Setting the Record Straight by misbehaven

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Setting the Record Straight

POSTED BY: MISBEHAVEN
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 18:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2387
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, August 28, 2006 5:15 PM

I've been listening to Republicans attack the patriotism of Democrats since shortly after 9/11. The latest "traitor" is Rep. John "Jack" Murtha.

Here's some background on him. "Murtha left Washington and Jefferson College in 1952 to join the Marine Corps and was awarded the American Spirit Honor Medal for displaying outstanding leadership qualities during training. Murtha rose through the ranks to become a drill instructor at Parris Island and was selected for Officer Candidate School at Quantico, Virginia. Murtha was then was assigned to the Second Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Murtha remained in the Marine Corps Reserves, and ran a small business. In 1959, Murtha, then a captain, took command of the 34th Special Infantry Company, Marine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown. He remained in the Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in the Vietnam War, serving from 1966 to 1967, serving as a battalion staff officer (S-2 Intelligence Section), receiving the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the Reserves as a colonel in 1990, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service Medal." (Wikipedia)

I thought it was time to set the record straight. The following list shows which congressman actually served in the military and which ones didn't. Notice how those who attack the patriotism of others are the ones who never served.

Democrats: The men who "don't support the military and are weak on defense."

* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Paraplegic from war injuries. Served in Congress.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.*
*Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311
.* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.

Republicans: The men sending people to war.

* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Five deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non- combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Vietnam POW, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit,Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem, " although continued in NFL for 8 years as quarterback.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.

Right-Wing Pundits & Preachers
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don't shoot back.)

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 5:49 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Interestingly enough, since the US military went all-volunteer in 1973, the proportion of Republicans in the military has increased continually. At one time, there were a lot more Democrats in the military, which is why a lot of the politicians with military records are Democrats. Currently, however, the US military is mostly a Republican voting block. Why? It probably has something to do with the radical change in ideology of Democrats as they move further and further to the Left. Almost extinct are democrats, like JFK, who were strong on defense. But more and more, these strong on defense democrats are changing their story to the Democratic Party line or they are leaving the Democratic Party. Joe Lieberman is the latest to leave, and he's doing very well as an Independent with lots of Republican votes. There were Republicans waiting in line to vote for him on a non-Democrat ticket.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 5:58 PM

KANEMAN

We have a volunteer army....Well, it's true

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 6:57 PM

MISBEHAVEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Almost extinct are democrats, like JFK, who were strong on defense.

All the Democrats I just listed are strong on defense, they just have differing opinions from the Bush administration as to how to best defend this country. Just because they don't fully support the President doesn't mean they're weak on defense.

Quote:
But more and more, these strong on defense democrats are changing their story to the Democratic Party line or they are leaving the Democratic Party. Joe Lieberman is the latest to leave, and he's doing very well as an Independent with lots of Republican votes. There were Republicans waiting in line to vote for him on a non-Democrat ticket.

The Democratic Party line is not anti-Defense. Again, it just differs from the Republican Party line. And Joe Lieberman didn't leave the Democrats by choice. He continually ingnored his constituency and they axed him in the primary. And of course Republicans are waiting to vote for him, because he stands a better chance of beating the Democratic candidate, even as an Independent, than the Republican candidate does. And Lieberman is still going to support Bush and the Iraq War if he retains his Senate seat.

Right now more than fifty veterans are running as Democrats for Congress and dozens more are running up and down the ticket.

Listed below are some of the Democratic veterans who are running for office. These are veterans from Vietnam, The Persian Gulf War, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

AZ-3: Herb Paine

AZ-8: Jeff Latas

CA-3: Bill Durston

CA-4: Charles Brown

CA-46: Jim Brandt

CO-5: Jay Fawcett

CO-6: Bill Winter

FL-5: Rick Penberthy

FL-6: Dave Bruderly

FL-7: Jack Changon

FL-9: Bill Mitchell

FL-15: Dr. Bob Bowman

GA -1: Jim Nelson

IL-6: Tammy Duckworth

IL-14: John Laesch

IL-16: Dick Auman

IN-3: Tom Hayhurst

KY-2: Mike Weaver

MD-3: Mishonda Baldwin

MD-6: Andrew Duck

MI-8: Jim Marcinkowski

MN-1: Tim Walz

MO-9: Duane Burghard

NH-1: Peter Sullivan

NJ-3: Rich Sexton

NY-23: Bob Johnson

NY-29: Eric Massa

OH-4: Richard Siferd

PA-7: Joe Sestak

PA-8: Patrick Murphy

PA-10: Chris Carney

PA-19: Phil Avillo

SC-3: Lee Ballenger

TX-3: Dan Dodd

TX-5: Charlie Thompson

TX-6: David Harris

TX-10: Ted Ankrum

TX-13: Roger Waun

TX-21: John Couragess

TX-23: Rick Bolanos

VA-Senate: Jim Webb

VA-5: Al Weed

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:00 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
The Democratic Party line is not anti-Defense. Again, it just differs from the Republican Party line. And Joe Lieberman didn't leave the Democrats by choice. He continually ingnored his constituency and they axed him in the primary.

And therein lies the problem. You understand me perfectly. I have no doubt that many Democrats would want to be consistently strong on defense. I simply know that they cannot be and still retain their constituency or their jobs, and therefore they are not. Most of them will bow to their anti-war Liberal voters, which constitutes a major portion of the Democrat vote, other like Leiberman will hold firm to their principles and be voted out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:18 AM

MISBEHAVEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
[BAnd therein lies the problem. You understand me perfectly. I have no doubt that many Democrats would want to be consistently strong on defense.

They are consistently strong on defense, they just have a different idea as how to best defend the country. And so do their voters.

Quote:
I simply know that they cannot be and still retain their constituency or their jobs, and therefore they are not.

Actually, they can be. Being strong on defense does not equate to being pro Iraq War. If anything the war in Iraq is helping terrorism to flourish, not helping to eradicate it.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:13 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

When someone says "strong on defense" I don't know what that means. Does that mean voting for military spending? Supporting a universal draft? Not using the military to impose capitalism on other nations?

Term needs defining.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:30 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
Being strong on defense does not equate to being pro Iraq War.

Many of the Right will never understand this concept; they see attack AS defence, and as a martial arts nut I can see that POV, however, when it is applied to situations not already in progress, 'attack being defence' can be called into serious question.

I believe in a strong, state of the art, second-to-none military, with all the bells and whistles.

I also believe in wise and measured use of same.

Chrisisall Hawk

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:36 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
They are consistently strong on defense, they just have a different idea as how to best defend the country. And so do their voters.

That may be. But most military men and women don’t see it their way. Despite the few veterans on the Democratic side (all honorable men, I’m sure), the truth is that the military vote went +70% to Bush in the last election. And the Military vote consistently goes about three fourths to Republicans, not Democrats.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:36 AM

MISBEHAVEN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
When someone says "strong on defense" I don't know what that means. Does that mean voting for military spending? Supporting a universal draft? Not using the military to impose capitalism on other nations?

I don't think there's a clear definition. It's really a political catch-phrase invented by politicans to help obtain votes ("I'm strong on defense"), and it remains largely open to your own interpretation of what "strong or weak" means. To a Republican, it might mean massive military spending and support for the war in Iraq, which many view as an essential to fighting terrorism and defending our country. To a Democrat, it might mean less military spending, and more funding for border security, law enforcement, intelligence services, port security and an end to the Iraq War, which many see as a drain on resources that acutally weakens our ability to defend this country.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:45 AM

DREAMTROVE

Just going on record as not having attacked Jack Murtha.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:10 PM

MISBEHAVEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Despite the few veterans on the Democratic side (all honorable men, I’m sure),

I think quite a few is more like it.

Quote:
the truth is that the military vote went +70% to Bush in the last election. And the Military vote consistently goes about three fourths to Republicans, not Democrats.

You're assuming the reason it did is entirely related to defense. I'll grant you that for a number of them it is; however, I'm sure that more than a few vote that way for other reasons: social conservatism, fiscal conservatism (although this doesn't hold true for Bush), or simply their own interests. So, there are a multitude of reasons why they may lean more to the Republican side.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:36 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

You’re grasping. Around two third - three fourths of the military claim to approve of Bush’s handling of the Iraq war. It's not a mystery why the military votes Republican.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:08 PM

MISBEHAVEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Around two third - three fourths of the military claim to approve of Bush’s handling of the Iraq war.

Claim is right, because active duty personnel are not allowed to openly criticize the President. Perhaps you've noticed the numbers of high ranking officers (Generals in more than a few cases) that have publicly criticized the President and his administration since leaving the military.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:42 PM

DREAMTROVE

Finn,

For the purpose of objectivity, I'll say that the information that the troops get is definitely biased, and so they're not going to have an objective choice.

That said, I'm not going to disagree with you. There have been some major SNAFUs, such as the attack on Fallujah, which was some Kerry had really pushed for, and specific torture scandals at Abu Ghraib, in particularly the part that didn't make it into our media, where some loose cannons outside the base tortured and killed some kids. And I'd say shock and awe, was over the top, and probably ruined the hearts and minds/rose petal parade idea. But overall this has been much more conservative a campaign than it would be if the democrats were leading it.

And conservative is good. The civilian casualties of this war are much less than they would be with the sort of gung ho, million boots on the ground, agressive territorial conquest that Kerry promised to wage, and that the democrats used in Vietnam and Korea.

Murtha's position is different then it's been painted. He wants to take a more conservative approach, solidifying what we have, redploying. I don't know if I agree with the specifics, but I agree that something on that order would seem helpful. I suspect that the sectarian violence which seems to be the main instability in Iraq could be lessened by a move towards if not a three state solution, a socio political divide along those lines, if we were in between them, I think they'd sit down and talk rather than fight us.

I can't help but notice that for all of rumsfeld's optimism, rumsfeld has been optimistic for a long time, and things continue to get worse re: the civil war. At a certain point, someone has to stand up and say "with all do respect, you're wrong, sir."

There are a lot of people, some of whom are democrats, though many are not, who have come up with ideas of ways to stablize iraq, but it doesn't happen in part because at the top of the chain of command, no one is listening. And if you missed this detail about the administration, you just haven't been paying attention.

I think also, it's necessary to not confuse the three positions democrats are taking. Murtha and various generals, etc., are disagreeing with strategic decisions in made in washington about how to stabilize Iraq. The democratic leadership would like to simply upscale the conflict, because that's what they're all about, and always have been. The peacenik crowd, which is the whipping boy of the democratic party, is all about no war at any cost, and so they want to pull out, and whatever happens in Iraq happens.

I guess if I'm saying anything it's that the whole situation seems to me to be more complicated than it is being portrayed in this debate

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 6:14 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
Claim is right, because active duty personnel are not allowed to openly criticize the President. Perhaps you've noticed the numbers of high ranking officers (Generals in more than a few cases) that have publicly criticized the President and his administration since leaving the military.

Military polls on controversial topics have demonstrated a hesitation by active duty personnel to publicly expression opinions. This doesn’t necessarily invalidate poll results however; many polls have anomalies that must be accounted for. Reservists show the same level or higher level of support for the president’s handling of Iraq. And both active duty and reservist opinions are corroborated by the voting record. I consider my statement sound. Your point is a consideration, however.

Except the part about the Generals; that’s media hype. The truth is that hundreds of Generals and Admirals continue to support the president and if they disagree, it is more likely to be an issue of strategy then substance. And strategy is always something that is hotly debated in the military, particularly by Generals.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE