John Edwards was born on June 10, 1953. I'm not criticizing him for not serving in the military during the Vietnam War, but he was not too young to have served during that war. The ceasefire agreement officially ending the war was signed on Jan. 27, 1973. Given Edwards's age, I assume he graduated from high school in 1971. He could have served any time after that.
"Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."
Please give reference where John Edwards approved of and campaigned for the Vietnam War. Because, aren't we talking about being a Chickenhawk? Bush and Cheney both supported the war in Vietnam, that is as long as they didn't have to go. As long as others were drafted in their place would go and fight for them.
Cheney had more important things to do and Bush used his family's influence to avoid active duty and was able to play hooky from the guard without prosecution.
Your opinion. All I stated last year, when this all came down, was that there sure was an awful lot of vets who served with Kerry over there (alot more then were vouching for him) who were speaking out against him. And not all were in those Swift Boat ads either.Originally Posted by Falls City Beer
And obviously an awful lot of vets didn't agree with your assessment of the "truth" on Bush, because they supported him pretty vigoriously over Kerry. Anbd even before the Swift Boat ads.
But what astounds me is that those who supported Kerry seemed to want to look the other way, and supported, those like Soros, Micheal Moore, MoveOn, Maher, DNC chairman McAuliffe, who were gallavanting around the country calling Bush a draft dodger, a coward, and playing "Karl Rove" with his military record/service, making exaggerated and fictious movies with outrageous claims that was trying to sway an election.... and then showing outrage (and hypocrisy) when the same tactics were dished out at their boy.
If they had some much factual information on Bush's service, then why the faked documents/Dan Rather debacle just prior to the election? Grasping at straws maybe?
I always agreed with the article and statement that McCain came out with last year on this matter (paraphrase) - neither's military record should be a central issue in this election. It's was nothing but dirty politics at it's best on BOTH SIDES, and really achieved nothing with the populace as a whole. John went on to say that these events all happened 30 years ago, and the facts are always gonna grow hazy with time - "he said, she said". And one, depending on which side of the issue you are on, can always dig up person(s) who will give testimony to support their claims/accusations. And isn't that exactly what we saw?.... there were people who served with Bush who supported his claims, and there were some who countered that. There were those who served with Kerry who supported his accounts, and there were those who didn't.
So I guess it all boils down to who you want to believe.
Yiu want to call Bush a liar. No problem. I think the same of Kerry. So lets call it a day and not go into this again.
Application, and the fact that it was broaden by the anti-war crowd to include only those who support this war, yet somehow isn't running off to join and fight, or drop their kids off at an induction center. It was stated thusly on here.You may not think the term "chickenhawks" is "fitting" or "appropriate" or "up to your standards" but it does its job; it accurately portrays both men as hawks who dodged the draft. I'm not sure what your beef with the truth is.
You want to call Bush and Cheney chickenhawks? Fine. But I think the above article by Lowrey hit the nail on the head. Excellent analogies. Are you taking a pro-active/get involved approach to everything you believe in? If not - you're a chickenhawk according to some on here. What about some of the illustrious Dems in the role of leadership - former Presidents, such as Clinton (student deferrement like Cheney) - Gephardt (Air National Guard during Nam like Bush).
As I stated earlier - To use this argument that one had to serve in the military in order to be somehow qualified to send troops into combat would disqualify a majority of our political leaders (on both sides of the spectrum) from ever being President or serving in a capacity where that judgment had to be made.
It's simply a juvenile argument by an angry anti-war crowd who can't think of any other way to respond. But it makes for a nice "talking point".
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
So did Clinton, Gore, Gephardt, and a few other Dems. Care to be fair?
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
Ah yes - and far from any harms way - thanks to Daddy. But it looks good on one's political resume later. Same with Teddy (below). The Bush family is being railed on for possibly using their influence to get their son a safe, cozy assignment; but it was OK that the Kennedy and Gore Dad's did it.
Excuse me? Some of those Kennedy boys are older then me, and I had to register for the draft. I joined the Navy. And I made no reference to JFK did I? But his younger brother Ted got a nkce cozy assignment during the hight of the Korean War - honor guard.None of the Kennedy kids was old enough to serve in 'Nam and well, you know John served doubly honorably in WWII, so pick on another family besides the Kennedy's. Edwards: too young for Viet Nam.
Again - doesn't fit the broad definition given by many in the anti-war crowd now, and by RBA on here a few weeks age. Check up on that.But here's the kicker (and I hate to rain on your hunt for hypocrisy): None of the above mentioned men started a pre-emptive war. Takes the whole "hawk" out of chickenhawk.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
A minor point about Ted Kennedy's military service. I can recall reading years ago that Ted enlisted in the military without first consulting with his father, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. When Joe learned of what Ted had done, he supposedly cursed Ted for being dumb enough to enlist during a war, and then used his influence to see that Ted got safe duty.
Given the death of Joe Jr. during World War II, and John's service in the same war, the actions of Ted's father are understandable, as he may have believed that his family had served and suffered enough, and it is to Ted's credit that he enlisted.
Now I will add that I have never read this story elsewhere-has anyone else?
"Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."
Big difference, Clinton was not a supporter of the Vietnam War and I have seen right wing hate sites that said he even protested the war. We are TALKING about CHICKENHAWK status. Yes it's wrong for all of them to use their familes influence to avoid service, but let's not avoid the real issue, SUPPORTERS/CHEERLEADERS OF A PARTICULAR WAR who beat their chest and of Military Age who avoid service IN THAT PARTICULAR WAR for themselves and their families.
Well I'm not much of a Bill Maher fan...honestly the man gets on my nerves, and I certainly disagree with him about his views on Vietnam, if indeed that is his stance. I was only pointing out that a true conscientious objector could hardly be accused of "dodging" the draft.
We'll burn that bridge when we get to it.
Dick Cheney is the living, breathing personification of a "chickenhawk." the man who had "better things to do" than serve during Vietnam now suddenly has nothing more important to do than start a "pre-emptive" war against a non-threat, a war that has cost thousands of lives.
That, my friend, is a chickenhawk.
We'll burn that bridge when we get to it.
One post, while ignoring the other things I stated on this very topic that said no such thing, is somehow vouching for their veracity?
No where did I say that what they said was true or false. All I did, while some were ranting about lies and smear campaign (while trying to do some smearing themselves
And I can understand your distaste and apathy towards that since you weren't old enough to not only experience it, but that it didn't effect you personally, since you weren't in the miltary at the time.Yes, you levelled criticism about his post-war activities. I'm withholding my applause.
Kerry's war heroics obviously didn;t give him much of an edge now did it?Oh I'm sure you said that. If I was supporting Bush/Cheney, I'd be none to eager to bring up war heroics either.
He should have never made his military service and issue in this election IMO, knowing what would come of it. And I'm referring specifically to his bragging/holding up his service in Viet Nam and his "comrades", when he wasn't saying the same things for the several years after he returned home.
He was the one who opened the door. Big blunder IMO.
Last edited by GAC; 08-30-2005 at 10:02 AM.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
You're right, he certainly should have forseen that the Republicans would trot out the swiftboat vets to lie, smear and attack his story. And Kerry should have been much quicker to respond. I don't disagree with that at all.
I just found it incredulous that the Republicans could label not only Kerry, but someone like Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in the Vietnam war, as unpatriotic, during their last campaign--particularly amusing coming from a camp whose candidate went AWOL during his Guard service during the war. Ultimately, though, I just came to accept it as the way the Bush team runs their campaign--you're either with us, or against us. Couldn't be any cleaerer than that.
We'll burn that bridge when we get to it.
Go back and review the thread you started a few weeks ago, and WHO YOU included in the term "chickenhawk" Rob. Your definition, and the MSNBC video you provided, was to show that anyone who supports this war, and yet is not grabbing their gun or forcing their kids to join up, is a chickenhawk.
And then of course there is that little link to a military induction form at the bottom of your posts.
That is what I am addressing. And you know what you were inferring. It had nothing to do with Bush/Cheney alone; but anyone who supported this war.
Sorry - that doesn't alone fit the definition you gave.Yes it's wrong for all of them to use their familes influence to avoid service, but let's not avoid the real issue, SUPPORTERS/CHEERLEADERS OF A PARTICULAR WAR who beat their chest and of Military Age who avoid service IN THAT PARTICULAR WAR for themselves and their families.
As far as I'm concerned, and according to the broad defintion given by the radical anti-war crowd, the principle of a chickenhawk is not, and can not, simply be applied to to whatever war YOU FEEL is right and just or wrong.
I know that is what YOU want it to be, because keeping it within that narrow definition, helps you, and so many others, protect your leaders, while fueling your anti-Bush anger. But as far as I'm concerned, it has a universal principle (remember - you broadened the definition, not me), and quite a few of our illustrious politicians on both sides qualify. Including Clinton who had no problem sending men to die in Somalia and in harm's way while he avoided military service (and showed disdain for the military when younger), and several Dems who "dodged" Viet Nam in the 60's with National Guard service.
And to say they were jsutified in "dodging" the war because they opposed it to begin with, is pure BS IMO. They dodged it because they didn't want to risk getting put in harm's way and getting killed.
It's why Bush and Cheney did it. it's why Gephardt and Clinton did it. And why tens of thousands of young men during that period also did it when they could.
I registered for the draft (because I had to), and then turned around and joined the Navy- why? Because them gooks would have to swim along way to get my butt, that's why. And at the time, I wasn't for or against the war. I was simp,y an 18 yr old kid (like so many in this country at that time) who knew he didn't want to possibly place himself in the position of dying. It had nothing to do with so many as to whether the war was right or wrong.
Self preservation - and any of us who say they don't struggle with i, when facing possible death, are deluded.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
Got proof of that? No documents from the 70's that use modern font styles, please. Proof please. Otherwise, it sounds like hate-filled rhetoric.
Isn't that how alot of campaigns are run though Ben? - you're either for us or against us. Both sides ran an effective smear campaign IMO. Whether it was Karl Rove and Swift Boat, or Micheal Moore, George Soros, and MoveON.
There was enough "ammo" on this issue with these two guys, that both sides should have left it alone and not wandered there IMO. All it did was drag alot of people through the mud and achieved what? That is the bottomline for me Ben- what did it achieve by examining and dissecting these two candidates past military service? It was simply about who could smear who the worst and influence the voter the most. To heck with the issues that the American public really wanted to hear about.
Last edited by GAC; 08-30-2005 at 04:33 PM.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
I agree Ben. I actually like Maher's show though. I may not agree with the pothead, but he can be quite humorous.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote