What did Murtha do in Vietnam? Dyslexia, I take it you were there. Just wondering what unit and where? I'm not trying to argue here, I am genuinely curious on both counts.
Asherman wrote:"Warning: Objects in the mirror may appear smaller than they actually are."
Well, the Democrats aren't likely to go extinct anytime soon, but then they are unlikely to win any major elections either. The Party that claims to be soooooo dedicated to the People is dominated by rich pseudo-intellectuals who still have romantic attachments to Socialism.
you may be right about some of the recent and current crop of dems, asherman.
kerry certainly didn't live up to my expectations. not for the reasons you bring up, but really, for not being the "ass-kicker" his early comments led me to believe he would be. he let the empty and long running attacks of john ellis o'neill (that feud is over 35 years old and was instigated by the nixon administration, as i'm sure you're well aware..) take him out with nary (sic??
) a response. same with many of the other things that he got slimed with.
hillary ? well, read my comment a couple of posts back.
but the only reason that i can come up with for the putting forward of a milquetoast like harry reid and the unsatisfactory pelosi, is to simply have a place holder till enough of the bush administration's actions built up for the majority of americans to catch on that they've been had.
and it does indeed seem like that is happening. too bad folks didn't figure it out a year earlier.
but in semi agreement with your post, it really comes to me like neither party is doing any favors for their constituants.
makes me glad that i'm not a registrant of either party.
Make no mistake about it, partisan politics is a dirty business. The sort of attacks and sliming that we've become used to existed almost from the beginning of the Republic. In fact, today's political battlefields are fought with marshmellos compared to a good many periods in our past. While there are a number of folks who regard President Bush as evil incarnate, he actually compares pretty well with most earlier Presidents; worse than some, better than others.
Washington hated the idea of partisan politics, and believed that the nation should be led by the best and most able regardless of their political opinions. He tried that route, but having Jefferson and Hamilton in the same cabinet was a disaster. Jefferson undermined every initiative the Federalists pursued, and Hamilton was probably already plotting to betray John Adams. Adams hated partisan politics even more than Washington and tried to suppress dissent from political opponents (Jefferson, whose agents spread the most outrageous lies imaginable ... similar to what we hear from the left wing today). When Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans got into office they also tried to crush and silence any political dissent. You see, Jefferson also believed there should only be one Party of excellence, and it was his.
Political warfare became even bloodier as the new representative system evolved. The Civil War was the cumulative product of political competition between the Democratic Party based in the South upon the Plantation Slave economy, and the Whigs/Repbulicans representing New England Industrialists who favored free labor. During the 19th century bums were paid to vote again and again; ballots were manufacured, lost and stolen; political hoodilums decided who could cast a vote; there was no check on the influence of rich and powerful "lobbiests"; bribery was just normal business; candidates were selected in "smoky backrooms", and the list of practices that we would never stand still for today continues page after page. One might ask when was politics ever fairly fought, the answer is never ... though Washington did give it a fair try.
As bad and divisive as the two Party system is, it is the best system anyone has come up with so far. Single Party systems appear to always evolve into tyrannies, and the wellfare of the People and State suffer. When there are three or more relatively powerfull Parties, every administration likely represents a minority of the voting public. The more Parties that contend for power, the smaller the "mandate" and a sitting administration is unable to quickly and effectively respond to challenges. Our system certainly isn't perfect, but I'd never exchange it for any other political system I know of.
It is terribly easy to believe that when your Party has been defeated at the polls that the People are deluded, fooled, or just plain stupid. How could the things you believe to be self-evident be overlooked, if there was neither foul-play or an electorate that is deaf, blind and indifferent? Actually, the People generally get it right. They generally see through the bluster and campaign rhetoric better than the Commentariat. In our entire history the Constitution has never failed, though it has faced may challenges. The People have opted for policies that later were found to be mistaken and wrong-headed, but the system is strong enough to withstand those temporary errors of the People's judgement. Have a little faith.
Only those who fear the truth are calling Murtha a fraud.
Asherman wrote: Have a little faith.
hope is indeed what causes us to get up and breath everyday.
right, dirty partisan tricks are nothing new and a single party sure as hell doesn't hold the branding trademark.
but i would be lying if i said that it didn't really offend me when a guy who actually has spent time in combat (or even serving during peace ) gets absolutely shredded by one of these chickenhawks (sorry, but phrase really does cover it ) because they disagree with him. and yet, they are the same ones who are proud to tell us how, while kerry and murtha were in vietnam, they had "other priorities". even more so when that type of dude is running around shouting " grrrrrrr! go get 'em boys!".
sh*t.. a
lot of guys had "other priorities". i know i did. somehow when i made similar comments, it received a much different response than "good for you sonny, we need guys like you to go into politics" or what have you. nope, my 18th came around and i got my friendly reminder to register for the draft. along with a lot of other guys who had "other priorities". luckily, things were winding down and was classified 1H. but considering that the action began as i entered kindergarden, it made for a rather nerve racking adolesence. obviously, i wasn't real keen on the vietnam war.
dunno, i just find it fully hypocritical to hype people up to do something that you were unwilling to do and went to great lengths to avoid.
but as you say, have a little faith. and i do. the pendulum does swing in 2 directions.
The allegations that Murtha's service record is suspect apparently hinge on the question of whether he "deserved" a couple of Purple Hearts. His wounds it seems weren't terribly serious, but then qualification for the award is only that the injury occur in combat. Plenty of room for disagreement and interpretation. What seems to be lost in the dust raised over a relatively minor matter is that Col. Murtha won both Bronze and Silver Stars. Field Grade officers do tend to win decorations out of proportion to the degree of real danger they face, but the Silver Star isn't just handed out for "being there". Col. Murtha was courageous in the field of battle, but even more important is his repeated moral courage while serving in the Congress.
I'm sure the man has had his weak moments, and has made mistakes. His opinion in military matters is deserving of serious consideration, but it is no more infallable than others. Having served 37 years in the Corps, Murtha intimately knows the hearts of fighting men. His service on various Congressional Committees has given him insights into the real and political costs of providing a strong military force for the country. The same can be said of Sen. McCain and other members of the Congress, yet they don't always agree on what is the best thing to do.
The opinions of professional military are also worthy of serious consideration, but not all opinions are of equal weight. The opinions of a supply sergeant isn't the same as the opinion of a private in a rifle company that has been in action for months. The opinions of enlisted personel is limited to a very, very small picture of any operation, much less the larger strategic situation. General Officers tend to know more about the enemy's order of battle than most people below the rank of O-6. Who is more competent to design military operations than ranking professional military officers under the guidance of civilian authority? A civilian intelligence analyst sitting in comfortable room at NASA probably knows more about enemy capability and intentions than almost anyone else. All of these folks have a tiny little piece of a large complex picture, and the potential for misinterpretation is very great even if one has a lot of those little pieces available. Much will always be unknown, based on assumptions and tainted by the viewpoint of the observer.
Where is the best, most complete picture likely to be? The answer is the Defense Department, the President's top advisors, and a small circle of Congressmen and Senators with special access. That is as it should be, it would be very foolish to tell the enemy what we know and how we know it. Calls for perfect openess would be the height of folly. Everyone else is just guessing and basing their opinions on whatever small knowledge they might have access to. Most protestors haven't a clue about what they are protesting, nor the likely consequences of the policies they insist MUST be followed.
Congressman Murtha has valuable insights, but his opinions are still limited and subject to error.
Thank you, Asherman. Your well-reasoned and thought-out comments are always a pleasure to read. An added bonus for me is that they also have a very calming effect.
Yeah, everyone, but everyone, knows that this is politics....the only thing this administration knows. You can bloviate as long as you want about medals and who and why they were earned, but there ain't too many on the right side that earned them and they fear the truth. Murtha has the ear of the military and the Pentagon and has for a long time. This man cannot be "Swiftboated" .....Sorry about that as they say in Vietnam.
Asherman wrote:but the Silver Star isn't just handed out for "being there". Col. Murtha was courageous in the field of battle, but even more important is his repeated moral courage while serving in the Congress.
I'm sure the man has had his weak moments, and has made mistakes. His opinion in military matters is deserving of serious consideration, ... The same can be said of Sen. McCain and other members of the Congress, yet they don't always agree on what is the best thing to do.
Congressman Murtha has valuable insights, but his opinions are still limited and subject to error.
i agree with most of what you say here, and surprise(!), even the part about protestors in a small way. no-one is infallible.
still, as you say murtha (and mccain) does deserve some respect and consideration without being immediately demonized as, of all things, a coward.
that word flows all too quick and easy these days (often against those who've proven that they are not ) from the lips of those who declined repeatedly to take that test in combat.
and that is what i'm getting at, asherman.
to me there's a big difference between being "anti-war" and being noisily "all for war; as long as i don't have to do it".
the first, i can respect. the other simply offends me.
-----
btw, regarding the pentagon's best qualified to make military decisions;
aren't guys like murtha and mccain, and even kerry, simply a microcosm reflective of the pentagon's group think ?
Asherman wrote:
It is terribly easy to believe that when your Party has been defeated at the polls that the People are deluded, fooled, or just plain stupid. How could the things you believe to be self-evident be overlooked, if there was neither foul-play or an electorate that is deaf, blind and indifferent? Actually, the People generally get it right.
It not a matter of "your party" being defeated. It's a matter of a party getting into power by lying, cheating on a 'small' scale, and possibly on a larger scale. It's about a party that stole 9-11 and turned it into a big boogeyman.
Were people deluded, fooled or just plain stupid? - some were all three of these, but a whole lot of them, at least one.
Will the American people get it right in 2006? Everyone hopes so. Then no one will have to wait until 2008 for there is a damn good chance the big I will solve the problem.
Should be happening now if politics were fair. Who knows, maybe it will?
... there's a big difference between being "anti-war" and being noisily "all for war; as long as I don't have to do it"; the first, I can respect, the other simply offends me.
We seem to be in agreement on that. However, who is it that is clearly "all for war, as long as I don't have to do it"? Of the A2K conservatives none that I know of are "all for war", and most have served in the military. Most who have served are reluctant warriors, but recognize the necessity of beiing able to wage war. Soldiers left to their own devices would hardly ever willingly go to war. That choice in our system is left to the elected officials and the Executive Branch, and the Constitution is structured that way purposefully. Individuals and groups can disagree, but (not being elected) the policies are not theirs to dictate. Dissenting groups have to persuade a majority of the electorate that they can govern the nation better, and until that time all they can do is kibbitz.
"btw, regarding the pentagon's best qualified to make military decisions; aren't guys like murtha and mccain, and even kerry, simply a microcosm reflective of the pentagon's group think?"
No, I don't think so. First of all, I don't believe that the Pentegon is nearly so unanimous in its thinking as people might suppose. The military has changed a lot since most of us served. After Vietnam U.S. military thinking and doctrine underwent years of self-questioning and re-thinking. Older officers with out-dated thinking retired, and were replaced by younger, better educated and trained officers open to new ways of thinking. Our military doctrines are much different today than they were at the end of the Cold War, just a bit over a decade ago. Technology and the development of modern ways of making war has caused a revolution in the way things are now done. Not so long ago logistics was the dismal science of war, today it has been transformed. Todays military leadership is the best trained and most professional cadre ever, in any army. Competition for promotion has screened out officers that in the past might have worn stars just by outliving the competition. There are non-coms today who fill positions and are as capable as the O-2's and O-3's that previously would have been assigned. The Old Soldiers now in Congress, the Administration, and the Commentariat are way behind the curve.
Second, the military for the most part is quite happy to remain aloof from politics. In the military discipline, obedience, and the Chain-of-Command are in a way comforting and protective of officers. Once you step outside that structure and into the world of politics, there be chaos and dragons. Most military are concerned with much more practical things: Staying alive, keeping your men alive and being capable of successfully performing any mission you are given. Direct, unvarnished honesty is valued because strategic and tactical planning based upon parsed half-truths is dangerous. "Give us a clear mission, the resources we believe we need, and then stand back." The professional military knows and accepts the fact that there will be casualties, that mistakes will be made, and that things will go awry. For instance, studies at the Command College have shown that in previous wars friendly-fire casualties may have been as high as 20%. (No I don't have the exact citation at my fingertips. Look at past issues of Parameters, the Quarterly Journal of the school. Try looking in issues between 1995 and 1999. I discontinued my subscription about that time, so it was earlier than 2000. BTW, Parameters is one of the finest sources one could ask for in understanding current military thinking and doctrine in the U.S. Army).
DontTreadOnMe wrote:mysteryman wrote:DTOM,
Quote:bayh may have a decent chance. anything about that guy, mark warner from virginia ?
Warner may have a good chance.
There are many things about Warner that I support,but I dont know enough about him to say one way or another.
I am going to wait till I see who the frontrunners before I make a decision,the only thing I know for sure is that I will vote against Hillary if she runs,I just dont trust here at all.
i dunno. i think she'd probably do a good job. the armed services committee has a pretty high opinion of her. but, the wife and i have talked about it and don't think she can win. too many folks are suspect of her.
i may have forgotten, but has anything solid ever been brought against her ?
Sorry I havent answered sooner.
I dont remember anything specific against her,except for her trying to nationalize one seventh of the economy with her screwball healthcare plan.
That and her "right wing conspiracy" comment when Bill got busted.
Another person I have been looking at,and like what I see,is Senator Allen from Va.
He is a republican though,so I know that the left on here will automatically discount him.
Of course,to be honest,I think the left would denounce God if he ran as a republican.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:mysteryman wrote:DTOM,
Quote:bayh may have a decent chance. anything about that guy, mark warner from virginia ?
Warner may have a good chance.
There are many things about Warner that I support,but I dont know enough about him to say one way or another.
I am going to wait till I see who the frontrunners before I make a decision,the only thing I know for sure is that I will vote against Hillary if she runs,I just dont trust here at all.
i dunno. i think she'd probably do a good job. the armed services committee has a pretty high opinion of her. but, the wife and i have talked about it and don't think she can win. too many folks are suspect of her.
i may have forgotten, but has anything solid ever been brought against her ?
Sorry I havent answered sooner.
I dont remember anything specific against her,except for her trying to nationalize one seventh of the economy with her screwball healthcare plan.
That and her "right wing conspiracy" comment when Bill got busted.
Another person I have been looking at,and like what I see,is Senator Allen from Va.
He is a republican though,so I know that the left on here will automatically discount him.
Of course,to be honest,I think the left would denounce God if he ran as a republican.
Asherman wrote:... there's a big difference between being "anti-war" and being noisily "all for war; as long as I don't have to do it"; the first, I can respect, the other simply offends me.
We seem to be in agreement on that. However, who is it that is clearly "all for war, as long as I don't have to do it"? Of the A2K conservatives none that I know of are "all for war", and most have served in the military. Most who have served are reluctant warriors, but recognize the necessity of beiing able to wage war. .....
right. i don't think i've ever spoken with a combat vet who was thrilled at the prospects of war. very few have been overly anxious to talk about their experiences. "best left back there where it belongs.."
my comments weren't directed specifically at a2k'ers, btw. although there are 1 or 2 who seem to blow the trumpet real loud while the cavalry rides away. but we don't need to go there. i suspect we both have some in mind. :wink:
"btw, regarding the pentagon's best qualified to make military decisions; aren't guys like murtha and mccain, and even kerry, simply a microcosm reflective of the pentagon's group think?"
No, I don't think so. First of all, I don't believe that the Pentegon is nearly so unanimous in its thinking as people might suppose.
umm, that was my point, in a roundabout way. believe it's best that way as long as someone, somewhere has a final say. having more information and pov's is better in the long run. very, very few people can think of everything and every angle.
it really is amazing how much the military has changed, at least from my view here on the outside. thanks for the heads up on "parameters". i'll look into it.
mysteryman wrote:DontTreadOnMe wrote:mysteryman wrote:DTOM,
Quote:bayh may have a decent chance. anything about that guy, mark warner from virginia ?
Warner may have a good chance.
There are many things about Warner that I support,but I dont know enough about him to say one way or another.
I am going to wait till I see who the frontrunners before I make a decision,the only thing I know for sure is that I will vote against Hillary if she runs,I just dont trust here at all.
i dunno. i think she'd probably do a good job. the armed services committee has a pretty high opinion of her. but, the wife and i have talked about it and don't think she can win. too many folks are suspect of her.
i may have forgotten, but has anything solid ever been brought against her ?
Sorry I havent answered sooner.
I dont remember anything specific against her,except for her trying to nationalize one seventh of the economy with her screwball healthcare plan.
That and her "right wing conspiracy" comment when Bill got busted.
Another person I have been looking at,and like what I see,is Senator Allen from Va.
He is a republican though,so I know that the left on here will automatically discount him.
Of course,to be honest,I think the left would denounce God if he ran as a republican.
would god really
do that ?!?!
i've heard a little things here and there from allen. george allen, right ? i'd have to look more into him to have an opinion yea or nay.
but, c'mon mystery. it is kind of humorous that the republicans were goin' off not too long ago about a "vast left wing conspiracy", isn't it ?
they do it to each other. it's part of the game.
i don't know anything for sure... but i have a feeling that david drier is going to put himself forward at some point.
I dont know enough about Drier to say one way or another.
And yes,I was talking about George Allen.
Another Dem I would vote for,besides Bayh,is Ben Nelson from Nebraska.
I have been impressed with him for quite a while.
But like I said,and I will stick to it,if Evan Bayh runs on the Dem side,I will support him 100%.
I think this is an extremely important publication for anyone who wants to stay abreast of the thinking in the top echelan military. Students at the War College are generally O-6 and are very likely to become General Officers before ending their careers. To be accepted as an O-5 is a very great honor.
Parameters, the Quarterly publication of the U.S. Army War College
I miss my subscription, but get most of what I'm interested in now on-line. BTW Parameters is only one of many fine publications dealing with the military and military doctrine that is available in un-classified editions.
mysteryman wrote:I dont know enough about Drier to say one way or another.
And yes,I was talking about George Allen.
Another Dem I would vote for,besides Bayh,is Ben Nelson from Nebraska.
I have been impressed with him for quite a while.
But like I said,and I will stick to it,if Evan Bayh runs on the Dem side,I will support him 100%.
from what i can tell, drier is more hot-head than anything else. not a good sign in a persomn of any political persuasion...
allen.. like i said before, i'll need to look into him more. but i did also say that we need to be flexible.
ben nelson. also, have heard some, but will need more.
give me a bit of time and we can come back to this, okay ?
Asherman wrote:I think this is an extremely important publication for anyone who wants to stay abreast of the thinking in the top echelan military. Students at the War College are generally O-6 and are very likely to become General Officers before ending their careers. To be accepted as an O-5 is a very great honor.
Parameters, the Quarterly publication of the U.S. Army War College
I miss my subscription, but get most of what I'm interested in now on-line. BTW Parameters is only one of many fine publications dealing with the military and military doctrine that is available in un-classified editions.
thanks ash, all of the topics look pretty interesting. i'm especially interested in the take on the saudis..
