Last week a conservative friend of mine sent me a picture (left) of Hillary Clinton shaking hands with a soldier in Iraq a while back. Notice what the red circle around his left hand is indicating. His hand is formed into the sign of coercion. This is how captured soldiers signify they are under duress, if held in captivity, to their superiors. According to what I have read about this soldier, he hates all Democrats, especially Hillary because she alledgedly said she loathes the military. My friend thought this was funny. I think it's sad.There are so many things wrong with this that I don't know where to start. I guess it reminds me of someone I met at party recently. I have mentioned this story before but it bears repeating. The young man I met had recently returned from Iraq. I asked him if he believed in what we were doing over there. He said that he did. We got to talking about politics and he said that he would feel obligated to kill any Democrat that got elected to the Presidency. I thought he was joking but he was not. I asked him why he felt this way and he said it was because Democrats are all pussies and make our country weak. He went on to say that all true patriots voted Republican and ALL Democrats were traitors.
I bet you my CD collection that the soldier in the picture above feels EXACTLY the same way. He has been completely brainwashed, most effectively, by the ruling party of this country and their brain dead minions (talk radio, Fox News, etc).
This is our country today, ladies and gentlemen. If Hillary Clinton is elected president, probably around half of our armed forces will think these same things. And you know what? If I were their commanding officers, they'd all be in their way to fucking Leavenworth for being TRAITORS! While they were there, I would inform them of these pesky little facts.
1. The President, regardless of party affiliation or sex, is their commander in chief. They serve at the pleasure of the president. This is the reason why, when you ask the troops in Iraq today how they feel about Bush, they say they love him. Of course they do! They HAVE to love him as he is their boss. I have always loved the rose colored glasses view of the military as being pro Republican. The fact is that it is split down the middle, just like our country, because people in the military come from different backgrounds. Naturally they are going to have different political views.And, in a recent anonymous poll down by Gallup, 30 percent of the troops said we should leave Iraq now, 30 percent say 6 months from now, and another 30 percent say we should leave in a year with 10 percent saying we should stay until the mission is over. Hmmm....
2.Hillary has never publicly stated that she loathes the military. She has said that she hates the fact that we have to have one due to the violent nature of this world. Spoken like a true woman, which is the real reason why the douchebag above has a problem with her.
3. From Wikipedia...Dick Cheney was of military age and a supporter of the Vietnam War but he did not serve in the war, applying for and receiving five draft deferments. On May 19, 1965 , Cheney was classified as 1-A "available for service" by the Selective Service. On October 26, 1965 the Selective Service lifted the constraints on drafting childless married men. However, after his daughter was born, Cheney applied for and received a reclassification of 3-A, gaining him a final draft deferment. In an interview with George C. Wilson that appeared in the April 5, 1989 issue of the Washington Post, when asked about his deferments the future Defense Secretary said "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."
Hmm....I would say that's MUCH FUCKING WORSE THAN ANYTHING HILLARY HAS EVER SAID OR DONE!!
So, buttwipes, how come we don't see the hand symbol for coercion when you shake Tricky Dick II's hand?
4. George Bush skipped out on his tour of military duty thanks to his rich daddy pulling strings. Righties, there really should be no debate about it anymore. He did it. Deal with it. Your president and vice president are chickenhawks, a term roughly defined as people who are aggresively pro-war yet have never served in the military due to opting out on dubious grounds.
Now that I have gotten all of that out of my system, I can safely say that I am not entirely sure Hillary would make a great president. I like her. I do know this: If she does win, the day after her inaugural address will be the beginning of the end of our health care system as we know it. Thank God!I also think that more attention will be paid to women's issues which, in my opinion, is really how we need to look at the world in the 21st Century. Issues like health care and education consistently rank as higher priorities with women than terrorism and the economy, which rank higher with men.
I find as I talk to more and more women that, generally, they have a much more complete way of looking at this grey world of ours. They seem to be able to grasp complex issues in a softer, graceful, and intelligent way. The issues that are important to them, being that there are more women in this world than men, are going to be at the forefront of future elections.
And yet, I am reasonably certain that Hillary has done some crooked shit in her life....most of it being NOWHERE NEAR the criminal behavior of Bush Co....and maybe, just maybe, where there's smoke there's fire. So she is definitely not perfect and not THE president that we so desperately need right now. By that,I mean, we need a FDR, Harry Truman or JFK for the 21st century to lead us through these turbulent times. And, in my humble opinion, a woman.
I am certain of one thing, though. Hillary Clinton is the most powerful woman in America. She has been part of certain groups in this country and the world that, until she came along, only men were allowed in their inner circles. So, for those of you out there biting your nails and sweating about HC possibly being Chief, it probably will happen.
As Bette Davis said long ago, strap in and get ready for a bumpy ride!
10 comments:
a. Draft deferments were not illegal in the 1960s and 1970s.
b. No.
c. My chief complaint about Cheney, Rove, Bush and company is they are very eager to send our army to war when they personally have demonstrated a reluctance to fight. I have heard several complaints about this from Republicans about Clinton being a draft dodger but not so many about Cheney and Bush. Why?
The men and women who volunteer to serve our country are the bravest and most honorable people I know...and I know and love several of them. The president needs to cherish this and send them into harm's way only when it is absolutely necessary. In my opinion that would be the following conflicts in the last 70 years...
a. WWII
b. Afghanistan (i.e. Al Qaeda)
Everything else has been a bunch of bullshit to feed the military industrial complex. We create an enemy that is not really a threat, wave the flag, and suddenly we are at war. Why?
Look, I know there are threats out there to this country. I take them very seriously. We MUST take the fight to them. Two of the greatest threats are still alive and, oddly, this administration shows no signs being able or willing to find them. Why?
Many of my "whys" can actually be answered in a wonderful film I just watched called "Why We Fight" which is currently playing at the Lagoon theater in Minneapolis. I urge everyone to see it and I will be talking about it a lot in future posts.
I know where you are driving at with these questions and I believe there are many men that are brave who serve in reserve units that stay behind in this country. I have no problem with them.
The ones I have a problem with are the guys that recklessly send our troops to war with no strategy, accuse anyone of not supporting the conflict of being anti-American, and defame true heroes like Max Cleland or John Murtha for being weak on terrorism.....while they themselves have had "better things to do."
Again, I don't think being in the military reserve means you are a draft dodger. I would never go into Walter Reed and say that a reservist with his legs blown off is a draft dodger. Clearly he is someone who has served honorably.
The people that sent him there, however, have not served honorably in the armed forces and really don't have a fucking clue about how horrible conflict can be.
If they really cared at all about anything other than money, we wouldn't even be in Iraq. We would be turning over every single rock in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
You think we are fighting this war for our freedom, their freedom, and the "threat" that Saddam Hussein posed.
I see a bunch of corporate chickenhawks making a shitload of money off of the blood of American soldiers while completely ignoring the fact that there are now four nuclear submarines, less than 100 miles from where Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahari are supposedly hiding, in a hotbed of anti American sentiment: Karachi, Pakistan.
Just Dave...Nice to have you back!
I don't think you are seeing the point that Markadelphia is making. It is simply this...Cheney and Bush never saw combat when they were of age. One of them volunteered to keep from being drafted and the other got deferments so that he wouldn't have to go to war. These two men have been instrumental in instigating the war in Iraq. Markadelphia and many other people in this country find it hypocritical that two individuals who have sold themselves to the American public as either a War President or a dream team administration for going to war when they did not serve in Vietnam and hence could not possibly fully understand the nature of warfare. He reads the briefs, but how many times has he been to Walter Reid? Can you understand the depth of warfare by reading about it? Does that mean I understand combat because I own a copy of Private Ryan?
As for the Bush service record, you are incorrect in your statements about his record. It is not clear cut that he served his country with honor nor is it clear that he was not AWOL in 1972/1973. There have been several investigations into the matter and although both returned favorable results for the President, examination of the methods for calculating his time in the service were flawed and included fundamental problems such as addition miscalculations. These issues have not been pressed because he is the President and no one who has investigated his record has been willing to sacrifice their career or be branded a traitor or an advocate for terrorists. Best calculations based on his attendence of drills indicates he was AWOL for 6 months. Small amount of time, but by the letter of his agreement with the Naitonal Guard, he was AWOL. End of story. His entry into the Guard was controversial and there have been admissions that he was moved into the Guard by the calling in of favors. There is incontrovertable proof that he was serving on political campaigns in '72 instead of doing his duty. No matter how you cut it, GB is the son of a wealthy politician who got him non-combat duty in the states and that GB used his fathers money, political position at the time, and his families friends and allies to keep him from going over seas. You may find that he made inquiries into trying to join a sqaudron that flew over seas AFTER the type of plane that he flew had been withdrawen from service in that squadron. So what? Does nothing for his status in my eyes. Last but not least, his service record in 1972 and 1973 does not indicate he was reliable having not taken a physical and having been returned to training status. He also did not register with the guard after his discharge.
What I can't understand is why people like you defend this guy. He did the minimum that he had to and didn't do it very well with lots of questions surrounding his past. This is a man who has used his wealth and status to avoid taking the high road for his entire life.
His speeches are mostly rhetoric and although some people may find them moving, I find them hollow. Saying things like he couldn't look the parents of veterens in the eye if he didnt really think the war was necessary are empty words because he won't look them in the eyes now unless he is guarenteed that they support him. Shameful.
The money is only part of the concerns that Markadelphia and I have. The power is really the issue in my mind. The contacts he has made, the influence he has garnered and the favors he owes his benefactors are variables that we will never fully recognize. It is solely my opinion that history will not look kindly on this man even if you do.
Serbians didn't bomb the Cole or the Twin Towers. They are of secondary importance. The guy who orchestrated the bombings and loss of American lives is out there plotting right now and GB is doing less than he could because of a war that he instigated with people who had nothing to do with 9-11.
Being a military man yourself, surely you see that troop allocation from S. Korea is not a reasonable possibility given the hostilities with N. Korea. How many troops are stationed in other places and even if you could move them, you still have to provide for them in the field. That means food, shelter, armor, armored vehicles, etc. We can't do that now, how do you think that the phantom troops from other locations are going to be provided for? Logistically your defense of troop allocation seems weakly supported.
I don't know Just Dave, but I think that he is the kind of person that wants to believe in this country and that perhaps has been trained that way in his life experience. That desire is not a bad thing except when it is obliged without critical thinking. Just my opinion. I also believe in this country, but not at the cost of losing all of the things that this country were founded on.
Obviously this is speculation on both our parts, but I've said before and I'll repeat that I think history will view GWB quite favorably. Assuming, of course, that the Middle East situation doesn't end in total world annihilation, which would be kind of a bummer. (Of course, by then, who cares how history might see GWB?)
Just as when Markadelphia makes his grandiose statements about Hitler, losing all our freedoms, blah, blah, blah, I'm not sure I'm understanding the at the cost of losing all of the things that this country were founded on statement. Which things were those? That the President of the country must be somebody of common means who did not benefit from political or personal favor? That the President must be somebody who has seen combat in order to properly assess the need for war? That the President must be always looking out for the small guy? Adams and Jefferson, clearly instrumental in founding this country and stirring revolution (here and abroad), had no combat experience, were quite well to-do, and had no interest in looking out for the little guy. James Madison (minus the 'founding the country' bit) was in the same boat. History views those three Presidents quite favorably, I believe. Yes, yes....comparing the American Revolution and the War of 1812 to the Iraq War is a bit of a stretch. But the point about the character of the men does not hinge on that distinction.
Or was the statement referring to the erosion of all of our civil liberties? Yeah, still not understanding which civil liberties we're talking about on that one.
Why people like you defend this guy...I wouldn't presume to speak for Just Dave, but since I'm fortunate enough to be lumped in with him on this particular issue, I'll answer that one. For starters, questioning the integrity of a man who has faced the awful choice of sending American troops off to war is far too pessimistic an approach to life for me. You have your reasons for disliking GWB....I understand them and, frankly, don't disagree with some of them. But the reality that Markadelphia sets forth -- that GWB and his crew are sitting around the Oval Office yelling "Yee-haw" like they're playing some damn real-life version of Risk -- is beyond my comprehension. If that's really what is happening, then chalk up my inability to accept that as a fundamental character flaw.
Also, frankly, I continue to defend GWB in large part because a great many other people continue to hold him to an impossible standard. Anybody who is scrutinized with an "I read it in a book/saw it in a movie so it must be true" magnifying glass is going to look pretty shabby. Politician or athlete. CEO or schoolteacher. The measuring stick used by his ardent opponents by which GWB is measured is continually changing, as HMHC has repeatedly pointed out. But even finding fault with his failings isn't enough for these people....they feel obliged to go so far as to attack the character and the motive of the man. I see those attacks, which oftentimes pass for "news" on TV or "fact" on this blog, as being unjust, and consequently I will defend the man being unjustly attacked. Even though, were I on the board of a company for which he was CEO, I'd be working diligently to have him removed....
I want to make a couple of things clear.
First of all, just-Dave, there is no question that you served your country honorably. I think you are a man of integrity and morals and I think that our armed forces, reserve or otherwise, are largely made up of people like you. Thank God!
I view Bush Co as being exactly opposite of you and THAT is why I get frustrated when we have these discussions. It just seems like his actions, past and present, are in direct dichotomy with what you believe.
I think at this point it is a matter of pride with you...that you don't want to admit that a conservative president is this incompetent...rest assured, there are many Democrats that are equally as incompetent.
And I can think of a dozen or more Republicans that I would feel proud to have as president.
Thankfully, there are many conservatives that finally starting to question the policies of this president.
Most conservatives I know are also very religious people. When I ask them how they think Jesus would feel about the Iraq War, most of them say he probably wouldn't like it. When I think of my saviour, I don't imagine him murdering people...accidently or otherwise.
If we had gone into Iraq and found WMDs, connections to Al Qaeda etc, then all of the horror that has come since would be just a little less horrible.
Instead, it is the stated position of our government that Iraq did not have these things...the fault of intelligence. And yet, Bush and Co stated day after day that Saddam Hussein had WMDs in the run up to the war.
These are not "opinions" that I made up. I am going off of what information they are providing to me....IN THEIR WORDS.
It seems to me like they lied to us. Or, as President Truman once said, if you think lie is too strong a word, we can say they fibbed to us.
Other items...
Clinton was a draft dodger. No different than Bush. One of several things I did not like about him.
Kerry did serve honorably, saw some horrible things happen over there and tried to talk about it. He was branded a traitor by the same people that are currently running our government (ie Texans, Nixon folks)because he questioned things....
Korea and Iran are far more serious issues than Iraq. Focus should have been placed on them...behind Al Qaeda...no troops should ever be withdrawn from South Korea as long as Nutboy is in charge. He actually HAS nuclear weapons, after all..
I think a column about liberties would be a good thing. It actually goes well with an idea that I had to write a column about the movie Why We Fight.
All of you reading...you must see this movie....it really sums up everything I have been talking about on this blog.
PL, Just Dave....I would love to see it again...I'll buy the post movie beers if you want to go...
How do you know that I don't already listen to Rush Limbaugh? In fact, I listen to him almost everyday. I don't always agree with him but he is a great entertainer and, no matter which way you cut it, is one of the three most influential radio broadcasters of the last 15 years (Howard Stern and Art Bell being the other two.) My professional background is in broadcasting so I will always have respect for him.
I don't think you will need beers for the movie. Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, John McCain are all in the movie and do a good job of telling the other side...if you could call it that.
After all, the movie's main premise is the meaining of President Eisenhower's farewell address and he was a Republican and a military man. I went to see the movie with Crab, a conservative, and he really enjoyed it. He was quoted upon leaving the theater as saying, "I will buy the DVD when it comes out."
One more comment before I get into the next topic. There was a great editorial in the Strib yesterday. Read it!
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/346068.html
"Great" isn't really the word I would have used. All I can say is that I'm glad Syl Jones is on your side and not mine. Anybody who refers to Christmas as a seasonal entrapment from which we can never escape and is as ragingly racist as he is clearly is swimming in the deep end of the loony pool. His grandiose statements such as we know that Bush-Cheney has been wrong every step of the way, his claim that the Iraqi people are not the beneficiaries of the war, and the fact that he still finds time to insult the fighting people of this country clearly illustrates that the 2 minutes that it takes to read this editorial (no doubt while moving your lips) is a wasted two minutes that you'll never get back.
I think Syl might be a woman...not sure though....and he seems to blame the Dems and Repubs simelataeously...
No one is on my side. I am not on anyone's side.
I am a side of one.
OK....if Syl is a woman...S?HE seems to blame both sides was what I was trying to say...
Post a Comment