View Single Post
  #1011   Report Post  
Old September 25th 06, 12:16 PM posted to
[email protected] N2EY@AOL.COM is offline
external usenet poster
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default "Usual Liberal Disdain?"


Not much is known about Jim, except the usual liberal disdain for the
US military and military members.

"usual liberal disdain"?

Remember that phrase!

Let's see....some well known "liberals"....

There's president Jimmy Carter, who graduated from the US Naval Academy
and served in the Navy on submarines. He also won the Nobel Peace
Prize, for being instrumental in the only long-term peace agreement in
the modern Middle East (the Camp David accords).

I recall no Middle East Peace in modern times.

Peace *agreement*. Since those accords were signed more than 25 years
ago, former enemies Israel and Egypt have had peace between them.

Oh, WOW! One country in how many doesn't *actively* try to wipe Israel
off the map.

No one else has done even that much to create a lasting peace
*agreement* in the Middle East.

You sure got me there!!!

IOW, you were simply wrong.

Or president John F. Kennedy, who served in the Navy in WW2. He was
awarded the Navy and Marine Corps medal for his leadership on the last
patrol of PT 109.

Indeed he was.

George McGovern was in the USAAF (15th Air Force) in WW2, flying 35
missions in B-24 bombers over North Africa and Italy. He was awarded
the Distinguished Flying Cross.

A little before my time.

McGovern ran for President in 1972, but lost to Richard Nixon. Nixon
later resigned because of the Watergate scandal, in which people
operating for the Committee to REElect the President (known by the
acronym CREEP) burglarized the DNC Hq to get information about the

McGovern's platform included a strong anti-Vietnam-war plank.

You don't say. I'll bet that he was your choice for President.

Was it wrong to be against the Vietnam War?

Vice president Al Gore enlisted in the Army and served in Vietnam
during that conflict, refusing a place in the Tennessee National Guard.

Odd. Do most people get to "refuse a place" in their state's National

I don't recall having that "opportunity." Ditto my brother.

The Current Occupant had that opportunity - and took it. Most of the
time he even showed up.


Read his bio on Wikipedia.

You don't get drafted into the Guard, then "refuse" and go active-duty
instead. It just doesn't work that way, now or then.

They didn't draft people into the Guard at all.

What happened was this:

Back then, (Vietnam War era) it was a very safe bet that most Guard
units would never be sent out of the USA. Guard units had no problem
getting full enlistment - in fact, it was difficult for the average
person to get in.

Both Al Gore and George W. Bush had the opportunity to serve in Guard
units because of their family connections (Gore is the son of a
senator, and you know Bush's dad).

You can join the Guard, the Reserves, or Active Service. Or in 1972,
you could get drafted into the Active Service ONLY.

Nobody said anyone was drafted into the Guard.

John Kerry served in the US Navy, volunteering for Vietnam duty. He was
awarded three Purple Heart medals, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star.
After his discharge from the military, he opposed the Vietnam War,
having actually been there.

Now there's a perfect example of disdain for his fellow military

How do Kerry's actions show disdain for his fellow military personnel?

He went to Vietnam, and fought in that war. He formed the conviction
that the war was simply wrong, and that the USA should not be fighting
it. When he returned to civilian life, he opposed that war -
specifically, the policies of the politicians who gave the orders.

He testified that those he served with were murderers.

Did he use that exact word?

If he did, what was the context?

Do you recall the My Lai massacre?

How was that "disdain for his fellow military members"? Should he have
not said or done anything, even though he had formed the first-hand
conviction that the war was wrong?

He had service commitment while he was testifying. Looked like he was
running for office

But he wasn't.

If he saw things that weren't right, wasn't it his duty to testify
about them?

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt never served in any military,

Correct. He had polio and was unfit for military service.

though he was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy.

Our military is civilian led. Sometimes led well, sometimes not.

See above about John Kerry and Vietnam.

It was not Kerry's remarks about how well the war was being run, it was
his remarks about the people he served with that shows disdain for the
military and military members.

Were his remarks about the military in general, or about *specific*
things he witnessed?

If he saw things that weren't right, wasn't it his duty to testify
about them?

He led the USA
out of the Depression and through almost all of WW2.

He had a priori knowledge of Pearl Harbor and did nothing.

Conspiracy theory nonsense. Where's the proof?

PBS. Ever heard of them?

You're being very unspecific.

You claimed that FDR "had a priori knowledge of Pearl Harbor and did

Where are the references to back up your claim?

Did FDR know that *Pearl Harbor* was going to be attacked on Dec. 7 or
just that Japan was likely to attack somewhere, at some time after Nov.

Did FDR get whatever information he got before the attack? If so, was
how long before? What other information did they have?

btw, in the summer of 2001, George W. Bush had information indicating
that OBL was planning an attack in the USA. He did nothing, and more
Americans died than at Pearl Harbor.

Of course it's easy to look at selected data after the fact and say
that FDR or GWB should have known what was coming.

That just
might be considered disdain for the military and military members.

The Japanese were able to pull off the Pearl Harbor attack because:

1) The US thought it was impossible for a sizable task force to form up
and cross the Pacific without being detected.

2) Radar would spot any incoming attack. And it did - but those in
charge ignored the warning from the radar station.

*Why* did those in charge ignore repeated warnings from the radar

3) It was believed that the water of Pearl Harbor was too shallow for
airplane-dropped torpedoes to be used. The Japanese developed torpedoes
and attack methods that would work in the relatvely-shallow water. They
also used dive bombing.

They also used 72 virgins?

The Japanese weren't doing suicide attacks in 1941. They didn't have

His "New Deal" was
considered rather liberal in its time....

Extremely liberal.

Yet now most of it is considered a basic social safety net.

Only for those born prior to the boom years.

Nobody younger gets any kind of SSI benefit? No Medicaid?

Yet now almost everyone wonders if it will serve them when they retire.

Is that FDR's fault? Do you think he should have known, in the 1930s,
what the conditions would be 70 years later?

Bush is the only President that looked at that problem and proposed a

Not really. His solution would re-create all the problems that made
Social Security necessary in the first place.

Who was it that created 401K and IRA retirement plans? Company

One day you will be eating cat food.

Why? Do you think I expect Social Security to fund all of my

It was his handling of the Bonus Marchers, veterans
of WW 1, that needed their promised pensions that might also be
considered disdain for the military and military members.


The "Bonus Marchers" had been promised military pensions that would be
paid in *1945*, but they wanted the pensions 13 years early. (Can I
have my retirement benefits 13 years early, please?)

It was a lump sum payout, not a "retirement check" for an additional
13 years.

They wanted it 13 years early. Hoover said no. FDR said no. Where's the

Many of these people lost their homes. Too bad, huh?

Many Americans lost everything in the Depression. Think about *why*
they lost it all, and what was done to prevent that happening again.

Let's see what Wikipedia has to say, in

"The Bonus Army or Bonus March or Bonus Expeditionary Force was an
assemblage of about 20,000 World War I veterans, their families, and
other affiliated groups, who demonstrated in Washington, D.C. during
the spring and summer of 1932 seeking immediate payment of a "bonus"
granted by the Adjusted Service Certificate Law of 1924 for payment in

"The Bonus Army massed at the United States Capitol on June 17 as the
U.S. Senate voted on the Patman Bonus Bill, which would have moved
forward the date when World War I veterans received a cash bonus. Most
of the Bonus Army camped in a Hooverville on the Anacostia Flats, then
a swampy, muddy area across the Anacostia River from the federal core
of Washington. The protesters had hoped that they could convince
Congress to make payments that had been granted to veterans
immediately, which would have provided relief for the marchers who were
unemployed due to the Great Depression. The bill had passed the House
of Representatives on June 15 but was blocked in the Senate."

Herbert Hoover was president in June 1932. FDR wasn't even elected
until November 1932, and did not take office until 1933.

Who had more disdain for the bonus marchers - FDR or Hoover?

"After the defeat of the bill, Congress appropriated funds to pay for
the marchers' return home, which some marchers accepted. On July 28,
Washington police attempted to remove some remaining Bonus Army
protesters from a federal construction site. After police fatally shot
two veterans, the protesters assaulted the police with blunt weapons,
wounding several of them. After the police retreated, the District of
Columbia commissioners informed President Herbert Hoover that they
could no longer maintain the peace, whereupon Hoover ordered federal
troops to remove the marchers from the general area."

"The marchers were cleared and their camps were destroyed by the 12th
Infantry Regiment from Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry
Regiment under the command of MAJ. George S. Patton from Fort Myer,
Virginia, under the overall command of General Douglas MacArthur. The
Posse Comitatus Act, prohibiting the U.S. military from being used for
general law enforcement purposes in most instances, did not apply to
Washington, D.C. because it is one of several pieces of federal
property under the direct governance of the U.S. Congress (United
States Constitution, Article I. Section 8). Dwight D. Eisenhower, as a
member of MacArthur's staff, had strong reservations about the
operation. Troops carried rifles with unsheathed bayonets and tear gas
were sent into the Bonus Army's camps. President Hoover did not want
the army to march across the Anacostia River into the protesters'
largest encampment, but Douglas MacArthur felt this was a communist
attempt to overthrow the government."

" Hundreds of veterans were injured, several were killed, including
William Hushka and Eric Carlson, a wife of a veteran miscarried, and
other casualties were inflicted. The visual image of US armed soldiers
confronting poor veterans of the recent great war set the stage for
Veteran relief and eventually the Veterans Administration."

Neither of which existed at the time - but not due to alleged "liberal
disdain for the military".

Who had more disdain for the veterans - FDR or Herbert Hoover?

"By the end of the rout:
Two veterans had been shot and killed.
An 11 week old baby was in critical condition resulting from shock from
gas exposure.
Two infants had died from gas asphyxiation.
An 11 year old boy was partially blinded by tear gas.
One bystander was shot in the shoulder.
One veteran's ear was severed by a Cavalry saber.
One veteran was stabbed in the hip with a bayonet.
At least twelve police were injured by the veterans.
Over 1,000 men, women, and children were exposed to the tear gas,
including police, reporters, residents of Washington D.C., and
ambulance drivers."

"The army burned down the Bonus Army's tents and shacks, although some
reports claim that to spite the government, which had provided much of
the shelter in the camp, some veterans torched their own camp dwellings
before the troops could set upon the camp. Reports of U.S. soldiers
marching against their peers did not help Hoover's re-election efforts;
neither did his open opposition to the Bonus Bill due to financial

Were Hoover's actions towards the Bonus Marchers a sign of respect?

Herbert Hoover was president in the summer of 1932. Hoover opposed
giving the veterans their bonus 13 years early.

FDR wasn't even elected until November 1932, and did not take office
until 1933.

Yet it seems you blame FDR for what Hoover did.

"After the inauguration of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, some of the
Bonus Army
regrouped in Washington to restate its claims to the new President."

"Roosevelt did not want to pay the bonus early, either, but handled the
veterans with more skill when they marched on Washington again the next
year. He sent his wife Eleanor to chat with the vets and pour coffee
for them, and he persuaded many of them to sign up for jobs making a
roadway to the Florida Keys, which was to become the Overseas Highway,
the southernmost portion of U.S. Route 1."

Instead of sending in the police, tear gas, and federal troops, like
conservative Herbert Hoover, FDR sent Eleanor with coffee, and helped
the vets find jobs.

Is that an example of "disdain"?

"A disastrous hurricane swept many of them and their flimsy barracks
away in 1935."

Did FDR have 2 year advance notice of the hurricane, too?

"After seeing more newsreels of veterans giving their lives for a
government that had taken them for granted, public sentiment built up
so much that Congress could no longer afford to ignore it in an
election year (1936). Roosevelt's veto was overridden, making the bonus
a reality."

Is that 1936 veto the disdain you meant? How does that compare to the
non-liberal method of sending in troops with guns, bayonets and

"It can be argued, however, that the Bonus Army's greatest
accomplishment was actually the piece of legislation known as the G. I.
Bill of Rights. Passed in 1944, it immensely helped veterans from the
Second World War to secure needed assistance from the federal
government to help them fit back into civilian life, something the
World War I veterans of the Bonus Army had received very little of."

FDR *was* president in 1944.

Fair enough.

IOW, you were flat wrong about the Bonus Marchers and FDR, Brian. It
wasn't the "liberal" FDR that showed disdain for them in the summer of

But it still doesn't excuse your liberal disdain for the

What is this "liberal disdain" of which you speak? You used the phrase
"usual liberal disdain" before, yet can't seem to back it up.

I don't "disdain" the military or military personnel. Nor do I agree
with everything you write, or everything Len writes, just because of
military service.

"usual liberal disdain"?


Lessee....John Kerry acts on his convictions wrt Vietnam, and that's
somehow disdain.

Yes. Look at the content of his testimony.

Was he telling the truth?

FDR sends in his wife rather than troops to deal with protesters, and
that's disdain. He helps them get scarce CCC jobs, and that's disdain,
too. But when Hoover had them attacked by police and federal troops,
that *wasn't* disdain.

Fair enough.

IOW, you were flat wrong about the Bonus Marchers and FDR.

But there's still Pearl Harbor.

And Sept 11 2001

Is it disdain to send US military personnel to fight in a country
because of weapons-of-mass-destruction that do not exist in that

Saddam had years to move his WMDs as he kept rejecting and ejecting the
inspectors while Clinton looked the other way.

Papa Bush and Shrub also "looked the other way".

But that's not the point.

We were specifically told just before the invasion of Iraq, by the
Current Occupant, that SH had WMDs in his possession and that he was
ready to use them and/or give them to terror organizations. This was
the entire justification for the invasion. No WMDs have ever been
found, nor evidence that they existed and were moved. No connection to
terror, either.

We were also told that the Iraqis would welcome the liberation of their
country. While some of them welcomed the fall of SH, a good number of
them soon set about fighting their liberators - and each other.

Now it's three years later, and a recent report says the war has made
the terror situation *worse*. That report is from US intelligence

He spent a decade sending up SAMs at US aircraft enforcing the no-fly

And a decade getting those SAM sites destroyed. How effective were his

He plotted an assassination of a US President.

How effective was that?

Then there were
the atrocities against his own people, and the abuses of the oil for
food and medicine program.

Nobody with any sense says SH was a good guy. The question is whether
it was a good idea to invade Iraq in 2003, and how it was done.

SH is the same guy Rumsfeld was shaking hands with in the 1980s, right?

That alone should have prompted Clinton to act, but he didn't.

And now the USA is bogged down in a country where the liberated people
are as busy fighting each other as they are fighting their liberators.
They don't seem very thankful to have been liberated, either. Where the
USA is made to look bad (Abu Gharib, etc.) in the world's eyes. And
where a dictatorship has become an incubator for terror and a rallying
cry for those who oppose the USA.

Meanwhile, other countries are emboldened to push the limits because
they know the USA doesn't have infinite resources.

btw - before the 2003 invasion, the generals in the Pentagon wanted to
use a much larger force. Rumsfeld did not listen, because it would take
longer to build up such a force, and went with a force much smaller
than was used in Desert Storm. Was that disdain for the military?

Back in 2004, a local church put up several hundred small white crosses
on their lawn - one for each serviceperson killed in the Iraq war. No
signs, no commentary, no protesting people, just the crosses. Couple of
Stars of David and even some cresecnt moons, too. They were up for
several weeks. Was that "the usual liberal disdain for the military"?

The church can't do it again - their lawn isn't big enough.