GM, I think America and Americans (AND on a broader and broader front - religion, race, gender, economic status, age, etc.) are getting sick and tired of the higher and higher cost of government AND how we are sliding more and more into immorality. Does not a day go by that some pervert has grabbed a child? Does not a day go by that some Hollyword or "music" celebrity doesn't do, or say, something really awful? Does a day go by in which some politician (Democrat) doesn't malign our troops and fails to support the efforts of those engaged in the war? Does a day go by in which many, many, in the media seem to have forgotten there is a real war on?

I predict your chart will continue to slide "south" for the Dems. I worry that there will be more hits against Americans in CONUS. I suspect the only thing keeping that from happening is that the terrorists realize that by hitting America hard, they would re-galvanize Americans...AND the pressure to use mega force would be on the President...whomever he/she might be.

Posted by tad at June 17, 2005 08:52 AM

"Again Dems, do you want to re-think your reliance on "Senators" like Kennedy, Durbin, Kerry, Clinton, and Reid and with goons like Dean? Do you really want to go with that leadership? Really?"---GMR

=================================================

And what alternatives are there ? You CANNOT reform a bankrupt movement. There is not enough to work with.

The GREAT DEM HOPE(aka HC),is really nothing but a manipulative and cynical power seeker. She has no true convictions ,and the latest disaster from DICK D. is yet another example of her duplicity. If she was a true leader she would call him out and lay waste to him in public. He is (objectively) giving 'aid and comfort' to your mortal enemies, but she says NOTHING ,even though she doubtless believes him a total fool.

And WHY you ask. Well of course partly because she depends on the lunatic fringe of the Party for support( well it;s not really a fringe any more; it's more like the majority segment).But more importantly, she does not have the VALUES or the COURAGE which would allow her to take a stand on principle. She is an illusion of reasonableness,concealing an inner void.

The only difference between the RABID wing of the Party and the SENSIBLE wing is that one actually says what it thinks. The other truly doesn't think anything at this point.It just wants.

Your appeal to reason will have as much affect as talking to the nearest wall, but it won't be nearly as satisfactory.

Posted by dougf at June 17, 2005 01:08 PM

Don't see much point in defending the Democrats; they're as rotten to the core as the Republicans.

Absolutely agree with DougF's take on Hillary; she truly is nothing but a manipulative and cynical power seeker. And in that regard she's a lot like our current president, the most unpopular and ineffective in most of our lifetimes. And she, just like George, will tank. Neither one have the popular support you guys imagine.

Tad seems to lay the blame for perverts on the Dems doorstep. Tad, I'm sure you're a great guy, but nonsense statements like that make it hard to take you seriously. But when you say "GM, I think America and Americans (AND on a broader and broader front - religion, race, gender, economic status, age, etc.) are getting sick and tired of the higher and higher cost of government AND how we are sliding more and more into immorality."...I have to say, once again, I'm in total agreement. The higher and higher cost of government (particularly under the current regime) is sickening, and weakens our country in ways you boys can't even imagine. Anybody remember the last time we had a balanced budget?

As far as immorality goes, I'd make the poster boy for that Ken Lay (you remember him, don'tcha guys?), George Bush's biggest finacial backer. Well, he'll be in the pokey soon. I had to laugh recently when 86 million was awarded in court to the pension plan of his former workers and he was upset, saying that that money should have gone to pay his defense. Oh, what a victim; kinda like George Bush, who's only response to the Enron scandal was "My mom lost $6000 in in Enron stock, and I think that's wrong!"

Whoo boy.

Meanwhile, the support for the current congress is even lower than the support for the president, which is saying quite a lot. So I'll throw GM's question back at him...in a party where whackos like Bill Frist have taken the reins of power, and where Arlen Spector is seen as moderate and a voice of reason (for cryin' out loud), aren't you feeling just a wee bit worried?

Posted by jim hitchcock at June 17, 2005 03:09 PM

And another thing...specifically to Tad. All this nonsense about democrats `not supporting the troops' is pure hyperbole. Get past the talking points. Where's the hue and cry over veterans benefits being cut 50% during the Bush administration? The outrage over sending troops into harms way without a clear cut mission? Inadequately armored? Denying troops a trip home after their enlistments have been served?

It's a hard world out there, Tad. Supporting the troops means a lot more than just flying a flag on Veterans Day.

Posted by jim hitchcock at June 17, 2005 03:49 PM

"It's a hard world out there, Tad. Supporting the troops means a lot more than just flying a flag on Veterans Day."--JimH

=================================================

I just couldn't leave it at " absolutely agree with DougF ". I thought I must have been in error yet again --- :-)

Although 'supporting the troops' is as you say MUCH more than just surface displays of 'patriotism', I just cannot support your conclusion that the institutional face of the current Democratic Party is doing ANYTHING that objectively aids the troops most in harm's way.

I mean hyperbole and rhetoric aside, surely Durbin's clueless statement this week was not really ,in any way, likely to provide support for the troops. I don't want to beat this poor horse too much, but way too many Democrats are behaving very poorly in a WAR context.

They are the anti-propaganda aspect of the current struggle, which again (OBJECTIVELY) seems to me to be a very NEGATIVE and USELESS position. Can we at least agree that they could without, breaking a sweat, perhaps do BETTER than they are managing thusfar ?

Posted by dougf at June 17, 2005 05:42 PM

Well, gee, Doug...if you set all the hyperbole and rhetoric aside, what did Durbin actually say? :)

Really see Durbin's statement as aimed toward the administration, rather than the troops. And it was basically just more of the same...the kind of stupid stunt that I pay little attention to. Much as I payed little attention to the rice pilaf statement. In general, I save my moral outrage for the important stuff.

Posted by jim hitchcock at June 17, 2005 08:03 PM

*Does not a day go by that some pervert has grabbed a child?*

Really? I didn't know the stats reflected that at all. Seems more likely that the trends haven't changed that greatly in the last few decades. In fact, one is far more likely to be molested by a family member than a stranger any day of the week.

Posted by steve at June 17, 2005 09:30 PM

For Jim Hitchcock,

Actually, as I spent thirty two years in the Marine Corps, both enlisted (infantry) and officer (infantry), and as I actually was in Vietnam MORE than three times as long as Senator Kerry, I suspect I might, repeat, might know something about veterans and veterans affairs.

I would be most interested in very specific facts and figures concerning cuts in veterans benefits. Further, in regard to not enough armor...just how much armor is enough and just how should the military services prepare for ALL possibilities AND convince Congress BEFORE the fact that they ought fund ALL of them? Having studied military history, in books, and as a participant, I would say that I have never heard of any country being prepared for every eventuality. Budgeting for military equipment is a very tough deal. VERY TOUGH.

As to sending the troops in without a mission, all the information I am getting is that Marines in Iraq know exactly what their mission is. BTW, my son-in-law served in OIF I and is still on active duty in the Marines.

My bride of more than twenty five years served in the Marines also. I would guess that saying that we do, and did, a little more than hang out a flag on Veteran's Day (formerly Armistace Day) might be accurate. What do you think?

Posted by tad at June 18, 2005 01:08 PM

"and as I actually was in Vietnam MORE than three times as long as Senator Kerry, I suspect I might, repeat, might know something about veterans and veterans affairs."

So what? Other veterans with as much experience disagree with your views.

"I would be most interested in very specific facts and figures concerning cuts in veterans benefits. "

It was a leading lament of the recent pro-war rally on the capital that the pro-war vets groups had on Memorial Day kicking off the motorcylists' pro-war rallies...I didn't even know the matter was a controversial one anymore, just kind of taken for granted:

Bush sought to cap pay raises. “The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush’s proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent.� [Source: Army Times, editorial, 7/2/03]

Bush White House complained about plan to double death benefit. “For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary � including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.� [Source: Army Times, editorial, 7/2/03]

Bush tried to roll back monthly pay increases for soldiers in combat. “Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.� [Source: Army Times, editorial, 7/2/03]

No tax relief for military families. “Then there’s military tax relief � or the lack thereof. As Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of tax cuts, they can’t seem to find time to make progress on minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.� [Source: Army Times, editorial, 7/2/03]

Bush flips on military pay cut. “The White House quickly backpedaled Thursday on Pentagon plans to cut the combat pay of the 157,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan after disclosure of the idea quickly became a political embarrassment.� [Source: San Francisco Chronicle, 8/15/03]

Posted by steve at June 18, 2005 02:22 PM

What other veterans? What was their MOS? What units did they serve in? Where did they serve?

What exactly is a veteran? I walked into a convenience store to get a cup of coffee and there was a gent wearing a ball cap that said Vietnam Veteran. I walked over and said "I like your hat." He smiled. He was about the right age and I thought nothing was amiss. I said, "So, what unit were you in in Vietnam...where did you serve?" He started to blanch. Turns out that he was, so he said, a Vietnam ERA Veteran. He was in CONUS and never oversea in Vietnam or anywhere else. This is OK.

We are sent where we are sent, but trying to pass one's self off as something we are not is lying. Don't you agree? There are many folks out there who claim to be all sorts of things that they are not. It is easy to "get over" on folks that do not know much about the military, but for folks that actually know what's-what, it is not so simple.

As for putting caps on the pay of personnel serving in pay grades of E-1, E-2 and O-1. I support that myself. These are folks that are brand new to the military and the vast majority are still in the training pipeline. I entirely support this. On the other hand, I would raise the pay of folks serving in pay grades E-3 and above. If you follow the stats closely, those who, in the main, are doing the fighting and dying are the in those paygrades.

I would posit two things in terms of how much money the NOK who survives the death of a serviceman/woman. 1. There is NO amount of money we can pay that would compensate for the loss of a loved one...NO AMOUNT. 2. Since we must set some figure to gave to parents or spouses of those who lose their lives, what ought that amount be? I would guess that no matter what number one puts forward, some will object mightly (see number 1.). You are looking at the Death Gratuity. Are you familiar with the SGLI? (Servicemen's Group Life Insurance) Check that out and see how much a service member's NOK would get under that. Note, they pay not tax on insurance. All service members have this.

While I am very supportive of combat pay, there is - too often - some folks that really are in danger and then there are some folks that are not in all that much danger. If you pay everyone in a theater of operations both hazardous duty pay AND separation pay, this number really adds up quickly. War is expensive to prosecute. Do we pay our folks enough? No. Can we ever? No. The absolute misery, hardship, loneliness, slow fear in your gut that just stays with you....and is only punctuated from time to time by something close to near terror, is just not something that money can compensate for. What would really, really help would be for more Americans to really support the troops by saying and doing positive things on their behalf. A handshake when they get home. A Thank You in the airport. My wife told me that one airline the other day (she was in the airport) allowed all the service personnel in uniform to board the plane first. All the rest in and around the gate gave them a standing ovation. That is cheap, but very, very important.

No one really joins to get rich. What they would like is the respect and appreciate from those they defend.

Posted by tad at June 18, 2005 04:41 PM

"What other veterans? What was their MOS? What units did they serve in? Where did they serve?"

I dunno, but they seemed good enough for Don Rumsfeld to praise when he showed up for their prowar rally a few weeks ago...

Posted by steve at June 18, 2005 09:10 PM

Responded to Jim Hitchcock and got Steve. Attempted to provide answers and pose questions.

"So what? Other veterans with as much experience disagree with your views." I wonder how you know about my experience and the experience of others. I find this comment may say all I really need to know.

Tiger Hotel Three Actual Out

Posted by tad at June 18, 2005 10:18 PM

Tad, the remark about flying the flag was in no way specifically directed at you. I was already aware of your service through past posts, and apologize if you think I was singling you out.

Google veterans administration benefit cuts if you're interested in further reading. My 50% mark appears to be wildly inaccurate, and I withdraw it.

I remember quite a few interviews of troops before the invasion, and almost to the man, they figured on a month or so of fighting, and then a ticket home. The vagaries of war, you say? Well, sure...but it should be clear to everyone by now that the Bush administration went out of its way to discount warnings of the need forlong term involvement in Iraq. The original mission statement in no way took those warnings into account.

"Budgeting for military equipment is a very tough deal. VERY TOUGH."

Sure is. But wouldn't you agree that sending out unarmored Humvees to basically troll for roadside bombs nearly two years AFTER the invasion is a clear cut failure to support the troops?

Posted by jim hitchcock at June 19, 2005 12:55 AM

* I wonder how you know about my experience and the experience of others. I find this comment may say all I really need to know.*

Uhm, you've either bragged or talked about it at length in your responses to me. gee, that was hard to figure out?

Jim writes:
"Sure is. But wouldn't you agree that sending out unarmored Humvees to basically troll for roadside bombs nearly two years AFTER the invasion is a clear cut failure to support the troops?"

Jim, don't you understand, only those who hate America would ever say such a thing?

Posted by steve at June 19, 2005 10:34 AM

1. The Veteran's Administration and the Department of Defense are two separate deals.

2. Very many who are eligible for VA benefits never saw action in any war. Some were in during times of peace, albeit one could argue that the Cold War wasn't exactly peace.

3. Many who served in uniform, never avail themselves of VA benefits as they believe that the maladies they have are not a result of military service.

4. Just throwing more, or less, money at a problem doesn't necessary indicate one's concern. Seems many politicians do the money throwing drill and then "buy" votes by their "patriotism" or love of farmers, or support of law enforcement, or concern for children (education), etc. Often better can be done cheaper. Does anyone agree with this concept?

5. Before a service member separates from active duty, he/she must take a physical. If they have been wounded or hurt while in the service of their country, they are mostly taken care of by the DOD health care system. Some are medically retired having only spent weeks in active duty and they injured themselves...and they get a check from the government for the rest of their lives...though they must go for check-ups to re-validate their malady. They also get a golden handshake in terms of monies for school, etc. I know all this as I have students that are in this program...and most are in much, much finer fettle than most of their fellow students who never wore a uniform. There is some amount of fraud, methinks.

6. Is the system perfect? Hardly. It is man-made and filled with bureaucrats and far too many forms. However, the USA probably does more for its' veterans than any nation. You do remember Carter...that cheap (not nice word) cut back the military in terms of pay and equipment to the point that we were in serious jeopardy.

*********************
New topic.

I would suggest that the pressure to armor up various normally non-armored military vehicles has long ago reached the pressure cooker stage. Field commanders, individuals service members, families of troops deployed, politicians, and the Administration have "leaned" very heavily on DOD and industry to make it happen.

Having said that, NO AMOUNT of armor can assure complete safety. Military vehicles, from cargo trucks, to tanker (fuel) trucks, to refrigerated vehicles hauling food, if "hardened" to the point of near perfect safety, would not be able to drive. In war, one has to weigh trade offs. Never is the answer a perfect one. Never. I would note that the number of KIA as a result of bombs/explosives along roads has gone down among U.S. forces. The terrorists are more and more going after soft (read: Iraqi) women, children, etc.

"Rough Rider" duty is very, well, rough. One has to be ever vigiliant. The terrorists, of course, hide among the populace. So much for the Geneva Conventions and The Rules of Land Warfare.

On a more personal note: I have been called many things, but never was braggart one of them. Maybe I am, though I don't think so. I have been honored to serve with folks that were real heroes, however, I would most definately would not number myself in their league. Have I heard rounds snap/crack close to my head? Yes. The sound of grenades, mortars are familiar to me. Do I know the anguish of losing friends that I had been talking to only minutes before, in violent death? Yes. I served my country, but truth be told, I did so voluntarily. Despite all the really awful parts, and the really tough conditions (too much rain, snow, heat, mud, dust-sand)(being very hungry for long periods, and being away from the most basic things in terms of showers, flush toilettes, etc...and missing my family)...I did it because I wanted to. I would guess that a psychologist could have much to say about that.

Finally, I should add, that there is a steely core, that isn't entirely charitable, among those who have laced up a pair of boots for their country for those who haven't. We are, after all, quite human and subject to the failing thereto.

Posted by tad at June 19, 2005 09:52 PM

"Finally, I should add, that there is a steely core, that isn't entirely charitable, among those who have laced up a pair of boots for their country for those who haven't."

Nice try, Tad...but go back to WWII. Nearly every male of age enlisted in the armed forces in a time of great need...showing a universal steely core. But, by your reasoning, the generation they spawned (I turned eighteen in '74) somehow lacked that steely core? Sorry, don't buy it.

Posted by jim hitchcock at June 20, 2005 01:20 AM

Should add that I've considered myself as having a steely core since the I saved my entire family from a horde of rabid zombie racoons using only a chain saw and a broken axe handle. Well, saved everyone but Grandma, but she was slow...

Posted by jim hitchcock at June 20, 2005 01:29 AM

Jim, being Jim, didn't tell the whole truth, in fact, he shaded the truth somewhat. The fact is that Grandma was quite conservative and voted Republican consistently. Jim really didn't make that much effort to save her. The last words Grandma heard from Jim were "Easy does it Grandma, I'll be there in a few minutes...you just hang loose."

Posted by GM Roper at June 20, 2005 06:57 AM

If family crests were still in vogue, I wonder just how many would have "Peace in our time" engraved thereon? The Rhineland, Austria, The Sudetenland, and no one really stopped the madman..when it was still possible. Belgium proclaimed their neutrality in both World Wars I and II. This slowed the Imperial Germany Army for the first go round...not a bit. In 1940 the Werhrmacht went down the same roads and lanes as their fathers before them. The Belgians hadn't learned from history.

The League of Nations attempted to hector the Japanese and later the Italians for their invasions of other countries purely and nakedly for greater Empire and to take the resources of the land. Did the League stop those people? No.

The last time I was in Geneva, the Palais du League of Nations (mixing languages, badly) was still quite beautiful, but without purpose. Now, the United Nations, certainly one of the most corrupt, ineffective and often criminal organizations postures but brings little real relief to peoples of the world.

No, dear reader, we will not find a perfect hero to ride to the rescue of anyone, or any nation. However, flaws aside, I would most like to see the Stars and Stripes than any other flag coming to my rescue. How about you? What country would you want?

Posted by tad at June 20, 2005 10:13 PM

So, remind me again why you choose not to serve, albeit briefly, in our armed services? Couldn't be bothered? Pay too low? Didn't want to leave home? Somebody else could do it?

And by serving, did not all those who did provide something for you and your family? What was it? Can you remember, or did not your father's generation tell you?

And if you have children, will they serve? If not, why not?

Posted by tad at June 20, 2005 10:35 PM

I registered for the last draft in '74. Wasn't called. No one was. Would I have served if called? You bet'cha.

As to your implying that I am somehow less an American than you because I didn't serve? Well, respectfully, screw you buddy.

Posted by jim hitchcock at June 20, 2005 11:43 PM

For those who registered for the draft and were not called...fine. I would guess that my point is that while the draft stopped, the requirements did not. Someone filled all those slots. Europe, Asia, in CONUS, and a whole lot of semi to really awful other places and duties. The armed forces didn't disappear. Au contraire, they were working harding, longer, and enduring longer deployments from their families....and they were mostly forgotten by a goodly portion of the populace.

What we find in our national legislature, the professions and wide swaths among adult Americans today, are very few who know much about their own military. Emphasis here: The Armed Forces of the United States are the "employees" of the People. If the People know little about the services, how can they make any informed decisions? Further, do the "best and the brightest" serve, or do they leave it to someone else? If that is the case, is America best served?

As to "Well,respectfully,screw you buddy." That sounds like a mixed message. Are you really "respectful"? If not me, and I would guess that I can be a bit obnoxious from time to time, when was the last time you said thank you to someone in uniform? Shook their hand and let them know that you appreciate what they are doing for all of us?

I would guess that the bottom line is that Americans need to ask is whether they really need Armed Forces. If the answer is no, then we can disband and rely on "the goodness of strangers." If, on the other hand, the answer is yes, then who should serve? If not you, then who? Why someone else? Is their life less important? They can put their dreams on hold to stand in the ranks while brighter lads go off to graduate school or join the ranks of: academia, wall street, and the upwardly mobile? I am not sure that is a good thing...for any individual or for the American body politic. Does anyone?

Posted by tad at June 21, 2005 07:11 AM

""Peace in our time" engraved thereon? The Rhineland, Austria, The Sudetenland, and no one really stopped the madman..when it was still possible. "

Well, yeah, and they were in the rightwing as I recall before WW2? Now, that was in a case where there was an actual madman who actually had the capacity and intent to take over the world. 0 in the way of evidence exists to show that Saddam was even 1/100th as powerful as Hitler in 1937, when American aid in the defeat of Franco would have helped a long way in ending the threat of Hitler.
Indeed, if Saddam or Iraq today were as important a battle as you presume, Jim's right, you'd see many many more American supporters of the American occupation of Iraq going to fight in Iraq today.

Posted by steve at June 21, 2005 12:26 PM

Tad...I both understood and agreed with the basic premise of your message. And yes, your delivery was a bit (really want to say a tad) obnoxious...a quality I'm personally familiar with myself at times. But thank you for taking it well. Sometimes debating over the internet obscures the fact that the debatees would enjoy having a beer together. If nothing else, you'd know that in no way am I anti military. And I have no doubt you'd enjoy my bookshelves. Ever read Dennis Foley? Or Bob Mason (Chickenhawks is probably the alltime book on the helicopter war in Vietnam).

But, yeah. Reading about it is just that. One idea
I think would be interesting to explore is some kind of mandatory service, vis a vis the Israelis...thought not necessarily military exclusively. Could be anything...maintaining forests, repairing roads, whatever. Something that could both build a sense of responsibility to country and (metaphorically) build bridges between different segments of society.

Posted by jim hitchcock at June 21, 2005 03:19 PM

I keep asking questions, and pretty politely I believe. Nearly all go unanswered.

BTW, I have been mulling the whole "if we'd have helped the Republicans against Franco" deal. I submit that your point here just will not bear up to the facts. How, indeed, would a shattered and improverished Republican Spain assisted IN ANY WAY in stopping Hitler? The Condor Legion and Mussolini's contributions were actually RELATIVELY minor. Please to remember that those opposing Franco were hardly one fist, so to speak. Communists, Socialists (from "soft" to "hard"), and a number of other splinter groups. Much feuding and violence within the Republican side in that very sorrowful war.

Ah, don't forget my questions. Please answer. Without answers we are not having any exchange of information, but just a written shouting match. Not much is learned in those type of events, don't you agree?

Posted by tad at June 21, 2005 03:26 PM

"How, indeed, would a shattered and improverished Republican Spain assisted IN ANY WAY in stopping Hitler?"

Well, let's see. a military force that has its main claim to legitimacy in racial superiority backed up by military superiority is defeated by a non-Aryan bunch of loyalists in Spain. If that wouldn't be a big blow to Nazi morale and legitimacy...well...
I mean, really, is Tad really that unaware of the significance of the lost battle over the Spanish Republic? gosh.
In any event Tad, you do overobject too much a bit? No one has been yelling at you and we have been reasonable in our responses to you. What frustrates you is that we disagree with you and that we even back up our disagreements with counterevidence. When that doesn' tsatisfy you, you then retort with claims that no one is addressing your questions, presuming that you have substantively reponded to our questions and/or objections.

Posted by steve at June 21, 2005 10:06 PM

To Whomever This May Concern,

Regimental Sergeant Major Brittain (now,sadly, deceased) was heard to remark (with extreme volume)to one Gentleman Cadet at The Royal Military College, Sandhurst: "You are such a disgrace that If I were your father, I would commit suicide."

Note: As I write this, I am whistling "Men of Harlich".

Sadly, I lost my CD of tThe Pipes and Drums of the 1st Battalion, The Royal Gurkha Rifles. Ah, well, I can write them at Winchester and get another copy.

What DOES all this mean? If you don't know..then..YOU DON'T KNOW.

Legio Patria Nostra

Posted by tad at June 22, 2005 10:27 PM