Jump to content

Military service and politics


Flying_Mollusk
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well written article by Mark Shields on military service.

 

What did you do in the not-so-great war?

Monday, August 9, 2004 Posted: 1:30 PM EDT (1730 GMT)

 

WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- Bankrolled by a Texas Republican millionaire, a TV spot that features Vietnam vets accusing Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry of lying about his own war record provides conclusive proof that the 2004 campaign has officially entered the ugly "What Did You Do (or Not Do) in the Not-So-Great War?" stage.

 

It is moments like this when we owe a collective debt of gratitude to the voters of Arizona for sending Republican John McCain to the U.S. Senate.

 

McCain, who endured similar attacks upon his own patriotism in 2000 when he was also -- coincidentally, of course -- running against George W. Bush, told The Associated Press' Ron Fournier: "I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. ... None of these individuals (making the accusations) served on the same boat (John Kerry ) commanded. Many of (Kerry's) crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. ... I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad."

 

Fat chance. When asked by reporters, George W. Bush's press secretary Scott McClellan refused to denounce the anti-Kerry attack ad.

 

At the top of my roster of American heroes who became great political leaders is the late Paul H. Douglas who served three terms in the U.S. Senate from Illinois and was even more independent than John McCain. Power and privilege were his foes. Courageously and tirelessly, Douglas fought for civil rights, tax reform, economic justice and the environment, and against big oil and big drug companies.

 

What made Paul Douglas an American original was that after Pearl Harbor -- when he was both an elected Chicago alderman and a professor at the University of Chicago -- Douglas, a Quaker, enlisted as a private in the Marine Corps. After boot camp at Parris Island, Douglas turned down stateside assignments and insisted on joining the First Marine Division. That meant heavy combat against the Japanese in Pacific landings at Peleliu and Okinawa, where "for heroic achievement in action," he won the Bronze Star. He was wounded twice so severely that he permanently lost the use of his left arm.

 

Why is Paul Douglas' story of courage under fire different from so many other brave Americans who answered their nation's call? Consider this: When he enlisted in the Marines as a private, Douglas was 50 years old! That means when he fought and was wounded at Okinawa, Douglas was 52.

 

President Bush has chosen to ignore my earlier request that he, by executive order, create the Paul Douglas Brigade, which would seek and welcome the enlistment into today's active military of middle-aged leaders of Congress, 50-something captains of the private sector, and tenured think-tank/academic commandos -- all of whom were "prevented" from answering the draft call sent to them in their youth by their nation by career, graduate school or concern for their own pleasure and safety.

 

As an alumnus of Parris Island (whom the Marine Corps brass has never asked to do a testimonial) and having earned no Bronze or Silver stars nor qualified for any Purple Hearts, I am still asked why former distinguished Marines like Douglas of Illinois, John Glenn of Ohio, Mike Mansfield of Montana and Dale Bumpers of Arkansas could go on to become distinguished, mostly liberal Democratic U.S. senators.

 

At their best, liberal values are in harmony with many Marine values. From the first day of boot camp, Marine recruits are taught that Marines never leave their own behind. The Marine ethic emphasizes responsibility to duty and to others before self. Unbridled individualism that elevates to high virtue profit and personal comfort above duty to your comrades is prohibited and condemned. The Marine officer -- the very opposite of the selfish, self-centered CEO -- never eats, himself, until the men under his command have been fed.

 

Liberals did lead the good fight for racial justice. But the greatest civil rights victories have been won by the Marines and the U.S. military. Why is the military the most successfully integrated sector of national life? No racial preference and no racial discrimination. The first time I ever slept in the same room with an African-American or took orders from an African-American was as a private in the Marines.

 

Liberals would be wise to understand -- which too many conservatives, drunk on individualism do not -- that Marine values are honorable and valuable American values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


They have tried this before, questioning Kerry's Vietnam record, but what I think you should see is the fact that none of these guys ever comes out with "the true story of what happened out there" all they ever do is just cast doubt, try to take away from the duty that was nothing but honorable. Being somewhat familiar with the military, I find all of this hubbub about Kerry not deserving his medals a joke, anyone who knows the least bit about the process knows that each nomination for a medal goes before a review board, and if it does not meet specific requirements, is tossed out. Kerry didn't just give these medals to himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think it shows what a joke the Republicans are, that they can have a canidate who was let's just say, had a less than stellar service record and they have the gaul to trash a man who actually risked his life for his country. I have a lot of anger about this subject, I volunteered for McCain in 2000, and they did the same thing to him, taking pot shots at a man who spent 4 years in a Pow camp. It's just dirty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think it shows what a joke the Republicans are, that they can have a canidate who was let's just say, had a less than stellar service record and they have the gaul to trash a man who actually risked his life for his country. I have a lot of anger about this subject, I volunteered for McCain in 2000, and they did the same thing to him, taking pot shots at a man who spent 4 years in a Pow camp. It's just dirty.

505717[/snapback]

 

They have no shame Fishfan. Unfortunately, the President doesn't want to condemn these type of attacks because it serves his purpose. He needs to have others attack the only thing that he can't criticize, Kerry's heroism and courage under fire. The Bush campaign knows that the only way they can win is if they can manage to make Kerry look like a wimp. Impossible task if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think it shows what a joke the Republicans are, that they can have a canidate who was let's just say, had a less than stellar service record and they have the gaul to trash a man who actually risked his life for his country. I have a lot of anger about this subject, I volunteered for McCain in 2000, and they did the same thing to him, taking pot shots at a man who spent 4 years in a Pow camp. It's just dirty.

505717[/snapback]

 

They have no shame Fishfan. Unfortunately, the President doesn't want to condemn these type of attacks because it serves his purpose. He needs to have others attack the only thing that he can't criticize, Kerry's heroism and courage under fire. The Bush campaign knows that the only way they can win is if they can manage to make Kerry look like a wimp. Impossible task if you ask me.

506009[/snapback]

 

I'm not about to critisize Kerry's war record and what he did over there, but the fact that Kerry brought Vietnam up first and talks about it a lot, kinda leaves it open to some questioning. I kinda figure if Kerry is going to use it, it's fair game to criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not about to critisize Kerry's war record and what he did over there, but the fact that Kerry brought Vietnam up first and talks about it a lot, kinda leaves it open to some questioning. I kinda figure if Kerry is going to use it, it's fair game to criticism.

506122[/snapback]

 

Maybe you're right, he opened himself to a lot of questions about his record. However, it is shameful that the only thing that they can come up with is lies. None of those men served with Kerry, John O'neill (leader of the group) wasn't even in Vietnam when Kerry was there. George Elliot (Kerry's commanding officer) retracted earlier about the criticism on the silver medal. They give different stories every time someone questions them.

 

So to make matters worse, this gentleman (O'Neill) has been on Kerry's case ever since he was personally appointed by none other than Nixon to bring Kerry down when he was actively speaking out against his administration's policies in Vietnam. We all know how that ended.

 

In conclusion, we have a group of otherwise honorable soldiers lying to their teeth in order to save an AWOL president's butt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think it shows what a joke the Republicans are, that they can have a canidate who was let's just say, had a less than stellar service record and they have the gaul to trash a man who actually risked his life for his country. I have a lot of anger about this subject, I volunteered for McCain in 2000, and they did the same thing to him, taking pot shots at a man who spent 4 years in a Pow camp. It's just dirty.

505717[/snapback]

 

They have no shame Fishfan. Unfortunately, the President doesn't want to condemn these type of attacks because it serves his purpose. He needs to have others attack the only thing that he can't criticize, Kerry's heroism and courage under fire. The Bush campaign knows that the only way they can win is if they can manage to make Kerry look like a wimp. Impossible task if you ask me.

506009[/snapback]

 

I'm not about to critisize Kerry's war record and what he did over there, but the fact that Kerry brought Vietnam up first and talks about it a lot, kinda leaves it open to some questioning. I kinda figure if Kerry is going to use it, it's fair game to criticism.

506122[/snapback]

 

Yes, it opens it up to substanitive critisism. Not lies and slander.

 

Local politician says he is a good dad. So ad that says he molests kids without backup is legit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...