
![]() | |
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
|
Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! March 7, 2004 Are "Cut 'n' Run" Days Over for Kerry?By GreyhawkThis doesn't bother me. And I think I know why: John Kerry's standing among veterans could sink no lower than it already is. Many do love him, but the number of Democrats on Active Duty (and consequently the number of Democrat veterans) has sunk to a remarkable (though unsurprising) statistical low since the end of the draft. The "love of country" that goes beyond slogan chanting and results in actual voluntary service to said country generally leads to Republican-leaning political beliefs. (To those who would argue otherwise - yes, there are exceptions; and now recall Al Gore trying furiously to block the military absentee votes in Florida.) Also, contrary to media-fueled and apparently now popularly held opinion, Kerry's military career was at least as pathetic (in the minds of those who know) as it was distinguished (to those who don't care to look past the surface). So the fact that he tried to delay it by a year (if true) is of marginal consequence. The whole thing smacks of a "Kerry didn't keep his boots shiny" argument - who cares? The man abandoned his command. But the more minor complaints lodged against him, the quicker the electorate will tire of hearing them at all. Here's the rather incongruous military career of our hero, John Kerry: He requests a delay in entering the service, it's denied, so he joins. He gets more medals faster than any military man in history, and then quits his command at the first opportunity, abandoning his men in the field in time of war. What's that you say? He asked for a delay in joining? The bastard! Of course, this apparent split-personality jives quite nicely with the subsequent life. Failure to get elected on the "war hero" ticket leads to protest of said war, to include rancorous vilification of fellow GI's still in combat. A subsequent Senatorial career is spent voting down every major defense bill that crosses his desk. He never meets an intel budget for which he wouldn't gleefully shout "nay"! Then suddenly, one dark night, the need for votes outside of Massachusetts arises. Under cover of darkness our hero figuratively sneaks onto the White House lawn and retrieves those long lost medals, earned over that hellish 4-month span. Hey! Presto! InstaHero is back! And this time he's mad! Give the parents of the new generation of baby killers their money back, Mr. Bush! How dare you send our boys and girls off to commit atrocities on innocent Iraqis without body armor! Have you no shame, Mr. Bush? In case you've missed the point, here's what appears to be ol' gutless John's dream war: Troops bogged down in trenches about 600 yards north of the Kuwait border due to lack of armor and air cover, each and every one sporting a brand new his-or-hers Kevlar flak jacket, compliments of taxes on the wealthiest Americans. With French soldiers right along side. Sure beats our current quagmire. So forget that year in Paris crap. It's time to bid adieu to "cut 'n' run" Kerry, kids! The man-for-all-seasons is a war hero this year. Posted by Greyhawk / March 7, 2004 3:03 PM | Permalink 2 TrackBacksJust pointing you in the direction of these two posts over at Blogs For Bush on Kerry's illustrious Vietnam service, to wit how he tried to defer going, his recommending himself for his medals (gotta love that), and, of course, using his very minor ... Read More The Carnival of the Bush Bloggers: March 8, 2004 Edition Read More 5 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
![]() Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com ![]() Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
I belileve that if we follow this all the way back, we will find that some regulation adopted after the "$600 toilet seat" scandal keeps the army from quick procurement.
Something like the maker must hire a certain percent of minorities and women before the purchase order can be issued?
It is a pity that "The Media" raises questions but refuses to seek answers except when those answers serve the political interests.
People forget (or are never told) that Kerry is a creature of the Kennedy Clan. From his time in college, and perhaps even high school, he was one of their boys. He was anti-war before ever going to Vietnam. I'm sure Teddy probably convinced him military hero status would help him in politics, so he went.
His entire life has been geared toward political ends. If he becomes President, Teddy will be the de facto leader of this country, something he couldn't achieve on his own due to a "small indiscretion."
Military guys, if a life long civilian can call you that. Kerry got hit 3 not-so-major times in Vietnam. But he was in harm's way those three times. An inch here, an inch there and he could have come back in a body-bag within those 3 months or maimed instead of just scratched. Liar Bush didn't even bother to go.
In that vein, a spokesperson for Fort Knox, Connie Shaffery said recently, "If a soldier is not at his or her duty station and is not on an authorized leave or pass status, he is absent without leave. When a soldier is listed AWOL, it stops all pay and benefits." quoted by UPI on March 2, 2004. What then was Bush in Alabama in the 1970s?
Instead of picking at knats about Kerry why not talking about the man's ideas. For me, Kerry or others who could beat lying President would be preferable.
Pete,
There's no AWOL in the Guard. Bush left service during a post-war drawdown - these issues have actualy been debated at length on other posts here. Search "Bush AWOL" using the search box in the right column.
Kerry, on the other hand, abandoned his command at the height of the war. Hardly the actions of a "hero" - thus far he's the only example we have of an American military commander doing so. Hardly a nitpick. "Gutless John" and "Ol' Cut'n'Run" are well earned nicknames.
As of yet ol' Cut'n'Run has presented no ideas, short of the same stuff Miss America desires - "world peace" "affordable medical care" - for his term. Yes, and "his hate for Bush is bigger than his Boston mansion" - we know.
But as military guys - which is a fine term - we're realistic, and our primary concern really is world peace. In fact, we are the number one anti-war group in the world, seeing as how we tend to die in wars.
That's why you won't see too many votes for Gutless John coming from this quarter, no matter what the NY Times wants you to believe.
I think that, in accordance with the spirit of liberal internationalism and Wilsonian idealism, many liberals and Democrats, if they want to stay true to their principles, should support a lengthy stay for the U.S. military in Iraq, and should support nation-building and large-scale spending in that operation.
Some supporters of the Iraq war - both liberals and conservatives - have said this. Jonah Goldberg (of National Review) made this same point in a column last fall, pointing out that liberals and Democrats should be supporting the current U.S. policy in post-war Iraq, since it is consistent with "Every single good thing about liberalism in foreign policy..." and with "the noble tradition of assertive liberal internationalism in the Democratic party."
As I have said before, and have pointed out numerous times, Democrats and liberals support warfare and intervention more than many (most?) conservatives and Republicans do.
Within the Left, there are the pacifists and peaceniks who always oppose war, but there are the liberal internationalists who support using the military frequently and promiscuosly to accomplish what conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer rightfully condemns as "foreign policy social work." And within the Right, there are those traditionalist conservatives, constitutionalists, and libertarian-minded conservatives who want to use our military forces only for limited purposes, such as national defense, while there are also those on the Right (or who claim to be on the Right) who support the neoconservative and neoliberal foreign policy visions, which are similar in ways to the liberal internationalist and Wilsonian vision of foreign policy.
It is very helpful to study political philosophy and history, and to be able to differentiate between the different schools of political thought. With complex and multi-faceted situations, such as a war or foreign intervention, you often cannot create an accurate dichotomy with liberals all on one side, and conservatives all on the other side. Oftentimes, due to concurrences of ideology, there are left-leaning folks on each side of the issues, and there are right-leaning folks on each side of the issue as well. That's the way things frequently are in real-life politics and public policy. Unfortunately, many people do not understand these cleavages and political phenomena, and then, we end up misunderstanding other. (Note: I'm not saying that this is what is happening in this particular discussion thread, or at this blog, but I think it does occur quite frequently.)