Not Worthy
June 30th, 2008 | by Jet Netwal |
I’d like to go on record that I’m not in favor of slamming military service in the name of political expediency. I regard service to the country as the highest form of idealism. It embodies the ultimate belief, that of a nation so worthy that one’s own life is an equal measure. It is profound; it is absolute.
Most people I know who serve in the military do not go around tooting their own horns. Serving is deeply personal to them. They have their own measure of self and country. I’m sure they hope you’ll find yours, but if you can’t or won’t, it doesn’t matter. They know. And so, they serve.
McCain’s military service is under scrutiny, and the response from his campaign is swift and outraged. Fine. I think his expectation of respect for what he gave and endured is what a nation should tender. Too bad the Republicans started the besmirching of heroes with their tacit approval, adoption of the meme, and proliferation of the smears of the Swift-boating of John Kerry. That’s the damn thing about precedence, once out there it’s play ball.
John is reaping what his party sowed, and it’s a sorry thing. I’m embarrassed that we’ve sunk to defiling honor; that we see this defilement as a preferred course to gaining political power. Most of all, I despise my nation’s comfort level with treating our service people’s and veteran’s belief in this country as meaningless in any other capacity other than a means to tear down the process.
People who embrace idealism, especially to the level our service people do, believe in the process. Setting the swift-boat mechanism in gear was the ultimate ‘fuck you’ to this belief. I hope after this tit for tat we can stop being such idiots and start behaving like a country worth serving.
30 Responses to “Not Worthy”
By Lisa on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
Based on what Clark said,if McCain is not qualified then that means Obama isn’t even close enough to qualify to be dog catcher because he never led a command.McCain should be your guy then because isn’t this similar to what they were praising Kerry for,propaganda against the military.
At least McCin isn’t touting his son’s Military service one of who was in Iraq.
Funny how this works
Dole-Loses arm in Military-Bad
1st Bush-Fighter Pilot gets shot down-BAD
2nd Bush National Guard fighte Pilot-Bad
Clinton draft dodger-Good
Al Gore never served-Good
Kerry-served 4 months came bcak and testified how our troops were murderers and torturers-Good
McCain-POW-Bad
Obama-Never served-Good
By Lisa on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
I couldn’t have sai it better myself:
In “the matter of national security policy making.” Barack Obama hasn’t ever done anything.
In the matter of gauging your “opponents”, Obama wants to meet with them without preconditions despite having no national-security, military, or diplomatic experience.
Barack Obama hasn’t been on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Barack Obama hasn’t had any executive experience.
Barack Obama hasn’t commanded anything, in wartime or not.
Barack Obama hasn’t dealt with diplomats in any capacity at all.
Barack Obama hasn’t ordered the bombs to fall, although to be fair, he has associated himself with someone who has — William Ayers.
By Dusty on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
Well Jet, personally I too don’t see how being a pow and in the military has anything to do with being President. I also think that graduating from Harvard at the top of your class doesn’t really have anything to do with being President.
I think its total bullshit that anyone would bitch about what happened to McCain or what he took part in, whilst he was in the Vietnamese prison.
But Wes Clark was spot on..it has nothing to do with running a country..nada damn thing. And your correct that the Rethugs started this holy war on military service..its too damn bad if the blowback is now hitting em right in their pompous faces.
By Jet Netwal on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
Lisa demonstrated my point well, this ego maniacal quest to one up forever is ugly. As long as they can’t stop, they shouldn’t complain when the same parameters are used against them.
I think the loser is all of us.
Dusty, I’m just pointing out that there is fair, and there is appropriate. In this instance they are pretty far apart, IMO.
By Lisa on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
Yes it is Ugly Jet but what about politics isn’t?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
I’d like to go on record as saying that attacks upon people’s claimed service record MAY not only be reasonable and necessary (since some people HAVE inflated and even fabricated military service records as, for example, Jesse MacBeth) but an exercise of free speech and press rights protected by the Constitution. Whatever one thinks of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, what they did was NOT an excursion outside of the system but an exercise of their constitutionally protected rights. It was NOT, in my opinion, the ultimate fuck-you to those who believe in the system. It was the ultimate embrace of the right to inquire, to debate, to express one’s views and to have those views examined in public, challenged and criticized and, ultimately, accepted, in whole or in part, or rejected.
The first amendment is surely one of those things that those who serve in the military idealistically serve in order to protect and defend.
As a corollary, the same goes for investigation into McCain’s record.
By Dusty on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
So Craig, you support the Americablog’s post about McCain in the Vietnamese prison and what transpired there?
The first amendment gives us the right to twist facts and lie about someone? Wow..thats news to me.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
For an interesting report on what Rush Limbaugh called “phony soldiers”, see this CBSNews report.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
Dusty,
I support the first amendment rights of all Americans, including Americablog’s. The first amendment has, for example, been a bar from prior restraint. The actual resulting publication may, in fact, twist facts and lie about others and when they do, there is legal recourse against them and moral disapprobation to be given their assertions but they should be allowed to investigate and publish the result of their investigations. The first amendment may not protect them from post publication prosecution or suit at law but it does protect the right to publish.
How I, or anyone else, come down on Americablog’s assertions, or those of the Swift Boat Vets, or any others is a wholly separate issue but they should and must be allowed to both investigate and publish their results.
By Dusty on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
Well, thats where you and I part ways then Craig. I don’t think the first amendment protects individuals that lie, obfuscate or twist the truth.
By mr bigstuff on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
mcsame made 37 propaganda films (all are now classified) while a p.o.w. in vietnam. admiral stockdale, who the n.v.a. knew had knowledge of the tonkin gulf scam made none. compare the two experiences.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
It doesn’t, protect individuals that lie, obfuscate or twist the truth post-publication. It does protect the right to publish said lies, obfuscations and truth twisting. Otherwise, there is no free press or speech. Heck. Otherwise there could be no politics. A whole separate industry has arisen in reaction to the public statements of politicians. It’s called “fact-checking”. It’s the American way. You get to say whatever you wish. If I find that you’ve lied in a way that materially harms me, I have access to courts to seek remedy.
Without publication, public discussion, criticism and debate, we could never know what is truth and what is lies and obfuscation. Without the protections of the first amendment, much that is truth would never be known. We would all, in fact, still believe that John Kerry spent Christmas day of 1968 simultaneously sneaking CIA agents into Cambodia while listening to a broadcast of “president” Nixon claiming that there were no American troops in Cambodia. In fact, Nixon was not President of anything on Christmas day, 1968 and Kerry was not sneaking CIA agents into Cambodia on that day.
Without the protections of the first amendment, the publication of truth would be retarded (since much that is truth is, initially, regarded as untruth and only subsequent debate can distinguish truth from untruth) and we would have, essentially, censors running around and licensing or not licensing all publication and public statements. An intolerable state of affairs that would be totally incompatible with a free state.
At least that’s my opinion.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
In fact, as I understand it, the first protects some statements that are known untruths. Comedians frequently tell jokes that exaggerate and twist the truth. It’s called satire and it is protected by the first amendment. Folks like Conan O’Brien do it all the time and I think he’s mostly hilarious but his modus operandi is to make a joke in two parts: one factually accurate and the second utterly untrue. Yet his jokes are protected in spite of his intentional twisting of the truth.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
These are the reasons that I get so worked up about the first amendment, fighting to protect speech rights. A free press is the only guarantee that truth will emerge from the twisting and lies and the only alternative to a free press such as I describe is censorship, which would undoubtedly be wielded by the government to protect its own truth-twisting and lies.
By Lisa on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
mcsame made 37 propaganda films (all are now classified) while a p.o.w. in vietnam. admiral stockdale, who the n.v.a. knew had knowledge of the tonkin gulf scam made none. compare the two experiences.
Mr Bigstuff you think he did this voluntarily or being tortured? Or should we only believe this was something true of Gitmo priosners?
By Tom Harper on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
Yes, the cat is out of the bag when it comes to swiftboating and other sleazy tactics. And like one of the Watergate defendants said, “once the toothpaste is out of the tube it’s hard to get it back in.”
Rove’s M.O. was to attack the opponent’s strongest point. In Kerry’s case that was his war record; same with McCain. My guess is, these tactics will become the norm until the public responds by not voting for candidates who sink to that level.
BTW, Lisa: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure Al Gore did serve during the Vietnam War.
By Dusty on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
Craig, here is a good example of what lies and distortions will do during an election cycle.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16045.html
By Dusty on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
Tom, from Snopes:
Claim: Influential friends ensured that a “special dispensation” cut short Al Gore’s tour of duty in Vietnam.
Status: False
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/gorevietnam.asp
By Jet Netwal on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
Craig, I wasn’t trying to say I wanted that kind of talk quashed. What I want to say is for me personally, it’s over the top and should be eschewed. We can have campaigns that don’t cross this line and are still effective. I think Tom’s scenario is correct, and I hope there are enough people out there who think we’ve sunk far enough.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
Dusty,
I’m not saying our present system is perfect or ideal. I’m saying it’s better by far than the next best thing: someone in charge of deciding who gets to say what about whom, whose book gets published and whose doesn’t, what article gets printed in what paper and which doesn’t, in short, what is true and what is not. I’d much prefer I get to decide what’s true and what isn’t. And no amount of censorship will eliminate willful ignorance and willingness to believe anything someone says about anyone else. Again, give me access to competing views and I’ll decide what to think and believe. I don’t trust anyone other than myself to decide for me what is and isn’t true, what I get to read and what I don’t. I trust the marketplace of ideas more than the will of some bureaucrat with the power to decide.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
Jet,
No. I didn’t think you did want it quashed. But in this respect, I disagree. As long as our political system is populated by human beings, we will never have campaigns that don’t cross the line. I’m just defending the marketplace of ideas from all its competitors as the only one that won’t lead inevitably to totalitarianism.
By Jet Netwal on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
I think people freely choosing what they do and don’t like isn’t the gateway to totalitarianism, Craig, it’s just deciding whether they want it or not. It’s the same with porn. Some view some eschew.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
Jet,
I guess I’m not being clear. I’m not defending the marketplace of ideas against you or anything you’ve written. I’m defending it against Dusty, or what I perceive Dusty to be arguing for. You seem to be talking about the same thing I’m talking about, just talking about different aspects of it. I’m not quite sure what the details of Dusty saying that the first amendment doesn’t protect lies and obfuscation and twisting of truth. If all she means is that the first amendment allows people who are harmed by the speech and writings of others, then they get to seek redress through the courts, all good and well. If she means that there ought to be people deciding what people can and cannot say about others, shutting down web-sites, removing books when what they say is perceived to be lies, that will lead to totalitarianism.
I’m not troubled by lies so long as the truth can be told as well.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
Although I will admit that your post seemed to be a bit less comfortable than I am with people investigating into the service records of people who are public persons, staking their claim to suitability for some office or for some claim about their fellow servicemen on their claims to some record in the service. As the CBS report makes clear, history has been replete with people making claims to service they’ve never given and to atrocities they’ve never witnessed or committed. This is what makes inquiry into the service record of such people a rational and necessary thing and why I think the Swift Boat Vets were engaging in a very important discussion that is well within the system’s realm. It was that to which I initially responded: my sense that you found such inquiry illegitimate.
By Jet Netwal on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
Not illegitimate, Craig. I personally find the behavior a dishonorable way to treat a vet. I hated it when it happened to Kerry for the same reason. I think it’s a lousy thing to do. Not that you can’t do it, but choosing to do it says a lot about your lack of the qualities those who serve demonstrate in their service. It’s strictly my personal perspective.
As for your point about false claims, sure, if the motive in the investigation is honest (the people have a right to know), it should occur. If the motivation is to dig up something you think you can twist, misrepresent, and put out as the truth (like the swiftboat BS), then that is putting political lipstick on a libel pig. It’s not how vets should be treated, and I am over it.
By Steve O on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
Hey, McSame got into the academy which is some what of an accomplishment in itself it weren’t for the fact that his father was an admiral and it was a given that he was a shoe in. Great, good for him, now lets look at how he did in the academny, he was given an opportunity that any smart inner city kid would only dream of, what does he do with it?
He Graduates fifth from the bottom of his Naval Academy class and is commissioned as officer. (894/899)
That’s where he placed, can I please see what the other 894 officers that came ahead of him have to offer before I have to consider this mans mother fucking military credentials for being president?
On a side note, can you please leave out these men from his graduation class;
Robert “Bud” McFarlane, (1937- ), Class of 1958, National Security Advisor 1983-5, convicted, later pardoned for his role in the Iran-Contra affair
RADM John Poindexter, (1936 -), Class of 1958, National Security Advisor 1985-6, convictions, later reversed, of involvement in the Iran-Contra affair
Enough with this shit already. Being former military does not make you a god damn fucking saint. John McCain is a fucking douche-bag of the highest degree, end of story!!!!
My fucking dog has more honor and loyalty in her fucking anal sacks to this country than John McCain will ever have in his rotten, aging brain.
By steve on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
“My fucking dog has more honor and loyalty in her fucking anal sacks to this country than John McCain will ever have in his rotten, aging brain.”
Yet, last week… George Carlin was still a genius at 71. Must have been all the pot he smoked and cocaine he snorted to give him such a long life. Seems the only legitimate argument the Dems can make about McCain that is that he is old. The greatest President and American, and savior of the American way wasn’t the greatest soldier on the planet either. He was 69 when he took office, his brain was really mush and he still ended the livelihood of the Soviet Union.
By Steve O on Jun 30, 2008 | Reply
Steve, you silly wanna be neo-con, the Taliban and Afghanistan ended the Soviet Union. Oh, don’t forget the money we funneled to Al-Qaeda to make that happen.
Now run a long and play with your little neo-con friends, the adults have things to talk about.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 1, 2008 | Reply
Oh yes. That post that Steve quoted…adult was just the word that sprang to my mind upon reading it…er…well…actually…’juvenile’ was the word that first sprang to mind. Actually, I think now that ‘puerile’ is the only word that accurately describes it.
Jesus, Steve O. Pot…kettle…
By steve on Jul 1, 2008 | Reply
Steve O… Why do you hate the freedom that Ronald Reagan gave you?
(cough, fairness doctrine suspension, cough, cough,let to blogging freedom, cough, cough)