 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 10, 2002 - 8:12 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ron Pulliam
(Member)
|
Prominent Democrats
House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt - Served his country in uniform, 1965-71
House Minority Whip David Bonior - Served his country in uniform, 1968-72
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle - Served his country in uniform, 1969-72
Former Vice President Al Gore - Served his country in uniform, 1969-71; recipient of Vietnam Service Medal
Bob Kerrey... Democrat... Congressional Medal of Honor, Vietnam
Daniel Inouye... Democrat...Congressional Medal of Honor, World War Two
John Kerry... Democrat...Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam
Charles Rangel...Democrat... Bronze Star, Korea
Max Cleland... Democrat... Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam
Howell Heflin... Democrat... Silver Star
Bill McBride, Democratic Candidate for Florida Governor - served as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam; awarded Bronze Star with a combat "V."
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953.
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) - U.S. Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) - two tours in Vietnam, two Distinguished Flying Crosses as a helicopter pilot, two Bronze Stars, and the Soldier's Medal. http://www.afji.com/mags/1997/Jan/VietVets.html
Ambassador "Pete" Peterson, Air Force Captain, POW, Democratic congressman, Ambassador to Viet Nam, and recipient of the Purple Heart, the Silver Star and the Legion of Merit http://www.af.mil/news/Apr1997/n19970414_970430.html
Rep. Mike Thompson, D-CA: served in combat with the U.S. Army as a staff sergeant/platoon leader with the 173rd Airborne Brigade; was wounded and received a Purple Heart. http://www.house.gov/mthompson/bio.html
Prominent Republicans
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Majority Leader Dick Armey - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Majority Whip Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve. "So many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself."
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott - avoided the draft, did not serve.
GW Bush - decided that a six-year Nat'l Guard commitment really means four years. Still says that he's "been to war." Huh?
VP Cheney - several deferments, the last by marriage (in his own words, "had other priorities than military service")
Att'y Gen. John Ashcroft - sought deferment to teach business ed at SW Missouri State
Jeb Bush, Florida Governor - did not serve.
Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve, too busy being a Republican.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve
Former President Ronald Reagan - served in a noncombat role. (Perhaps he confused his role as an actor playing a tail gunner with the real thing).
"B-1" Bob Dornan - avoided Korean War combat duty by enrolling in college acting classes (Orange County Register article)
Phil Gramm - avoided the draft, did not serve, four (?) student deferments
Senator John McCain - McCain's naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. Why did the Bush campaign smear him so? At least Senators Cleland (D-GA), Kerry (D-MA), Kerrey (D-NE), Robb (D-VA) and Hagel (R-NE) defended him.
Former Senator Bob Dole - an honorable man. http://www.bobdole.org/bio/wwII.html
Chuck Hagel - two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, Vietnam. http://www.senate.gov/~hagel/Information/bio.htm Duke Cunningham - nominated for the Medal of Honor, received the Navy Cross, two Silver Stars, fifteen Air Medals, the Purple Heart, and several other decorations http://www.house.gov/cunningham/about_duke.htm#Biography
Here are a few more...
Democrats
Gray Davis, California Governor, served in Vietnam.
Chuck Robb, US Senator from Virginia, served in Vietnam
George McGovern, famous liberal, awarded Silver Star & DFC, dozens of missions during WWII.
Pete Stark, D-CA, served in the Air Force
Former President Bill Clinton - avoided the draft through student deferments; in the autumn of 1969, Clinton entered the draft but received a high number (311) and was never called to serve. (CNN article)
Republicans/Conservatives
Political
Don Nickles, Senate Minority Whip - Did not serve
Senator Richard Shelby, did not serve
Representative Saxby Chambliss, Georgia - did not serve, had a "bad knee" (yet somehow feels he has a right to attack Max Cleland's patriotism)
Representative JC Watts - did not serve
Jack Kemp, did not serve (was fit enough for pro football, but "failed" the military physical?)
Dan Quayle, avoided Vietnam service, got a slot in the journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard when the unit was at 150% capacity (at least he showed up for his duty, unlike GW)
Eliot Abrams, did not serve
Vin Weber, did not serve
Richard Perle, did not serve (is the current bloodshed in the Middle East a direct result of his treasonous meddling in Clinton Administration foreign policy?)
Rudy Giuliani, did not serve
John Engler, did not serve
George Herbert Walker Bush, pilot in WWII. Hit by enemy fire, he bailed out of his airplane and was later rescued; neither of his two crew members made it out of the plane.
Tom Ridge, Bronze Star for Valor in Vietnam
Representative Sam R. Johnson, combat missions in both Korea and Vietnam, POW in Hanoi from April 1966 to February 1973
(don't ever run for president Sam, they'll spread rumors that you're crazy)
Congresswoman Heather Wilson, served in the Air Force
Punditocracy and Preacher-types (See also Media Whores Online)
George Will, did not serve
Chris Matthews, Mediawhore, did not serve.
Bill O'Reilly, did not serve
Paul Gigot, did not serve.
Bill Bennett, Did not serve
Pat Buchanan, did not serve
Rush Limbaugh, did not serve
John Wayne, did not serve (claimed his family's dependency -- despite his millionaire status)
Pat Robertson - did not serve, apparently used Daddy's connections to get off the ship in Tokyo while his buddies went on to Korea.
Bill Kristol, did not serve
Independents
Gov. Jesse Ventura, U.S. Navy SEAL training, did UDT work
Senator Jim Jeffords, U.S. Navy 1956-1959
******************************************
I served 23 1/2 years in the U.S. Navy, 1970-1993. I helped/protect the freedoms we continue to enjoy, and I served each day honorably and fairly without having to call people names just because they disagreed with me.
I have the birthright as a U.S. citizen and the EARNED right of a veteran to not only decide who to listen to when it comes to talking about military action, but to determine who has ZERO credibility.
And if any of you haven't served, you have ZERO credibility on the subject! National Guard does NOT cut it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 10, 2002 - 8:57 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Eric Paddon
(Member)
|
Your pointless list left out a few other notable Dems. Such as David "Bagdhad" Bonior and Hanoi Jane McDermott, who shamefully stood in Saddam's backyard, said Saddam was more trustworthy than the President, and invoked their status of being Vietnam War veterans when in fact, both never spent a day away from stateside duty (in other words, in true Clintonian tradition, they lied).
And what do you have to say about Calypso Harry Belafonte's contemtible comments about Colin Powell, a man who did put his life at risk in Vietnam, and who is supporting the President's policy, likening this hero to being a "slave" taking orders?
And then of course there's the Slickmeister, who not only dodged the draft, but decided to demonstrate on behalf of the North Vietnamese on foreign soil during his student days, which is something that can't be said of any of the Republicans you want to trash.
One thing I'll say about this Iraq debate is that it's smoked out the reasons once again why ever since the 1970s, the Democrats are not the party to be trusted with dealing with America's national security problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 10, 2002 - 11:08 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Khan
(Member)
|
I'm going to have to side with Eric, again, on this one. My father served 26 years in the US Navy as an officer. My late grandfather served 30 as an enlisted corpsman, among other things (Underwater Demolition, for example). My father happens to agree with all the points Eric has made, and that lends plenty of credibilty to what Eric, and the Republicans, are talking about. He's right; even if all those Democrats have served, and all those Republicans haven't, it's a moot point. You cannot trust the Democrats when it comes to United States national security. Remember, it was Slick Willy who decimated the US Armed Forces turing his 2 terms, and it's the Democrats now who are blocking any vote on the Homeland Security bill because they are too interested in keeping unions strong than our country.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 10, 2002 - 11:35 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ron Pulliam
(Member)
|
Eric, in the coming war, Mr. Bush will consider you an "acceptable loss." YOU DO KNOW THAT, DON'T YOU?
Oops....sorry, I forgot. You've NEVER had the balls to serve your country, have you!
What's wrong? Too afraid? You think your personal life is MORE IMPORTANT than serving the country you bray about defending all the time?
If you had the first fucking CLUE how sick you make me, you'd be ashamed to even respond to me!
No -- this is written a bit later and with a small bit of regret (I won't change what I wrote because I felt it). You, Eric, don't make me sick. It's the way you express yourself -- the name calling, the cheap shots, the character assassination, calling folks commies, Marxists, lumping anyone who disagrees with you into some sneeringly "named" category with so much contempt -- that's what sickens me.
You may have no idea the effect such language has, but you seem to embrace it with all your being.
You deliberately demean, insult and belittle folks for their opinions just because you believe something different. Yes, you do. It's in virtually all of your postings.
This thread was not started for you or because of you. Read it, comment upon it, but I owe you nothing -- that's zilch, zip, nada -- response to any demands that you make.
Because I despise the way you conduct your "discussions" on religion or politics, I refrain from entering into discussions into which you've entered.
Since I also have no right to make any demands upon you, I shall simply ignore you.
**********************************************
Now, for my liberal-leaning friends -- or folks who just want some unadulterated FACTS, here's a little item about who made the bed we are all currently lying in!!!!:
Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
By Robert Scheer
Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times
Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.
That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.
Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.
Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.
The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of women?
At no point in modern history have women and girls been more systematically abused than in Afghanistan where, in the name of madness masquerading as Islam, the government in Kabul obliterates their fundamental human rights. Women may not appear in public without being covered from head to toe with the oppressive shroud called the burkha , and they may not leave the house without being accompanied by a male family member. They've not been permitted to attend school or be treated by male doctors, yet women have been banned from practicing medicine or any profession for that matter.
The lot of males is better if they blindly accept the laws of an extreme religious theocracy that prescribes strict rules governing all behavior, from a ban on shaving to what crops may be grown. It is this last power that has captured the enthusiasm of the Bush White House.
The Taliban fanatics, economically and diplomatically isolated, are at the breaking point, and so, in return for a pittance of legitimacy and cash from the Bush administration, they have been willing to appear to reverse themselves on the growing of opium. That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising. But it is grotesque for a U.S. official, James P. Callahan, director of the State Department's Asian anti-drug program, to describe the Taliban's special methods in the language of representative democracy: "The Taliban used a system of consensus-building," Callahan said after a visit with the Taliban, adding that the Taliban justified the ban on drugs "in very religious terms."
Of course, Callahan also reported, those who didn't obey the theocratic edict would be sent to prison.
In a country where those who break minor rules are simply beaten on the spot by religious police and others are stoned to death, it's understandable that the government's "religious" argument might be compelling. Even if it means, as Callahan concedes, that most of the farmers who grew the poppies will now confront starvation. That's because the Afghan economy has been ruined by the religious extremism of the Taliban, making the attraction of opium as a previously tolerated quick cash crop overwhelming.
For that reason, the opium ban will not last unless the U.S. is willing to pour far larger amounts of money into underwriting the Afghan economy.
As the Drug Enforcement Administration's Steven Casteel admitted, "The bad side of the ban is that it's bringing their country--or certain regions of their country--to economic ruin." Nor did he hold out much hope for Afghan farmers growing other crops such as wheat, which require a vast infrastructure to supply water and fertilizer that no longer exists in that devastated country. There's little doubt that the Taliban will turn once again to the easily taxed cash crop of opium in order to stay in power.
The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs demonstrates the futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic obsession.
- - -
Robert Scheer Is a Syndicated Columnist.
Copyright © 2001 Robert Scheer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 11, 2002 - 12:58 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Eric Paddon
(Member)
|
"Oops....sorry, I forgot. You've NEVER had the balls to serve your country, have you!"
I am registered for the draft like all law abiding citizens. If my country calls me, I will serve. In the meantime, quit hiding behind this bogus issue that only serves to reveal the intellectual bankruptcy of your arguments. The fact that one has worn a uniform at some point in the past has nothing to do with whether an intellectual argument is right or not.
"If you had the first fucking CLUE how sick you make me, you'd be ashamed to even respond to me!"
Your profanity reveals who the real sick person is. And it does you and your side no credit whatsoever. But such is to be expected from one like you.
"It's the way you express yourself -- the name calling, the cheap shots, the character assassination"
ROTFLMAO! Sorry Ron, but this is the height of hypocrisy on your part considering how you have never once repudiated *anything* your pal Bagdhad Booby has ever said in this forum, which has included advocating murder of those he disagrees with politically, showing total contempt for the democratic process and introducing OT cheap shots in every thread he possibly can, not to mention a very disgusting set of personal attacks on me in the infamous "Magnificent Seven" thread of a year ago. Your "outrage" over my tone rings very hollow, especially since the post you made that began this thread is well within that same tradition you profess to be so indignant about when its someone else on the other side of the spectrum hurling it back at you.
"Since I also have no right to make any demands upon you, I shall simply ignore you."
Translation: Like Bagdhad Booby, I refuse to answer a question for which I can offer no intelligent answer to. As far as I'm concerned Ron, if you can't provide an answer to the matter of David Bonior's and Jim McDermott's despicable conduct in Bagdhad, which they compounded by lying about their military service, then you have zero credibility introducting a thread about "politicians and military service."
"Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
By Robert Scheer"
How original. This is the same Robert Scheer who in the 1980s kept getting hysterical about how Ronald Reagan's tough policies were going to cause World War III, right?  So much for his credibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 11, 2002 - 1:03 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Eric Paddon
(Member)
|
"Ugh! What a lot of hypocritical twaddle from the man who refers to "Dweeb" Daschle, "Baghdad" Bonior, and "Hanoi Jane" McDermott."
In those instances, I only made some factual statements. But let's see you explain why Bonior and McDermott *aren't* entitled to be so called?
"And what a lot of blowing of smoke, these childish "challenges" to defend the utterances of others."
Excuse me, but when the people who represent your side of the fence have made these utterances, it is incumbent on you to defend them or explain their conduct if you want to sound credible when you attack the opposition. I've answered every challenge made so far against the President, because since I believe in what he's doing, I must defend him, or admit where he is wrong when he is wrong. What I don't do is turn and run tail and ignore the challenge, unlike you and your side with regard to Prince Albert and the two Congressmen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
