America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 19 years ago by CWFoster. 14 replies replies.
I gotta agree with this guy.
Homebrew Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
I might not like the Democratic nominee but this guy nailed it.
Copy and pasted from Creators Syndicate.
WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- There was no official announcement, no press release. But make no mistake about it. As demonstrated daily in the language used by those who wage and those who analyze this uninspiring presidential campaign, the historic meaning of the word "patriotism" has been totally rewritten.

Don't take my word for it. Just listen. No longer is a patriot someone who has selflessly put the common good before personal comfort or someone who voluntarily sacrifices for the safety of country and countrymen. That is outdated patriotism. No, in the fall of 2004, after being successfully hijacked by partisans, "patriotism" now has nothing to do with one's personal conduct or courage. "Patriotism" now means ideology.

To be a patriot by today's debased rhetoric is easy. It involves no personal risk or discomfort, no sacrifice of any kind. You will pay no price. You will bear no burden. All you have to do is to give relentless and uncritical backing to the unilateral invasion and occupation by the United States military of agreed-upon unfriendly countries.

Consider the following facts: In spite of his personal doubts about the wisdom of his country's war policy in Vietnam, this young man from a privileged background with an Ivy League degree volunteered for combat duty in Vietnam where he was honored for bravery. Convinced that the U.S. policy in Vietnam was mistaken, John Kerry returned to civilian life where he publicly sought to change the U.S. war policy.

(One could argue that if he had succeeded in changing U.S. policy that John Kerry would have effectively spared our incumbent president and vice president from the painful moral conflict of choosing whether to answer or to avoid their nation's draft call to military service.)

Our second young man came from an even more privileged family background and also possessed an Ivy League degree. When he secured a coveted position in his home state's national guard, he was asked if he would volunteer for overseas duty and he officially declined to do so. But George W. Bush, like ****** Cheney, unflinchingly supported the U.S. war in Vietnam. True, neither chose to personally serve in the war he supported. But let it be noted that they never criticized or protested any Vietnam policies of the U.S. government. By contemporary illogic, that, coupled with their creation of and passionate advocacy for the U.S. war in Iraq, qualifies them as patriots. But not John Kerry.

Where did we go so wrong? Why have we forgotten the wise Republican president who said during the First World War, when dissent was being attacked as disloyalty, that "to announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, it is morally treasonable to the American people." Thank you, Theodore Roosevelt.

Patriotism now means talking tough, being tough-minded -- which mostly consists of endorsing U.S. military action to solve problems and publicly disparaging international diplomacy. You can also find an overload of tough-talking, tough-minded types in the political press corps. Virtually none of the press bus "patriots" ever risked corrupting his views of the country's military or warfare by personal exposure to either military service or combat. By their lights, if you dare to question, let alone oppose, the next U.S. war du jour, then you are a hopeless wuss.

When he was praised for his leadership of U.S. troops in the first Gulf War, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf declined: "It doesn't take a hero to order men into battle."

As for me, I prefer the old-fashioned patriotism when personally brave Americans are willing to sacrifice for the common good and the national interest. This patriotism has taken many forms. It included accepting the rationing of meat and gasoline, buying bonds, collecting scrap metal and waste paper, sharing with our neighbors, raising vegetables and even paying higher taxes. These are all the acts of patriots.

Patriotism is not position papers or macho swagger, nor is patriotism the property of any political party or ideology. Of course, those who courageously risk their life and limbs in behalf of the nation are indeed patriots. Such a list would include former Sens. Bob Kerrey and Max Cleland, and current Sens. Chuck Hagel, John McCain and, yes, John Kerry.

Patriotism is truly very personal.


Yep
I agree with this guy.
Later
Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)
CWFoster Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
I can ALMOST buy into this myself! Truly, the sentiment is there. The flaws are that Kerry didn't "volunteer for combat duty". He volunteered for a unit that was solely engaged in coastal patrol, and before he got there, their mission changed to riverine patrol. So the major difference between Bush's service and Kerry's service was pretty much "luck of the draw". Second, many of us dont really CARE whether or not he really "earned" his medals or not. We only question them because they ARE questionable, and KERRY and his co-travelers continually question Bush's service. I think it's about time they started talking more about Iraq and whether or not we should be there, what we need to do there and when (or if) we should ever leave. (If everything ever settles down, it would be nice to have basiung in that region) I for one don't think it's treasonous to question policy, or even try to change it. I think it IS treasonous to negotiate with the leaders of an enemy country that we are currently in armed conflict with to accomplish this. I think it IS treasonous to give aid and succor to the enemy, confessing to warcrimes that you never actually personally witnessed, giving them ammunition with which to torture our POW's. In response to the allegations that the events are reputed to have actually occurred with some regularity, I casn say I've heard the same thing, but also heard of a sapper attack in Cam Rahn Bay that targeted primarily doctors, nurses, and wounded, NONE of whom were armed. I've heard of mass killings of Hmong tribesmen who helped American troops. So to give a unilateral "confession" to the otherside, with no accountability for their own actions forthcoming is reprehesible. I think most of the veterans heartburn with Kerry is not for his service, but what he followed it with, and how he implemented what he followed it with.

Do I think that Halliburtons dealing in Iraq are shady? Hell yes!

Do I think that the $9 BILLION contract to Forbes Constrution to upgrade port facilities in Cam Rahn Bay, immediatly following the pressure Kerry applied to get the further investigation dropped into the whereabouts of out MIA's is at LEAST as shady? HELL YES!!! (Forbes is Kerry's cousin)

Do I think Bush has flip-flopped on some issues? hell yes!

Do I consider all of the actions John Kerry perpetrated after his return from Vietnam to be "a bit excessive"? That doesn't even begin to cover it!

Could we do better than Bush? yes.

KERRY aint it!

Overall, I think the word patriot has been WAY overused to describe BOTH of these guys, but this is what we got for choices, and I'll make mine based on the lesser of two evils, thak you very much.

Now you can all go back to calling me a "blind follwer of Bush" "Who'll support him regardless of WHAT he does" and a "neocon" or whatever other labels you want to apply to me to discredit my opinions. But next year, while some of you go to LVCS, Cigar Fest, and RTDA Las Vegas, I'll be back in the Persian Gulf, for the fifth time in 11 years, the second time since the beginning of this year. If Bush (or Kerry) sends me back again and again, I'll go. Why, because overall, whether you want to ignore the prevalent intelligence reports that were circulating prior to the war, whether you want to deride this administration or any other for a lack of "WMD", whether you believe the Warren Commish, er the 911 Commission or not, we are doing (finally) what needed to be done eleven years ago, when the terms of the cease-fire were first broken. If it's a tougher row to hoe than it would have been then, then it's because we waited until many of our "allies" started trading with the enemy under the table, and resented our upsetting their scam. Sometimes the easy way isn't the right way, sometimes you have to wage war to buy peace. The thinking of the Pollyanas who think that we ought to be able to sit down and discuss with cannibals what we're all having for dinner has not worked. It's time we recognized who the real enemies are, and BUSH NOR KERRY is them! The enemy this time is a radical religeous movement, that wants to kill you, your family, your friends and any other "infidel" who won't convert to their religeon.

Let's not worry about patriotism, lets worry about long-term survival!
usahog Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
I think the Dems and the Clintons know Kerry is not it... this election was a toss up... Bush will serve another 4 yrs and then the country will be pumped to install Mrs. Hillary.. I do believe what I said above are the actions of today.... as I read and see so much going on with this election and how Jacked up the Democratic thinking is on this election and the one their pushing for this election... This has got to be the forcast for 2004... to build them for 2008 period... and my money is on 2006 watch and see what starts generating around 06 time frame LONG before the 2008 elections....

I hope by this time Colon Powell or Candi Rice or both will be front runners for the republican party's in 2008....

IMPO Hillary Clinton needs to be handed a dust mop and a rag and detailed to the janitors station in Congress....

Hog
jd1 Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 02-14-2001
Posts: 3,118
Very well put CW.

I go to the polls to specifically vote for who I believe will do the LEAST amount of damage. Both sides are corrupt and get what they can, but the lesser of two evils this time around is again BUSH. And of Fu..ing course, IMHO.

Despite the waste and self-serving going on in our form of gov't, it's still the best in the world.
Charlie Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
As much of GWB supporter as I may sound like, I agree with JD1 on his post! Bush is the clear choice in a weak field (horseracing lingo) and I hope he wins but still wish we had stronger candidates and Hillary ain't one of em!

Charlie
bloody spaniard Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
Per CW, what really bothers me the most about Kerry is the physical pain, emotional suffering, and death that his public testimonies/demonstrations caused the POW's(and soldiers in the field). Even if his actions helped save lives by bringing the war to a close sooner than expected. He could have taken a different tack (isolationalism, lack of due cause, etc.) instead of slandering our brave men with exaggerations and lies. These poor men probably felt the despair of abandonment- or worse.

Unfortunately, he is the only alternative. What a shame.
JonR Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 02-19-2002
Posts: 9,740
I totally agree with all you gentlemen.

Here is my scenario:

1) Bush/Chaney are reelected.

2) In 2006 Chaney resigns as Vice President due to health reasons.

3) President Bush appoints John McCain Vice President.

4) John McCain runs for and wins the Presidency in 2008.

5) President John McCain is reelected in 2012


Thus insuring the Republicans will control the White House for the next 12 years.


So let it be written, so let it be done.

JonR
Charlie Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
Jon R

I like that plan!

Charlie
EI Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 06-29-2002
Posts: 5,069
by then Arnold will, by changes in the constitution, be able to run.
And Hillary will be out of steam and out to pasture by then
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
i usually fantasize about tall young blondes who believe that little old fat men make great lovers and like group sex.
xibbumbero Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2002
Posts: 12,535
Lots of pipe dreams here,LOL. X
pabloescabar Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 02-25-2005
Posts: 30,183
hey Rick, me too...
CWFoster Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
Now Rick, there's a vision we share :^)
EI Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 06-29-2002
Posts: 5,069
Ya'all Wanna have group sex with a bunch of little old fat men and one blond?/
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
CWFoster Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
I was thinking of ONE rather tallish fat guy and a bevy of blondes! Git yer own darn fantasy!
Users browsing this topic
Guest