Fighting the War at Home
Happy Friday.
In 1971, after years entrenched in Vietnam, more than 72 percent of Congress had served in the military. World War II generated seven presidents (Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Bush). Today, less than 20 percent of Congress is composed of war veterans.
Of course, Dubbya was AWOL during Vietnam and Cheney "had other priorities than military service." Other notable administration officials Andrew Card, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, and Karl Rove all came of age during the Vietnam war. As did prominent republicans Trent Lott, Dennis Hastert, Dick Armey, Tom Delay, Roy Blunt, Bill Frist, and Rick Santorum. Each and every single one of them found a way to avoid service. Each of these men have gone out of their way to push hard for military solutions to political problems.
Today, a new breed of "veteran" politicians is emerging from the Iraqi quagmire. Notably, these men and women are running as Democrats.
A common theme of their campaigns is a frustration with the current administration, its lies about Iraq, and their courage and determination to lead America in a new direction. Their convictions are strengthened in the face of the ongoing illegal and unethical misconduct plaguing the GOP.
Unfortunately, their service does not inoculate them from attack by the republicans; as the vicious smear campaign against Max Cleland in 2002 made clear. Cleland, who lost both legs and part of one arm in Vietnam, was called a coward by the GOP which ran ads equating him to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
Of course, the current administration will be hard pressed to challenge veterans of a war it started. Especially as it continues to pretend that all is well "over there." (2,238 Americans have died in Iraq and 16,548 have been wounded there as of yesterday.)
As the mid-term elections approach, it's time to recognize these men and women and their continued resolve to fight for our country--at home and abroad:
Chris Carney, 46, is a lieutenant commander in the Naval Reserve and was called up in late 2003 to serve as a special Pentagon adviser on intelligence and terrorism. The Democrat is running unopposed for his party's nomination in a northeast Pennsylvania district. He will face Republican Rep. Don Sherwood, whose recent settlement of a lawsuit by his mistress could prove a factor in the race.
Andrew Duck, 43, is a former Army intelligence officer in Iraq who currently works as a Pentagon contractor. The Democrat is running in rural Maryland for the seat held by Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a House Armed Services Committee member. The district voted 65% for President Bush in 2004.
Tammy Duckworth, 37, is a former lieutenant in the Army National Guard who lost both her legs and had her arm crushed when a rocket-propelled grenade struck the cockpit of her aircraft and exploded over Baghdad.
Tim Dunn, 45, is a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Reserves who served in Baghdad in 2004 as a legal adviser to the Iraqi Special Tribunal trying Saddam Hussein. If the Democrat wins a party primary, he would face GOP Rep. Robin Hayes in a North Carolina district with a strong military presence that leans Republican.
Patrick Murphy, 32, is a former West Point professor who deployed to Iraq as an Army lawyer in 2003. If he wins a Democratic primary in suburban Philadelphia, Murphy would face GOP freshman Michael Fitzpatrick in the fall. The district backed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004.
Tim Walz, 51, is a former command sergeant major in the Army National Guard who was depolyed to Iraq in 2003. If he wins the Democratic primary in southern Minnesota, Walz will face republican Gil Gutknecht.
In 1971, after years entrenched in Vietnam, more than 72 percent of Congress had served in the military. World War II generated seven presidents (Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Bush). Today, less than 20 percent of Congress is composed of war veterans.
Of course, Dubbya was AWOL during Vietnam and Cheney "had other priorities than military service." Other notable administration officials Andrew Card, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, and Karl Rove all came of age during the Vietnam war. As did prominent republicans Trent Lott, Dennis Hastert, Dick Armey, Tom Delay, Roy Blunt, Bill Frist, and Rick Santorum. Each and every single one of them found a way to avoid service. Each of these men have gone out of their way to push hard for military solutions to political problems.
Today, a new breed of "veteran" politicians is emerging from the Iraqi quagmire. Notably, these men and women are running as Democrats.
A common theme of their campaigns is a frustration with the current administration, its lies about Iraq, and their courage and determination to lead America in a new direction. Their convictions are strengthened in the face of the ongoing illegal and unethical misconduct plaguing the GOP.
Unfortunately, their service does not inoculate them from attack by the republicans; as the vicious smear campaign against Max Cleland in 2002 made clear. Cleland, who lost both legs and part of one arm in Vietnam, was called a coward by the GOP which ran ads equating him to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
Of course, the current administration will be hard pressed to challenge veterans of a war it started. Especially as it continues to pretend that all is well "over there." (2,238 Americans have died in Iraq and 16,548 have been wounded there as of yesterday.)
As the mid-term elections approach, it's time to recognize these men and women and their continued resolve to fight for our country--at home and abroad:
Chris Carney, 46, is a lieutenant commander in the Naval Reserve and was called up in late 2003 to serve as a special Pentagon adviser on intelligence and terrorism. The Democrat is running unopposed for his party's nomination in a northeast Pennsylvania district. He will face Republican Rep. Don Sherwood, whose recent settlement of a lawsuit by his mistress could prove a factor in the race.
Andrew Duck, 43, is a former Army intelligence officer in Iraq who currently works as a Pentagon contractor. The Democrat is running in rural Maryland for the seat held by Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a House Armed Services Committee member. The district voted 65% for President Bush in 2004.
Tammy Duckworth, 37, is a former lieutenant in the Army National Guard who lost both her legs and had her arm crushed when a rocket-propelled grenade struck the cockpit of her aircraft and exploded over Baghdad.
Tim Dunn, 45, is a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Reserves who served in Baghdad in 2004 as a legal adviser to the Iraqi Special Tribunal trying Saddam Hussein. If the Democrat wins a party primary, he would face GOP Rep. Robin Hayes in a North Carolina district with a strong military presence that leans Republican.
Patrick Murphy, 32, is a former West Point professor who deployed to Iraq as an Army lawyer in 2003. If he wins a Democratic primary in suburban Philadelphia, Murphy would face GOP freshman Michael Fitzpatrick in the fall. The district backed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004.
Tim Walz, 51, is a former command sergeant major in the Army National Guard who was depolyed to Iraq in 2003. If he wins the Democratic primary in southern Minnesota, Walz will face republican Gil Gutknecht.
posted by Happy Friday | 7:32 AM
9 Comments:
With all due respect, why were we all effectively "ordered" not to consider this issue during the Clinton administration. This seems sadly hypocritical, and largely irrelevant in a nation whose wars are now automatically called into ethical question. It's confusing since those now asking "why did they not serve" would have, in an earlier time, demanded that these same people not serve in an "immoral" war. In short, you need to pick your battles.
Happy Friday-
I'm with MMonte on this one. He already covered one of the two points I was gonna bring up: where was Democrat outrage when hawkish Dem, Bill "Oxford's Better Than The Nam" Clinton, ordered bombing of Iraq, of Sudan, as well as military intervention in Bosnia?
Hey, I'm not criticizing Slick Will for staying out of Vietnam, or for getting tough with scoundrels like Milocevic and Saddam. But I'm old enough to remember a lot of pissed-off Clinton-lovers getting indignant when GOP hacks called him a draft-dodger.
My other point is to remind you that our job doesn't require stooping to propaganda or exaggeration (by "our" I mean those of "us" who love our country and despise it's theft by opportunists, liars and other kleptocrats). Criticisms of the 2005 GOP, the loathsome Administration, and the Rovian Machine are best leveled through facts alone.
My point: you know as well as I that no one in the GOP called Max Cleland "a coward," nor did Chambliss's ads "equate" him with anyone. Were the ads sneaky? Yup. Is Chambliss a bastard? Yup. Was Cleland a patriot when he lost three limbs defending his country? Yup. Do I believe he was a patriot to question the administration's actions post-9/11? Yup to that too.
But do "we" need to set ourselves up to questions of credibility, if not questions of honesty, from the disgusting attack dogs disguised as GOP hacks, further disguised as legitimate conservative pundits/advocates? No freakin way.
2006 is there to be won. Let's not screw it up with sloppy thinking or poorly-substantiated arguments. There's no need; the facts are horrible enough.
Predictable. Check your calendars; it's 2006. Is Clinton bashing the best response you can offer?
More importantly, please provide a justification for equating military relief efforts in Bosnia and the Sudan (with UN and international support) with Iraq. I'd be curious to hear the parallels.
Finally, fact is fact. The Chambliss ad did as I described. From Media Matters:
“A July 3, 2003, Washington Post article described the controversial Chambliss ad that attacked Cleland, a Vietnam veteran who lost three limbs during the war:
It opened with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. "As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators," said a narrator, "Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead. He says he supports President Bush at every opportunity, but that's not the truth. Since July, Max Cleland voted against President Bush's vital homeland security efforts 11 times!"
As Media Matters for America has previously noted, the Chambliss ad was immediately condemned, as the Post reported, by Republican Senators John McCain of Arizona (who said of the ad, "[I]t's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible") and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska (who threatened to run an ad denouncing Republican officials if they didn't pull it off the air).”
If you want to split hairs and say they didn’t call him a coward, they merely called him “not courageous”--fine. I proffer it’s a distinction without a difference. It’s uglier than you think, my firends.
H.F.-
The tone of your reply is most unfortunate. If you think that the GOP won't take every opportunity to engage in far-more-focused nitpicking than I engaged in, you may find next autumn very disappointing. If you'd rather hear such commentary in the form of attacks from your enemies than in the form of constructive criticism from your friends, be my guest.
As for Clinton-bashing, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I said I approve of his avoiding the draft and his interventions in Bosnia and Sudan. Who's bashing?
As for the Chambliss ads, I still don't see where anyone said he was "not courageous." If it matters to you, let me repeat what I said in the last post: I think Chambliss's ad was disgraceful.
But I'll also repeat, it's enough to print *exactly* what the ads did say, rather than continue to spin the copy into non-existent phrases about cowardice or lack of courage.
The truth is damning enough; please, for the sake of election-day victory in November, do not get caught twisting the facts. "They" are more vicious than "we" are, and they'll make us pay at the ballot box.
C'mon Happy Friday... "Clinton-bashing"? You can do better than that. The point is that this is not a Republican trait exclusively. We're reaching a point in American history where we're running out of war heroes to serve in high office. If service in combat has been a pre-requisite for making decisions about the use of our miltary, it is a policy that we will have to alter somewhat to accomodate an upcoming generation of leaders that had no protracted conflicts in which to serve. As a partisan matter, though, it really lacks any credibility. It's not a failing... simply a fact. Presidents have to order military actions, regardless of their own background. Arguably, Presidents Washington, Grant and Eisenhower have been among our weakest leaders with regards to the use of our military. In short, the correlation is simply not there.
On another note, what had been a pretty sharp source of discourse has, in the past few weeks, slipped a bit. Last week's piece actually illustrated why the administration's policy in Iraq will ultimately succeed (isn't that what happened in post-war Germany with the Allied policy, despite Kennan's erudite blusterings?). I was hoping for something solid on the imminent rubber-stamping of Alito to the High Court. I guess we're all still reeling about the Colts. C'mon Happy Friday, throw that KO punch that I know you have waiting for us.
Blue Stater sez:
"I say we celebrate our new generation of Dems who chose to serve our nation, saw first-hand the lies and failures of the Bush admistration, and come home to serve our nation again"
Hell, yeah. Do it!
Just leave the "draft dodger" and "chicken hawk" accusations at home. There are enough flaws in the average GOPer's policies that dirty laundry need not be aired. Especially when plenty of Dems have the same stank on their clothes.
Thank you. Better than I could have said it myself.
Here's a goofy idea... let's elect people who are generally qualified to lead who have really good ideas and the strength and energy to realize them-regardless of whether they have served in the Armed Forces (God bless 'em all - they're doing dangerous work that I have chosen not to) or not. Oh... yeah... and regardless of whether they're blue or red.
I have been looking for sites like this for a long time. Thank you! natural breast enhancement http://www.car-rental-5.info Jeep yj slave cylinder dirty stories Air conditioner compressor failure Protonix and aluminum hydroxide erectile dysfunction Unitank swimwear Cold weather sandal hiking cialis Lazer treatment to clear acne scars Kit quit smoking wedding invitations England executive long term disability insurance Free menu ademcos home alarm system Carolinas chapter of society of interior designers Faux diamond stud solitaire earrings
The Vietnam War play great role in modern society, but we must to concentrate at current emergence of events. Even if we have many features, we can choose the major of this. You can make it with custom essay writing services hepls. Thanks for sharing a lot.
Post a Comment
<< Home