I pit Bush for accepting the Purple Heart

The BBQ Pit
141

If you’re talking about the piece of medal and ribbon as personal property then yes, it’s his to do with as he wants and, AS YOU KNOW PERFECTLY WELL not one single person here is disputing his right to do with his personal property whatever he pleases. If you’re talking about it as more than a piece of medal with ribbon, which the man clearly sees it as, but as a symbol of being wounded in the service of the nation, it is NOT for this guy to decide who deserves it but the criteria set forth by the Armed Forces.

Personally I see it as both- this man’s property and a symbol of military service. Kerry (a man I despise, incidentally) saw it as both- when he tossed his he was using his property to show disrespect for the military. This man clearly sees it as both. If he just saw it as a re-gift he’d do better by giving him a subscription to TV Guide or a knife sharpener, thinks that are actually useful.

And ironically, since the Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the PotUS, Bush by accepting the medal and letting it be pinned on him is awarding it to himself. Which would surprise nobody.

And since when are grievances backed up by facts and or evidence “ad hominem”? True, he’s had ad hominem attacks, but so has every other president since Washington. Is Bush now going to award more purple hearts to Kerry for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth crap he had to endure?

Not that I think you really believe this shit. Gore Vidal & Ward Churchill living under a bridge would be less obvious a pair of, ahem, provocateurs.

142

At first I thought you were just kidding and I was waiting for lols and giggles, but you really are serious, aren’t you?

143

Or, perhaps you haven’t listed specifically what these implications are?

144

Purple Hearts are only awarded for injuries incurred during actions against an enemy of the US. By accepting a mock citation and (real) medal for “emotional injuries” incurred from hearing political criticism from his own people, Bush is endorsing a statement that those who disagree with his leadership are enemies of the US. He’s calling millions of Americans (including not a few vets) traitors for disagreeing with him.

The troll that had the idea to give him this award should be kicked in the nuts.

145

So you are going to cling to the remote possibility that the citation was just a greeting card accompanying a gift? The vet told us why he gave the medal to the president, why shouldn’t we accept what he said at face value, instead of pretending it might be something completely different?

146

Probably. It’s my depreciating-Britishness kicking in, I expect. :slight_smile:

I sort of agree. The problem is that the medal-giver hasn’t just said “Bush deserves this”. He’s said “Bush deserves this because he fulfils this criteria”. And I don’t see why only the guy’s opinion on whether Bush does so or not is the only one that counts.

Think of it like this. The ex-soldier in question gets to decide if Bush deserves it; after all, he was the one that was wounded. He has that to judge against when looking to see if Bush’s situation is similar. But likewise, Bush himself also has experience; he knows best how bad his treatment has affected him, after all. But wait; those Democrats who insulted him have experience of it, too; while they can’t know how horribly they affected Bush, they can guess based on their insults. And of course there’s the Armed Forces who awarded the medal to the guy in the first place; surely they’re good judges of worthiness when they need to consider thousands of potential recievers? And we at home can read what’s happening, and what the soldier did to deserve his medal in the first place, and the comments from Democrats, and so on, and we have experience to judge this on too.

So would I, assuming a Pit thread were started on the subject. :wink:

147

Well none of the inner-circle neocons actually served in Vietnam, so that tells you something right there. They’re all for these wars but they won’t get involved outside their offices because they’re total pussies.

148

No. I understand that.

149

I agree that it is both a very strong endorsement of Bush and a very strong criticism of his detractors.

I think that’s obvious.

You’re putting words in Thomas’ mouth when your saying that he’s giving it because people are disagreeing with Bush. He specifically said it was because of “verbal attacks” not disagreement.

I don’t think that anybody who simply disagrees with Bush should feel criticized by this.

150

Then *address * it, coward.

And don’t forget to check out http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com/

151

Not even with Matt Sanchez’s dick…

152

Then I guess our disagreement is philosophical not partisan.

153

Address what? You’re not saying anything.

154

I don’t know what kind of sophist distinction you’re trying to make between “disagreement” and “verbal attacks,” but it’s a moot point since both fall under the category of “free speech,” and the citation still carries an implication that those who “verbally attack” the President are attacking America.

Remember, a Purple Heart doesn’t get awarded unless the injuries come from an enemy of the US? Do you believe that anyone who verbally attacks the President is an enemy of the US?

Should I dig around and try to find out if you ever “verbally attacked” Bush’s predecessor?

155

If I say “DTC, I believe you are incorrect because…” than I am disagreeing. If I were to call you an “asshole,” I would be making a verbal attack. The distinction is between disagreement and insult, and I’m sorry you see that as sophistry, but it’s not.

How is the point moot? If you say that you are an “enemy of America,” that is not negated by the fact that you have a right to say it. Free speech doesn’t mean you are not responsible for what you say.

Good question. No. “Anyone” is too categorical. I think that some that do are. Apparently, so does Thomas.

If you wish, and if you find something that you think is big enough that it makes me an enemy of the US, than I heartily endorse your right to write a citation for your purple heart and send it to Clinton, if you so wish.

156

Sheesh. Scylla, this is not about whether the vet is entitled to his opinion of Bush. Of course he is.

This is not about whether the vet is entitled to give the medal to Bush. Of course he is; it’s his freaking medal, and he can do with it as he wants. (Personally, I’d gladly endure a lot of “verbal attacks” in lieu of having a lung shot out of my chest, but again, this isn’t about whether I, or anyone else, agrees with the vet’s decision.)

The problem is here, in the original article:

Get that? This entire bullshit “ceremony” was Bush’s idea. The vet just dropped the medal off at his Congressman’s office; Bush (or more likely one of his aides) got the idea of making it a media event, in which a decorated veteran will bestow a Purple Heart upon poor, humble George W. Bush for getting his feelings hurt.

People send the President gifts every day; if Bush tried to have an Oval Office ceremony in which someone’s grandmother “awarded” him a red, white, and blue quilt she’d made, he’d be laughed out of office. This entire idea stinks of opportunistic grandstanding.

Frankly, Scylla, I agree with you that Bush would have been unconscionably rude to reject the offered gift. If someone offers to make a gift to you of something that means that much to them, you accept it, Period.

But what you don’t do–unless you’re a smirking, shameless thug–is turn the deeply personal offering someone has made to you into a goddam photo-op for your own political gain. Bush should recognize and acknowledge that when the vet gives him the medal, it will mean something entirely different than it meant when Congress gave the vet the medal in the first place. He should take it as a gesture of personal respect, and not as proof that he’s a goddam martyr because Jon Stewart (or jackelope) called him a funny name.

Fuck Bush, and fuck this “ceremony,” and fuck whatever media outlets cover it without a laugh track.

157

It’s sophistry.

I’ve tried to parse this sentence about five times and I still have no idea what it means.

What do you mean by “responsible?” Should I be penalized for saying that Bush is a baboon?

Wow.

What would be the deciding factors in whether a verbal attack on the President would rise to the level of an enemy attack on the US?

I don’t think anything you said would make you an enemy of the US, YOU do.

What do you think should be done about that pesky First Amendment?

158

You’re right, you don’t get it. This has nothing to do with conservatives. This has to do with a cheap political stunt that is so disgusting that it…well, words fail me, really. It’s a new low for Bush. The President has somehow, despite having more advisors, handlers, and tamers than even Oprah, managed to look even more ridiculous.

He’s either an idiot, insane, making his own carefully crafted political statement, or involved in a third-party carefully crafted political statement. I reckon he could fall into more than one category; an analyst or a medium would be required to tell what.

159

Say what? Oh wait, now I see what you mean. By “has not returned it in kind” you mean he’s a lot more sneaky about it and he uses his cronies to get his revenge. Right?
But I’m still confused by how Sheryl Crow is involved in this.

160

The thread is about idiots.

Sheryl Crow is an idiot for urging that people use a single square of toilet paper.

This means that Sheryl Crow likely leaves skidmarks. Like Bush has on the honour of America.

Q.E.D.