Warrior of convenience? Like it was convenient to sit in an open swift boat running up and down hostile enemy territory and getting shot at on a daily basis? Or like it was convenient to use your daddy’s connections to fly airplanes in the national gaurd over Texas while your generation was dying and understanding what war really was, in human terms on the other side of the globe?
man, j… I hope you and I never have to serve in a war. Have you ever been in a war? Have you ever been shot at or seen your loved ones shot at? War is the worst thing on earth. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. And if I disagree with someone’s politics, I’m not going to dishonor the fact that they put their lives on the line in hostile enemy territory no matter what the reason and no matter what thier level of agreement.
There’s a whole generation of men and women in Iraq right now getting shot at and getting blown up. Many of them are giving this country their lives. Some of them are die-hard Bush suporters. Many of them are not. Some want to be there and some don’t… but I hope I never look back and demean their combat service because I don’t agree with their politics. These people LITERALLY put their lives on the line every day… I mean they get shot at on a regular basis… they drive by roadside bombs… they perform operations that can get them killed every day. This is not an overstatement, like it has been for the last 20 years in the media. This is more real than it has been in 30 years.
It was no different 30 years ago in Vietnam. Actually, it was different – the situation was worse there with a tougher situation and more casualties. So if someone comes back AFTER putting their life on the line day in and day out.. and disagrees with the war after being there, it seems pointedly UNpatriotic and extremely naive to me to demean their service and call them any less of a person or soldier for opinions formed through that experience.
Note that I am not making any statements about either canidate’s current political positions, but I am really beyond understanding at how a combat veteran like Kerry can be a “warrior of convenience” while Bush dodged combat through political connections and then pulls the “mission accomplished” stunt at the beginning of the Iraq war. THAT, more than anything, is being a warrior of convenience. Convince me otherwise.

Sorry, it seems my choice of words implies something I didn’t intend. What I meant to say was that Kerry touted his Vietnam experience as a convenient talking point and to prove that he was capable of being commander-in-chief, yet he denigrated both the war and the men who fought beside him–he used his service in the military or his position as a veteran as a tool of political convenience. THAT is what I mean, though I can fully see why you would think otherwise.
Now, as for Bush’s service, I don’t deny that he served in far less strenuous circumstances. But it was far from danger-free, and Bush DID contribute, albeit in a different manner to the war effort. Bush never dodged his service, and his record defends his abilities and his willingness to fly in a combat zone, IF he had been asked. Not all are asked to fight. Not all who can fight do. And it’s not always because they are cowards, despite how the media might portray them.

I was careful to choose my words to say that Bush avoided _combat_ service. And while there are other reasons to contribute in other capacities, it’s hard to argue that Bush wasn’t simply dodging the draft. The conservatives gave Clinton hell for his draft-dodging. It’s obvious that politics is driving the double-standard.
I think your statements in the first paragraph show the problem with conservative America’s reaction to Kerry. Have you considered that Kerry’s Vietnam experience actually made him MORE capable of being commander-in-chief? When you see your friends dying around you because of an idiot President’s (Johnson) choices and a secretary of defense that bungled it all, perhaps it makes you think twice before jumping into war. I won’t even talk about the obvious irony here. I think it was absolutely appropriate for Kerry to toute his Vietnam experience even if he disagreed w/ the war.
And to say that Kerry was “denigrating” the men who fought with him is rediculous. Is trying to end the war so more of them don’t die denigration? You’ve been watching too many swift boat veterans for lying ads.
Sorry man, I don’t think your word choice is the problem here.

Actually, I never saw any of the Swift Boat ads ;-) I’m going by what I know of Kerry’s post-combat statements to the 1972 Senate Hearings Committee, his anti-war rallies participation. His checkered combat record might also be relevant here, but you seem to think the Swift Boat vets were lying, though you give no proof of that (neither has anyone who’s called ‘em liars, incidentally).
Nevertheless, I COMPLETELY disagree with the notion that combat automatically makes one more qualified to be commander-in-chief. Despite combat experience, Kerry’s actions post-Vietnam lead me (and many other voters, I’d remind you) to believe he was far less capable a war-time president, and whether you’re willing to acknowledge it or not, we ARE in a war. Not a conventional one, I’ll grant you, but even unconventional warfare can produce conventional fighting. Would Kerry be willing to carry the fight to another’s door? No. Because he doesn’t believe war is an answer. To him, the UN is the answer (and it’s done a hell of a job so far).
The problem is, C, that you and I disagree on the fundamental premises behind the war in Iraq and the overall war on terror, and more ideologically, the war to win people’s minds and hearts in the Middle East.
Politics is perception. It’s a dirty world and it’s a dirty viewpoint, but it’s the fargin’ truth of it. Maybe Kerry could have been a good President. But he gave the impression that he would have made a middling manager of state, not a President-capital-P. He exuded the French perfume of white-flag diplomacy three and four years after the UN made it clear it was too hamstrung by bribes from Saddam’s own coffers to make a move. Kerry was indecisive, and he was unfocused, and he never showed strength of bilateralism.
And this perception sprang, in part, from his activities after leaving the Vietnam war, whereas his constant campaign rhetoric was all about Vietnam and how he proved himself a warrior and a leader and even a hero. It didn’t jive, and it didn’t wash with the voters. The last election was about the war. Kerry just never knew it. And that’s why he lost. And that’s why he would have made a poor commander-in-chief.
As for Bush, argue that he dodged the draft. It doesn’t wash. And it’s frankly dishonouring to hundreds of thousands of National Guardsmen like him who also never saw combat to imply such a thing. The records I’ve read show Bush did his duty responsibly and excelled in his service as a fighter pilot. Excuse me if I’m more inclined to trust military records over a Blacksburg citizen’s opinion. No offense, but what you’re selling doesn’t hold water.

Dude, you’re changing the premise of what I’m arguing about. I’m not arguing combat will necessarily make one a better commander. (But I’m arguing that it could.) I’m not arguing anything about the war in Iraq. I’m arguing that you need to be more open-minded to the sacrifices that people make – especially those who’s political viewpoints you don’t agree with. You’re calling Kerry a warrior of convenience because he disagreed with the war after serving there, but then used his combat experience as a running point. All I’m saying is that it’s disrespectful for you to make that statement. His experiences still counted even if you disagree. And until you’re in a similar situation, how do you know how your views will be shaped and molded? You can still disagree with him, but to call him a warrior of convenience because he was against the war is shortsighted. Being against the war is a valid position, as is talking about your combat experiences as a politician. To be fair, NOT being in a war is just as valid. But don’t invalidate someone’s combat service.
When George Bush I was running against Clinton in 1992, THERE was a man you could respect. Bush I fought (in WWII) when his country called on him. Clinton did not. Likewise, Kerry fought when his country called on him. Bush used connections (the letters are out there – i’ve seen them on the evening news) to land the NG position to avoid combat (ie: to avoid the war). And if you want to talk about checkered combat, I think it’s only fair to talk about Bush’s checkered service records.
And you know I mean no disrespect to anyone in the NG, but it’s difficult to argue that people weren’t trying to avoid combat by joining the Guard at that time in history. Bush was one of them. If anything, it’s the actions of these combat-dodgers that dishonors the National Gaurd, not me pointing it out.

C, I’m fully aware of the sacrifices that war requires. My little brother Noel is serving in the Army right now, and spent a year in Iraq. He’s set to go back there in about six months. I know a little of what he’s gone through, and I know what military men and women go through on a regular basis when in combat.
I’m not arguing that his service was invalid or useless or cowardly–on the contrary, I respect Kerry’s service in Vietnam.
I’m not being disrespectful to his experience; I’m merely stating that his manipulation of it to appear that he is both a strong military leader and against the very conflict that gave him that experience is like winning the lottery and then denoucing the lottery system as corrupt and venal. Either it’s counterintuitive and I’m just too thick to “get” the fine points of the argument, or it’s a politically expedient and convenient way of attracting swing voters.
As far as the NG stuff goes–I’m sure some people joined to avoid combat. But Bush was NOT one of them. Here’s proof:
“There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and I) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren’t getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys. The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush’s tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one’s life.”
– From a letter by Col. William Campenni
Bush joined the Guard for a 6 year term. If you are drafted, you only have to serve 2 years. Bush didn’t need to pull strings to get into a jet fighter unit, since pilots were in demand…FOR THE WAR. Jets required a greater time commitment than normal Guard postings. Pilots from the unit that Bush joined were being sent to Vietnam.
All the publications that have researched this have concluded that there is NO evidence that he used any influence to get into the Guard, and indeed, he joined a unit that was serving in Vietnam at the time.
From aerospaceweb.org:
“Nevertheless, we have established that the F-102 was serving in combat in Vietnam at the time Bush enlisted to become an F-102 pilot. In fact, pilots from the 147th FIG of the Texas ANG were routinely rotated to Vietnam for combat duty under a program called ‘Palace Alert’ from 1968 to 1970. Palace Alert was an Air Force program that sent qualified F-102 pilots from the ANG to bases in Europe or southeast Asia for periods of three to six months for frontline duty. Fred Bradley, a friend of Bush’s who was also serving in the Texas ANG, reported that he and Bush inquired about participating in the Palace Alert program. However, the two were told by a superior, MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were not yet qualified since they were still in training and did not have the 500 hours of flight experience required. Furthermore, ANG veteran COL William Campenni, who was a fellow pilot in the 111th FIS at the time, told the Washington Times that Palace Alert was winding down and not accepting new applicants.
As he was completing training and being certified as a qualified F-102 pilot, Bush’s squadron was a likely candidate to be rotated to Vietnam. However, the F-102 was built for a type of air combat that wasn’t seen during that conflict, and the plane was withdrawn from southeast Asia in December 1969. The F-102 was instead returned to its primary role of providing air defense for the United States. In addition, the mission of Ellington AFB, where Bush was stationed, was also changing from air defense alert to training all F-102 pilots in the US for Air National Guard duty. Lt. Bush remained in the ANG as a certified F-102 pilot who participated in frequent drills and alerts through April of 1972…By this time, the 147th Fighter Wing was also beginning to transition from the F-102 to the F-101F, an updated version of the F-101B used primarily for air defense patrols. Furthermore, the war in Vietnam was nearing its end and the US was withdrawing its forces from the theater. Air Force personnel returning to the US created a glut of active-duty pilots, and there were not enough aircraft available to accommodate all of the qualified USAF and ANG pilots. Since USAF personnel had priority for the billets available, many of the Air National Guard pilots whose enlistments were nearly complete requested early release. The ANG was eager to fulfill these requests because there was not enough time to retrain F-102 pilots to operate new aircraft before their enlistments were up anyway. Bush was one of those forced out by the transition, and he was honorably discharged as a first lieutenant in October 1973, eight months before his six-year enlistment was complete. Bush had approximately 600 flight hours by the time he completed his military service.
While Bush did not see combat in Vietnam, it is also obvious that he was not seeking a way to avoid the risk of being sent to Vietnam. At the time he was training to be an F102 pilot, ANG units and that aircraft type were based in Vietnam.”
Make of that what you will.

sigh. we must both be dense or neither of us can write well. We’re arguing in circles. Let’s drop the draft thing for a moment. I disgree w/ your assessment that to denounce the war that gave you the experience is counter-intuitive. If it was a bad war or if that’s what it takes to take war more seriously, then so be it. Why is that so hard to understand?
I tell you what, since no one besides the 2 of us is following this thread, let’s just settle it (non-violently, of course) at the Cellar tonight over a cigar and couple pints of Guiness! :) You ARE going out tonight, right?