Centerfield

That's a family with a serious tradition of military service. My heartfelt thanks to all the McCains for their service and sacrifice on our behalf.

It is commendable. About what one would expect from a man and a family that has serverd so honorably for so long. If you look at the list of congresspersons with children in the service, it's pretty short. Mr. McCain isn't the only one, and neither is his party the only one represented. It is, however, an entirely too short list.

Biden has a son, I believe, in the military. Pat and Scott are right on.

I strongly support the military. The men and women in uniform have arguably some of the worst duties known, and furthermore get little in the way of reward, other than the personal satisfaction that their fellow countryfolk will be able to continue to reap the benefits afforded. Our fighting soldiers have the bad end of the stick froma number of perspectives: vilified by the extreme left, sent into battle without proper equipment by the extreme right, and sent in harm's way by those who did all within their power to avoid combat (either by dodging the draft or ducking out of reserves).

Bush has been worse on these men and women than many of the previous Presidents: he allowed a cut in their pay, frontline troops without proper gear, and put them in harm's way for political agenda without the exhaustion of diplomatic ties. Not to mention he continues to falsely tie the War in Iraq with those who perpetrated the September 11th tragedy.

How does this tie in to McCain? On the surface it might not. Except that he served his country well, tends to speak his mind directly, and has firsthand knowledge of what being in harm's way is all about. Oh, and the fact that he has never truly called Bush on the false ties between Iraq and Al Queda.

As you may have notices, I am not a Bush fan. I do like the straight-talking McCain. I may not agree with everything he says, but he strikes me as honest, which is a far cry better than any of the candidates we had in the last two presidential campaigns, save Edwards. Is it wrong that I feel he should have been more outspoken about this ill-begotten war?

One final note... You don't happen to be sponsored by Straight Talk America, do you?

Too short compared to what? The raw odds of having a child in the service are less than 1 in 100. Last year when I tracked it down as best I could the odds of a Congresscritter having a child in the service were somewhat higher than that. Without trying too hard I came up with over a dozen Congresskids in uniform and dozens more nephews and nieces.

I wish to also contest the use of the word "children." It's the core of that bad ad hominem argument, but ignores some salient facts. Everyone is someone's child, but our troops are adults who enter military service of their own free will. Their parents can't make them enlist, or stop them from doing so.

Biden's son is indeed a JAG in the Delaware Army National Guard. He's also running for Attorney General of Delaware. He spent some time in Kosovo helping set up their court system, about five years ago.

Luke--you should update your rant. Seriously. Military pay was never cut despite your claim (Senate passed & President signed the permanent extension before the prior legislation expired) and that particular Pentagon proposal was three years ago. Body armor is not a problem in theater anymore now that contracting has caught up to orders, and who the bloody hell cares what PNAC thinks? Being as that was your third link, and is nothing but their front page.

If you wanna play CPD on military equipage, you need to look to the Clinton administration. That's who cut those budgets. It takes years to pipeline massive stockpiles of equipment. The bidding process alone is interminable.

What Tully said. Given the small percentage of Americans who serve in the Armed Forces, the number of Congressional children serving in the Armed Forces is above what you would expect. For some data, see Dave Kopel's debunking of Farenheit 911.

And shame on Luke for injecting politics into what should be and was intended as an apolitical thread honoring those who serve.

Here's a state legislator with some thoughts on service.

Tully,

You're right. I thought about it and my first impression was that ideally, a parent being in government (service) might provide a civic example for their off-spring that would increase their odds for joining the military (a form of service). But then many Congresscritters are rich and the rich land fewer children into the military for obvious reasons. I also realized that sons and daughters often rebel no matter who their parents are and that said off-spring's slightly higher than average military enrollment is quite surprising. One would think it to be naturally lower than it is, not higher.

I believe when I last crunched the raw numbers they indicated that the children of Congresscritters were roughly 30% more likely to have served or be serving in uniform than a random population sample for age group. That's a pretty rough analysis, but refining it would likely increase that percentage, not decrease it.

Bravo to the MCains. May God keep you as you defend our country. McCain's a patriot and a soldier, and that tradition is well-established in that family. Semper fi.

"I wish to also contest the use of the word "children." It's the core of that bad ad hominem argument, but ignores some salient facts. Everyone is someone's child, but our troops are adults who enter military service of their own free will. Their parents can't make them enlist, or stop them from doing so.

Right on, Tully. I've hated of that insulting meme for a long time. The idea that our brave men and women are only mindless, immature children, who don't know what their doing is demeaning. It's one of the chief conceits Michael Moore's vile propaganda piece. It's the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Simply put I believe that given current circumstances America would prefer a leader that had as much to lose from war as anyone else.

I'm with Rafique and Tully on the "children" point. It annoys me to no end to constantly hear members of the military referred to as "kids". 18-year-olds are adults (except they can't drink legally, which is ridiculous, but that's a whole 'nother thread).

But I don't see this point as "one of the chief conceits of Michael Moore's..." b/c (A) it's a minor conceit compared to Moore's other stuff, (B) it's hardly fair to single out Moore - lots of people in the media and politics are guilty on this one.

I don't disagree with the general point that the soldiers were legally adults that had the right to make up their own mind. But I think it's also fair to point out that the judgment of an 18 or 19 year old is different than a 50 year old. Their decision to join the military may be influenced by a lot of factors--economic circumstances, unrealistic views of the military,or just a desire to get away from home. I'm not saying that a lot don't join out of patriotic motivations and so forth, but I suspect a lot join without really understanding what they are getting into, especially those that joined before the war. Now, obviously, that doesn't mean we shouldn't respect their decision, but I suspect at least a fair percentage would have decided differently if they had had a better understanding of the world.

And the fact is, we routinely talk about 18 year olds being "kids." If you consider the kinds of things that college students of the same age as the soldiers routinely do, it's hard not to conclude that many are still kids at 18 in psychological terms. At one time, colleges had an "in loco parentis" role (I probably have the phrase wrong)toward its students.

This became a politcal thread with the reference to Straight Talk America.

As for budget cuts in the Clinton era, you might do well to see my comment about wars being waged by draft dodgers... Clinton did not give any reasons for war in the Bosnia-Hertzagovenia theater, he just went in and did it. Largely under the NATO flag as I recall. Bush um, gave poor reasons for the Iraq war. Which is worse, I do not know.

As for McCain, I again restate I like him and find him far more honest than any of the Presidential Hopefuls declared in the last two Presidential campaigns. I should amend that to the last 4.

WRT to supporting the troops: we should care about the PNAC as it is their doctrine Rumsfeld has used as a guideline in setting the 'Bush Doctrine'; the budget cuts by Clinton were in a post-cold war era, where we Americans lively naively without fear of terrorism on our soil - there was thought to be no need for military build up, and to justify the spending and still manage the budget, Clinton would have had to raise taxes; and if body armor is not an issue now, why does it still make the news?

Oberon,

Certainly Moore's not the only one who does it, and politicians and pundits on all sides do it, but Fahrenheit 9/11 uses that meme as the one of the central planks of the film.

Oh, and Tully: we were both wrong.

From Americablog:

Speaking of Bill Clinton, guess who gutted the US military in the 1990s to a shell of what it was before? Yes, you guessed it:

Dick Cheney.

Don't believe me? The source is the Department of Defense's own Web site.

***

And the current state of readiness of the National guard? Two-thirds aren't combat ready.

What, Rafique? You mean Michael Moore is less than honest? Wow, another icon shattered! :-)

This became a politcal thread with the reference to Straight Talk America.

Heh. We call that "grasping" in the real world.

Clinton would have had to raise taxes; and if body armor is not an issue now, why does it still make the news?

Luke, that's not news. It's an editorial, a polemic, published in a partisan leftist magazine. And a particularly vague one at that, certainly as far as noting any solid timelines or anything relevant along those lines. I realize the distinction is probably lost on you, but you really should learn the difference. And I hate to break it to you, but Clinton DID raise taxes. But he had other priorities than equipping the military with updated hardware. So you can skip the apologia.

Most Liberal centrists acknowledge that Clinton allowed Gore to negotiate an agreement with Russia that allowed them to transfer weapons and dual use technology to Iran. This was brilliant. Liberals know that Clinton was lied to by North Korea while they built a nuke (or several). Liberals see Clinton didn't fair well in Africa or the Middle East. Numerous Democrats supported Cheney's cut list and Clinton didn’t stop them.. Despite Clarke's fear of AQ, Liberals know little was done to reform our intelligence or transform our military. Liberals also know Clinton supported missile defense and "would die for Israel". Liberals still love Clinton.

Many of these Clinton mistakes were partly because 9/11 hadn't happened. Some in-action was due to governmental partisanship embroiled in impeachment. Still, the Clinton administration failed in some important national security areas. Bush has made mistakes too, big ones, but Liberals know the difference between sound strategic policy poorly delivered from a crazy plan "to be delivered" some time after Democrats assume power and come up with the details. Of course, I am using "Liberal" here in the sense it applies to the clear examples of centrist Democratic leadership for several decades, not the neoLiberal of today’s Blogworld. These Liberals may become a group in decline if it allows a Kossak victory.

Kossaks don't care about the above, nor do antiwar conservatives. They dislike Clinton's core ideology, which is based on a more centrist/internationalist model, than Chomsky or Republican isolationists. In many ways, neoLiberals resemble the Left that has been traditional excluded by the Democrats. To Kossaks, Clinton, Lieberman and most DLCers must go. Kerry is a fine example of someone trying to appease the DLC and Kossaks while convincing neither.

Clinton is virtual head of the DLC, which Kossaks are now battling with for Democratic control. Clinton does not think, "being religious" is a crime and he supports Lieberman and Bush’s decision to go to Iraq. He tours with Bush senior and does not demonize Republicans like the Far Left does. Now Kossaks are afraid of Bill. But this might change.

Luke,
Should our guard be more combat ready? Do you favor expanding the guard and for what purpose? Are you planning to send them somewhere? Even Murtha's plan is to pull back our forces, be ready and bomb the crap out of terrorists after they attack. This is a fine strategy. Doesn't seem to be faring well in Lebanon until ground forces enter. Please explain the strategic position you espouse regarding terrorist groups and the regimes that support them. I think this fundamental void in your advocacy ranks higher than body armor. Body armor can be manufactured and supplied; nukes and rocket attacks cannot be returned to sender. Seems you are trying to focus on the shortcomings of Bush and Clinton to push an entirely different issue of strategic policy ( Bush and Clinton have much in common), which you refuse to state.

And this all started with praise for McCain, who you obviously have issue with too. When asked if he was proud of his son, he told CNN, "I am proud of all the sons who serve". And yet, he does not seek any ceasefires until real solutions are advocated and enforced, not just more Status Quo buying more time for terrorists. His son may well face these adversaries before November, while political extremes here advocate retreat. It is the curvature of political reality that ends up joining the polar extremes.

Great job http://phentermine-online.cq.bz/ phentermin8

Great job http://nclub.info/ nclubinfo8