[plschwartz]

It is clear that the gauntlet has been thrown down. Kerry has stated that a requirement to be a war president is that he be willing to put his life on the line for his country. Clearly neither Bush nor Cheney were willing to.
Kerry had a position though in the service he was almost as safe as if he were in the Air National Guard. But he requested a transfer from the blue-water navy to the brown-water one so that he could more directly participate in the war. This is fact. He wanted to put his life on the line for his country.

Bush's service even as best presented was far from it. He chose a path that would keep him out of harms way. Even that was too much so he left to work on a political race. What was his comitment then? Was he at all anxious to put his life on the line?

Bush has already aid that cheney has the stuff to make a president (which Edwards doesn't) But does he have the right stuff to be the Comander in Chief?
When asked about his (http://slate.msn.com/id/1005761/ ) he stated "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service." I'll repeat this:
The man who is ready to become the Commander in Chief stated "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service." So he found a loophole in the law.
So where is his commitment to his country? Isn't it like : Gee Sarge I'd behappy yo go out on patrol but I have other priorites. I have been getting great poker hands and don't want to ruin my luck" Yeah sure. What else? his ex-company overcharges the govt. While he was CEO his comapny exploited a loophole to trade with a terrorist state. He has such distain for the letter of the constitution that he found another loophole to circumvent the rule that both candidates could NOT come from the same state.. Is that the traits you want in a war president in waiting.

[plschwartz]

"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed managed to wangle slots in the Army Reserve and National Guard units... Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country." - excerpted from My American Journey: An Autobiography by Colin Powell

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by plschwartz

"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed managed to wangle slots in the Army Reserve and National Guard units... Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country." - excerpted from My American Journey: An Autobiography by Colin Powell

You go Collin!

[sligo]

Its amazing how this admnistration so carelessly sent young men to their deaths when that the formulators of policy (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney) are at best draft dodgers at worse cowards. Maybe they were so quick to jump into Iraq because all of them really have no idea what combat is all about and how tenous life is. I guess thats why I dispise this regime so much.

[Ciberblade]

You all are right - Bush is the Devil.

[Wino]

Originally Posted by ciberblade

You all are right - Bush is the Devil.

Cyber, that's the second time we've agreed on something!!

[Infidel_Kastro]

So it takes a veteran to be the Commander in Chief during a war, huh? Would he feel the same if he weren't a veteran? What a load of crap. Kerry is in no position to be issuing requirements. If there was a requirement, then it would be in the Constitution.

12 presidents did not serve in the military---John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Van Buren, Polk, , Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, FDR and Clinton. Cleveland actually paid someone to fight in his place during the Civil War which was legal and not all that unusual at the time--a kind of pay as you go family deferment).

Kerry can bite me.

[Infidel_Kastro]

If Kerry strongly feels this way, why did he pick a VP candidate with no military experience? If he were elected and died, then his own hand-picked successor wouldn't be fit to serve if there were a war going on.

[GrumpyHermit]

There was a time when you lefties would have been scorning people like Kerry, calling him a murderer or a babykiller, and figuring out ways to dodge the draft for as long as you could, just as Cheney, Bush, Clinton and a whole lot of other people did back then. Your admiration for war heroes stems from shame over the way you treated Vietnam Vets back in the day. In today's volunteer military, most non-minority service members are just the sort of conservative, red-state people that you fellows habitually deride as fascists, bigots and homophobes.

I wish that they would bring back a draft, just to see you people squirm, sweat and worry.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by ciberblade

You all are right - Bush is the Devil.

____

[plschwartz]

IK

It was Bush or rather Rove which hit on the idea of labelling Bush as a "war president". This a smuch is in politics was left undefined. Kerry stepped into the space that Rove/Bush had created. As judges often say on Law and Order "you opened the door for this line of questioning" and so Kerry was just smart in flipping rove/Bush definition to his own advantage. I think this goes in fact further back to the terrible smearing of Max Cleland's patriatism by the RNC (its is said that it was this event which flipped Mrs Kerry from Rep. to Dem). This in turn was a natural result of the threat Bush gave in forcing the Patriot Act on the Senate (basically any sen. who voted against it would be held responsible if another attack occurred)

But :
Is there something that will make one person a better "war president" then another?
Since you disagree with Kerry's definition what factors would you call important and how have each of the two measured up to them?

[plschwartz]

IK

It was Bush or rather Rove which hit on the idea of labelling Bush as a "war president". This a smuch is in politics was left undefined. Kerry stepped into the space that Rove/Bush had created. As judges often say on Law and Order "you opened the door for this line of questioning" and so Kerry was just smart in flipping rove/Bush definition to his own advantage. I think this goes in fact further back to the terrible smearing of Max Cleland's patriatism by the RNC (its is said that it was this event which flipped Mrs Kerry from Rep. to Dem). This in turn was a natural result of the threat Bush gave in forcing the Patriot Act on the Senate (basically any sen. who voted against it would be held responsible if another attack occurred)

But :
Is there something that will make one person a better "war president" then another?
Since you disagree with Kerry's definition what factors would you call important and how have each of the two measured up to them?

[Infidel_Kastro]

Originally Posted by plschwartz

IK

It was Bush or rather Rove which hit on the idea of labelling Bush as a "war president". This a smuch is in politics was left undefined. Kerry stepped into the space that Rove/Bush had created. As judges often say on Law and Order "you opened the door for this line of questioning" and so Kerry was just smart in flipping rove/Bush definition to his own advantage. I think this goes in fact further back to the terrible smearing of Max Cleland's patriatism by the RNC (its is said that it was this event which flipped Mrs Kerry from Rep. to Dem). This in turn was a natural result of the threat Bush gave in forcing the Patriot Act on the Senate (basically any sen. who voted against it would be held responsible if another attack occurred)

But :
Is there something that will make one person a better "war president" then another?
Since you disagree with Kerry's definition what factors would you call important and how have each of the two measured up to them?

The label is correct. Bush is a President serving under a time of war. the difference is that Bush has really never tauted any of his service as a reference to it, unlike Kerry. as far as the smear campaign, thats subjective. With all due respect to Cleland, he was the unfortunate victim of an accident that caused him to lose his limbs:

Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman – or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors." Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam.

Is there something that will make one person a better "war president" then another?

No. simply because Kerry saw combat, doesn't make more qualified to realize the national and global ramifications of putting a country at war better than Bush. His combat duty, as well as any reference to Bush's miltary service, is weak propaganda that someone is trying to use to thier advantage. My friends are veterans, and don't think they are qualified to run the nation either. Does it alter kerry's outlook on combat? Maybe, but thats a double edged sword. Some people could view it as a nice "circuit breaker" for Kerry. because he has sseen the horros of war, he'd be more apt to try to resolve situations with negotiations and diplomacy. others may view it as a liability, that he would rely on negotiations and diplomacy instead of striking when necessary. regardless, it was Kerry that determined that you had to be a veteran to be better suited to be CiC, not the Bush campaign. What they did was take a politcal PR buzz word,and tries to redefine the definition to best suit their candidate when needed.

[plschwartz]

IK
I am glad I posted Ann Coulter for you to post. If you like to quote her I cant think of what I might want to say to you.
Here is another version:
n April 8, 1968, during the siege of Khe Sanh, he stepped off a helicopter and saw a grenade at his feet. He thought he'd dropped it. He was wrong. When he reached down to pick it up, it exploded, ripping off both legs and his right hand. He was 25.
I do hope you will admit your smear of Cleland and repent.

[Infidel_Kastro]

Originally Posted by plschwartz

IK
I am glad I posted Ann Coulter for you to post. If you like to quote her I cant think of what I might want to say to you.
Here is another version:
n April 8, 1968, during the siege of Khe Sanh, he stepped off a helicopter and saw a grenade at his feet. He thought he'd dropped it. He was wrong. When he reached down to pick it up, it exploded, ripping off both legs and his right hand. He was 25.
I do hope you will admit your smear of Cleland and repent.

PL,
I don't like Coulter any more than you do, amd if you noticed, I did try to leave as much of her venom out as possible. i was trying to get the fracts of the incident,a nd even prefaced it by saying no disrespect to Cleland. . If there are conflicting reports on what happened, then so be it. I was merely pointing out that although Cleland served his country, to me, it makes little difference if he is a veteran or not, same as I feel about Presidential candidates. I didn't smear Cleland in any way, so don't try to insinuate that i did to further your agenda. So no, I am not going to repent. You all are the same people whio criticize Bush for not having his daughters serve, like he can force someone to enlist. Thats right, we don't have a draft, so please, if you want to discuss political platforms, I'd be more than happy to listen to your side. if you want to discuss a bipartisan plan for healthcare, i am all ears, but please stop trying to make Kerry the marytr in all of this, because it is wasted, ill founded, and quite repugnant.