So the opinion of Soldiers who take the time to email the WSJ are the only ones we need to listen to? Can't we wait til we here from others? How do we know the WSJ isn't holding a bunch of letters of a different opinion? I was looking at the letters to the editor at Stars and Stripes and there have been no opinions about it. My guess is that it will take a while before most troops hear about this and respond.
Considering that the DEMOCRATS have the candidate who has been on the front lines, and considering that most soldiers are apolitical , especially when they are at war, and considering that since they are there they havnt been following a great deal of what Bush has done domestically, I don't think anyone here is afraid . Every single male member of my family has been in the military, and they all intend to vote for John kerry. That doesnt mean all soldiers will, and for anyone to use the military in this fasion is disgusting. http://kerry.senate.gov/high/i/about_accomplishments.jpg As soon as Americans realize how Kerry has served his country, there wont be a thing Republicans will be able to do to stop him. Politcal Depth V. Political shill War hero v. cheerleader public servant v. corporate servant
First, I would like to say that to me this highlights one of the real genuine flaws in GW. People accuse him of all sorts of sinister motives and such, but genuinely I think that most of those can be attributed to Nixon Neophite & aid Donald Rumsfeld, as well as his assistant Cheney, and the tacit approval provided for them by John Ashcroft's willingness to look the other way... But back to the point at hand, I think Bush generally wants to be a good guy, and I think that he made the joke he really didn't understand that it might offend some people. In otherwords, many of GW's mistakes stem from a fundamental inability to understand things from other's points of view. adding to that: In case you haven't quite thought it through, bamaslammer, there are quite a number of differnet cultures in Asia, Africa, and the middle east, and even among these different cultures not everybody is the same. With war in Iraq, for every colateral casualty, there is a mother, a father, brothers and sisters, and perhaps some children. Many of these people don't particularly like the United States, while some of them love us. The ones that would attack us for no reason, however, are limited. Once we kill their family members, though, a significant number of these people will immediately have common cause with those who do want to kill us for no reason. In any case, there are many, many different individuals among them and to treat "them" with the lazy stroke of the intelectual brush that your statement implies, only speeks to an intelectual apathy that the terrorists among the diverse peoples of the world use when they lump all Israelies and Americans together as the "infadels". This is the second genuine flaw I see in Bush, though I think he's worked on this flaw over the past 4 years.
The religious neo-con "conservativism" of Thomas Jefferson: --Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia" --Nicholas F. Gier, University of Idaho From the American Heritage Dictionary - Given the fact that these people lived in a time when most countries were ruled by Kings, and peoples were purged, expelled, or murdered for attempting to worship differently, or for wanting to not pay exorbitant taxes to their rulers, I dare you to look me in the eye, and claim that even the most conservative among these peoples were anything but radical leftist liberals.
As a former Marine, I think I need to address some of the erroneous points in your post. While we are SUPPOSED to be apolitical (we are not allowed to participate in politics except to vote), most of our fighting men are, unfortunately for liberals, are conservative on most issues. Liberal politicians tend to cut our budgets and send us on wasteful "peacekeeping" boondoogles into the wretched wastes of the turd world. They also tend to force "social engineering" upon an institution that challenge the very core values of the military. There are some liberal folks in the military but they are thankfully a minority. Guess you know all of them. As for Americans caring about military service in a candidate, did it matter for Bill Clinton. Apparently not, because the coward got re-elected. Kerry was not a hero. He was barely over there before three minor wounds sent him home. The As for Kerry being a hero, let me leave you with the wise words of another former Marine, who addresses the issue quite well. link Read more from a former Cobra gunship pilot from the Vietnam War and tell me if Kerry is a "hero." He certainly wasn't when he returned from Vietnam- in fact- I'd say he betrayed those he served with by spreading lies in the name of political gain.
Kerry was definitely a hero in one of the most dangerous jobs during Viet Nam. He saved the lives of people who served with him, took personal risk chasing down and killing a man in Viet Nam. He was rewarded for that bravery. To deny his Viet Nam service is nothing but sour grapes from some folks.
OK, but... Well, I mean, someone on the boat said that there was fire from the bank and so we let them have it. But it turned out that it was a bunch of unarmed kids. It wasn't really an atrocity because, you know, it's a thin line, and we meant to get the bad guys, and plus, you know, it's hairy out here, and also, people are going back home and telling everyone that we're murdering innocent people and that maybe we ought not be here in the first place but it's OK, because they're traitors!
The attacks on Kerry's military service from the right wing are particularly despicable and hypocritical. They pretend to honor military service, but it turns out bravery and duty only count if you're a Republican. How else can they rationalize sliming the real service of Kerry and branding Max Cleland as unpatriotic, while defending Bush's spotty (to say the least) military record. They really have no sense of honor.
