# President Bush to Receive Purple Heart Medal



## michaeledward (Apr 23, 2007)

Mr. William Thomas, of Copperas Cove, Texas, received a purple heart for injuries sustained in the Vietnam War. He was shot with a 50 caliber round to his lung and shoulder. 

Mr. Thomas is going to present President Bush with his Purple Heart medal for "emotional wounds and scars" the President has received. He said, "I feel the President deserved one."

http://www.kdhnews.com/archives/results.aspx?sid=15367&q=purple+heart&t=def


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 23, 2007)

Well it's the chaps right to do that if he so wishes.

But I have to say that the thread title made me oddly irate .


----------



## tellner (Apr 23, 2007)

He should give it to an unemployed vet who had his legs blown off and brain pulped. The poor SOB could pawn it for a mortgage payment.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 23, 2007)

Js Fg Ct.


----------



## Ping898 (Apr 23, 2007)

Not something I agree with, but it is his right to do so.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 23, 2007)

Certainly, Mr. Thomas has the right to do with his medal what he wishes. Although, I do recall that some have questioned the right, or at least the proprietariness of John Kerry, and other soldiers and veterans to do with their medals as he / they wish. 

But, should the "Commander-in-Chief" accept the medal?


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 23, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> Well it's the chaps right to do that if he so wishes.
> 
> But I have to say that the thread title made me oddly irate .



Me too, brought to mind Maj. Burns getting one for slipping in the mud on the way out of Hotlips tent...


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> But, should the "Commander-in-Chief" accept the medal?


 
Exactly.  I think he's so desperate to find allies, he'll do anything.

But esp. considering how he managed to dodge any dangerous service activity when he had the chance to serve honarably, I think it's a pretty bad picture if he accepts it.

I think it's a tremendous insult to the real soldiers who are in harm's way.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 23, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Exactly.  I think he's so desperate to find allies, he'll do anything.
> 
> But esp. considering how he managed to dodge any dangerous service activity when he had the chance to serve honarably, I think it's a pretty bad picture if he accepts it.




But... he has a soldier suit....

http://www.twatti.com/?p=10

:lol:


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Certainly, Mr. Thomas has the right to do with his medal what he wishes. Although, I do recall that some have questioned the right, or at least the proprietariness of John Kerry, and other soldiers and veterans to do with their medals as he / they wish.


 
In John Kerry's case the story goes he later admitted they weren't his own medals he threw over the White House gate. Is this accurate?




> But, should the "Commander-in-Chief" accept the medal?


 
No.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 23, 2007)

Ya remember when you were in kindergarten, and if you had some form of competition, all the kids got a medal for participating, so that nobody got their feelings hurt and started crying...?

my god, I would THINK the president would have grown up at least that much...


----------



## crushing (Apr 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> But, should the "Commander-in-Chief" accept the medal?


 
Could the President be any more insulting than to refuse such a precious gift and gesture from an injured war veteran?

Well, other than accept the medal?


----------



## tellner (Apr 23, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> But... he has a soldier suit....
> 
> http://www.twatti.com/?p=10



True. But this one is his favorite...


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 23, 2007)

crushing said:


> Could the President be any more insulting than to refuse such a precious gift and gesture from an injured war veteran?
> 
> Well, other than accept the medal?


 
Agreed. 

This is something of a sore spot for me as last summer following a death in the family and the dispersal of personal effects that entails, I was entrusted with my Uncle Ricky's Purple Heart.

I call him Uncle Ricky because he would have been my uncle, he was killed nine years before I was born outside Cu Chi in 1969( whoever said "What you don't know won't hurt you" obviously never heard of snipers).

That presentation box contains his Purple Heart, the corresponding campaign ribbon to be worn on the Class A dress uniform, his US Army name tape and unit patches from his unit (25th Infantry).

That medal , in that box, on my dresser?  That isn't MINE. It's entrusted to me till it's time to pass it on to the next family member.

So when I see them casually bandied about like this when my Uncle gave everything he had for his, you can see why it makes my teeth hurt some.


----------



## Brother John (Apr 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Certainly, Mr. Thomas has the right to do with his medal what he wishes. Although, I do recall that some have questioned the right, or at least the proprietariness of John Kerry, and other soldiers and veterans to do with their medals as he / they wish.
> 
> But, should the "Commander-in-Chief" accept the medal?


Yes. I think he should.
I'm not making a judgement call on wether he should have one, but rejecting it would be....I think.....a bad move and impolite to the person who EARNED it and WANTED you to have it.

...aren't there bigger issues than this? This is pretty darn inconsequential isn't it?
I'm not defending the President. I personally am very disapointed with President Bush...
but there's lots of other issues that you could go after him for. What this solidier has chosen to do with his medal Should fly under everyones radar. It should only be important to HIM I'd think.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Tames D (Apr 23, 2007)

tellner said:


> True. But this one is his favorite...


That is hilarious 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 23, 2007)

Andy Moynihan 

As I understand it, you are correct. The medals that John Kerry threw back were not his medals. They were given to him for the purpose of him throwing them back. 

Crushing, 

You posit an interesting question. 

The Purple Heart is given for : 


> Being wounded or killed in any action against an enemy of the United States or as a result of an act of any such enemy or opposing armed forces


 
Were the President to refuse to accept the gift, he would be offending a veteran. By accepting the gift, in the spirit offered; for _emotional wounds and scars_, is he diminishing the spirit of the award to the other recipients? 

And, although Mr. Thomas does not indicate who might have inflicted those emotional wounds and scars, the tenor of the article is that they are inflicted by the President's political adversaries. Is equating the 'loyal opposition' (a traditional term for the other political party in our two party system) with "an enemy of the United States" appropriate? 


Brother John,

So far, I don't believe any of my posts in this thread have been an attack on the President. There is no 'go after' involved. I am relaying a news story. My "powder is dry" on this topic. 

So far, this news story has involved Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thomas' congressman, Representative John Carter (R-TX), the President of the United States and the Killeen Daily Herald (Killeen, Texas). 

As for bigger issues out there ... quite probably. A good source would be the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for America. I think they have some interesting reporting on emotional and mental health wounds suffered by our troops ... www.iava.org


----------



## Brother John (Apr 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Brother John,
> 
> So far, I don't believe any of my posts in this thread have been an attack on the President. There is no 'go after' involved. I am relaying a news story. My "powder is dry" on this topic.
> 
> ...


Guess I didn't mean to make it sound like you were 'attacking' really.
It's simply a gracious gesture (the offer of the medal) toward a man that doesn't deserve it. (it's earned for pains/harm in combat serving your country. Pres. Bush hasn't suffered that.)
I think it shows a deep heart on the warriors part though. His intentions seem good.

Have a good one
Your Brother
John


----------



## Phoenix44 (Apr 24, 2007)

I think Bush should get a medal.  After all, he awarded George Tenet the Medal of Freedom for screwing up the intelligence leading up to the Iraq War ("It'll be a slam dunk"); to Tommy Franks for screwing up the plans for the Iraq War ("We'll only need 140,000 troops"); and to L. Paul Bremer for screwing up the reconstruction of Iraq.  So yes, Bush deserves a medal as much as these guys did.


----------



## matt.m (Apr 24, 2007)

Wow,

I am 70% disabled following my stint in the USMC.  Now, I never asked to receive or accept what wasn't deserved.  That is all I am going to say about this.

I mean, emotional stress?  For what?  I am not entirely understanding what this man seems to be thinking.  Actually, to give away awards and decorations that one has earned is frowned upon.

Passing down as in a family heirloom is expected, but awarding to someone else? Not valid.


----------



## Mariachi Joe (Apr 24, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Exactly. I think he's so desperate to find allies, he'll do anything.
> 
> But esp. considering how he managed to dodge any dangerous service activity when he had the chance to serve honarably, I think it's a pretty bad picture if he accepts it.
> 
> I think it's a tremendous insult to the real soldiers who are in harm's way.


 
To be fair at least Bush served.  Clinton ran to Moscow


----------



## tellner (Apr 25, 2007)

Give it a rest, Joe. Whenever anyone says anything that doesn't utterly praise and revere Our Beloved Decider the True Believers say "Yeah, but BIll Clinton (got a *******, wasn't in Vietnam, eats live puppies and sacrifices them to Satan). Bill Clinton has his faults. George W. Bush is a disaster and has been one for his entire life. A more venal, stupid, disconnected, narcissistic, thieving, power mad mass murderer has never sat in the White House in my life or that of my aging parents, possibly ever. The Republican Talking Points mantras of praising Chimpy's cushy job in the ANG - from which he deserted during time of war - while denigrating men who actually served - Kerry, Murtha, McCain and Gore - is a disgrace to the United States Armed Forces.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 25, 2007)

Mariachi Joe ... that was an intersting sentence or two.

George Bush's absence from the National Guard for a period of greater than a year is still unaddressed and unexplained. The term for such periods of absence is 'Desertion'. 

But, the comment about Clinton 'running to' Moscow; what are you attempting to infer? Young Bill Clinton earned a Rhodes Scholarship; awarded each year to 32 of the most gifted young men (at the time) in American, to study in one of the most prestigious learning institutions in the world. During his time abroad, he visited other nations; which is one way people learn about the world.

George Bush, before becoming President, had never left North America. And, although serving, after he received one million dollars of United States taxpayer training to pilot aircraft, did not show up for training.

You know, in the early 80's, a college colleague of mine visited Moscow. I remember sitting in her dorm room listening to her stories of the visit. All of us wanted to visit Moscow then. 

It seems odd, to hear you use the visit as a slur. I wonder if this political shorthand you are using, even makes any sense to you today. What the hell is so bad about visiting Moscow?


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 25, 2007)

*Tellner*, every now and again, a hammer smites down on a nailhead nice and squarely.  

Well done for a fine "The Emperor Has No Clothes!" post :tup:.  I think that it is pertinent to the topic too, given that the starting point for this conversation.

*Matt*, as ever, wonderful to have an informed opinion on the table :rei:.


----------



## mrhnau (Apr 25, 2007)

First, I think its a nice gesture. Second, its nothing official.

It's somewhat related to what Andy said. I've received a Purple Heart too. I've not been injured in combat. It was given to me by my grandfather. Honestly, if this were anyone other than Bush, things would be different. Would you consider it so horrible if a father gave his son a purple heart after he survived a vicious battle with cancer? Or after a crippling car wreck? Or perhaps something a bit more emotional, like overcoming after a brutal divorce? If I were critically injured, it would be close to tear jerking if my grandfather put a purple heart on my shirt... That's the kind of stuff that makes people cry at movies. But, Bush does it! What a horror movie!

If you want to make a political game out of this, I suppose you have the right. The guy has the right to do with his medals what he wants. Shoot, he can even give them to Bush to "throw away" if he wanted :uhyeah:


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 25, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> But, Bush does it! What a horror movie!
> 
> If you want to make a political game out of this, I suppose you have the right. The guy has the right to do with his medals what he wants.


 
The question remains; should the 'Commander in Chief' accept a medal that is given to those who are "wounded our killed" in action by an enemy of the United States. 

Does, or does not, accepting a medal under the circumstances described, diminish the meaning of medal for those who have or will receive the medal otherwise.

And ... you are increasing the hyperbole with phrases 'horror movie'. I don't think any who think the President should not accept the medal have escalated the language as much as you have. 

Incidentally, I think the political game being played here is being played by Mr. Thomas and Congressman Carter.


----------



## tradrockrat (Apr 25, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The question remains; should the 'Commander in Chief' accept a medal that is given to those who are "wounded our killed" in action by an enemy of the United States.
> 
> Does, or does not, accepting a medal under the circumstances described, diminish the meaning of medal for those who have or will receive the medal otherwise.


 
The question is irrelevant to me since the real question is - "Should a man refuse a gift from another man who thinks he deserves it?"  

What a human being should do superceeds what a president - which is after all just an office, not a man - should do when it matters only to the two men and does not affect the opperations of that office.  And no - I do not believe that accepting a gift from a soldier affects the daily opperations of the job of president.

My personal feelings - that the whole thing is is silly and a political ploy- doesn't enter into it because it's nobody's business but the two men in question.

JMHO


----------



## Carol (Apr 25, 2007)

The story said the fellow was offered a personal meeting with the president that was to take place 10 days ago.

Does anyone know of the President actually accepted the medal or not?


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 25, 2007)

tradrockrat said:


> The question is irrelevant to me since the real question is - "Should a man refuse a gift from another man who thinks he deserves it?"
> 
> What a human being should do superceeds what a president - which is after all just an office, not a man - should do when it matters only to the two men and does not affect the opperations of that office. And no - I do not believe that accepting a gift from a soldier affects the daily opperations of the job of president.
> 
> ...


 
This is not Tom and Frank down the street. One of the two men involved is the President of the United States; and is my President.

Do you really want to argue that what the President does, shouldn't matter to the American people?


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 25, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> The story said the fellow was offered a personal meeting with the president that was to take place 10 days ago.
> 
> Does anyone know of the President actually accepted the medal or not?


 
http://www.thecoveherald.com/page3.html



> The couple was able to meet with President Bush for about 20 minutes to present him with one of three Purple Hearts that Bill Thomas received during his service in Vietnam.
> 
> "He said he didn't feel like he had earned it," Thomas said, noting the president looked thinner in person than on television.
> 
> The Thomases also were able to meet Barney, the president's Scottish terrier, and tour the White House Rose Garden.


----------



## mrhnau (Apr 25, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Do you really want to argue that what the President does, shouldn't matter to the American people?



YES! Some things are absolutely irrelevant if they do not affect the country. Do you really care if Bush has dinner with an old friend from Texas? Or if he gets a Christmas present from an old college buddy? Or how about a jersey from some college he visits? Do I care what the president does? Yes, but not to that degree of detail. I don't want to go through EVERY single event in the man's life. Is he breaking the law? Is he doing something that is compromising the constitution or the country in ANY way? (yes, I know you will think of Monica, but we have a guy committing perjury, not just an affair). This interaction with a private citizen should not be making headlines.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 25, 2007)

I don't think that it's the interaction, per se, that has annoyed people *mrhnau*.  It's more the idea that he somehow merits a Purple Heart because of all the 'emotional wounds' he's taken.

I'm not going to put across my political views on this in case I spark others to do the same.  That's not because I don't want to hear what people think but rather that I reckon if our members freed the restraints they've thoughtfully placed on themselves whilst speaking of this issue it would be a 'locked thread' in a very short time.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 25, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> YES! Some things are absolutely irrelevant if they do not affect the country. Do you really care if Bush has dinner with an old friend from Texas? Or if he gets a Christmas present from an old college buddy? Or how about a jersey from some college he visits? Do I care what the president does? Yes, but not to that degree of detail. I don't want to go through EVERY single event in the man's life. Is he breaking the law? Is he doing something that is compromising the constitution or the country in ANY way? (yes, I know you will think of Monica, but we have a guy committing perjury, not just an affair). This interaction with a private citizen should not be making headlines.


 
OK ... so there should be personal space for the President. 

And since mrhnau brings up Monica Lewinsky, would the perjury ever have occurred if the new 'personal space' conservatives weren't digging through his personal life? There is a direct causal relationship between the affair - which came first, and you are telling me it is none of our business - and the perjury. If they (you) weren't digging for personal dirt (A), testimony under oath (B) would never have happened. 

I'm pretty certain that President Clinton's interactons with a certain private citizen should not have made headlines either. 

Hypocrit.


----------



## mrhnau (Apr 25, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> OK ... so there should be personal space for the President.


yes



> I'm pretty certain that President Clinton's interactons with a certain private citizen should not have made headlines either.
> 
> Hypocrit.


Was he impeached for the affair? I don't think so. Are you by chance claiming democrats don't go searching for dirt? These absolutely stupid games that are desperate attempts to pin ANYTHING on Bush are nothing but dirt digging. Politics in all its glory. I hate it just as much when Dems do it as Reps. However, you seem to glory in the Dems digging up dirt, as long as it attempts to crucify your favorite villians de jour.

Dealing with Monica, I think what happened was a tragedy. I think Clinton using the WH and his influence to have an affair was a tragedy. I think the wasting of money probing this mess was a tragedy. I think the timing of bombing Bosnia (or was it the asprin factory?) was a tragedy. I think the time/money wasted in impeachment was a tragedy. I also think the perjury was a tragedy.

I doubt I'll hear similar comments from you dealing with any attempt to find dirt on Bush. How much time and money have we wasted trying to pin things on Bush? How much energy has been expended?


----------



## tellner (Apr 25, 2007)

Mike, you have to understand something. For the neocons - and G-d willing more of them will be cons in a few years - the plutocrats and the witch-burning fundamentalists hypocrisy is no longer a sin. Only wimpy liberals and a few fossil RINOS like Arlen Specter care about that any more. Hypocrisy is a political strategy and tactic officially and explicitly used by the RNC.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 25, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> yes
> 
> Was he impeached for the affair? I don't think so. Are you by chance claiming democrats don't go searching for dirt? These absolutely stupid games that are desperate attempts to pin ANYTHING on Bush are nothing but dirt digging. Politics in all its glory. I hate it just as much when Dems do it as Reps. However, you seem to glory in the Dems digging up dirt, as long as it attempts to crucify your favorite villians de jour.
> 
> ...


 
If the Independent Council wasn't digging for dirt on White Water - dirt that never materialized - there would have been no Paul Jones inquiry, and no testimony under oath for perjury. There is no way around it. The impeachment for perjury has a direct causal relationship to oral sex. Those who prosecuted President Clinton for impeachment did so under the guise that no President is entitled to personal space -- -- or because they were perverted voyuers "we are outraged by sex, but we want to know every detail"  (Didn't Newt Gingrich just say that). 

And, very little energy has been spent, and very little taxpayer money has been wasted on President Bush. He had a rubber stamp Republican Congress for his first six years in office. Unfortunately for him, the Justice Department is catching up with Congressmen Delay, Cunningham, and Ney --- Look soon for Young from Alaska to fall, and a guy from Florida is singing pretty strong too.


----------



## crushing (Apr 25, 2007)

Wow, we've gone from discussing a war veteran graciously offering his Purple Heart Medal to President Bush to comparing that generous gift to a person in a position of power having sex with a subordinate and political party bashing.

Also, to be fair to mrhnau, he wasn't the one the one to bring up fraternization in this thread, it was brought up at post #22.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 25, 2007)

So it sounds like the couple met with Mr. Bush, and Mr. Bush accepted the Purple Heart.

There are tactful and gracious ways to decline an inappropriate but well-intentioned gift, without insulting the giver and still acknowledging the intention of his act.

Apparently Mr. Bush lacks the insight to recognize this is an inappropriate gift, and/or he lacks the tact and grace to decline it.


----------



## Carol (Apr 25, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> There are tactful and gracious ways to decline an inappropriate but well-intentioned gift, without insulting the giver and still acknowledging the intention of his act.



How do we know that this wasn't done though? The vet in question was rather exhilarated about the trip and meeting the President, but it curiously says nothing about accepting the medal or what the president said when it was presented.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 25, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> How do we know that this wasn't done though? The vet in question was rather exhilarated about the trip and meeting the President, but it curiously says nothing about accepting the medal or what the president said when it was presented.


 

Michaeledward's post #30 seems to indicate it.  

It isn't explicit, but it seems to read as if Mr. Bush accepted it, while expressing the notion that he hadn't earned it.

a couple of more quotes to add to it, taken from the online news article linked to in Post 30:

"Thomas said the Purple Heart he *presented* _(past tense)_  the president has special meaning to him because the injury he suffered to earn it occurred just after a friend, Richard Peterson, lost his life attempting to save him."

"Carter later called Thomas to inform him that the president was very moved by the gesture *and would like the couple to present it in person.*"

"Thomas took a copy of the original citation showing the origin of the actual medal and presented it as a companion piece with the citation he drew up for the president."

Sounds to me like Mr. Bush accepted it.


----------



## Carol (Apr 25, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Michaeledward's post #30 seems to indicate it.
> 
> It isn't explicit, but it seems to read as if Mr. Bush accepted it, while expressing the notion that he hadn't earned it.
> 
> ...



That's really a shame.


----------



## jdinca (Apr 26, 2007)

Sigh. He accepted in a gracious and dignified manner and he's vilified for it. Had he not accepted it and the soldiers feelings been hurt, he would have been vilified for it. 

The RNC digs up dirt on the DNC and the left screams in protest. The DNC digs up dirt on the RNC and the right screams in protest. The more things change, the more they stay the same. 

Given the microscope a president lives under and the decisons they have to make, it's no wonder that for every four years in office, they seem to age at least ten.


----------



## mrhnau (Apr 26, 2007)

jdinca said:


> Sigh. He accepted in a gracious and dignified manner and he's vilified for it. Had he not accepted it and the soldiers feelings been hurt, he would have been vilified for it.
> 
> The RNC digs up dirt on the DNC and the left screams in protest. The DNC digs up dirt on the RNC and the right screams in protest. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Given the microscope a president lives under and the decisons they have to make, it's no wonder that for every four years in office, they seem to age at least ten.


You speak the truth. Politics grows tiresome...


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 26, 2007)

jdinca said:


> Sigh. He accepted in a gracious and dignified manner and he's vilified for it. Had he not accepted it and the soldiers feelings been hurt, he would have been vilified for it.
> 
> The RNC digs up dirt on the DNC and the left screams in protest. The DNC digs up dirt on the RNC and the right screams in protest. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Given the microscope a president lives under and the decisons they have to make, it's no wonder that for every four years in office, they seem to age at least ten.


 
Who has been villified, by whom? Digs up dirt? ... reading an article in a news paper is 'digging up dirt'? 

Wow.


----------



## tellner (Apr 26, 2007)

It's not even in the same galaxy.

The Republicans started a political doctrine based on, explicitly based on and dependent upon, slander and lies starting in the late 70s. Its founder, Lee Atwater recanted on his deathbed and begged the forgiveness of those whose lives he, in his own words, destroyed. The Arkansas Project, an explicit and official action group within the RNC, had as its stated aim the creation and spreading of lies about Bill Clinton and the character assassination of his wife. It's an undeniable matter of record. They were the ones who came up with and spread the lies about Vince Foster and the "mysterious deaths" of anyone who opposed then Governor Clinton, the series of rapes he was supposed to have committed while in office and so on.

So they got themselves an admittedly and proudly partisan prosecutor who went on a fishing expedition. Several years. Hundreds of millions of dollars. He got everything he asked for - from a Democrat-appointed AG no less - and finally admitted that he couldn't find any basis for the original charges. None. Not a one. So he started looking for anything he could find and came up with a blowjob. At the time the Greedy Old Plutocrats were full of pious outrage (including the ones who had been banging married women). The President, they declared, had no private life. The Speaker of the House, they declared, was Constitutionally co-equal with the President.

Since getting back control of Congress and the Senate the Democrats have done very, very little. There are six years of completely absent oversight. The most they will do is have hearings on some of Bush's underlings. The first thing they did was rule out impeachment of him and the VP for the good of the country. They're ignoring everything from proudly declared conflicts of interest, the use of public funds and government facilities for explicitly partisan political action, corruption on a scale that makes Teapot Dome look pale and war profiteering to the destruction of our most basic civil rights, the unprecedented politicization of public service and government offices, torture, kidnapping, Chilean style "disappearances" and mass murder. 

If our Sock Puppet in Chief accuses anyone who disagrees with him of treason - and he does as do the two puppeteers Rove and Cheney who have their hands firmly embedded in hom from fundament to forehead - let's consider this. What is the technical definition of treason? Under our basic law it is defined in part as "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,". 

Let's go back a few years to when Cheney and Rumsfield were on the board of directors of a certain Swiss nuclear power concern. They raised no objections when nuclear reactors and technology were sold to North Korea. We were and are at war with North Korea. At the time it was officially recognized as an enemy of the United States. If selling the Kim family the means to make nuclear weapons isn't providing aid and comfort I can't imagine what is. And while Bush may dismiss the Constitution as "that damned piece of paper" and declare that the Unitary Executive has the power to interpret and craft the law that doesn't make it true.

So yes, Bill Clinton got his plugs cleaned by a zaftig intern _cum_ cigar humidor. And after a relentless years-long effort he was indicted which is what impeachment is. George Bush has presided over the most destructive and criminal regime we've ever suffered under. His political opponents have ruled out bringing him to justice. 

How are the two cases comparable? On what possible scales do they balance?


----------



## crushing (Apr 26, 2007)

jdinca said:


> Sigh. He accepted in a gracious and dignified manner and he's vilified for it. Had he not accepted it and the soldiers feelings been hurt, he would have been vilified for it.
> 
> The RNC digs up dirt on the DNC and the left screams in protest. The DNC digs up dirt on the RNC and the right screams in protest. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Given the microscope a president lives under and the decisons they have to make, it's no wonder that for every four years in office, they seem to age at least ten.


 
The loyal partisans will always somehow rationalize their own dirt digging, but point a finger of digust at their counterparts do the same.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 26, 2007)

*Tellner*, I sadly can't rep you again for your forthright accuracy in this thread but that last post was outstanding in shining its light into the dark corners of the American body politic.

________________________________

That's not to imply that I think our lot are any better in an absolute moral sense (thankfully tho' we do have the monarchy to rein them in if it all gets too out of hand).


----------



## JBrainard (Apr 26, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Js Fg Ct.


 
Agreed.


----------



## Carol (Apr 26, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> Agreed.



Translation?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 26, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Translation?


 

"Jesus ****ing Christ."


----------



## Carol (Apr 26, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> "Jesus ****ing Christ."



Now THAT makes sense.  Thanks :asian:


----------



## mrhnau (Apr 26, 2007)

tellner said:


> The Republicans started a political doctrine based on, explicitly based on and dependent upon, slander and lies starting in the late 70s. Its founder, Lee Atwater recanted on his deathbed and begged the forgiveness of those whose lives he, in his own words, destroyed. The Arkansas Project, an explicit and official action group within the RNC, had as its stated aim the creation and spreading of lies about Bill Clinton and the character assassination of his wife. It's an undeniable matter of record. They were the ones who came up with and spread the lies about Vince Foster and the "mysterious deaths" of anyone who opposed then Governor Clinton, the series of rapes he was supposed to have committed while in office and so on.


documentation please. Since this is an undeniable matter of record, lets see it. I don't care to see some nutcases blog. That is not a matter of record, but possibly of conspiracy.


> So they got themselves an admittedly and proudly partisan prosecutor who went on a fishing expedition. Several years. Hundreds of millions of dollars. He got everything he asked for - from a Democrat-appointed AG no less - and finally admitted that he couldn't find any basis for the original charges. None. Not a one. So he started looking for anything he could find and came up with a blowjob. At the time the Greedy Old Plutocrats were full of pious outrage (including the ones who had been banging married women). The President, they declared, had no private life. The Speaker of the House, they declared, was Constitutionally co-equal with the President.


I'm no fan of fishing for charges, but both sides are doing that. See post #34. Politics at its finest.

There was no declaration of Speaker being "co-equal". At least until Pelosi starts trying to be a diplomat w/out WH approval.



> Since getting back control of Congress and the Senate the Democrats have done very, very little.


THANK GOD! That's the best state of things in DC.



> There are six years of completely absent oversight. The most they will do is have hearings on some of Bush's underlings. The first thing they did was rule out impeachment of him and the VP for the good of the country. They're ignoring everything from proudly declared conflicts of interest, the use of public funds and government facilities for explicitly partisan political action, corruption on a scale that makes Teapot Dome look pale and war profiteering to the destruction of our most basic civil rights, the unprecedented politicization of public service and government offices, torture, kidnapping, Chilean style "disappearances" and mass murder.


[sarcasm]Yes, we are truly living in one of the lower levels of hell. Better get out before its too late! [/sarcasm]

I tend to like the Presidency being opposite the House/Senate. Less gets done. However, I do suppose if we were smart enough to elect democrats for Congress/Presidency, bright lights would shine down from heaven and every politician would become sparkly clean, right? They have been that way in the past, right? We all realize only Republicans are capable of corruption and general naughtiness 



> If our Sock Puppet in Chief accuses anyone who disagrees with him of treason - and he does as do the two puppeteers Rove and Cheney who have their hands firmly embedded in hom from fundament to forehead - let's consider this. What is the technical definition of treason? Under our basic law it is defined in part as "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,".


So, its ok to declare the war lost before the surge is given time to work? Let's work on discouraging our troops. That's always good. It's good for the Speaker to go politic w/ Syria w/out discussing w/ the WH? It's ok for Clinton to go bad-mouth our nation to european students? How about playing politics w/ a war spending bill while talking out of the other side of their mouths about supporting the troops? These guys are mostly the Viet Nam generation and are desperately seeking another Viet Nam. We lost just about as many troops in Clintons administration as in this war.



> Let's go back a few years to when Cheney and Rumsfield were on the board of directors of a certain Swiss nuclear power concern. They raised no objections when nuclear reactors and technology were sold to North Korea. We were and are at war with North Korea. At the time it was officially recognized as an enemy of the United States. If selling the Kim family the means to make nuclear weapons isn't providing aid and comfort I can't imagine what is.


We are/were at war with NK? I thought we were negotiating w/ them. I guess I missed the memo. Didn't NK get nuclear technology from us during the Clinton administration? Couldn't he block such a sale? Isn't most of their nuclear tech given as part of our negotiations? I guess that doesn't matter, since it's is Clinton.



> And while Bush may dismiss the Constitution as "that damned piece of paper" and declare that the Unitary Executive has the power to interpret and craft the law that doesn't make it true.


Check my signature. I guess we can badmouth Lincoln too.



> So yes, Bill Clinton got his plugs cleaned by a zaftig intern _cum_ cigar humidor. And after a relentless years-long effort he was indicted which is what impeachment is. George Bush has presided over the most destructive and criminal regime we've ever suffered under. His political opponents have ruled out bringing him to justice.
> 
> How are the two cases comparable? On what possible scales do they balance?



So, given a crystal ball, what would Gore have done? If 9/11 happens (which is quite likely), what would the wise choice be? Intellegence. You find out what happened, and you go after it. Afghanistan was just in many ways. The intellegence was bad in Iraq (or we think it was), and given the same intel, Gore may have done the same thing. Intellegence is not a crystal ball giving all knowledge.

Comperable? Perhaps not. Thats like comparing Lincoln to any non-war president. One living in a period of civil war, the other in relative peace. We live in a post 9/11 world, whether you choose to believe it or not. Given the same set of world events, I think Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Bush would look somewhat comperable, at least with regard to the war. Looking in hindsight is easy. I think the comparrison to Lincoln is a strong analogy. I suspect many of his decisions would have been close to Bush's.

I will give you credit, this was well thought out and written. I just disagee w/ almost all of it


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 26, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Now THAT makes sense. Thanks :asian:


 
You are all welcome!!


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 26, 2007)

jdinca said:


> Sigh. He accepted in a gracious and dignified manner and he's vilified for it. Had he not accepted it and the soldiers feelings been hurt, he would have been vilified for it.


 
My position in this isn't partisan.  I simply belive it is an inappropriate gift, and inappropriate for Mr. Bush to accept it.  He can certainly decline it, he can do it graciously and gracefully and without hurting the feelings of the Veteran who wanted to give it to him.  But Mr. Bush lacks that insight, and lacks that grace to be able to even recognize how inappropriate it is, and then act appropriately.

By accepting this medal, Mr. Bush has made a mockery of the medal itself, and insults every soldier who legitimately earned it thru their own bloodshed in the heat of battle.

It becomes nothing more than a kindergarten consolation prize given out to everyone who played the game, to make sure nobody feels left out.  Mr. Bush needs to grow up, in so many different ways.  This one just seemed obvious.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 26, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> My position in this isn't partisan. I simply belive it is an inappropriate gift, and inappropriate for Mr. Bush to accept it. He can certainly decline it, he can do it graciously and gracefully and without hurting the feelings of the Veteran who wanted to give it to him. But Mr. Bush lacks that insight, and lacks that grace to be able to even recognize how inappropriate it is, and then act appropriately.
> 
> By accepting this medal, Mr. Bush has made a mockery of the medal itself, and insults every soldier who legitimately earned it thru their own bloodshed in the heat of battle.


 
What I find interesting, and fodder for further thought, is that the Purple Heart Medal is given - _in the name of the President_.  By contrast, the Medal of Honor, the highest military recognition in our country, is awarded "in the name of Congress".

All soldiers receiving the Purple Heart during the current conflicts, receive the recognition in the name of a President who would accept the symbol of recognition as a gift, for "emotional wounds" suffered under political adversaries. 

I am with Mike on this. I feel by accepting this gift, the President belittles the award given ~ in his name ~ to thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

To accept this gift, under these circumstances seems to be diametrically opposed to the idea of "Supporting the Troops."


----------



## jdinca (Apr 26, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> My position in this isn't partisan. I simply belive it is an inappropriate gift, and inappropriate for Mr. Bush to accept it. He can certainly decline it, he can do it graciously and gracefully and without hurting the feelings of the Veteran who wanted to give it to him. But Mr. Bush lacks that insight, and lacks that grace to be able to even recognize how inappropriate it is, and then act appropriately.
> 
> By accepting this medal, Mr. Bush has made a mockery of the medal itself, and insults every soldier who legitimately earned it thru their own bloodshed in the heat of battle.
> 
> It becomes nothing more than a kindergarten consolation prize given out to everyone who played the game, to make sure nobody feels left out. Mr. Bush needs to grow up, in so many different ways. This one just seemed obvious.


 
You start out by saying your position isn't partisan, and then you go on to trash the President over not just how he handled the situation but as a person. A very partisan viewpoint, imo.

I'm wondering where the outrage is at the vet who decided what HE wanted to do with HIS medal was to give it to the Commander in Chief? If he hadn't chosen to do this in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, would we?  

I'm pretty pissed off at George myself. He had a golden opportunity to truly make a difference in the middle east and he porked it by listening to the wrong people. In addition, I find him to be one of the most fiscally liberal presidents we've ever had. Regardless, I'm not going to make personal attacks on the man who is trying to do his best in the most difficult job in the world at one of the most difficult points in history.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 27, 2007)

jdinca said:


> You start out by saying your position isn't partisan, and then you go on to trash the President over not just how he handled the situation but as a person. A very partisan viewpoint, imo.
> 
> I'm wondering where the outrage is at the vet who decided what HE wanted to do with HIS medal was to give it to the Commander in Chief? If he hadn't chosen to do this in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, would we?
> 
> I'm pretty pissed off at George myself. He had a golden opportunity to truly make a difference in the middle east and he porked it by listening to the wrong people. In addition, I find him to be one of the most fiscally liberal presidents we've ever had. Regardless, I'm not going to make personal attacks on the man who is trying to do his best in the most difficult job in the world at one of the most difficult points in history.


 
So, there can be no thoughtful criticism that is not described as "trash" and "very partisan". 

If you believe the actions of President Bush were taken because you he was "listening" to the wrong people, I would say that you are delusional. The President of the United States of America. He has access, if he so chooses, to the smartest and most knowledgable people in the world. The decisions he makes are his own; be those ignoring the most important conflict in the 20th century, or invading a nation that was no threat. 

Even today, the President and his spokesperson are reinforcing your belief in 'It's all someone elses fault - Not poor little Mr. President', when they describe the escalation of the Iraq campaign as "General Patreaus' *New* Strategy". President George W. Bush gave those orders. They belong to him. Passing the buck ~ by claiming he listened to the wrong people ~ is psycophantic and unthoughtful. 

Lastly, thought, or even criticism, about a military medal given to the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military *is not* a personal attack. Denying the primary responsibility of the Executive Branch of government, is deconstruction of the Constitution, in my opinion.


----------



## mrhnau (Apr 27, 2007)

jdinca said:


> In addition, I find him to be one of the most fiscally liberal presidents we've ever had.


This I wil agree with. Spending has been a bit out of control. However, tax receipts are at record highs, despite tax cuts. Still, I'd love to see spending curtailed and have us work on our debt and actually have a balanced budget...


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 27, 2007)

jdinca said:


> You start out by saying your position isn't partisan, and then you go on to trash the President over not just how he handled the situation but as a person. A very partisan viewpoint, imo.
> 
> I'm wondering where the outrage is at the vet who decided what HE wanted to do with HIS medal was to give it to the Commander in Chief? If he hadn't chosen to do this in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, would we?


 
My position isn't partisan because I'm not trying to link this to a Democrat vs. Republican thing.  I'm not saying this was a poor choice due to the fact that Mr. Bush is a Neocon in the guise of a Republican, and that somehow it reflects his politics.  This particular act, of accepting the medal, was wrong and it makes no difference his political alliance.

Yes, I believe the idea to give Mr. Bush the medal in the first place was also erroneous.  The Vet who did this did it out of good intentions, but it was most certainly an inappropriate choice as well.  

However, Mr. Bush should certainly have risen above the situation, recognized how inappropriate it was, invited the Vet to the whitehouse for a visit, thanked him for his generous spirit and good will, and declined to accept the medal.  As the man who currently sits in the White House, the man who's duty it is to give out the Purple Hearts in the first place, Mr. Bush should have known better.

Anyone who claims the title "President", regardless of political alliance, should know better.


----------



## jdinca (Apr 27, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> My position isn't partisan because I'm not trying to link this to a Democrat vs. Republican thing.  I'm not saying this was a poor choice due to the fact that Mr. Bush is a Neocon in the guise of a Republican, and that somehow it reflects his politics.  This particular act, of accepting the medal, was wrong and it makes no difference his political alliance.
> 
> Yes, I believe the idea to give Mr. Bush the medal in the first place was also erroneous.  The Vet who did this did it out of good intentions, but it was most certainly an inappropriate choice as well.
> 
> ...



We have some minor disagreements but well put as usual.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 27, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> If the Independent Council wasn't digging for dirt on White Water - dirt that never materialized - there would have been no Paul Jones inquiry, and no testimony under oath for perjury. There is no way around it. The impeachment for perjury has a direct causal relationship to oral sex. Those who prosecuted President Clinton for impeachment did so under the guise that no President is entitled to personal space -- -- or because they were perverted voyuers "we are outraged by sex, but we want to know every detail" (Didn't Newt Gingrich just say that).
> 
> And, very little energy has been spent, and very little taxpayer money has been wasted on President Bush. He had a rubber stamp Republican Congress for his first six years in office. Unfortunately for him, the Justice Department is catching up with Congressmen Delay, Cunningham, and Ney --- Look soon for Young from Alaska to fall, and a guy from Florida is singing pretty strong too.


 

So this is interesting ... Someone with at 28 point rep power posted a negative rep on the above post with the following comment ...



> A man who cannot control his lusts should not be in control of others


 
Now, why someone who negative rep me with that comment, over the investigation of President Clinton is just wierd. There is no ascertion of what Clinton did was correct or incorrect. 

I wonder if they were negative repping me because Delay, Cunningham, Ney, Gingrich and Ken Starr could not control their lusts, or because perhaps they, themselves, were tittillated by l'affaire de Lewinsky.

It is quite probably the largest non-sequiture I have encountered here on MartialTalk. Wow!

Back to the appropriateness of President Bush's decisions.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 29, 2007)

One other irony was pointed out elsewhere on the internets.

It seems to me that the Republican National Convention, prior to the 2004 Presidential election, had delegates sporting 'Purple Heart Band-Aids', apparently to mock the Democratic Presidential Candidate.

I don't remember hearing anything from the President telling *his* delegates to desist from that behavior.

One might wonder what those who sported those heart band-aids might think about this?


----------



## Mariachi Joe (May 1, 2007)

tellner said:


> Give it a rest, Joe. Whenever anyone says anything that doesn't utterly praise and revere Our Beloved Decider the True Believers say "Yeah, but BIll Clinton (got a *******, wasn't in Vietnam, eats live puppies and sacrifices them to Satan). Bill Clinton has his faults. George W. Bush is a disaster and has been one for his entire life. A more venal, stupid, disconnected, narcissistic, thieving, power mad mass murderer has never sat in the White House in my life or that of my aging parents, possibly ever. The Republican Talking Points mantras of praising Chimpy's cushy job in the ANG - from which he deserted during time of war - while denigrating men who actually served - Kerry, Murtha, McCain and Gore - is a disgrace to the United States Armed Forces.


 

Stop drinking coolaid for a second, take a breath, and relax.  In case you forgot we live in America land of the free and I am excersizing my right to my own opinion.  You can disagree with it all you want but why do have to name call.  Clinton himself admitted that he dodged the draft and that it was one of the biggest mistakes of his life.  What I am sick of is people who take pot shots at Bush but let Clinton slide for doing the same thing.  Can we at least try to be fair?


----------



## Mariachi Joe (May 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Mariachi Joe ... that was an intersting sentence or two.
> 
> George Bush's absence from the National Guard for a period of greater than a year is still unaddressed and unexplained. The term for such periods of absence is 'Desertion'.
> 
> ...


 

I'll be happy to answer.  At the time Mr. Clinton went to Moscow we were in the middle of the Cold War and the former Soviet Union was an enemy of the United States.  I don't care where Mr. Clinton went but the fact is that he did dodge the draft, he has admitted to this, so if someone is going to take shots at Bush for bailing on the Guard then at least be fair enough to point out that Clinton dodged the draft.  I am just getting tired all the onesided comments.  It's okay if Clinton did it, but if Bush does it call him every name under the sun.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 2, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> My position isn't partisan because I'm not trying to link this to a Democrat vs. Republican thing. I'm not saying this was a poor choice due to the fact that Mr. Bush is a Neocon in the guise of a Republican, and that somehow it reflects his politics. This particular act, of accepting the medal, was wrong and it makes no difference his political alliance.
> 
> Yes, I believe the idea to give Mr. Bush the medal in the first place was also erroneous. The Vet who did this did it out of good intentions, but it was most certainly an inappropriate choice as well.
> 
> ...


 
Do you seriously think that even a "trivial" decision like this isnt scrutinized by a heard of advisors? While you may be right here, I dont think it was such a huge deal and I was in the service at a time. Kerry threw his medals away (physically and pubically) while calling soldiers murders and that was alright, but this is a slap in the face? If its an insult to the troops, I think the blame falls on the giver, not the reciever.


----------



## mrhnau (May 2, 2007)

Mariachi Joe said:


> Stop drinking coolaid for a second, take a breath, and relax.  In case you forgot we live in America land of the free and I am excersizing my right to my own opinion.  You can disagree with it all you want but why do have to name call.  Clinton himself admitted that he dodged the draft and that it was one of the biggest mistakes of his life.  What I am sick of is people who take pot shots at Bush but let Clinton slide for doing the same thing.  Can we at least try to be fair?





			
				Mariachi Joe said:
			
		

> I'll be happy to answer. At the time Mr. Clinton went to Moscow we were in the middle of the Cold War and the former Soviet Union was an enemy of the United States. I don't care where Mr. Clinton went but the fact is that he did dodge the draft, he has admitted to this, so if someone is going to take shots at Bush for bailing on the Guard then at least be fair enough to point out that Clinton dodged the draft. I am just getting tired all the onesided comments. It's okay if Clinton did it, but if Bush does it call him every name under the sun.





			
				Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Do you seriously think that even a "trivial" decision like this isnt scrutinized by a heard of advisors? While you may be right here, I dont think it was such a huge deal and I was in the service at a time. Kerry threw his medals away (physically and pubically) while calling soldiers murders and that was alright, but this is a slap in the face? If its an insult to the troops, I think the blame falls on the giver, not the reciever.



Great posts guys... very well said.

One thing though Blotan, those were not Kerry's medals, he TOOK them from someone else. So, not only was he throwing away medals, but he was throwing medals FROM SOMEONE ELSE! *gasp*


----------



## MJS (May 2, 2007)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

*_*Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.  In addition, if anyone feels that they are having issues with someone via the rep system, please contact an Admin. to look into it, rather than discussing it in the thread.

-Mike Slosek
-MT Asst. Admin-*


----------



## jdinca (May 2, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Do you seriously think that even a "trivial" decision like this isnt scrutinized by a heard of advisors? While you may be right here, I dont think it was such a huge deal and I was in the service at a time. Kerry threw his medals away (physically and pubically) while calling soldiers murders and that was alright, but this is a slap in the face? If its an insult to the troops, I think the blame falls on the giver, not the reciever.



You forget, this has nothing to do with the act, it has everything to do with the fact that Bush is evil. There's nothing that Bush could do that would have made the left happy, other than resign or die in office. Ironically, that would put Cheney in charge, which would piss the left off even more. 

Kerry threw his medals away and called his fellow soldiers murderers. But, since he's not Bush, that's okay and is easily excused. Clinton admittedly dodged the draft, went to Moscow in the middle of the cold war when it was still a communist country but that's okay, he's not Bush. Bush has a questionable service record in the National Guard, so let's eviscerate him. 

If it were Gore, or Kerry who had accepted the soldier's medal, the response would have been that it was an honorable and gracious thing to do.

This was such an insignificant event in the grand scheme of things that I'm surprised this thread is still alive.


----------



## CoryKS (May 2, 2007)

jdinca said:


> This was such an insignificant event in the grand scheme of things that I'm surprised this thread is still alive.


 
Are you kidding?  This stuff is catnip for a certain mindset.  Here's another little chew toy:  Bush uses Ohio pen to veto troop withdrawal measure.



> Bush signed the veto Tuesday night with the pen, given to him by Robert Derga, the father of Marine Corps Reserve Cpl. Dustin Derga, who was killed in Iraq on May 8, 2005.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 2, 2007)

This craps pathetic.


----------



## jdinca (May 2, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Are you kidding?  This stuff is catnip for a certain mindset.  Here's another little chew toy:  Bush uses Ohio pen to veto troop withdrawal measure.



No, I'm not kidding you. Is this issue still in the news, or is just here and in the liberal blogs where it's still getting play?

As for the signing with the pen, how does the father who gave Bush the pen feel about it? Is he proud that he used it, or is he upset? If he's happy Bush used the pen, then you don't have a leg to stand on. If he's upset, then you have a gripe. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but in these two cases what MATTERS, is what the individuals involved think. 

"Derga asked Bush to promise to use the pen in his veto."

'nuff said?



CoryKS said:


> This stuff is catnip for a certain mindset.



Whose mindset? Those that disagree with the left wing viewpoint? In that case, it must be bad...


----------



## michaeledward (May 2, 2007)

Mariachi Joe said:


> I'll be happy to answer. At the time Mr. Clinton went to Moscow we were in the middle of the Cold War and the former Soviet Union was an enemy of the United States. I don't care where Mr. Clinton went but the fact is that he did dodge the draft, he has admitted to this, so if someone is going to take shots at Bush for bailing on the Guard then at least be fair enough to point out that Clinton dodged the draft. I am just getting tired all the onesided comments. It's okay if Clinton did it, but if Bush does it call him every name under the sun.


 
Please share the source on this data ... where President Clinton states he "dodged" the draft. I wonder if Vice President Cheney's statement that he had "other priorities" qualifies under that phrase "dodge". 

And the hyperbole is getting mighty thick in these last few posts. 

jdinca, you will recall that Vice President Gore served in Vietnam, as did Senator Kerry. But, by the way, neither is currently Commander-in-Chief. I think there is something about that status that makes accepting such a gift a bit different. 

I will point out again, that the people who are making rabid comments on this thread, are not the left-wing blogs and tin-foil hat crowd. The hard right are making the most vitriolic comments.


----------



## jdinca (May 2, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Are you kidding?  This stuff is catnip for a certain mindset.  Here's another little chew toy:  Bush uses Ohio pen to veto troop withdrawal measure.



Whoops, my bad. :wink2:


----------



## michaeledward (May 2, 2007)

jdinca .... no comment? Are you really proposing that we consider Vice President Gore and Senator Kerry as the same as Commander-in-Chief Bush? 

Isn't that the argument you make when you say ... 



> If it were Gore, or Kerry who had accepted the soldier's medal


 
And you mis-represent facts. 
Senator Kerry did not throw "his" medals away. 
Some of Senator Kerry's fellow soldiers *were* murderers. 
I am waiting for someone to document President Clinton admitting he dodged the draft, rather than to ascert it as a political point. 

I don't think anyone has eviscerated Bush on his desertion (in this conversation, anyhow). And if you have evidence that he attended the National Guard duties required of him, that would be nice to see to. 

So, please don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. Back up your arguments.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 2, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Do you seriously think that even a "trivial" decision like this isnt scrutinized by a heard of advisors?


 
well, then I would say the whole bunch of them lack that necessary insight.



> While you may be right here, I dont think it was such a huge deal and I was in the service at a time.


 
fair enough, i really see it more as an example of how out of touch with reality Bush and his administration is, and it completely turns on its head the meaning that the medal is supposed to have.  Bush is supposed to GIVE the medals, not RECEIVE them.

They are meant to be given out based on clear criteria: wounds received, or death, due to an act of the enemy under conditions of war.  Bush accepted the medal based on the re-defined/inappropriately-defined criteria of a well-meaning, but completely erroneous supporter.  He should not allow the criteria of the medal to be re-defined by a citizen veteran.



> Kerry threw his medals away (physically and pubically) while calling soldiers murders and that was alright, but this is a slap in the face?


 
Kerry is free to do whatever he wants with his own medals, but I can understand why others might be offended by it.  As to calling our soldiers "murderers", I would like to see the exact language he used, and the full context under which it was said.  I suspect this may be an over-simplification of his true message, and not an accurate reflection of what he really said.  But without seeing it, I cannot comment further.

Regardless of this, whatever Mr. Kerry or anyone else did or did not do that was or was not appropriate, it is immaterial to the discussion of Bush accepting the Purple Heart.  I personally don't see the Democrats as the savior of this nation.  They are problematic in their own way, and that's why I am a political Independent.  But pointing out perceived wrongs done by others doesn't lessen the mistakes and wrong-doings of Bush.



> If its an insult to the troops, I think the blame falls on the giver, not the reciever.


 
I think my earlier paragraph answers this.  The medal is to be given out based on clearly defined criteria.  Accepting the medal based on how a citizen veteran has re-defined that criteria is inappropriate.

While I find the vet's actions inappropriate, I believe he was motivated by good intentions and I don't fault that.  However, yes, it was still inappropriate.

But still Mr. Bush should have recognized how inappropriate this was, and declined to accept the medal, and the far greater blame rests on his shoulders.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 2, 2007)

jdinca said:


> As for the signing with the pen, how does the father who gave Bush the pen feel about it? Is he proud that he used it, or is he upset? If he's happy Bush used the pen, then you don't have a leg to stand on. If he's upset, then you have a gripe. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but in these two cases what MATTERS, is what the individuals involved think.
> 
> "Derga asked Bush to promise to use the pen in his veto."
> 
> 'nuff said?


 
well, the pen was simply a personal gift between the two men.  A personal gift is just that, and nothing more.

The Purple Heart carries a great deal of National symbolism, and is only to be given out (not received) by the President.  It is given out based on clear criteria.  If those criteria are not met, it is not given.  The Purple Heart is far far different from a simple gift between individuals.  It is just completely apples and oranges.  Not at all a similar situation.


----------



## mrhnau (May 2, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> I think my earlier paragraph answers this.  The medal is to be given out based on clearly defined criteria.  Accepting the medal based on how a citizen veteran has re-defined that criteria is inappropriate.


This is the whole point I made earlier...

Bush is not receiving this medal for wounds received during combat. He is receiving it because some guy wants to give it to him. Same thing when I got the award from my grandfather. Same with many people receiving them posthumously or at later times.

The guy giving it to Bush was not giving it as a formal decoration, nor will Bush ever wear it if he were to wear his military regalia.

I'm sorry, I simply don't see an issue here other than Bush haters desperately wanting to pin something else on him. This thread should have died a long time ago.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 2, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> This is the whole point I made earlier...
> 
> Bush is not receiving this medal for wounds received during combat. He is receiving it because some guy wants to give it to him. Same thing when I got the award from my grandfather. Same with many people receiving them posthumously or at later times.
> 
> ...


 

well, I actually see this as a very different issue as well.

You received the medal from your grandfather.  Obviously the medal has become a family heirloom and was passed on to you as such.  There was no suggestion that you earned the medal based on combat merit.  As a family heirloom, that is completely appropriate.  Or as a simple gift between friends, it could be passed on.  I would see nothing wrong with that.

This Veteran, however, gave the medal to Bush based on "verbal and emotional" attacks upon him by citizens of the US and members of our lawmaking body who oppose and disagree with his actions and policies.  This suggests (laughably) that Bush merits the medal for these "wounds", and it also suggests that those citizens and members of congress who oppose him are somehow at war with him and are "enemy combatants".  This is a completely inappropriate characterization in both cases.  It also implies that the intent of the giver was actually as an unofficial "formal decoration", and Bush knew this and accepted it anyways.  And by accepting the medal, Bush implies that the above meritless characterizations actually have merit.  Like it or not, he is a political figure and his actions make political waves.  His actions send messages to the public that he apparently is unable to recognize, or else he is willing to accept.  

While some gifts, like a pen, may be appropriate to accept, the symbolism attached to the Purple Heart and Mr. Bush's position in US Politics, mandates that Bush had a duty to decline the gift.

And I agree, this thread should have died already.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 2, 2007)

I agree on all counts, *Michael* but commend you especially on a fine post that deserves to be the one to wrap this issue up :rei:.


----------



## jdinca (May 2, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> well, the pen was simply a personal gift between the two men.  A personal gift is just that, and nothing more.
> 
> The Purple Heart carries a great deal of National symbolism, and is only to be given out (not received) by the President.  It is given out based on clear criteria.  If those criteria are not met, it is not given.  The Purple Heart is far far different from a simple gift between individuals.  It is just completely apples and oranges.  Not at all a similar situation.



I certainly understand your point of view but the fact of the matter is that the Purple Heart was given as a gift from a soldier to his commander in chief, not as a medal earned in combat. Were that the case, I would be in 100% support of your position. I don't see in any way how this denigrates the meaning behind the medal. The soldier earned it by being wounded in combat. He is so supportive of the President and what he's doing, that he felt it appropriate to give it to him as a gift. It's his choice, like it, or not. 

What I find surprising is that some of the comments about the soldier makes him look like he doesn't understand the meaning of what's he's done. If ANYBODY understands the significance, it would be the soldier who earned the medal in the first place.


----------



## jdinca (May 2, 2007)

Okay, I make a pledge not post on this thread anymore. On to the next controversy...


----------



## Flying Crane (May 2, 2007)

jdinca said:


> I certainly understand your point of view but the fact of the matter is that the Purple Heart was given as a gift from a soldier to his commander in chief, not as a medal earned in combat. Were that the case, I would be in 100% support of your position. I don't see in any way how this denigrates the meaning behind the medal. The soldier earned it by being wounded in combat. He is so supportive of the President and what he's doing, that he felt it appropriate to give it to him as a gift. It's his choice, like it, or not.
> 
> What I find surprising is that some of the comments about the soldier makes him look like he doesn't understand the meaning of what's he's done. If ANYBODY understands the significance, it would be the soldier who earned the medal in the first place.


 

Quotes from the article:

"_Thomas said he and his wife came up with the unprecedented idea to present the president with the *Purple* *Heart* over breakfast one morning a few months ago as they discussed the verbal attacks, both foreign and domestic, the commander in chief has withstood during his time in office.

'We feel like emotional wounds and scars are as hard to carry as physical wounds,' Thomas said_."

...

"_Thomas said he drew up a citation and he and his wife signed it before dropping it and the medal off with Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock, to forward to President Bush._"

To me, these quotes indicate that the veteran believes Mr. Bush merits the medals as his *"emotional wounds and scars are as hard to carry as physical* *wounds"*.  It would be interesting to know what was written on the citation that he drew up.

It is entirely possible that this individual also does not recognize just how inappropriate the gift is, no matter how good his intentions were.  I do not believe this was simply a gift from a veteran to the current commander in chief.  The symbolism of the Purple Heart, and Mr. Bush's political station, take this out of that simple realm.

Just because a gift is good intentioned, doesn't mean it has to be accepted if it is inappropriate.  Politicians are in a sensitive position with the public, and they need to have the tact and insight to recognize the unspoken message their actions send.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 2, 2007)

Okay you two (*jdinca* and *Flying Crane*) ... pack that in right now! .

I can't be agreeing with you _both_ at the _same_ time about the _same_ thing ... it's ... it's ... just not right :lol:.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 2, 2007)

yes, this is sort of a silly argument to continue.  I think we've all explained our postions pretty well, and we can agree to disagree like adults.  I'm ready to let it lie.


----------



## jdinca (May 3, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> yes, this is sort of a silly argument to continue.  I think we've all explained our postions pretty well, and we can agree to disagree like adults.  I'm ready to let it lie.



Did you just call me a liar?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

verkill:
Whoops, I pledged I wasn't going to post on this one anymore....


----------



## Flying Crane (May 3, 2007)

jdinca said:


> Did you just call me a liar?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
> 
> verkill:
> Whoops, I pledged I wasn't going to post on this one anymore....


 

nope, i called you an adult.


----------



## jdinca (May 3, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> nope, i called you an adult.



Okay, now you're just being mean. :uhyeah:


----------

