand for, what has she accomplished? Nothing and nothing as far as I can tell.

Then again all she really has to do is convince Dem primary voters she's got the best shot in the general election. That's how the last two guys got the nomination. Dems want candidates to run on issues, but run away from candidates who raise them. I can't stand Bush, but I'll give Republican voters credit, they picked the guy who best represented the party and what it stands for.

Mutaman
05-25-2005, 03:16 AM
I agree, there hasn't been a left wing in this country since Tailgunner Joe McCarthy scared them all off. And of course Hillary Clinton is as much in the center as they come. However I disagree about her accomplishments. She's my senator and I'm satisfied with the job she has done. She ran a terrific hardworking campaign to get elected, and she has been a hard worker as a senator since then. Surprisingly, she's stayed out of the local limelight and out of political disputes, and has used her willingness to compromise and hard work to get things done. While most people feel that Chuck Schumer is all show and little substance, the feeling about Hillary is just the opposite. At this point, you will find few New Yorker's, liberal or conservative, who will criticise the job she has done and what she has delivered to both the state and the city. Her support for the Iraq fiasco sucks, but I'm willing to forgive that in light of my satisfaction for the job shes been doing as senator.

M2
05-25-2005, 03:43 AM
I agree, there hasn't been a left wing in this country since Tailgunner Joe McCarthy scared them all off. And of course Hillary Clinton is as much in the center as they come. However I disagree about her accomplishments. She's my senator and I'm satisfied with the job she has done. She ran a terrific hardworking campaign to get elected, and she has been a hard worker as a senator since then. Surprisingly, she's stayed out of the local limelight and out of political disputes, and has used her willingness to compromise and hard work to get things done. While most people feel that Chuck Schumer is all show and little substance, the feeling about Hillary is just the opposite. At this point, you will find few New Yorker's, liberal or conservative, who will criticise the job she has done and what she has delivered to both the state and the city. Her support for the Iraq fiasco sucks, but I'm willing to forgive that in light of my satisfaction for the job shes been doing as senator.

What he she done? Seriously, name one thing.

pedro
05-25-2005, 04:30 AM
There is no way on earth that Hillary will ever be the democratic candidate for president. At least not for 15 years. I'm a fan, in general, but there I don't think she's anyone I'd want to place as a frontrunner next time around. I want to win, and as it stands right now, anyone who already has 40% of the voting populace violently against them, is not a candidate in my mind.

RedsBaron
05-25-2005, 07:56 AM
RB, as a leftist I consider Hillary Clinton to be a centrist, more of a do-nothing politician than a centrist, but still a centrist when she actually does something.


M2, I referred to the American political center in calling Hillary Clinton left of center. She certainly may be a centrist coming from your perspective on the left, just as George W. Bush undoubtedly seems to be much more conservative to you than he does to me, given my generally rightward bias, but based upon where this country currently sits politically, she's on the left wing-----not the left fringe, not a radical, but on the left. Rasmussen has been polling Americans on where they perceive Mrs. Clinton to be politically, and the last time I checked Rasmussen's polling numbers, about 50% of those responding called her a liberal, although her numbers have somewhat moved to the center in recent months.
I think Mrs. Clinton has generally played a smart game as Senator. She hasn't always sought the limelight and she has sought to moderate her image.
Should she be nominated in 2008, Republicans will of course attempt (more accurately renew prior attempts) to define her as a far left liberal, and she certainly may lose, but I sure would not be confident in betting against her. The country may no longer be divided 50-50 politically, at least based on the 2004 elections, but a 51-49 division is still awfully close.
I also believe it could be an interesting dynamic in how voters respond to the first woman nominated for president. Of course some men (and women) may vote against a candidate solely because of her gender (and never admit to pollsters the reason they are doing so), but I expect a good number of swing voters who might otherwise vote Republican could vote for Mrs. Clinton because of her gender. I still remember my first semester at Duke in the fall of 1976. I talked to a number of native North Carolinians who were absolutely bursting with pride because a southerner had finally been elected President and southern pride kept Gerald Ford from carrying many southern states against Jimmy Carter.

registerthis
05-25-2005, 10:38 AM
There is no way on earth that Hillary will ever be the democratic candidate for president. At least not for 15 years. I'm a fan, in general, but there I don't think she's anyone I'd want to place as a frontrunner next time around. I want to win, and as it stands right now, anyone who already has 40% of the voting populace violently against them, is not a candidate in my mind.
Yes, but you can't ignore the 40% of the voting populace who would be solidly behind her. I think Hillary hasa good chance--better than most, perhaps--of getting the Dem nomination in '08.

M2
05-25-2005, 12:23 PM
RB, I'm making the case against that kind of relativism. If Hillary Clinton's left, then for all intensive purposes, there is no left. We're a one-armed country with a right hand punching at the left ribs.

WVRed
05-25-2005, 12:58 PM
IMO, all this does is delay the inevitable. The Supreme Court justice battle will be where everything is on the line.

The filibuster is still intact, but the only thing I saw accomplished was McCain giving the finger to the Republican Party(as Glenn Beck so eloquently put it).

Mutaman
05-25-2005, 01:58 PM
What he she done? Seriously, name one thing.

I don't want to have to be a Hillary apologist and I don't want to see her run for president. But she's accomplished a lot as a New York senator. First, she got elected which is rare for a democrat these days. (And don't think for one minute Rudy dropped out of the race due to his prostate problem).

Hillary is the first New York senator to serve on the Armed Services Committee, and has voted for every defense appropriation since arriving in the Senate in 2001, backing new Bush weapons systems and focusing her critique of Bush's Iraq tactics on an inadequate deployment of troops. All of her liberal agenda has taken a back seat to guarding against the next 9/11 attack in NYC. She has successfully secured two large federal grants to clean up the toxic waste left by 9/11 in lower Manhattan and has obtained post 9/11 asbestos cleanup there. She has received an "A" rating on the websight of the 9/11 families and has secured $16 mill in federal funds to study post (9/11 problems in New York. She has fought dilligently to prevent post 9/11 pork programs from diverting funds away from NYC to other states where there is no threat. Even the NY Post has agreed that Hillary has done a hell of a job securing homeland and reconstruction aid for New York City.

Rojo
05-25-2005, 02:21 PM
I'm a lefty, all my friends are lefty, I work for a lefty organization, live in, arguably, the most lefty city in the nation so I feel well qualified in saying that Hillary doesn't represent "the left".

Hillary is a straw (wo)man of talk radio. Seriously, they're the only ones talking about her.

Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold are the only Senators within whiffing distance of true progressivism.

bomarl1969
05-25-2005, 03:51 PM
I respect John Kerry for doing service in Vietnam and coming back to try and make this country a better place(even though I may disagree with his views). I cant say the same for someone who comes back and does not even cast a vote for change.

I can assure you that my father-in-law and John Kerry are nothing alike. First of all, my father-in-law was actually in the He was involved in some of the heaviest fighting during the war. He won numerous medals (deservingly), and didn't protest the war like that commie Kerry did. Sure he doesn't vote, but never once has he protested the war like the hypocrit Kerry.

registerthis
05-25-2005, 03:58 PM
I can assure you that my father-in-law and John Kerry are nothing alike. First of all, my father-in-law was actually in the war. He was involved in some of the heaviest fighting during the war. He won numerous medals (deservingly), and didn't protest the war like that commie Kerry did. Sure he doesn't vote, but never once has he protested the war like the hypocrit Kerry.So protesting an unjust, imperialistic war makes you a communist?

Count me down as a communist, then.

The only thing hypocritical about Kerry was that he seemingly backed down from his anti-war stance during the campaign. I admire him greatly for having the courage to stand up and protest a war he found to be unjust--there's nothing hypocritical about standing up for your principles.

zombie-a-go-go
05-25-2005, 03:59 PM
That's some vitriol you got going there, bomarl.

And I know it's only a euphemism, but don't curse on this board, even if you mask it.

bomarl1969
05-25-2005, 04:02 PM
So protesting an unjust, imperialistic war makes you a communist?

Most definitely. If there is one thing I can't stand it is seeing these aging liberial hippie ******s supporting our troops after 9/11 and they were the very ones that spit at and called our boys babykillers in the 1960s. You don't protest a war that your fellow countrymen are fighting and dying in. Besides, most of the men in Vietnam were told they were fighting for their country, but they were really righting for their lives. And hearing about hippies protesting our boys while dodging the draft, putting headbands on, doing drugs, spitting and cursing our own troops sickens me.

bomarl1969
05-25-2005, 04:03 PM
That's some vitriol you got going there, bomarl.

And I know it's only a euphemism, but don't curse on this board, even if you mask it.

WHAT? WHAT? Your telling me not to mask cursing? Have you read the South Park thread or the 5 most offensive song threads!? :bang:

zombie-a-go-go
05-25-2005, 04:07 PM
WHAT? WHAT? Your telling me not to mask cursing?

A review of my previous post in this thread reveals that yes, I am telling you not to curse, even when masking it.

Rules. They're all that keeps our society from being destroyed by the babykilling liberal headband-wearing drug addicts. ;)

bomarl1969
05-25-2005, 04:12 PM
A review of my previous post in this thread reveals that yes, I am telling you not to curse, even when masking it.

Rules. They're all that keeps our society from being destroyed by the babykilling liberal headband-wearing drug addicts. ;) :thumbup: ;) I liked that!

I was just surprised to see that I shouldn't mask when other posters did it 10X worse in the South Park thread and the offensive song thread.

Redsfaithful
05-25-2005, 04:46 PM
Most definitely. If there is one thing I can't stand it is seeing these aging liberial hippie ******s supporting our troops after 9/11 and they were the very ones that spit at and called our boys babykillers in the 1960s. You don't protest a war that your fellow countrymen are fighting and dying in. Besides, most of the men in Vietnam were told they were fighting for their country, but they were really righting for their lives. And hearing about hippies protesting our boys while dodging the draft, putting headbands on, doing drugs, spitting and cursing our own troops sickens me.

Why aren't you in Iraq again?

If you support the troops so much why don't you join them? I'm sure they'd appreciate the help ... recruiting has taken quite the hit in the past year.

registerthis
05-25-2005, 05:19 PM
Most definitely. If there is one thing I can't stand it is seeing these aging liberial hippie ******s supporting our troops after 9/11 and they were the very ones that spit at and called our boys babykillers in the 1960s. You don't protest a war that your fellow countrymen are fighting and dying in.
You don't blindly support it, either. I don't recall John Kerry ever spitting on troops, however he did recount with disturbing accuracy atrocities OUR TROOPS committed in Vietnam.

I vehemently protested the war in Iraq--not out of disrespect for our troops, but out of a sincere hope to bring them home and hot have them killed--or kill anyone else.


Besides, most of the men in Vietnam were told they were fighting for their country, but they were really righting for their lives. And hearing about hippies protesting our boys while dodging the draft, putting headbands on, doing drugs, spitting and cursing our own troops sickens me.
That's funny, seeing people blindly support a President who sends troops off to war with reckliess abandon that results in the death of thousands of our soliders and untold thousands of civilians sickens me.

You're confusing what it means to "protest" a war. When I discuss war protesters, I don't mean the ones that spit on troops, attack them, insult them, etc. I am referring to the ones who have a moral objection to the grounds for this war, Vietnam, and many other wars America has fought in this century. Much like Iraq, Vietnam was an unnecessary war that resulted in the deaths of over 58,000 U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of vietnamese. There is no glory in supporting something like that.

GAC
05-25-2005, 05:41 PM
While I disagree with another poster's assertion that Mrs. Clinton is a centrist, I do not believe that her election to the Presidency is impossible, either. Mrs. Clinton is probably as much a centrist now as Ronald Reagan was in, say, 1979, which is to say neither one was or is. Reagan was right of the American political center and therefore many assumed he was unelectable. They were wrong. Mrs. Clinton is left of the American political center and many assume she cannot be elected to national office; this too may be an error.
At this point, more than three years before the 2008 Democratic convention, I believe Hillary Clinton is the front runner for the Democratic nomination, and, while much could happen between now and then, I have trouble seeing any other Democrat denying her the nomination. She already has the party's left wing pretty much sewed up and therefore has the liberty to make feints to the center; other contenders must first play to the Democratic base, that is the left, rather than immediately attempting to go to the center.
Now to win the general election, Mrs. Clinton would need to carry a state or two which eluded John Kerry, but that certainly is not impossible IMO. While the G.O.P. nominee may start out favored in such "red" states as Ohio and Florida, Prsident Bush's margin of victory in those states was not such as to make a Democratic victory in one or both states improbable.
Republicans also have the problem which Democrats, in their glee over Bush's relatively poor polling numbers in the spring of 2004 seemed to forget: You can't beat somebody with nobody. The Republicans do not have an obvious successor to Bush in 2008, and a divided party that election is not out of the question, depending upon who the nominee is.
Am I predicting that Hillary Clinton will be elected President in 2008? No. However, I do favor her to be the Democratic nominee, and anyone nominated for President by either of America's two major political parties absolutely has a chance of being elected IMO.

I pretty agree with everything you state above. She is obviously positioning herself for the nomination and a run. I just don't think, even with no obvious successor to Bush at this stage, she'll pass muster with the public in the general election. Politics is a dirty game on both sides. Look what they did with Kerry's past (and with Bush's). They'll do the same with Hillary.

GAC
05-25-2005, 05:52 PM
You don't blindly support it, either. I don't recall John Kerry ever spitting on troops, however he did recount with disturbing accuracy atrocities OUR TROOPS committed in Vietnam.

You need to do a little more research on the organization VVAW that Kerry became the front man for after returning fron Nam. As a Viet Nam vet I had no problem at all with people exercising their rights in protest. It was simply the methodology that they used, and yes, they laid the blunt of their criticism and scorn on the military. I remember it well. Many of their protests around this country mocked the uniform and the men who wore it. Our vets deserved better when they returned home. And it later lead to a riff/split within the VVAW that exists even today because of the scorn for the military that many of their members had/have for our military.

Falls City Beer
05-25-2005, 05:57 PM
I want nothing to do with Hilary Clinton. She and her big fat sellout husband can go golfing with their hawk buddies all day as far as I'm concerned. They went buns-up to the man a long time ago. Ptuey. I spit on you.

I want some wacko bleeding heart pinko Socialist Frenchie-loving Dems to grab the spotlight with sexy saxophone solos.

Then I want to go to that amusement park in Arkansas where they have exhibits showing Adam and Eve hanging out with the dinosaurs! :laugh: :beerme: :drink: :barf: :thisyear: :luvu: :feedback:

registerthis
05-25-2005, 06:22 PM
You need to do a little more research on the organization VVAW that Kerry became the front man for after returning fron Nam.
I know there were protesters that did this, GAC, but my statement was about KERRY. Please find me an article where it discusses Kerry spitting on and/or harrassing troops, etc.

Simply because he was the leader of an organization who had certain members that did these things doesn't implicate him anymore than the leader of a church is responsible when an attendee blows up an abortion clinic.


As a Viet Nam vet I had no problem at all with people exercising their rights in protest. It was simply the methodology that they used, and yes, they laid the blunt of their criticism and scorn on the military. I remember it well. Many of their protests around this country mocked the uniform and the men who wore it. Our vets deserved better when they returned home. And it later lead to a riff/split within the VVAW that exists even today because of the scorn for the military that many of their members had/have for our military.
You can't paint all protesters with the same brush, GAC. My father, too, is a Vietnam vet, I remember the stories he told as well. I don't agree with taking frustrations out on the troops themselves, but as I recall Kerry testified very eloquently before Congress, which is the CORRECT way to protest a war. As I understand it, many vet's anger at Kerry was directed at his divulgence of things that went on which were to remain "unspoken".

registerthis
05-25-2005, 06:23 PM
I want nothing to do with Hilary Clinton. She and her big fat sellout husband can go golfing with their hawk buddies all day as far as I'm concerned. They went buns-up to the man a long time ago. Ptuey. I spit on you.

I want some wacko bleeding heart pinko Socialist Frenchie-loving Dems to grab the spotlight with sexy saxophone solos.

Then I want to go to that amusement park in Arkansas where they have exhibits showing Adam and Eve hanging out with the dinosaurs! :laugh: :beerme: :drink: :barf: :thisyear: :luvu: :feedback:
I still think Wesley Clarke would have made a great President.

GAC
05-25-2005, 10:19 PM
I know there were protesters that did this, GAC, but my statement was about KERRY. Please find me an article where it discusses Kerry spitting on and/or harrassing troops, etc.

Simply because he was the leader of an organization who had certain members that did these things doesn't implicate him anymore than the leader of a church is responsible when an attendee blows up an abortion clinic.

The problem is that he was directly involved in those protests. I remember those experiences well. I saw what he, as leader of the VVAW, did and was involved in once he returned. He did far worse IMO by participating in alot of those protests that did attack and demean our troops.

At a staged protest at the Capitol, Kerry threw medals over the fence and for years claimed they were his. Turned out they were not, but another soldier's. But it was brilliant political theater.

Read Kerry's book "The New Soldier". The cover itself says plenty. The cover photo, with the unside down American flag was done intentionally to mock the famous photo taken at Iwo Jima.

http://www.yadkinriver.net/images/uploads/john-kerry-new-soldier_thumb.jpg

Many of the members of VVAW who met in a Detroit hotel in 1971 to document war crimes that they had participated in or witnessed during their combat tours in Vietnam, and which Kerry included in his famous testimony before the Senate, have been proven to be totally false and fabricated upon investigation. Some of them never set foot in Viet Nam upon a more thorough investigation into their testimony. Many refused to give signed depositions to their testimony. Yet the charges Kerry made, which also helped to launch his political career, stained the reputation of veterans and the military for years. The mass murder of civilians was never American policy in Vietnam. War crimes were the exception, not the rule. And the Winter Soldier tribunal, as it was known as, which John Kerry had helped moderate, turned out to be, in the words of historian Guenter Lewy, "packed with pretenders and liars."

So I don't, nor never have I "painted" all protestors with a broad brush. But people like Kerry, Fonda, the VVAW I will. Because what they did is well documented, repulsive and offensive to any awful lots of vets in this country. We are not gonna forget regardless how people try to rewrite the history around those circumstances. ;)

RBA
05-25-2005, 11:41 PM
War crimes were committed, that is a fact. You cant deny that. The Toleda Blade has award winning articles that document many.

Many people have been proven paid political liars in distorting John Kerry's war record. Nightline did a excellent news story on the Swift Boat Liars claims and prove them to be liars. Nightline went to Vietnam and heard from the people who were there who were actual eyewitnesses; not the people like the Swift Boat Liars who weren't there.

paintmered
05-26-2005, 12:10 AM
So yeah, about this big compromise in Congress......

We were talking about that, right?


Edit: I just think it would be unfortunate for a good political discussion to get bogged down in stuff that has already been hashed to ad nauseum around here.

RBA
05-26-2005, 12:29 AM
So yeah, about this big compromise in Congress......



The extremist Right won; America lost. Nothing to debate.

Mutaman
05-26-2005, 01:56 AM
You need to do a little more research on the organization VVAW that Kerry became the front man for after returning fron Nam. As a Viet Nam vet I had no problem at all with people exercising their rights in protest. It was simply the methodology that they used, and yes, they laid the blunt of their criticism and scorn on the military. I remember it well. Many of their protests around this country mocked the uniform and the men who wore it. Our vets deserved better when they returned home. And it later lead to a riff/split within the VVAW that exists even today because of the scorn for the military that many of their members had/have for our military.

Published on Saturday, April 30, 2005 by the Boston Globe
Debunking a Spitting Image
by Jerry Lembcke


STORIES ABOUT spat-upon Vietnam veterans are like mercury: Smash one and six more appear. It's hard to say where they come from. For a book I wrote in 1998 I looked back to the time when the spit was supposedly flying, the late 1960s and early 1970s. I found nothing. No news reports or even claims that someone was being spat on.

What I did find is that around 1980, scores of Vietnam-generation men were saying they were greeted by spitters when they came home from Vietnam. There is an element of urban legend in the stories in that their point of origin in time and place is obscure, and, yet, they have very similar details. The story told by the man who spat on Jane Fonda at a book signing in Kansas City recently is typical. Michael Smith said he came back through Los Angeles airport where ''people were lined up to spit on us."

Like many stories of the spat-upon veteran genre, Smith's lacks credulity. GIs landed at military airbases, not civilian airports, and protesters could not have gotten onto the bases and anywhere near deplaning troops. There may have been exceptions, of course, but in those cases how would protesters have known in advance that a plane was being diverted to a civilian site? And even then, returnees would have been immediately bused to nearby military installations and processed for reassignment or discharge.

The exaggerations in Smith's story are characteristic of those told by others. ''Most Vietnam veterans were spat on when we came back," he said. That's not true. A 1971 Harris poll conducted for the Veterans Administration found over 90 percent of Vietnam veterans reporting a friendly homecoming. Far from spitting on veterans, the antiwar movement welcomed them into its ranks and thousands of veterans joined the opposition to the war.

The persistence of spat-upon Vietnam veteran stories suggests that they continue to fill a need in American culture. The image of spat-upon veterans is the icon through which many people remember the loss of the war, the centerpiece of a betrayal narrative that understands the war to have been lost because of treason on the home front. Jane Fonda's noisiest detractors insist she should have been prosecuted for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, in conformity with the law of the land.

But the psychological dimensions of the betrayal mentality are far more interesting than the legal. Betrayal is about fear, and the specter of self-betrayal is the hardest to dispel. The likelihood that the real danger to America lurks not outside but inside the gates is unsettling. The possibility that it was failure of masculinity itself, the meltdown of the core component of warrior culture, that cost the nation its victory in Vietnam has haunted us ever since.

Many tellers of the spitting tales identify the culprits as girls, a curious quality to the stories that gives away their gendered subtext. Moreover, the spitting images that emerged a decade after the troops had come home from Vietnam are similar enough to the legends of defeated German soldiers defiled by women upon their return from World War I, and the rejection from women felt by French soldiers when they returned from their lost war in Indochina, to suggest something universal and troubling at work in their making. One can reject the presence of a collective subconscious in the projection of those anxieties, as many scholars would, but there is little comfort in the prospect that memories of group spit-ins, like Smith has, are just fantasies conjured in the imaginations of aging veterans.

Remembering the war in Vietnam through the images of betrayal is dangerous because it rekindles the hope that wars like it, in countries where we are not welcomed, can be won. It disparages the reputation of those who opposed that war and intimidates a new generation of activists now finding the courage to resist Vietnam-type ventures in the 21st century.

Today, on the 30th anniversary of the end of the war in Vietnam, new stories of spat-upon veterans appear faster than they can be challenged. Debunking them one by one is unlikely to slow their proliferation but, by contesting them where and when we can, we engage the historical record in a way that helps all of us remember that, in the end, soldiers and veterans joined with civilians to stop a war that should have never been fought.

Jerry Lembcke, associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross College, is the author of ''The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam."

GAC
05-26-2005, 10:38 AM
War crimes were committed, that is a fact. You cant deny that. The Toleda Blade has award winning articles that document many.

No one has ever stated that atrocities weren't committed over there RBA. I remember My Lai (Lt Calley), and the circumstances surrounding it better then you do. ;)

It wasn't the norm as some try to project it as. I heard Kerry's testimony, along with many other statements he and others within the anti-war movement said back then. All us vets were immoral, barbaric war criminals.

I just got accused of painting all anti-war protestors with a "broad brush" (which I didn't do). Well, guys like Kerry and the VVAW did just that with our men fighting over there. And it has been proven that some of those testimonies were fabricated and exaggerated to give more credence to their agenda. They flat out lied!

And what about the atrocities and violations of the Geneva Convention that the Viet Cong committed? How about the ways they treated our POW's for example? The physical and mental abuse they were submitted to? And then you got morons like Jane Fonda going over there, touring some of those camps, and being used as their propaganda while she is photograohed with smiling American POWs. Why didn't these anti-war protestors ever try to bring that to anyone's attention? Ask guys like John McCain who was lucky to get out alive. Many didn't.

How would you feel, or maybe react, if you were patrolling villages day after day after day, couldn't recognize the enemy, and they welcome you with open arms when you entered - and then when you exited they'd open fire on your backs or send their women or children up to you with explosives strapped to them? And then you see buddies who you were tight with since basic training, and the emotional bond is there, lying scattered all about blown in half? Think you might feel like a little retribution? Not saying it was right or justified - just putting myself in the shoes of those foot soldiers who couldn't tell a North Vietnamese from a South Vietnamese. You didn't know if that person walking up to you was friend or foe.


Many people have been proven paid political liars in distorting John Kerry's war record. Nightline did a excellent news story on the Swift Boat Liars claims and prove them to be liars. Nightline went to Vietnam and heard from the people who were there who were actual eyewitnesses; not the people like the Swift Boat Liars who weren't there.

I wasn't referring to Swift Boat. I didn't agree with alot of what they did during the election. But you are wrong when you say alot of those Swift Boat vets weren't there. Yes, alot of them were. But then, both sides played dirty politics with the candidates military service (MoveOn, Soros).

And I don't need Nightline or any other news media source to try and re-write history when I, and thousands of vets, were there during the late 60's/early 70's and saw what people like Kerry, Fonda, VVAW, and other radical anti-war organizations did. No, I never said that Kerry personally spit on anyone, nor called his fellow vets derogatory names. But what he did do, along with Fonda, which did far worse damage in the minds of a majority of vets, was give their support to alot of these organizations THAT DID. I can still remember the devisive term "baby killers", along with many others, being yelled at us. I remember many of the rallies staged around this country where the American flag was hung upside down and burned, where effigies dressed in military garb were hung and beaten while they waved the Viet Cong flag during their protests. And yes, John Kerry was filmed right in the middle of alot of them, and he can't deny it.... PERIOD!

Some of you are not old enough to have experienced it. And you're getting your info from various media sources that have tried to white-wash the whole thing as being innocent, thinking that people's memories after 30+ years will grow foggy. Well it hasn't.

And it has nothing at all to do with being Republican or Democrat. It's simply an issue that has stuck in the craw of an awful lot of vets from that era, and justifiable so. They had enough problems back then, and didnt need to be treated that way (whether it was intentional or not) for being drafted and sent to Nam.

GAC
05-26-2005, 10:44 AM
Published on Saturday, April 30, 2005 by the Boston Globe
Debunking a Spitting Image
by Jerry Lembcke


STORIES ABOUT spat-upon Vietnam veterans are like mercury: Smash one and six more appear. It's hard to say where they come from. For a book I wrote in 1998 I looked back to the time when the spit was supposedly flying, the late 1960s and early 1970s. I found nothing. No news reports or even claims that someone was being spat on.

What I did find is that around 1980, scores of Vietnam-generation men were saying they were greeted by spitters when they came home from Vietnam. There is an element of urban legend in the stories in that their point of origin in time and place is obscure, and, yet, they have very similar details. The story told by the man who spat on Jane Fonda at a book signing in Kansas City recently is typical. Michael Smith said he came back through Los Angeles airport where ''people were lined up to spit on us."

Like many stories of the spat-upon veteran genre, Smith's lacks credulity. GIs landed at military airbases, not civilian airports, and protesters could not have gotten onto the bases and anywhere near deplaning troops. There may have been exceptions, of course, but in those cases how would protesters have known in advance that a plane was being diverted to a civilian site? And even then, returnees would have been immediately bused to nearby military installations and processed for reassignment or discharge.

The exaggerations in Smith's story are characteristic of those told by others. ''Most Vietnam veterans were spat on when we came back," he said. That's not true. A 1971 Harris poll conducted for the Veterans Administration found over 90 percent of Vietnam veterans reporting a friendly homecoming. Far from spitting on veterans, the antiwar movement welcomed them into its ranks and thousands of veterans joined the opposition to the war.

The persistence of spat-upon Vietnam veteran stories suggests that they continue to fill a need in American culture. The image of spat-upon veterans is the icon through which many people remember the loss of the war, the centerpiece of a betrayal narrative that understands the war to have been lost because of treason on the home front. Jane Fonda's noisiest detractors insist she should have been prosecuted for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, in conformity with the law of the land.

But the psychological dimensions of the betrayal mentality are far more interesting than the legal. Betrayal is about fear, and the specter of self-betrayal is the hardest to dispel. The likelihood that the real danger to America lurks not outside but inside the gates is unsettling. The possibility that it was failure of masculinity itself, the meltdown of the core component of warrior culture, that cost the nation its victory in Vietnam has haunted us ever since.

Many tellers of the spitting tales identify the culprits as girls, a curious quality to the stories that gives away their gendered subtext. Moreover, the spitting images that emerged a decade after the troops had come home from Vietnam are similar enough to the legends of defeated German soldiers defiled by women upon their return from World War I, and the rejection from women felt by French soldiers when they returned from their lost war in Indochina, to suggest something universal and troubling at work in their making. One can reject the presence of a collective subconscious in the projection of those anxieties, as many scholars would, but there is little comfort in the prospect that memories of group spit-ins, like Smith has, are just fantasies conjured in the imaginations of aging veterans.

Remembering the war in Vietnam through the images of betrayal is dangerous because it rekindles the hope that wars like it, in countries where we are not welcomed, can be won. It disparages the reputation of those who opposed that war and intimidates a new generation of activists now finding the courage to resist Vietnam-type ventures in the 21st century.

Today, on the 30th anniversary of the end of the war in Vietnam, new stories of spat-upon veterans appear faster than they can be challenged. Debunking them one by one is unlikely to slow their proliferation but, by contesting them where and when we can, we engage the historical record in a way that helps all of us remember that, in the end, soldiers and veterans joined with civilians to stop a war that should have never been fought.

Jerry Lembcke, associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross College, is the author of ''The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam."

I could care less what the liberal-leaning Boston Globe reported or researched. That's like a conservative posting a story from Fox to give validation to their opinion. Would you reject it? Again, I was alive then, I'm a Viet Nam era vet, and I know what was happening. Some of you alot younger then me, and trying to tell me what did/didn't go on then, because you read it somewhere or found an article, is like me trying to tell my parents what it was like growing up during the Depression because I read some books on it.

And this is my final word on this subject. As paint just said - really no reason to rehash it.

registerthis
05-26-2005, 10:52 AM
I could care less what the liberal-leaning Boston Globe reported or researched.
Do you not care about the following tidbit of information as well, seeing as how Harris Polling is just another liberal organization out to push their agenda?


The exaggerations in Smith's story are characteristic of those told by others. ''Most Vietnam veterans were spat on when we came back," he said. That's not true. A 1971 Harris poll conducted for the Veterans Administration found over 90 percent of Vietnam veterans reporting a friendly homecoming. Far from spitting on veterans, the antiwar movement welcomed them into its ranks and thousands of veterans joined the opposition to the war.

Redsfaithful
05-26-2005, 12:52 PM
I'm a Viet Nam era vet

Note the "era". GAC never stepped foot in Vietnam, but likes to claim war vet status to try and give more credence to his arguments.

We've been down that road before.

bomarl1969
05-26-2005, 12:58 PM
Note the "era". GAC never stepped foot in Vietnam, but likes to claim war vet status to try and give more credence to his arguments.

That is where you people are dead wrong. Doesn't matter if people like GAC, George W. Bush, or Dan Quale didn't actually step foot in Vietnam, they contributed to our troops in ways no one will ever know. Just like today's military that here in America are contributing to the war on terror and Iraq. Much better than the tree huggin hippie draft dodgers who went to Canada or college to avoid the issue.

Redsfaithful
05-26-2005, 01:13 PM
That is where you people are dead wrong. Doesn't matter if people like GAC, George W. Bush, or Dan Quale didn't actually step foot in Vietnam, they contributed to our troops in ways no one will ever know. Just like today's military that here in America are contributing to the war on terror and Iraq. Much better than the tree huggin hippie draft dodgers who went to Canada or college to avoid the issue.

Or college? Are you kidding me?

Anyway, I certainly appreciate GAC's service, I just think he's a bit disingenuous when he discusses it. He tries to claim the upper hand when discussing things because he was "there". If by there he means alive at the time and paying attention, then yeah sure, but that doesn't usually seem to be what he's implying.

Rojo
05-26-2005, 01:37 PM
Actually, in an earlier post he forgot the "era".


As a Viet Nam vet I had no problem at all with people exercising their rights in protest.

Rojo
05-26-2005, 01:42 PM
Doesn't matter if people like GAC, George W. Bush, or Dan Quale didn't actually step foot in Vietnam, they contributed to our troops in ways no one will ever know.

Their thoughts and prayers, I suppose?

I'd rather have a flak jacket or air cover.

westofyou
05-26-2005, 01:42 PM
Much better than the tree huggin hippie draft dodgers who went to Canada or college to avoid the issue.

"I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/dick-cheney/cheney-young2.gif

M2
05-26-2005, 02:21 PM
I don't care if there's no documented evidence that anyone ever spit on a Vietnam vet and that no individual Vietnam vet claims to have been spit upon. I also don't care that the overwhelming percentage of Vietnam vets returned home to enthusiastic cheers, even parades.

There's a massive pile of apochrypha built up around it. As punk chronicler Jon Savage says, "When confronted with a choice between the truth and legend, print the legend."

registerthis
05-26-2005, 02:47 PM
That is where you people are dead wrong. Doesn't matter if people like GAC, George W. Bush, or Dan Quale didn't actually step foot in Vietnam, they contributed to our troops in ways no one will ever know. Just like today's military that here in America are contributing to the war on terror and Iraq. Much better than the tree huggin hippie draft dodgers who went to Canada or college to avoid the issue.
The "tree huggin hippie draft dodgers who went to college?"

You must mean my father, who received his four year college degree, was subsequently drafted and served for two years, and who is now one of those "tree huggin hippies" you refer to, being all anti-war and anti-killing and all that nonsense. Shame on him.

Oh, by the way, when can we expect to win this war on terror? I'm just curious.

Rojo
05-26-2005, 03:28 PM
My dad doesn't recall spitter or ticker-tapes. He got off the plane to find two old ladies with a gift certificate to Disneyland and, of course, me and my mom.

Mutaman
05-26-2005, 07:00 PM
Note the "era". GAC never stepped foot in Vietnam, but likes to claim war vet status to try and give more credence to his arguments.

We've been down that road before.

And here I thought the guy had a little credibility. Never trust a republican.

Mutaman
05-26-2005, 07:02 PM
As punk chronicler Jon Savage says, "When confronted with a choice between the truth and legend, print the legend."

With all due respect to Jon Savage, this statement was first set forth by John Ford in the supurb movie "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance".

westofyou
05-26-2005, 07:13 PM
With all due respect to Jon Savage, this statement was first set forth by John Ford in the supurb movie "The man who shot Liberty Valance".

Lee Marvin was one bad hombre, but the Duke in his post Searchers glory was too much for him.

Mutaman
05-26-2005, 07:17 PM
I could care less what the liberal-leaning Boston Globe reported or researched. That's like a conservative posting a story from Fox to give validation to their opinion. Would you reject it? Again, I was alive then, I'm a Viet Nam era vet, and I know what was happening. Some of you alot younger then me, and trying to tell me what did/didn't go on then, because you read it somewhere or found an article, is like me trying to tell my parents what it was like growing up during the Depression because I read some books on it.

And this is my final word on this subject. As paint just said - really no reason to rehash it.

Simply not true. First, I'm probably older than you are and while I agree that if you remember anything about the 60's you wern't there, the fact remains that I never heard of any of this stuff then, and I've yet to meet anyone who experienced it or can document it. For those of us in the antiwar movement, the kids who were actually fighting were our relatives and friends-- why would we spit on them or hold them accountable for the idiotic war? Hell, half my high school class was in Viet Nam and five of them didn't come back. To paraphrase Dylan, you're only a pawn in the game. The enemy was LBJ, and McNamera, and Nixon, not some poor kid who got drafted.

I recently discussed this with my best buddy who spent two years in Viet Nam and came back about 1970. For several months he hitched around the country wearing his uniform. He told me nobody spit on him and nobody mocked him. For the most part everyone ignored him, (except for this middle aged woman who picked him up in Kansas, but thats annother story).

I suspect guys like GAC are just bitter they missed out on all the sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

Mutaman
05-26-2005, 07:40 PM
Lee Marvin was one bad hombre, but the Duke in his post Searchers glory was too much for him.

The Duke was too much for anybody, and I could care less about his politics.

M2
05-26-2005, 08:21 PM
With all due respect to Jon Savage, this statement was first set forth by John Ford in the supurb movie "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance".

I think Ford lifted it from Damon Runyon (btw, anyone who likes to read should grab a copy of Jimmy Breslin's "Runyon: A Life").

Falls City Beer
05-26-2005, 08:37 PM
That is where you people are dead wrong. Doesn't matter if people like GAC, George W. Bush, or Dan Quale didn't actually step foot in Vietnam, they contributed to our troops in ways no one will ever know. Just like today's military that here in America are contributing to the war on terror and Iraq. Much better than the tree huggin hippie draft dodgers who went to Canada or college to avoid the issue.

Wow. That rationalization is plum surreal. Does that bottle say "Drink Me"?

Puffy
05-26-2005, 09:45 PM
Yeah, those college people and thar book learnin.

GAC
05-26-2005, 10:01 PM
Note the "era". GAC never stepped foot in Vietnam, but likes to claim war vet status to try and give more credence to his arguments.

We've been down that road before.

Wasn't going to post again, but had to because of the above remark(s).

Simply insulting IMO.

I don't claim anything my friend. Nor in the past have I ever tried to claim something I was not. I have always been very open about it. That is how I am classified by my DD214N...Viet Nam Era Veteran. Why? Because I served in the US Navy in the early 70's during the Viet Nam War. I'm really sorry that I wasn't fortunate enough to have actually been stationed in Viet Nam during the war. I was stationed aboard the USS Simon Lake AS-33 as an FTG3 (Fire Control Technician involved in gunnery and torpedo guidance systems). And I dont feel I need to go into aymore details then that because I don't need to justify anything to you or anyone else.

We were also involved in troop transport and supply. And just because I wasn't physically in Viet Nam does not mean that I, or any other serviceman was out of the loop and didn't know what was going on, or was clueless to the circumstances of the times. We all knew very well experientially what was going on around us during that war.

So you think that you know more about was going on over there, and during that time, when you weren't even born? That's laughable.

And I have never claimed anywhere that the general public showed disdain for the returning troops. But many in the radical anti-war movement then did.

GAC
05-26-2005, 10:30 PM
I suspect guys like GAC are just bitter they missed out on all the sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

Didn't miss out on any of it my friend. I did alot of things back then that now, since I am older, I am not proud of, and yes, even regret. But still love the rock n roll. The only thing I really listen to. ;)

But looking back on it all (the 60's) ... I just felt that alot within my generation, while disillusioned by the Viet Nam War of the 60's (I certainly was too) were wrong with alot of their "anti-establishment" mentality. While the times gave birth to some fantastic music, I was not in total agreement with some of the thought/ideology that was expounded by the "peace and love" generation (Height-Asbury, Woodstock, Timothy Leary and his "Turn on, Tune in, Drop out").

For a generation that loved to preach "Peace and love", there sure was alot of disheaval and violence committed by that youth.

Just as Lennon wrote...

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah

ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right

Mutaman
05-27-2005, 05:53 PM
And I think Ray Davies prophesied the era of rule by the oil men when he wrote:

Long ago life was clean
Sex was bad and obscene
And the rich were so mean
Stately homes for the lords
Croquet lawns, village greens
Victoria was my queen
Victoria, victoria, victoria, ’toria

I was born, lucky me
In a land that I love
Though I am poor, I am free
When I grow I shall fight
For this land I shall die
Let her sun never set
Victoria, victoria, victoria, ’toria
Victoria, victoria, victoria, toria

Land of hope and gloria
Land of my victoria
Land of hope and gloria
Land of my victoria
Victoria, ’toria
Victoria, victoria, victoria, ’toria

Canada to india
Australia to cornwall
Singapore to hong kong
From the west to the east
From the rich to the poor
Victoria loved them all
Victoria, victoria, victoria, ’toria
Victoria, victoria, victoria

GAC
05-27-2005, 06:04 PM
The Kinks - one of my favorite 60's bands. He could have been thinking the same when he wrote "A Gallon Of Gas". ;)

Loved So Tired Of Waiting For You... Rock N Roll Fantasy, and one of my favorites - (I Want To Fly Like ) Superman.