Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged

[AlbqOwl]

The Congress is controled by the Republican party.The President leads the Republican party.His budget cut the needed Veterans budget by1 billion dollars.The House said ,No. They put it back in and the senate agreed.

So what is your problem? The President's budget cannot cut anything if every single member of Congress was a Republican. Further, the President's budget did NOT cut Veteran's benefits, but it did rearrange them.

Try getting your information somewhere other than radical leftwingnut blogs and you have a much better chance of getting good information.

Try HERE: http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html

 

[SixStringHero]

My favorite and most non-biased site.

 

[MSgt]

The Congress is controled by the Republican party.The President leads the Republican party.His budget cut the needed Veterans budget by1 billion dollars.The House said ,No. They put it back in and the senate agreed.

You know how I can tell the ignorant from the enlightened? They all cry about the same false things they heard from Bush bashers who liked the false "facts" that they heard.......

http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html

Don't make me have to write out what the Active Duty has achieved through our equipment since President Bush rescued us from President Clinton's neglect. But, whatever..right? As long as the polls were up and Americans got to see a surplus it didn't matter who it hurt. Funny how the general American seems to care now as they desperately stretch out for anything that might allow them to bash. We're not fooled.

 

[gordontravels]

The Congress is controled by the Republican party.The President leads the Republican party.His budget cut the needed Veterans budget by1 billion dollars.The House said ,No. They put it back in and the senate agreed.

So are you saying that the President removed 1 billion from a bill on his own? Since you are talking about control don't you think you should know what the control is about? What were the other elements in that bill? Could there have been other things that shouldn't have passed and maybe you would even have agreed shouldn't have passed?

I think what you have heard is that the President took 1 billion out of a bill for Vets and that's all you heard and ...... do you know why? Could it be that when your favorite media reports their opinion that's all they tell you? Believe me, if the President does something good then you will hear little about it. If he murders Vets in the hospital you'll hear that.

Partisan politics goes beyond what you and I think. It is the new method of a media that is biased either toward an idea, politician, party or ideal. If they give you something as blatant as the President removing the money and then his Republican Party restores it because they control not only the Senate but the House that you say said NO, then the President signs it into law what's your problem? Was there something else removed or added to the bill that then caused it to pass? Do you know?

I think your problem is that you believe the story, just that story and don't look beyond that story. If you trust what the media tells you you play into their hands. So, tell me what the bill was and I'll go to the Congressional site and increase my understanding like I hope you did. :duel

 

[AlbqOwl]

You can read the leftwing anti-Bush, anti-administration, blogs and you see the same words repeated again and again, sometimes verbatim. And those who are bent that way pick them up and repeat them themselves. It's the old saw that if you repeat a lie often enough, it seems more and more plausible.

The media does the same thing. Somebody writes something that sounds really good to the rest of them, and the next thing you know, they're all printing the mantra of the 'smear of the day.'

This last couple of weeks on every leftwing media source, numerous Democrats before a microphone, and in the leftwing blogs you saw the same phrase: "Culture of corruption" referring to Tom Delay's indictment. Does any sane person think all these people thought up that specific phrase without picking it up from everybody else?

And now we see "Bush slashed veteran's benefits" again and again and again in headlines, in blogs, and in Democrat photo ops. And it's all a lie, repeated again and again and again.

The best we can do is for educated people who value the truth to keep speaking it. Anybody can be fooled by a lie. Fortunately it's only the ignorant and hopelessly partisan who stick to one once they know the truth.

 

[gordontravels]

You can read the leftwing anti-Bush, anti-administration, blogs and you see the same words repeated again and again, sometimes verbatim. And those who are bent that way pick them up and repeat them themselves. It's the old saw that if you repeat a lie often enough, it seems more and more plausible.

The media does the same thing. Somebody writes something that sounds really good to the rest of them, and the next thing you know, they're all printing the mantra of the 'smear of the day.'

This last couple of weeks on every leftwing media source, numerous Democrats before a microphone, and in the leftwing blogs you saw the same phrase: "Culture of corruption" referring to Tom Delay's indictment. Does any sane person think all these people thought up that specific phrase without picking it up from everybody else?

And now we see "Bush slashed veteran's benefits" again and again and again in headlines, in blogs, and in Democrat photo ops. And it's all a lie, repeated again and again and again.

The best we can do is for educated people who value the truth to keep speaking it. Anybody can be fooled by a lie. Fortunately it's only the ignorant and hopelessly partisan who stick to one once they know the truth.

I have to speak to deaf ears. If the media would report the news instead of opinion they would actually "cover" the story. The media during Vietnam reported on "Vietnamization" or the intention of the Johnson Administration to train and equip the South Vietnamese to fight their own war with us as reserves instead of frontline troops.

The current Administration is doing that as well but what about reporting it. What I hear from those I know in Iraq in the military is why don't the media in this country talk about all the good things they are doing? Don't you all know there are hundreds of stories other than suicide bombers? Hospitals, schools, democracy and an election for their Constitution that brought out as many as 66% in many areas of the country to vote? That rivals us in our last election, did you know that? It is actually a higher figure than our elections? Maybe the Iraqi people care.

It is my considered opinion that our media thrives on keeping us divided. Many want to do that in political forums as well. I'm not talking about difference of opinion. I'm talking about method and who you believe. No one here lies. Others report the President lies. I have seen that post about the 16 words before but I actually heard them spoken live. I never had a doubt there was no lie from the President. I've seen some here calling each other stupid. Does that include me? :duel

 

[26 X World Champs]

Like his Liberal buddies Clinton had total disdain for the military

Prove this point, please? Show all of us through a link or two or three proof that Clinton "had total disdain for the military."

I think the words in your post are wrong, and that you have no proof whatsoever. You're using, which you seem to do almost always, your opinion and making it out to be fact, when in truth it is fiction.

This post is pure genius, making you a frickin' genius Navy Pride!

 

[MSgt]

Prove this point, please? Show all of us through a link or two or three proof that Clinton "had total disdain for the military."

I think the words in your post are wrong, and that you have no proof whatsoever. You're using, which you seem to do almost always, your opinion and making it out to be fact, when in truth it is fiction.

This post is pure genius, making you a frickin' genius Navy Pride!

If I told you that it was raining, would you want a link to prove it? There is life outside of the Internet, you know. Get over it. Clinton was a rotten Commander in Chief.

 

[26 X World Champs]

The president needs the line item veto that has been filibustered by democrats so he can veto items off a bill that are nothing but pork........

History might not be your best subject Navy Pride? Based on your most recent post it sure seems like you have no idea what the history of the Federal Line Item Veto is. How surprising that you got it wrong? I would never have imagined it.

The Line Item Veto was passed by Congress and signed ito law in 1996. (Guess who was President when it was signed?) Do you know it passed in the Senate 69-31? Did the Republicans have a 69-31 majority that year?

President Clinton used it once before a court found it UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Filibustered by Democrats! Sorry Mr. Pride, but you are totally and completely WRONG.

It was used once before U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan (Reagan appointee) decided on February 12, 1998 that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto

Care to know how the vote came down Navy Pride?

Justices in Concurrence:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Anthony Kennedy
William Rehnquist
David Souter
John Paul Stevens
Clarence Thomas

Justices in Dissent:
Stephen Breyer
Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia

Democrats? Liberals? I guess in your revisionist history Clarence Thomas & William Rehnquist are Liberals and Stephen Breyer & Sandra Day O'Connor are Conservatives.

Hey Navy? What source do you have to prove that those frickin' Democrats are filibustering the Presidential line item veto?

You're a frickin' genius you are Navy Pride!

 

[26 X World Champs]

If I told you that it was raining, would you want a link to prove it? There is life outside of the Internet, you know. Get over it. Clinton was a rotten Commander in Chief.

You're missing the point. Navy Pride said Clinton "had total disdain for the military." He wasn't talking about the military's opinion of Clinton.

I dispute that comment. I think it is completely wrong. There's nothing in the public record that I know of that supports that Clinton "had total disdain for the military."

This is not about what the military thought of Clinton.

 

[MSgt]

You're missing the point. Navy Pride said Clinton "had total disdain for the military." He wasn't talking about the military's opinion of Clinton.

I dispute that comment. I think it is completely wrong. There's nothing in the public record that I know of that supports that Clinton "had total disdain for the military."

This is not about what the military thought of Clinton.

I see. You won't find an Internet site that say's that unless you go to opinionated articles.

Also, it's not just about what the military felt towards him. How do you think he dealt with our deficit and built up our surpluss? He hurt us through the 90's and ignored us as we were being attacked by the idiots that we are fighting today. Do you realize that until President Bush came along, we were still using basic issue that was used in the Vietnam and Beirut era? We barely had enough money to train with. I can remember having to go over to the FSSG (support) and borrowing ammo so that we (Division) could train, because we foolishly spent our "allowance" on maintenance items for vehicles and such. Most of the time, half of our vehicles would sit in the Motor T lost "awaiting parts." The contriversy with NBC gear and SAPI Plates before the Iraq war broke out was a wake up call to the government on our readiness.

 

[Eryx82]

Staging a conference? I dont know what the big deal is, this seems like mormal politics to me( i know it shouldnt be but thats just the way it is)

 

[26 X World Champs]

I see. You won't find an Internet site that say's that unless you go to opinionated articles.

Also, it's not just about what the military felt towards him. How do you think he dealt with our deficit and built up our surpluss? He hurt us through the 90's and ignored us as we were being attacked by the idiots that we are fighting today.

Clinton's defense budgets, and Bush I's before him (except for 1991 due to Gulf War) were not as robust as today's mostly due to the end of the Cold War and the perception that we did not need as strong a military as we previously needed. That was the thinking both Bush I and Clinton espoused.

As Clinton's time passed by he did reverse the trend and increase spending quite a bit. I believe his 2000 expenditures were the largest increase since the early Reagan days in the first half of the 1980s? Here's a chart from CNN in January 2000.

YEAR DoD SPENDING AUTHORITY $ INCREASE % INCREASE
FY1996 $254,417,000
FY1997 $257,974,000 $3,557,000 1.4%
FY1998 $258,527,000 $563,000 0.22%
FY1999 $262,564,000 $4,027,000 1.56%
FY2000 $272,400,000 $9,836,000 3.75%
FY2001 $291,000,000 $18,600,000 6.83%

Regardless I sincerely believe it is idiotic to write that Clinton held the military in disdain, which implies that he tried to hurt the military.

 

[MSgt]

Clinton's defense budgets, and Bush I's before him (except for 1991 due to Gulf War) were not as robust as today's mostly due to the end of the Cold War and the perception that we did not need as strong a military as we previously needed. That was the thinking both Bush I and Clinton espoused.

As Clinton's time passed by he did reverse the trend and increase spending quite a bit. I believe his 2000 expenditures were the largest increase since the early Reagan days in the first half of the 1980s? Here's a chart from CNN in January 2000.

Regardless I sincerely believe it is idiotic to write that Clinton held the military in disdain, which implies that he tried to hurt the military.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that either. I would say that Hurting the military certainly wasn't the goal.

You bring up a good point though. There was a time when our military was built around the ability to fight two wars simultaneously. When that objective conflicted with Washington’s intent to cut defense spending, our objectives were scaled back. They continued to scale the military down over the years and decades to what we have today. Through it all, the ruling class continues to demand more and more from our military. Deployments and re-deployments have been coming so frequently over the decade that Marines barely have enough time to catch a movie stateside before boarding another plane or ship. National Guardsmen and reservists are being used in unprecedented ways and for longer periods of time, resulting in event like Abu-Graib. With Active military presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, the HOA, the Far East, foreign natural disasters, and now performing natural disaster missions in our own country, their presence helps to masque the shortage of Active Duty personnel. Army and Marine Corps recruiters are unable to meet quotas while High Schools deny them access to graduating seniors. All the while the Air Force and Navy are still scaling back.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I wouldn't go as far as to say that either. I would say that Hurting the military certainly wasn't the goal.

You bring up a good point though. There was a time when our military was built around the ability to fight two wars simultaneously. When that objective conflicted with Washington’s intent to cut defense spending, our objectives were scaled back. They continued to scale the military down over the years and decades to what we have today. Through it all, the ruling class continues to demand more and more from our military.

On this we agree! It's far too simplistic to blame a single President for the scaling back of the military. Bush II is, to me, the most guilty because he's the one who started this war, he's the one who came up with the strategy to use too few soldiers which also has resulted in those extended tours of duties that you speak of.

I also do not mean for that last paragraph to be a complete bash Bush statement. It just so happens that even with gigantic increases in spending we're struggling militarily. Why? I think it's because we are trying to fight a "conventional" war when our enemies are insurgents and terrorists. Fighting those bastards is a whole different animal, one that takes a new paradigm, and with all due respect, our military minds are not exactly known for being paradigm shifters.

I've read more than enough of your posts to know that you have a sincere and deeply committed belief re the ME. My point re Iraq, which I believe you disagree with is that I would have much preferred to not go to Iraq and instead concentrate fully on the terrorist threat, wherever that may be since to me, terrorism is our true enemy, the one that really threatens us, something that Saddam just never did.

Question for you? If we invested the same amount or for that matter HALF the amount that we've spent in Iraq on fighting terrorism directly, what would the world look like today, to you? I'm curious to read what you think,

Thanks!

 

[MSgt]

Question for you? If we invested the same amount or for that matter HALF the amount that we've spent in Iraq on fighting terrorism directly, what would the world look like today, to you? I'm curious to read what you think, Thanks!

This is where it gets confusing. I wrote most of this on another thread, but I think it applies. I tend to agree with the military analysts that have been warning our deaf government of the Middle East since the mid 80's. The problem with fighting Islamic terrorism directly, is that we will never come to an end, because we will not have addressed the society where they are coming from. I believe that Iraq will be a part of a bigger picture, and our fight there will be one battle in a much longer war. Saddam isn't our enemy. Bin Laden (may he burn in hell) is not our enemy. Iraq wasn’t our enemy. Al Qaeda isn't our enemy. The Taliban weren't our enemies. They are merely symptoms of decay.

In most wars, there's a government or core organization which you can identify as the enemy. It isn't always a single person; in World War II it was Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, but it wasn't Tojo in Japan. Tojo was deposed in 1944, but the war went on. It also wasn't Hirohito; he mostly kept his hands off of policy. Still, it was the Japanese government, and that could still be understood.

But in this war there is no single government or small group of them, no man, no organization. Our enemy is a culture which is deeply diseased. It's really difficult to exactly delineate who our enemies are, but they number in millions. They're Arab and Muslim, but not every Arab is among them, and most Muslims are not.

The diseased culture of our enemy suffers from deep flaws which condemns them to failure in the modern world…

1) Restrictions on the free flow of information.
2) The subjugation of women.
3) Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
4) The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
5) Domination by a restrictive religion.
6) A low valuation of education.
7) Low prestige assigned to work.

All of Al Qaeda's terrorist attacks, and Saddam's attempts to incorporate other Arab nations into Iraq, spring from the same deep cause. If we were to stamp out Al Qaeda as a viable organization and reduce it to an occasional annoyance, get rid of the Saddams and the Bin Laddens, someone else somewhere else would spring up and we would again be in peril. We cannot end this war by only treating the symptoms of Al Qaeda and Saddam, though they must be dealt with as part of that process. This war is actually a war between the modern age and traditional Arab culture, and as long as they stagnated and felt resentment quietly, it wasn't our war.

It became our war when al Qaeda started bringing it to our nation. With a series of successively more deadly attacks culminating in the attacks in NYC and Washington, it became clear that we in the United States could no longer ignore it, and had to start working actively to remove the danger to us. We didn't pick this war, it picked us, but we can't turn away from it. If we ignore it, it will keep happening. Whether we are apart of it or not, this war will continue until the traditional crippled Arab culture is shattered. It won't end until they embrace reform or have it forced on them. Until 9/11, we were willing to be patient and let them embrace it slowly. Now we have no choice: we have to force them to reform because we cannot be safe until they do.

They won't stop hating us until they become successful and begin to achieve on their own. We can't make them successful with material gifts, including aid to their poor. We can only make them successful with cultural changes, and they will resist that. Now that we've been attacked, we are ourselves compelled to force them to accept those cultural changes, because that is the only way short of actual genocide to remove the danger to ourselves. This does not mean imposing our culture on them. This merely means giving their culture a chance to grow into the 21st century. This war will end when they change, but not before. This includes the entire Middle East, which is Syria, Palestine, Iran, Saudi, as far out as the former Afghanistan, and yes..the former Iraq.

That's my two cents, anyway.

 

[Navy Pride]

R e : Navy Pride # 36
President Bush does not it seem care about creating Veterans he just minds taking care of them.
It was an angry Congress that restored one billion dollars to the Veterans dept. budget, over the objections of President Bush ! Many people remember what snake pits .Some veterans hospitals became durin g the Viet Nam war, because of underfunding.

That is a crock....left wing spin.......My medical provider is a VA Hospital in Tacoma snd the service to veterans has never been better.......If the president did not want to fund The VA he could just veto the bill....That is how it works........This president has dine more to increase benefits to Vets and active duty military then any since Nixon.........

 

[UtahBill]

That is a crock....left wing spin.......My medical provider is a VA Hospital in Tacoma snd the service to veterans has never been better.......If the president did not want to fund The VA he could just veto the bill....That is how it works........This president has dine more to increase benefits to Vets and active duty military then any since Nixon.........

Isn't it congress that approves the budget? They hold the purse strings, and it is not unusual for them to add to the amount a presidents request for budget items, or to reduce the amount. There is more to this argument than a few gross numbers.

 

[oldreliable67]

I believe that Iraq will be a part of a bigger picture, and our fight there will be one battle in a much longer war. Saddam isn't our enemy. Bin Laden (may he burn in hell) is not our enemy. Iraq wasn’t our enemy. Al Qaeda isn't our enemy. The Taliban weren't our enemies. They are merely symptoms of decay.

Gunny is on the right track. The answer, IMO, is globalization and a new deterrent paradigm: MAD. But MAD is not the 'mutually assured destruction' of the cold war. The new paradigm is 'mutually assured dependence'.

Quoting from Thomas Barnetts "The Pentagon's New Map",

"Where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, you will find stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder. But where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, you find politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and—most important-the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists."

In the new 'mutally assured dependence' paradigm, , the war in Iraq is not simply settling old scores, or just an enforced disarmament of illegal weapons, or a distraction in the war on terror. It is a historical tipping point-the US has taken real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.

Come to think of it, this should be a thread of its own...see
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=4709

 

[gordontravels]

You're missing the point. Navy Pride said Clinton "had total disdain for the military." He wasn't talking about the military's opinion of Clinton.

I dispute that comment. I think it is completely wrong. There's nothing in the public record that I know of that supports that Clinton "had total disdain for the military."

This is not about what the military thought of Clinton.

I remember quite clearly that Bill Clinton wrote a letter to I believe the Commander of the Arkansas National Guard who he knew. In that letter he made it clear he didn't want to serve and also his "distain" for the military as a whole. If this is in any way a reference for Navy Pride's comments then he is correct.

I don't have a link (have to say) for this letter but I'm sure it could be found in information on the 1992 campaign for president. It was widely publicized. :duel

 

[Navy Pride]

Clinton would not even let the military wear their uniforms when they were in the white house...............I can remember on time when he boarded the USS NIMITZ (CVN-68) for and official visit he di not even know how to salutel the flag when he came aboard on the quarterdeck............It was laughable and a disgrace........

People also knew of his draft dodger tactics and thought he was a joke......

 

[cnredd]

I remember quite clearly that Bill Clinton wrote a letter to I believe the Commander of the Arkansas National Guard who he knew. In that letter he made it clear he didn't want to serve and also his "distain" for the military as a whole. If this is in any way a reference for Navy Pride's comments then he is correct.

I don't have a link (have to say) for this letter but I'm sure it could be found in information on the 1992 campaign for president. It was widely publicized. :duel

Excerpt of said letter...

After I signed the ROTC letter of intent I began to wonder whether the compromise I had made with myself was not more objectionable than the draft would have been, because I had no interest in the ROTC program in itself and all I seemed to have done was to protect myself from physical harm. Also, I began to think I had deceived you, not by lies - there were none - but by failing to tell you all the things I'm writing now. I doubt that I had the mental coherence to articulate them then. At that time, after we had made our agreement and you had sent my 1 - D deferment to my draft board, the anguish and loss of self-regard and self-confidence really set in. I hardly slept for weeks and kept going by eating compulsively and reading until exhaustion brought sleep. Finally on September 12th, I stayed up all night writing a letter to the chairman of my draft board, saying basically what is in the preceding paragraph, thanking him for trying to help me in a case where he really couldn't, and stating that I couldn't do the ROTC after all and would he please draft me as soon as possible.

I never mailed the letter, but I did carry it on me every day until I got on the plane to return to England. I didn't mail the letter because I didn't see, in the end, how my going in the Army and maybe going to Vietnam would achieve anything except a feeling that I had punished myself and gotten what I deserved. So I came back to England to try to make something of this second year of my Rhodes scholarship.

And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been good to me and have a right to know what I think and feel. I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is disservice, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal. Forgive the length of this letter. There was much to say. There is still a lot to be said, but it can wait. Please say hello to Colonel Jones for me. Merry Christmas.

Sincerely,

Bill Clinton

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html

I think "loving their country but loathing the military" sums it up nicely...

 

[scottyz]

It just kills the left in this country that most of the military loves this president and holds him in such high esteem..........They remember what a joke Clinton was to the military...Like his Liberal buddies Clinton had total disdain for the military

I know lots of people in the military who hate Bush and think he is a bad joke. Those are probably the whiney libtraitor soldiers though, right?

 

[gordontravels]

Excerpt of said letter...

After I signed the ROTC letter of intent I began to wonder whether the compromise I had made with myself was not more objectionable than the draft would have been, because I had no interest in the ROTC program in itself and all I seemed to have done was to protect myself from physical harm. Also, I began to think I had deceived you, not by lies - there were none - but by failing to tell you all the things I'm writing now. I doubt that I had the mental coherence to articulate them then. At that time, after we had made our agreement and you had sent my 1 - D deferment to my draft board, the anguish and loss of self-regard and self-confidence really set in. I hardly slept for weeks and kept going by eating compulsively and reading until exhaustion brought sleep. Finally on September 12th, I stayed up all night writing a letter to the chairman of my draft board, saying basically what is in the preceding paragraph, thanking him for trying to help me in a case where he really couldn't, and stating that I couldn't do the ROTC after all and would he please draft me as soon as possible.

I never mailed the letter, but I did carry it on me every day until I got on the plane to return to England. I didn't mail the letter because I didn't see, in the end, how my going in the Army and maybe going to Vietnam would achieve anything except a feeling that I had punished myself and gotten what I deserved. So I came back to England to try to make something of this second year of my Rhodes scholarship.

And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been good to me and have a right to know what I think and feel. I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is disservice, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal. Forgive the length of this letter. There was much to say. There is still a lot to be said, but it can wait. Please say hello to Colonel Jones for me. Merry Christmas.

Sincerely,

Bill Clinton

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html

I think "loving their country but loathing the military" sums it up nicely...

I disagree with your estimation that "loving their country but loathing the military" sums it up nicely. This is the first time I have read this letter in its entirety and there is much more here than just this statement.

What I do see is that the "loathing" of "the military" is misplaced in this instance by Bill Clinton. It is the Democrat Party and the Democrat Administration along with the Republicans in agreement that are responsible for the war he cannot support and the democratic values he thinks are being walked on. This seems to show a belief based upon mistaken reason: that the military isn't under orders but is a political party within itself with responsibility for us actually going to war. Mr. Clinton should know this isn't true with his experience both in Washington and his work against the war effort. This doesn't show a lack of knowledge on his part but a complete misunderstanding of the military's role in our country.

As to whether this December 1969 letter reflects the man in 1992 in so far as his belief in the mission of the military, the Vietnam War was over for nearly 23 years by that time. This letter is definitely in reference to the Vietnam War and any thoughts formulated from a "loathing" of "the military" or of an anti-war effort were from that time and not 1992 when Governor Clinton ran for President.

I think President Clinton was weak on defense and weak on terrorism during his administration but then I can't say he loathed the military. He was a part of it at that time as Commander in Chief. I do think he could have done that job better, especially in reference to al Qaida.

Thank you for posting the link. I had heard much and now I know for myself. :duel

 

[26 X World Champs]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html

I think "loving their country but loathing the military" sums it up nicely...

Perfect! A perfect example of someone with an agenda of partisan politics. Using a letter written in 1969 to "prove" that President Clinton held the military in "disdain" from 1992 until now is as weak and stupid as it gets.

Talk about twisting the truth! What is really amazing is that the author truly believes what he wrote AND that he truly believes people in this community are stupid enough to take a letter from 1969 as fact in 2005.

Am I surprised by these tactics? Absolutely not! When someone practices partisan politics they use bogus tools as their "proof."

Let's get real here! To write that any person serving as President of the USA holds our military, as Navy Pride wrote "in disdain" is a really, really stupid thing to write or it's partisan politics, period.