Wednesday's Political Post...

[tugmcmartin]

Without getting into a discussion of what we all feel about how GWB is doing in his current term, does anyone else find it ironic that the Dems are trying to make an issue during this years election campaign out of service during the Vietnam War? I seem to remember back in 1992 when Clinton was running that the press and the rest of the democratic party asserted that someone's service or avoidance of service during Vietnam wasn't an issue when it came to serving as president. In fact, Sen. Kerry said as much on the senate floor in support of Clinton's avoidance of service. But now that he's running for president, its an issue again. Somehow serving in the National Guard is now seen by him as being worse than going to Canada. Now i'm not saying i'm voting for Bush this year (cuz i'm not sure i am), but doesn't anyone else find this sudden interest in Vietnam service interesting given the past stances by the press and libs?

T-

[JSE]

T,

That's one of the things I dislike the most about the democratic party. They will blast someone for "putting their hand in the cookie jar" and then proceed to call them liars, cheats and shameful. They will do this as they themselves are putting their hands in the same cookie jar and they don't see what's wrong with that. I am sure Reps. do the same thing now and then but the Democrats have perfected it. The whole military service issue is a prime example. Going to War with Iraq is another. The same democrats that are blasting the President and the CIA for faulty intelligence are the same democrats that voted for the War based on the same information that was obtained by a CIA that they themselves and Clinton stripped down to a bare bones operation during the 90's. Maybe if they had given the CIA better resources and funding, we may have obtained better intelligence about Iraq? Do ya think?

JSE

[nobody]

I'm of 2 minds on this one. I think on the one hand, it's relevant because Bush likes to play the big strong military man. This makes him look a little off in that role. It's a situation where you shouldn't set yourself up as something you are not.

On the other hand, I think we need to recognize that as a society, there were many, many good and decent people that did whatever they could to avoid the war in Vietnam. Going against the war was a legitimate position to take, and I see no reason that those who tried to avoid it should be punished.

Bush is in a tough spot, because while he likely did try to avoid active service, something I have no problem with, he tries to act like he was a staunch military man, something I find laughable. A Democrat could get by saying he was aganist the war, and didn't want to fight an unjust battle; a Republican can't. The differing reactions just have to do with each party's past and their constituients' general expectations.

[Justlisten2]

His lips are moving!

[Chris]

Personally, I find the whole topic has little to do with the way I'll end up voting. I don't care if GWB tried to skip out on going to war 30 years ago. All that does is make him a prime target for public jokes. I don't like the fact that it's being used in campaigns for the presidency - it makes candidates look petty - but then again, that's all part of politics. You aim at any target that presents itself if it might help you win.

[jack70]

"Somehow serving in the National Guard is now seen by him as being worse than going to Canada"

Here's my take on Vietnam era service:

1/ Those that enlisted or were drafted deserve credit for that.

2/ Those that went to Canada deserve credit for being true to their conscience, whether we agree with em or not. They essentially gave up their future, over an issue of integrity. It was probably harder to do that than enlist, join the crowd, and take your chances.

3/ Bush and others that joined the guard may have been avoiding the war, and may not have. I think you'll find it varied with the individual. Many saw it as a "stop-gate" solution to a "problem" they had mixed feelings about. You might want to consider the fact that learning to pilot a plane, nevermind a jet is one of the most dangerous things you can imagine. (my dad was a pilot,and has lots of stories, and he didn't fly jets). Whatever Bush's true motives, he was in a LOT more "danger" learning to fly than 80% of the support troops in the Army, Navy or Marines then, nevermind the support troops stationed in the states or Europe during the 65-75 period. Pilots die ALL the time, but we seldom hear about em.

4/ The thing that upsets many about Clinton's way of dealing with the Vietnam war, was that he downright LIED about it. He said one thing, while deceptively doing another (his unearthed letter). IMHO this puts him at the bottom in any "integrity" ranking you want to make... below ALL the ones above (#1-#3). He was seen as a coward, and a weasel.

BTW... I was of that era. I got a low draft number, but never gave it all much thought despite what the movies would lead most to believe today (like we were ALL radicalized and focused on nothing but the war during that time). I was busy passing high-school tests, working at a supermarket after school & weekends, playing in the high-school band, playing in my R&R band, competing in high-school sports, partcipating in Boy Scouts, and going out with my friends and goofing around. The war and politics was NOT something I knew much about... or really cared about at the time. The real tragedy of the war was that the average age of those killed was 19.

The same democrats that are blasting the President and the CIA for faulty intelligence are the same democrats that voted for the War based on the same information that was obtained by a CIA that they themselves and Clinton stripped down to a bare bones operation during the 90's. Maybe if they had given the CIA better resources and funding, we may have obtained better intelligence about Iraq? Do ya think?

How often do ANY politicians admit they were wrong in such policy debates? (never!) The Frank Church commission started gutting the CIA years ago (well intentioned, but naive, as is most social policy from the left). Carter continued it, and Clinton just added to it.

You wanna know how pathetic it's become? Remember the hubub a few months back when that Wilson guy was publically "outraged" over his wife being "outed" in the press as a CIA operative (it wasn't totally true BTW... she'd been written about previously in the media). Do you know that the CIA had sent Wilson himself to Africa during the Clinton administration (he worked under the C Admin) to write a report about certain security issues in Niger(?). What in Gods name was a high level Wash DC bureaucrat doing, going there?

He talked to some other high-level bureaucrats from France etc... and then wrote his DOPEY report. The important thing here is ... we had NO personal assets on the ground there working for our government!!! Clinton helped further shift all our assets to high-tech birds in the sky etc, instead of cold-hard spys and assets on the ground. Imagine the FBI sending a high-level administrator to a US city without having any local police force assets there to speak to about crime and criminal activity... that's how blind we are in many parts of the world. Our whole world-based net has been decimated over the past 2 decades. Talk to anyone who worked in the CIA during that period. And all our politicians do is bit__ at each other. The Chinese have all sorts of military and economic spys working here... but WE'RE TOO VIRTUOUS to do that... even after 9-11. The scary part is that many in Washington want it to stay that way. The same ones that will yell the loudest after the next 9-11. Dopes!