Ex Officio?
in memory of?
You do not understand correctly. Ribbons are a representation of a medal that is worn on the soldier’s uniform, and could never be “attached” to a medal. See this page for the difference. (Be prepared to mute your sound, as their is an embedded midi of the USMC Hymn). The medals would only be worn on the dress uniform for special occasions, where as the ribbons may be worn under less formal circumstances. Kerry threw his ribbons, which is what he had with him at the time.
So, here’s where we stand: John Kerry at the time he was serving in Vietnam got just about the highest praise possible as a commander and went home a well-decorated hero.
Then he comes home and tells everyone one that the war (which, incidentally, Mr. Moto STILL supports to this day — and how dare you call him a reactionary %$#@!!) is a disgusting, bloody mess and that atrocities have been committed.
Then he runs for president. When his campaign is at his lowest ebb, men formerly under his command come out and rally behind him, putting him over the top in Iowa and then these same guys keep rallying behind him until he becomes the presumptive nominee for November.
NOW, a bunch of vets come out of the woodwork — Republican veterans who are personally offended by Kerry’s reasonably accurate description of what went on in Vietnam — to say that he was really a jerk and you can believe them now because they were all just lying when they said all those nice things about Kerry before politics had anything to do with their evaluations.
That’s it. I’m voting for Bush. :eek:
I actually don’t think either man had an obligation, legal or moral, to release their military records. I certainly haven’t, and I’m not obligated to by law.
However, when two veterans are going against each other tooth and nail, I don’t think it’s fair for one to call for the other to release his full military records unless and until he’s done the same.
I love the way you keep beating me with your masterful command of the facts.
Me too. Why? Because most voters have already made up their minds. I would not vote for Kerry unless Bush ran out onto the south lawn naked, shouting “Satan is my dark lord!”.
Many of you have known you would vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.
I heard this quote from a talking head on the Fox News Channel last week.
“This election is going to be decided by five percent of the popuation that isn’t even paying attention yet.”
I think he’s right.
Absolutely! I agree wholeheartedly. Which is why I found it so absurd that Bush was pissing and moaning about Kerry while claiming that he had released his records when he had done no such fucking thing.
Of course, the bell can’t be unrung now. So, lemme see everything in Bush’s file. Anything less is nothing short of traitorous, leading to a resounding win by the terrorists.
And I think that it was incumbent on both of them to release their entire records. Legally required? No. Morally required? Well, I dunno about morally, necessarily, but I think that doing so would have been a good move. Of course, now that we’re this far into 2004, the Bush camp is gonna throw everything that they can find and hope that something sticks. All while hoping that nobody has two brain cells to rub together and wonder if the pointed questions and issues that are being thrown Kerry’s way shouldn’t also be put to Bush. Downside is that nothing has thus far, and that a hell of a lot more people have two brain cells than they originally anticipated.
Waste
Indeed, the matter of releasing records goes to the very heart of the issue.
Our Fearless Leader has released records in exhaustive thoroughness. Some minor bits of arcana have been lost in the shuffle, fitness reports, that sort of trivia. After some 30 odd years (some odder than others), things are lost, misplaced. It is striking, however, to note than Sen. Kerry still refuses to release records freely disclosed by GeeDubya.
I refer, of course, to the crucial matter of dental examination. We have incontrovertible documentation that Mr. Bush dutifully submitted himself for such examination. When will we recieve similar assurances about Sen. Kerrys compliance on the all important issue of dental hygiene!? Much has been made here of the Shining One’s presumed failure to report for a routine flight physical. But I hasten to point out that Mr. Kerry did not, at any time, submit to a flight physical. Nor is there any record that Mr. Kerry was reprimanded in any way for such a failure! What are we to conclude but that Mr. Kerry, a scion of privilege, was treated more leniently than Mr. Bush, who hails from a rustic and provincial gated community.
Until Sen Kerry is sufficiently open and forthcoming to release such vital information, a cloud must remain over his credibility. As to his refusal to recognize that the AEGIS cruiser was the very linchpin of freedom, the single most crucial element in our national defense…words fail.
I’m perfectly willing to concede that neither Bush nor Kerry, nor their underlings, have clean hands on the whole records flap. But let’s keep in mind where all this started.
It was the Democrats who began the drumbeat on Bush to release his records. Most of the candidates in the primaries, and the head of the DNC, had joined this chorus due to the whole Guard controversy. Many of you had, on this board as well.
It’s hypocritical to ask Bush to open his records without asking John Kerry to submit his to similar scrutiny. And right now both candidates have released some, but others are still hidden.
Be careful about asking Bush to open up more. John Kerry may have reasons for keeping back what he hasn’t shown us yet.
Maybe those “signatories” are from Chicago?
Also, elucidator, if you want to mock one of my posts, why don’t you choose one from this thread? Some people might be confused right now. 
[QUOTE=edwinoThese guys force us to draw the comparison between Kerry and Bush. There is no front that Bush can come out favorably (service, valor, attendance, volunteering for duty, even free release of military records) except that Kerry spoke out against the war and Bush never did. Don’t doubt that this is what this group is about. They are still mad because 30 years ago, someone who had seen and tasted war came home to be a very powerful symbol of the anti-war movement.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly the point; and Kerry is missing an opportunity to make this into something positive. He should embrace his anti-war stance from 1971 unreservedly. “I went there; I fought, and was wounded and decorated; served honorably and with distinction. Then I came home and put any prestige I had gained, and all my effort, into protesting this terrible injustice. Who better to do so then someone who had put his life on the line, and knew it firsthand?”
Debate over.
And it’s not like an anti-war position in 1971 was unpopular. By 1971 everyone hated the war.
I just don’t get how Republicans, who probably believe themselves to be good people, could stoop to all this vicious mudslinging. Not only is this mudslinging vicious, it’s also terribly misleading.
Take for example the attack ads against Kerry for voting against a particular bill to fund the troops in Iraq. The fact of the matter is that Kerry voted for one version of the bill (that he felt was more fiscally responsible) that failed, and voted against a version that passed. Of course, if you had only the ad to go by you wouldn’t know this. The ad relies completely on ignorance to be effective.
Is this really what you want in a Commander in Chief (Bush), Mr. Moto? Has partisan rancor blinded you so much that you don’t care?
“Mockery” is such an ugly word, I prefer “droll irony”. As to confusing the unwary, as a general rule, Das Dopers are comparatively swift when it comes to forwarding a Memorandum of WTF?
I am mindful of your dire warning about consequences resulting from an overly forceful demand for release of records. To my mind, and to several others, (indeed, a “significant number”, of observers), Sen Kerry has complied more or less completely and Mr. Bush has complied more or less. As I am sure you know, there are several rather significant items that appear to be missing from Mr. Bush’s records. You seem to imply that there is some parity here. What, in your estimation, is the most significant item missing from Mr. Kerry’s records? And, as long as your at it, what is missing from Mr. Bush’s records that might trouble an even-handed, non-partisan observer such as yourself? Anything?
As well, I should like to remind you of a queston posed previously: if, as the record indicates, Mr. Kerry voted in favor of military appropriations 16 of 19 opportunities, what then in his records, outside of his woeful lack of appreciation for the AEGIS cruiser and Tomahawk missile, suggest a disinterest or disdain for defense-related matters? Are we given to understand that the 16 he voted for were insignificant, but the three he voted against were somehow crucial to our safety?
Your memory of the time frame differs dramaticly from my own. Regretably, the advantage of being old enough to remember is the disadvantage of being old enough to forget.
Mr. Moto:
Oh, bosh! You are simply doing what O’Neill and his posse want done. And I can assure you that if Kerry has something deep and dark buried in his records (which I, personally, doubt) it will pale compared to the mountain of shit that Bush has refused to release for four years. Y’know, things like where he was when he was supposed to be in Alabama. And in that vein, I imagine that someone would have recalled him showing even one hair on his ass during that time. When, to date, absolutely nobody remembers him.
Or even something as simple as pay records which would demonstrate, again, whether or not he bothered to show up when he was, allegedly, in Alabama.
No, I think that it would be in the best interest of the Bush camp to be careful what they ask for. After all, it might just be given.
Waste
Most of it is the actions of a few, the political leaders and the folks in positions of authority/publicity.
(Warning: anecdotal chatter ahead)
Most of the “Joe Republican” voters I talk to admit they don’t follow the news avidly; they’re too busy living their lives and tending to their homes to do much more than catch ten minutes of sound bites. At the end of the day, then, they turn on Fox News (because they’re “fair and balanced,” and everyone knows the media is liberal :rolleyes: ), get a few distorted lies taken out of context, then go to bed thinking John Kerry wants to abolish marriage and George W. Bush is single-handedly fighting terrorists on the shores of Miami.
For them, attack ads like these aren’t “mudslinging” as simply “reiterating the truth” – a “truth” that’s been built up on misinformation and slanted news coverage.
(end anecdotal chatter)
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, even if the United States military budget was cut in half, we’d still be able to adequately defend outselves. Any attacks on Democrats for being weak on defense doesn’t stand up to objective scrutiny when you compare their defense plan to Republicans defense plans. I guess Kerry may be slightly less hawkish than Republicans, but that doesn’t make him a dove. For Christs sake, even Dennis Kucinich only wants to cut our military budget by 15%!
I invite Mr. Moto to compare our military budget with the budgets of every other country in the world, both in per capita terms and in absolute numbers. This Republican hysteria over any cuts whatsoever in our military budget doesn’t stand up to serious scrunity.
For reference. Top 100 military spenders in absolute dollars. Top 100 military spenders per capita. Top 100 military spenders as a % of GDP.
Enjoy,
Steven
Hey, I’m drunk and listening to Zep II, but I paid to post. Friggin Bush is nutz. What kind if merry-go-round does he want to put us all on???