[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

I generally agree that John Kerry is an idiot.

I believe though that the context of his statement WAS concerning the state of affairs our country is in and was intended as a criticism of the opportunities our country currently affords those of lower academic achievement.  Kinda like: "Look what is available to you under our current administration; it sucks". 

I think he is seriously dumb if he thought that his 'joke' would achieve it's intended result.  Very very easy to confuse the message he was trying to convey

[/quote]

Wait a sec, are you saying you think he was saying if you don't do well in school you'll end up in the military?

If so, what do you think that might be confused for, as you say in your last paragraph?

BTW, since people joining the military have a higher average education than the public at large, what's your specific point about currently affords those of lower academic achievement?

[/quote]

I think you're stupid if you think Kerry would mean what your implying while trying to get elected.  Give me a break, he's not that dumb (just dumb enough). [/quote]

I'm not implying anything, dude, I'm trying to understand what you are saying Kerry meant. If I've misunderstood your comment, help me out.

You said "...was intended as a criticism of the opportunities our country currently affords those of lower academic achievement.". That's a different take on what he intended than I've heard anywhere else. It sure does sound like you think he's saying the people who end up in Iraq were of "lower academic achievement". And what could that possibly have been confused for that would be even more objectionable?

BTW, and this is a side issue, if that's really what Kerry meant, I'd ask him about the 4.6% unemployment figure and the fact that people joining the service average a higher education level than the public at large.

Mike, 

You are correct... I apologize about the error, having been 31B before I completed OCS...  Now 31A...  Can never get the NCO out of your blood... LOL 

To the rest, I don't mean to be critical of anyone... I've always found it interesting to match a person's point of view when involving the military with whether or not they have served...

Those in the military know what I mean when I say "some people are awfully brave when they are dealing with someone else's life!"  I have a personal problem with the big talkers who talk tough but have never volunteered in defense of their country...  I respect different points of view but don't act all HOOAH!!! just because your military experience is watching "Saving Private Ryan" and now your Movie Muscles are all flexed!!!

J.D. Pendry is a retired Army Command Sergeant Major who writes for Random House.

Jimmy Carter, you're the father of the Islamic Nazi movement.  You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage.  You're the runner-in-chief.

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us.  You got us into a fight with them in Somalia, and then you ran from it.  Your weak-willed responses to the U.S.S. Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers.  Each time you failed to respond adequately they grew bolder, until 9/11.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute.  You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam.  Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact.  You've accused our Soldiers of terrorizing women and children in Iraq.  You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam.  You're a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese.  Iraq, like Vietnam is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken.  You said we can't win militarily in Iraq.  You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof.  And said we should redeploy to Okinawa.  Okinawa John? And the Democrats call you their military expert.  Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You're not a Marine, sir.  You wouldn't amount to a good pimple on a real Marine's ass.  You're a phony and a disgrace.  Run away John.

Dick Durbin (Rush calls him "Turbin"), you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned South East Asia to the Communists.  Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate.  History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us!!   See Dick run.

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Grhaib in front of any available television camera.  Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi's torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news this week, Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrate real torture for you again.  If you truly supported our troops, you'd show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there.  You're a bloated drunken fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs.  To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer, et al ad nauseam. Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we'll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories  about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one United, with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers.  You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country.  Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is.  Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

You are America's "AXIS OF IDIOTS".  Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us.  Self-serving politics and terrorist abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers.  It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists.  Don't ever doubt that.  Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam.  If you want our Soldiers home, as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.  Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism.  Your loyalty ends with self.  I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing.  You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform.  You need to run away from this war, this country.  Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.!

No, Mr. President, you don't get off the hook, either.  Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.  Your Soldiers are dealing with the outside force.  It's your obligation to support them by confronting the  AXIS OF IDIOTS.  America must hear it from you that these Self-centered people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety. Well up a little anger, please, and channel it toward the appropriate target.  You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media.  You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets.  Our Soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot.  They need you to do it now.

AMEN

Copyright J.D. Pendry 2006, Ret Sgt. Major US Army

I think the jist of what he was saying is that the Bush Admin has given all those who don't have many opportunities an option...albeit a worse one.

You know:  "you can always go fight in Iraq if nothing else" (sarcasm implied here)

For those against the war this is akin to saying: If you don't earn scholarships or get into school you can get there through risking your life on a bunk war.

This is definitley the impression I got, although I can see how it was so easily misconstrued.

Again, I am NO shill for Kerry.  To me he's just as big of a terd as Bush.

BondGuy:

You're really buying into this? Dobe, you're smarter than this.

---------------------------------------------

As was mentioned by a Democratic staffer, "Kerry handed the Republicans the '04 election and now he's going to hand them the '06 election, as well".

Yes, I am buying into this. Why? Because his statement is consistent with previous utterings (diarrhea of the mouth). First, starting with his virulent, fictitious testimony against the military during the Vietnam War. Second, with his accusation that American soldiers were breaking into Iraqi homes and abusing women and children. Third, his accusations against our military manning "Gitmo and Abu Garib" prisons. Do you see a pattern here? I do.

I've heard his "utterings" with my own ears, without the diatribe/opinion that the liberal or conservative press love to give, and my opinion is that Kerry should immediately resign, along with Pelosi; afterall, they called for Hastert to resign over Foley.

And I'm neither a Democrat or a Republican.  

[quote=dude]

So do you really believe the Bush Administrations BS about why Iraq? To me it smells of opportunistic hubris as much as Kerry's behavior, if not more.

[/quote] [quote=mikebutler222]You must be joking, dude. You going to come up with some alternative reason now? Lemme guess, oil, right?

Kerry slurred the very troops he served with, while thousands were still in Vietnam in the fight, and he did it to start a political career.

[/quote]

[quote=dude]Nope. Let me quote myself here:

Iraq is a poorly thought out and poorly executed attempt ….[/quote]

Your post doesn’t mention the “BS about why Iraq”. Just what was the “BS about why”?

[quote=dude]

Helping stabalize oil supply might play into it somehow, but I think that's a brazen and short sighted accusation given the bigger prize... [/quote]

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean by this….

[quote=dude]

Yes, John Kerry is an opportunistic ass...so is Bush. [/quote]

Hmmm, still waiting to see the reasoning behind why Bush is an opportunist on Iraq…

[quote=dude]

None of the primary reasons for going to Iraq have ever materialized...connections to Al Queda, WMD etc…[/quote]

The world thought he had WMDs (Democrats were talking about that as early as 1998) and there were connections to AQ. AQ’s former leader (the fat one now taking a dirt nap) was in Iraq before the war began, not a bad reason to suspect a connection.

[quote=dude]It leaves me wondering if Bush was being opportunistic to 'forge' a new middle east? [/quote]

Not interested in reviewing any conspiracy theories. Look to the resolution for going to war in Iraq that Kerry signed for the details.

[quote=dude]Look, if you told me one thing to motivate me to act (maybe that Iraq had WMD's etc...), then I act based on your info. You better believe that your credibility would be lost if I showed up and there was no evidence of your claims. Why is Bush exempt from this?

Maybe because he's a Republican?

[/quote]

Maybe it’s because he was relaying what every intel agency in the world thought, the same thing Clinton was saying in 1998?

On second thought, dude, I’m not interesting in some bizarre theory that “proves” Bush knowingly used incorrect intel info because he really had some alternative reasoning that he didn’t let us in on, and that “proves” he was an opportunist on par with Kerry.

You can have the last gasp on this. In the meantime I’ll find a website that we might all use to send some sort of care package to the kind of people we saw in that great photo.

mikebutler222:

I love these guys....

------------------------------------------------

Mike, I busted-out laughing when I saw this! Thanks for posting it!

[quote=StarsAndStripes]

Mike, 

You are correct... I apologize about the error, having been 31B before I completed OCS...  Now 31A...  Can never get the NCO out of your blood... LOL 

To the rest, I don't mean to be critical of anyone... I've always found it interesting to match a person's point of view when involving the military with whether or not they have served...

Those in the military know what I mean when I say "some people are awfully brave when they are dealing with someone else's life!"  I have a personal problem with the big talkers who talk tough but have never volunteered in defense of their country...  I respect different points of view but don't act all HOOAH!!! just because your military experience is watching "Saving Private Ryan" and now your Movie Muscles are all flexed!!!

[/quote]

I fully respect and thank those idividuals who have served.  I have some very close and dear friends/family serving in Iraq currently. 

One thing I don't understand though is why do I keep hearing the "defending our country" propaganda concerning the Iraq war...we are doing no such thing there, Iraq was not a threat to our 'way of life', yet this is the rallying cry of our armed forces...to defend our way of life.  Maybe Afghanistan and efforts to tackle terrorism are akin to defending our way of life, but Iraq...c'mon.

It's laughable to suggest that Iraq was a threat more worthy of confrontation than North Korea or Iran or any other rogue states...unless you also think that the school bully is justified in beating up the school wimp because he might at some point in the future, possibly fling a spitwad at the bully....which the bully heard from a friend of a friend of a friend.  Maybe because the bully wanted to make an example of the wimp, or maybe convert him to the bully's gang.  Interestingly when we open the wimp's locker...there's nothing to be found.

[quote=StarsAndStripes]

 I have a personal problem with the big talkers who talk tough but have never volunteered in defense of their country...  [/quote]

I say this with all due respect and thanks for your service, but as a former combat arms officer (with the appropriate tabs, wings and badges you can get without a badguy shooting at you), son of a career officer, I have a hard time with anyone, military background or not, who thinks that having been a soldier oneself is a prerequisite for anyone exercising their right of free speech, pro or con, about the military and the use of it.

We wear the uniform FOR free speech, not as a reason to deny it to others or as a precondition to have a right to it ourselves.

Now, give us an address so we can send some creature comforts your way (assuming you’re in the sandbox now).

[quote=dude]

I think the jist of what he was saying is that the Bush Admin has given all those who don't have many opportunities an option...albeit a worse one. [/quote]

That's a  different take than I've heard elsewhere, but I have to say, it's still insulting to people serving.

[quote=dude]This is definitley the impression I got, although I can see how it was so easily misconstrued.[/quote]

Well, if that's what he intended to say, that's as insulting as anything he's been accused of meaning. I think a Kerry-phile would tell you he was trying to say "do well in school or you'll end up the kind of dope who get's the country stuck in Iraq".

The irony that Lurch would make a stupid mistake while trying to make a "Bush is stoopid" joke it too funny for words.

[quote=dude]Again, I am NO shill for Kerry.  [/quote]

Never said you were, dude.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=StarsAndStripes]

 I have a personal problem with the big talkers who talk tough but have never volunteered in defense of their country...  [/quote]

I say this with all due respect and thanks for your service, but as a former combat arms officer (with the appropriate tabs, wings and badges you can get without a badguy shooting at you), son of a career officer, I have a hard time with anyone, military background or not, who thinks that having been a soldier oneself is a prerequisite for anyone exercising their right of free speech, pro or con, about the military and the use of it.

We wear the uniform FOR free speech, not as a reason to deny it to others or as a precondition to have a right to it ourselves.

Now, give us an address so we can send some creature comforts your way (assuming you’re in the sandbox now).

[/quote]

Well said!

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]

Cheney- racked up what was it, eleven deferments? His comment when

asked why he chose not to serve was “I had better things to do” is truly

insulting to troops everywhere and in every time. [/quote]



(Cheney’s Five Draft Deferments During the Vietnam Era Emerge as a

Campaign Issue - nytimes.com)



FWIW Cheney’s quote is "“I had other priorities in the 60’s than military

service.” when the Wash Post asked him about his five deferals when he

was being being reviewed to become the Sec Def.[/quote]



OK, you got me, I paraphrased from memory. Whats the difference?



Mike, at some point I’d like to talk to you about how you find info so

quickly. I’m impressed.

[quote=dude]

One thing I don't understand though is why do I keep hearing the "defending our country" propaganda concerning the Iraq war...we are doing no such thing there, Iraq was not a threat to our 'way of life', yet this is the rallying cry of our armed forces...to defend our way of life.  [/quote]

I know you don't like to hear it, dude, I know it doesn't fit your view of the world, but no less than Al Qeada themselves have said Iraq IS now the central front in what we call the global war on terror, what they call the jihad.

You can make the case that Iraq was just kite-flying kids until we went there, there were no terrorists there, we had no reason to fear that Saddam would give WMD to terrorists pals for use here, all that sort of stuff and we can waste bandwidth arguing about it.

However, right now, as the world exists today, AQ has made it clear where the struggle is.

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]

Cheney- racked up what was it, eleven deferments? His comment when

asked why he chose not to serve was “I had better things to do” is truly

insulting to troops everywhere and in every time. [/quote]



(Cheney’s Five Draft Deferments During the Vietnam Era Emerge as a

Campaign Issue - nytimes.com)



FWIW Cheney’s quote is "“I had other priorities in the 60’s than military

service.” when the Wash Post asked him about his five deferals when he

was being being reviewed to become the Sec Def.[/quote]



OK, you got me, I paraphrased from memory. Whats the difference?

[/quote]



I think the difference is the way Cheney said it wasn’t an insult to thse

who served. Cheney, being older than Bush and Kerry, was in a weird

position for the draft. In the early sixties when he was in prime age, the

percentage being drafted was very low. Later, in '65 when the percentage

got much bigger, he got his final deferment, as a new father and was

older than the average draftee. As you can imagine, like any politician

(well, other than Kerry ) Cheney’s been very careful about giving credit

to those who did serve.



[quote=BondGuy]Mike, at some point I’d like to talk to you about how

you find info so quickly. I’m impressed.[/quote]



Thanks. It’s a combination of familiarity with the details and Google/

dogpile.

I just thought that you were a walking political junkie MikeB…good to know that you’re just like the rest of us.  I would suck to be that geeky. lol

It would suck to be that geeky.  

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=BondGuy]

Kerry was part of a movement, not the movement. The problem today is as I've said, the heat of that moment has passed, the national mood has changed. Kerry, however, remains a lightning rod on this issue. [/quote]

He hasn't gone away, he continues to defend his actions.

[quote=BondGuy]

The bigger issue, and yes there was a bigger issue, was what Kerry and other antiwar activist were trying to accomplish, ending a police action that was killing people on both sides and trying to stop escalation. Today, with 30 years of reflection, can you or anyone give me a valid reason as to why we were in Vietnam? I know the "reasons" we were there. Need a good "why"

[/quote]

Sorry, bondguy, no amount of "what" they were trying to do will change the "how" they did it.

[quote=dude]I just thought that you were a walking political junkie MikeB...[/quote]

I am.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy][ Yet, my belief is that most, not all, recruits are still joining for economic reasons. That is, they have poor job and/or educational prospects at home, so they join to get the leg up that the military offers. In this way, there is a demographic tilt within the military towards the economically disadvantaged. [/quote]

You're wrong.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.c fm

 Indeed, in many criteria, each year shows advancement, not decline, in measurable qualities of new enlistees. For example, it is commonly claimed that the military relies on recruits from poorer neighborhoods because the wealthy will not risk death in war. This claim has been advanced without any rigorous evidence. Our review of Pen­tagon enlistee data shows that the only group that is lowering its participation in the military is the poor. The percentage of recruits from the poorest American neighborhoods (with one-fifth of the U.S. population) declined from 18 percent in 1999 to 14.6 percent in 2003, 14.1 percent in 2004, and 13.7 percent in 2005.

[/quote]

Mike, the Heritage Foundation? Come'on, could you find a more right wing spin, oops, I mean think tank?

OK, out of respect for you I read the linked page. Interesting stuff. A couple of things though and if I read it wrong straighten me out (like I gotta tell you that, huh?):

Middle class family income of about $44,000. Recruiting from this income bracket is up and improving.

Taking my state, NJ, the true poverty level(2x federal poverty level) for a family of four is $38,000. Even that doesn't match the cost of living for the state. As such incomes below that amount qualify for assistance.  So, $44,000 might cut it as middle class in Backwater USA but it ain't doing the trick here in the Northeast. At least not in Jersey.

The median family income in my town is $76,000. The town immediately to our south is at $78,000. Immediately north it's over $80,000. One town to the east is also in the mid seventies. Point being, we classify ourselves as middle class, or upper middle.

Still, with all this income people in our towns struggle to find ways to pay for their children's college education. If families making $75,000 are struggling to send their children to college, I don't think it's a stretch to conclude that it's more of a struggle for people making $44,000. Thus the economically disadvantaged statement I made still holds true. I wasn't talking about a ghetto army. I'm talking about how does one pay for college?

On the issue of opportunities. This is borne out in the top states for recruiting. In no particular order, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska. Extremely rural to undeveloped states with poor job prospects. other areas of recruiting success, rural areas and the south. I don't know if that means rural south or rural and southern states. Either way, rural means no job prospects. I think small town with no other way out of Dodge.

Again, I believe the military to be an excellent career path. Whoever posted it earlier, put the military path in a good perspective. The problem right now is Iraq. Many who sign up now are looking to join the fight. Yet, most of the young people I talk to, and having two teenagers in the house I talk to a lot, won't consider the military because of Iraq. I've even brought it up, asking why not consider it? They look at me and say don't you you know what's going on? My answer is I'm a dad, I know everything, yet I know nothing.

 I was surprised to read that recruiting in the lowest income brackets was down. Need time to cogitate on that.