[Lerkfish]

http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2...f00074d537.txt

DES MOINES -- Sen. Tom Harkin called Vice President Dick Cheney a "coward" for avoiding service in Vietnam and called on President Bush to end the "backdoor draft."

The Iowa Democrat was responding Friday to the call-up of a Des Moines police officer who has already completed his eight-year military commitment.

Harkin echoed comments earlier this week by Des Moines Police Chief William McCarthy, who said the military's treatment of Des Moines Police Officer Rodell Nydam was "evil."


Nydam, 26, is being called back to Iraq despite finishing his National Guard commitment in April. He's being called up under the military's "stop loss" exemption, which can extend duty in wartime.

Harkin, who served as a jet pilot in the Navy, said the exemption wasn't intended for situations like the war in Iraq. He said first responders like Nydam are needed to protect the community.

"The part of the U.S. code that provides for this anticipates major wars, major national emergencies," Harkin said. "That is not what we're confronting right now. You think about using this law only in (extreme cases), only when we're really in dire, dire need."

Harkin also shot back at Cheney, who said in a visit to Iowa on Tuesday that presidential candidate John Kerry lacks a basic understanding of the war on terrorism and cannot make America safer.

He noted that Cheney had several student deferments that allowed him to skip serving in Vietnam.

"When I hear this coming from Dick Cheney, who was a coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it makes my blood boil," Harkin said. "Those of us who served and those of us who went in the military don't like it when someone like a Dick Cheney comes out and he wants to be tough. Yeah, he'll be tough. He'll be tough with somebody else's blood, somebody else's kids. But not when it was his turn to go."

David James, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, dismissed Harkin's attacks.

"His shrill negative attacks did nothing to get Howard Dean elected or get the nomination during the caucuses," James said, referring to Harkin's endorsement of the former Vermont governor before the Iowa caucuses."

gotta love the lame republican comeback.


I'm glad SOMEONE finally called ChickenHawk Cheney on his deferrments. GO TOM!

[Zimphire]

Yeah! He sure showed him!

I wonder if he will call Clinton a coward too.

Doubt it.

What about you Lerk?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yeah! He sure showed him!

I wonder if he will call Clinton a coward too.

Doubt it.

What about you Lerk?

Will I call Cllinton a coward? nahhh. he's suffered enough.

[Zimphire]

Suffered! LAWL!

Clinton was the victim I tell ya!

[Dr.HermanG.]

Maybe Harkin will stand up on TV and call everyone else who never served a coward as well? I want to see him do that.

Edwards never served either and he was old enough to go fight.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Maybe Harkin will stand up on TV and call everyone else who never served a coward as well? I want to see him do that.

Edwards never served either and he was old enough to go fight.

The point is not that Cheney got 5 defferments, the point is, where does he GET OFF attacking Kerry's war record?

Clinton also did not serve....ok, ok, I know, that may be a little too quick for you....ok, here it comes...the difference is, Clinton did not attack a political opponent because of his war record.

ok, got it?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
The point is not that Cheney got 5 defferments, the point is, where does he GET OFF attacking Kerry's war record?

Clinton also did not serve....ok, ok, I know, that may be a little too quick for you....ok, here it comes...the difference is, Clinton did not attack a political opponent because of his war record.

ok, got it?

Kerry is the dude who chose to run on his war record, as a hero or whatever. He opened himself up to criticism.

One minute he's throwing his medals away, and the next minute he's saying he's a war hero. And who the hell would film themselves in vietnam, staging scenes ? Was his political career planned in advance ? Is everything a fraud for the cameras ?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
The point is not that Cheney got 5 defferments, the point is, where does he GET OFF attacking Kerry's war record?

Clinton also did not serve....ok, ok, I know, that may be a little too quick for you....ok, here it comes...the difference is, Clinton did not attack a political opponent because of his war record.

ok, got it?

Lerk, let me let you in on something. It doesn't matter if you went to war or not. If Kerry is lying about his war history (And he is) ANYONE can make a comment about it.

You are trying to "save" your buddy's Kerry's rep by belittling those that busted him for it.

Tell me Lerk, has Cheney lied about his military past?

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
The point is not that Cheney got 5 defferments, the point is, where does he GET OFF attacking Kerry's war record?

Clinton also did not serve....ok, ok, I know, that may be a little too quick for you....ok, here it comes...the difference is, Clinton did not attack a political opponent because of his war record.

ok, got it?

Cheney isn't the one running on a possibly doctored war record. Cheney wasn the one who got a few splinters in his finger and asked to be sent home so he wouldn't get any more. Cheney isn't the one who stood before a Senate committee claiming that there was widespread war crimes being committed. Cheney isn't the one who claimed to throw his medals away then secretly stashed them on his Senate office. Cheney isn't the one who was pushing for normalized relations with an enemy so that a lucrative contract would be signed. Cheney isn't the one who stabbed unknown numbers of military personnel in the back with his actions in this country then decided to run for President as if he were the MacArthur, Pershing, Nimitz, Ike, or Patton of Vietnam.

If you are suggesting that Cheney doesn't have the same right to criticize Kerry for his war time activities as anyone else does on the basis of never having served then exactly what is your right to criticize Bush despite the fact that you yourself have never been President?

[Zimphire]

[tie]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
If you are suggesting that Cheney doesn't have the same right to criticize Kerry for his war time activities as anyone else does on the basis of never having served then exactly what is your right to criticize Bush despite the fact that you yourself have never been President?

Killer analogy. Aiming right at Bush, I see, but I think he has you beaten. "Poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you don't happen to be rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill." Top that, just try.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Cheney isn't the one running on a possibly doctored war record. Cheney wasn the one who got a few splinters in his finger and asked to be sent home so he wouldn't get any more. Cheney isn't the one who stood before a Senate committee claiming that there was widespread war crimes being committed. Cheney isn't the one who claimed to throw his medals away then secretly stashed them on his Senate office. Cheney isn't the one who was pushing for normalized relations with an enemy so that a lucrative contract would be signed. Cheney isn't the one who stabbed unknown numbers of military personnel in the back with his actions in this country then decided to run for President as if he were the MacArthur, Pershing, Nimitz, Ike, or Patton of Vietnam.

If you are suggesting that Cheney doesn't have the same right to criticize Kerry for his war time activities as anyone else does on the basis of never having served then exactly what is your right to criticize Bush despite the fact that you yourself have never been President?

Actually, here's a little tidbit of logic for you...if the swift boat liars for Bush did not MAKE this an issue by publishing a libelous book and putting themselves on tv attacking Kerry, he wouldn't have to defend it. That's what I love about republicans: they shape the debate by attacking the dem on an issue relentlessly, and then when he addresses the attack, they accuse him of making it an issue.

pretty transparent and lower than whale dung.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Actually, here's a little tidbit of logic for you...if the swift boat liars for Bush did not MAKE this an issue by publishing a libelous book and putting themselves on tv attacking Kerry, he wouldn't have to defend it. That's what I love about republicans: they shape the debate by attacking the dem on an issue relentlessly, and then when he addresses the attack, they accuse him of making it an issue.

pretty transparent and lower than whale dung.

You failed to answer the question: have you ever been President? If so, continue to criticize Bush.

If not, aren't you the same kind of hypocrite Harkin accuses Cheney of being?

After all, you brought this up.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
You failed to answer the question: have you ever been President? If so, continue to criticize Bush.

If not, aren't you the same kind of hypocrite Harkin accuses Cheney of being?

After all, you brought this up.

Nice straw man, chief. Harkin's statement boils down to, "Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house." You twist that to, "Don't criticize a man unless you've walked a mile in his shoes," and apply that to the President. Nice try, but your misdirection has failed.

Next time Lerk invades another country, fails in countless business ventures in spite of solid financial backing, snorts more coke than Columbia can supply, drinks more alcohol than the entire Rat Pack, and becomes an otherwise miserable failure of a President, he will then have no right to criticize Bush. Until then, Lerks got flaming rights on President Boy George, and there isn't a god damned thing you can do about it.

Ahhh, nothing like a hyperbolic rant to left off some steam.

BlackGriffen

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Next time Lerk invades another country, fails in countless business ventures in spite of solid financial backing, snorts more coke than Columbia can supply, drinks more alcohol than the entire Rat Pack, and becomes an otherwise miserable failure of a President, he will then have no right to criticize Bush. Until then, Lerks got flaming rights on President Boy George, and there isn't a god damned thing you can do about it.

Ahhh, nothing like a hyperbolic rant to left off some steam.

BlackGriffen

Did Bush way outta line? Because you sure inherited his stupid gene.

EDIT: You gotta be kidding me, if that's the strongest argument you can make.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Whuh? Harkin is calling Cheney on the spot for criticizing Kerry.

Harkin: "If you never served then you don't have the right to criticize."

Harkin is pulling the straw man.

Christ, Harkin has never served as a Vice President so what right does he have to criticize Cheney? Two can play that game.

I just tire of the notion that because someone has worn a uniform that a person who has not doesn't have a right to criticize them.

If indeed Kerry had an excellent war record, had stayed in battle for many years, and had actually performed heoric acts then the criticism would be unwarranted. But to suggest that a person who hasn't served has no right to criticize Kerry's questionable activities while in uniform just seems rather hollow and questionable at best.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Whuh? Harkin is calling Cheney on the spot for criticizing Kerry.

Harkin: "If you never served then you don't have the right to criticize."

Nope, reread the article. He doesn't phrase it like that. Here, I'll repost the quote from him, directly:

Harkin also shot back at Cheney, who said in a visit to Iowa on Tuesday that presidential candidate John Kerry lacks a basic understanding of the war on terrorism and cannot make America safer.

He noted that Cheney had several student deferments that allowed him to skip serving in Vietnam.

"When I hear this coming from Dick Cheney, who was a coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it makes my blood boil," Harkin said. "Those of us who served and those of us who went in the military don't like it when someone like a Dick Cheney comes out and he wants to be tough. Yeah, he'll be tough. He'll be tough with somebody else's blood, somebody else's kids. But not when it was his turn to go."

This reduces more nearly to "Don't throw stones"(with some stone throwing of his own) than "Walk a mile."

BlackGriffen

[Dr.HermanG.]

No, it doesn't. Cheney has been Vice President about 10 times longer than Kerry served in Vietnam. How is someone who served for around 120 days and then ran away to protest the war supposed to make America tougher or safer?

A glass house would be if Kerry had served the entire war, was a prominent General, came back to ticker tape parades and high acclaim, and thenCheney came along having served 3-4 months, ran away back home to protest the war and lie about it, and then called Kerry weak.

I didn't serve in Vietnam either and I'll be goddamned if someone's going to call me a coward if I question Kerry's ability to lead.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Cheney isn't the one who was pushing for normalized relations with an enemy so that a lucrative contract would be signed.

Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney (Jan. 30, 1941)?

[Dr.HermanG.]

In 1991 the Senate created the Select Senate Committee on POW/MIA Affairs to investigate the possibility that U.S. prisoners of war and soldiers designated missing in action were still alive in Vietnam. Acting as chairman, Kerry helped persuade the group to vote unanimously that no American servicemen still remained in Vietnam. In doing so, he helped begin the process of normalizing U.S.-Vietnamese relations.

But Kerry's participation in the Committee became controversial in December 1992 when Hanoi announced that it had awarded Colliers International, a Boston-based real estate company, an exclusive deal to develop its commercial real estate potentially worth billions. Stuart Forbes, the CEO of Colliers, is Kerry's cousin.

The same Kerry who single handedly prevented HR 2833 from coming to a vote in the Senate. Odd. Seems he really likes the Communist Vietnamese since he decided to run away and not fight them and years later benefitted his family from an exclusive trade deal. I don't know, but the word "traitor" comes to mind.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
No, it doesn't. Cheney has been Vice President about 10 times longer than Kerry served in Vietnam. How is someone who served for around 120 days and then ran away to protest the war supposed to make America tougher or safer?

A glass house would be if Kerry had served the entire war, was a prominent General, came back to ticker tape parades and high acclaim, and thenCheney came along having served 3-4 months, ran away back home to protest the war and lie about it, and then called Kerry weak.

I didn't serve in Vietnam either and I'll be goddamned if someone's going to call me a coward if I question Kerry's ability to lead.

What can I say. The words are there for everyone to see and draw their own conclusions. Harkin's works boil down to, "Don't criticize Kerry's Vietnam war record, cause yours is crap, ya damn deferring coward."

*rereads*

I wasn't quite right, although it does mean more nearly that than what you claim. His words boil down to, "Don't act all tough when other people's lives are on the line if you're unwilling to put yours on the line." Again, the kernel of the statement is about hypocrisy, not understanding.

The words are there for everyone to see and judge for themselves, so further discussion on the matter is pointless.

BlackGriffen

Edit: Anyone here seen The Way of the Gun? The opening sequence is hilarious, and reminds me of what Harkin is talking about.

[Dr.HermanG.]

You're right, it is pointless because Harkin is way out of line.

Whether someone served or not is irrelevent to the right to criticise.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
You're right, it is pointless because Harkin is way out of line.

Whether someone served or not is irrelevent to the right to criticise.

Let me break it down for you sentence by sentence. I do this because I can't tell if your problem is a lack of reading comprehension or a willful ignorance.

So, first sentence: "Harkin also shot back at Cheney, who said in a visit to Iowa on Tuesday that presidential candidate John Kerry lacks a basic understanding of the war on terrorism and cannot make America safer."
Cliff notes version: Cheyney criticized Kerry, Harkin criticized Cheyney.

2nd sentence: "He noted that Cheney had several student deferments that allowed him to skip serving in Vietnam."
Cliff notes version: Harkin establishes some historical facts.

3rd sentence: " "When I hear this coming from Dick Cheney, who was a coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it makes my blood boil," Harkin said."
Cliff notes version: Cheyney's criticism pisses off Harkin, who injects criticism of Cheyney in the statement of fact.

4th sentence: " "Those of us who served and those of us who went in the military don't like it when someone like a Dick Cheney comes out and he wants to be tough."
Cliff notes version: Cheyney is acting tough when he is not.

5th sentence: "Yeah, he'll be tough."
Cliff notes version: Note, he's being sarcastic.

6th sentence: "He'll be tough with somebody else's blood, somebody else's kids."
Cliff notes version: Cheney talks a big game, but he has to do it while hiding behind someone else.

7th sentence: "But not when it was his turn to go." "
Cliff notes version: Cheyney wasn't tough when he had the chance to prove it by serving his country.

Long story short: Harkin calls Cheyney a hypocrite for asking others to do what he would not.

If you still don't grasp what Harkin is saying, and cling to your straw man, what can I say. I could resort to flaming you for any number of reasons, but that's a waste of time, seeing as how it will only make you clutch your straw man all the harder.

Stupidity, blind partisanship, or deceit, pick your poison, because I don't see any other alternatives.

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
You're right, it is pointless because Harkin is way out of line.

Whether someone served or not is irrelevent to the right to criticise.

interesting. May I hold you to that?

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
First sentence: "Harkin also shot back at Cheney, who said in a visit to Iowa on Tuesday that presidential candidate John Kerry lacks a basic understanding of the war on terrorism and cannot make America safer."

Well, Kerry did ask to be sent home when the battle got tough...

2nd sentence: "He noted that Cheney had several student deferments that allowed him to skip serving in Vietnam."
Cliff notes version: Harkin establishes some historical facts.

Making the lead in that somehow deferrments are bad

3rd sentence: " "When I hear this coming from Dick Cheney, who was a coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it makes my blood boil," Harkin said."

Does having not served automatically make one a coward?

4th sentence: " "Those of us who served and those of us who went in the military don't like it when someone like a Dick Cheney comes out and he wants to be tough."

Because we all know that the only tough people in the world are those who wore a uniform

"He'll be tough with somebody else's blood, somebody else's kids."

Versus runaway Kerry who ran when he got slight injuries. I wonder how many names on the Vietnam War Memorial are there because Kerry didn't stay?

"But not when it was his turn to go."

Because only tough people wear a uniform.

Long story short: Harkin calls Cheyney a hypocrite for asking others to do what he would not.

Long story short: Harkin doesn't like it when Telfon Kerry gets criticism over his questionable actions and service.

It's not a straw man no matter how much you'd like it to be.

So what if Cheney didn't serve, he still has as much right to criticise Teflon John as anyone else in this country on the basis of his public service and his questionable actions while in uniform.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Well, Kerry did ask to be sent home when the battle got tough...

Making the lead in that somehow deferrments are bad

Does having not served automatically make one a coward?

Because we all know that the only tough people in the world are those who wore a uniform

Versus runaway Kerry who ran when he got slight injuries. I wonder how many names on the Vietnam War Memorial are there because Kerry didn't stay?

Because only tough people wear a uniform.

Long story short: Harkin doesn't like it when Telfon Kerry gets criticism over his questionable actions and service.

It's not a straw man no matter how much you'd like it to be.

So what if Cheney didn't serve, he still has as much right to criticise Teflon John as anyone else in this country on the basis of his public service and his questionable actions while in uniform.

The point he's making is the fact that Kerry went at all is more than Cheney did. IOW, whatever Kerry did, Cheney did worse.

Kerry's time there definitely kept one name off the wall, and possibly more. Whereas, we'll never know how many people died in Cheney's place.

Here is a nice summary of the service record of the chickenhawks in this administration.

Re: deferments being bad. I would say it depends on the deferment. Most of Cheyney's were student deferments. In other words, He didn't go to Vietnam because, in his own words, he "had other priorities" than serving his country, or was "too busy in the sixties." If he had a medical deferment, like Dean or Limbaugh, it would be easily defensible because he would have been a liability on the front line. Cheney didn't have that excuse. I'd say his only valid deferment was his last one, "married with children."

Compared to Kerry, Cheney was a coward. So criticizing Kerry's service is the old glass house situation.

Clinton was an outright draft dodger, but he's not stupid enough to question the bravery of someone who went. Ie, Clinton lives in a glass house on this one, too, but is smart enough not to throw bricks.

BlackGriffen

[Dr.HermanG.]

Yes, Cheney got a deferment because he was married and had a pregnant wife. The horror of it.

Well, in my opinion, a guy who goes there, chickens out, runs back home, and protests and fabricates lies about what the soldiers did and then proceeds to build a political career out of helping the former enemy at every chance isn't exactly the kind of person to be held in high regard. A traitor ranks lower than a "coward" in my book.

I wonder if Kerry would have gone were it not for other prominent Taxachusetts liberals fluffing him up in the high tradition of how to build a political career. I wonder if Kerry would have gone had he been married with a child on the way.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Yes, Cheney got a deferment because he was married and had a pregnant wife. The horror of it.

Eh? I think that settles it, you "don't read so good." From my post, "I'd say his only valid deferment was his last one, "married with children."" The only deferments of his I denigrated were his student ones.

Well, in my opinion, a guy who goes there, chickens out, runs back home, and protests and fabricates lies about what the soldiers did and then proceeds to build a political career out of helping the former enemy at every chance isn't exactly the kind of person to be held in high regard. A traitor ranks lower than a "coward" in my book.

I wonder if Kerry would have gone were it not for other prominent Taxachusetts liberals fluffing him up in the high tradition of how to build a political career. I wonder if Kerry would have gone had he been married with a child on the way.

Seeing as how I don't know enough about you to say whether or not you live in a glass house, I'll let it slide. Cheney, OTOH, deserves what he gets.

BlackGriffen

[Dr.HermanG.]

The child/marriage deferments started in 1965. Getting married was an exemption throughout the war, even for Kerry who ironically got married just days after returning from Vietnam. I guess serving in uniform wasn't that important to Kerry either since he vacated the first chance he got.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Also, if Harkin is calling Cheney a coward for not serving in Vietnam, then why wasn't Harkin in Vietnam either?

Turns out all he was doing was moving damaged planes around Japan for the duration of the war.

[Joshua]

via Instapundit

[Dr.HermanG.]

Ah, yes, isn't it interesting what one finds when one seeks the truth.

Harkin. Not only a coward but a liar as well. No wonder he has to attack Cheney to defend Kerry.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Harkin's works boil down to, "Don't criticize Kerry's Vietnam war record, cause yours is crap, ya damn deferring coward."

Harkin's war record is very much like Bush's. They were both non-combat experienced fighter pilots. The difference is that Bush never lied about it, unlike Harkin. Nor has Bush run around calling people "cowards."

Here is an article from 1991 (now reprinted) detailing Harkin's falsifications of his military record. Faking being a combat veteran when you aren't is about as shameless a lie as anyone can make. Why the hell is he still in office? Democrats: is that really who you want defending your candidate?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


Harkin's war record is very much like Bush's. They were both non-combat experienced fighter pilots. The difference is that Bush never lied about it, unlike Harkin. Nor has Bush run around calling people "cowards."

Here is an article from 1991 (now reprinted) detailing Harkin's falsifications of his military record. Faking being a combat veteran when you aren't is about as shameless a lie as anyone can make. Why the hell is he still in office? Democrats: is that really who you want defending your candidate?

Ouch! Now that was stupid.

Still better than losing to a dead man, though.

BG

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yeah! He sure showed him!

I wonder if he will call Clinton a coward too.

Doubt it.

What about you Lerk?

'When stuck, talk about Clinton'. Republican saying.

[CreepingDeth]

Listen, listen. I'm not that interested in his "war hero" act. If he lied, it wouldn't be the first time.

It's Kerry's puppet communist game after the war that pisses me off. Lies to the Fullbright, throws metals, attends a plan to assassinate senators (but to be fair, I'm not sure he would now or even think about doing that, but he lied about if he did), lies in protests, and claims to be a war hero. That's more annoying the purple heart stuff.

[mo]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Listen, listen. I'm not that interested in his "war hero" act. If he lied, it wouldn't be the first time.

It's Kerry's puppet communist game after the war that pisses me off. Lies to the Fullbright, throws metals, attends a plan to assassinate senators (but to be fair, I'm not sure he would now or even think about doing that, but he lied about if he did), lies in protests, and claims to be a war hero. That's more annoying the purple heart stuff.

I cannot make heads or tails out of the second paragraph.

[CreepingDeth]

His anti-war ******** after Nam is more important that the medals thing. That's why you have to pay $$$ to find a copy of The New Soldier.