President Bush to Receive Purple Heart Medal

[Carol]

Michaeledward's post #30 seems to indicate it.

It isn't explicit, but it seems to read as if Mr. Bush accepted it, while expressing the notion that he hadn't earned it.

a couple of more quotes to add to it, taken from the online news article linked to in Post 30:

"Thomas said the Purple Heart he presented (past tense) the president has special meaning to him because the injury he suffered to earn it occurred just after a friend, Richard Peterson, lost his life attempting to save him."

"Carter later called Thomas to inform him that the president was very moved by the gesture and would like the couple to present it in person."

"Thomas took a copy of the original citation showing the origin of the actual medal and presented it as a companion piece with the citation he drew up for the president."

Sounds to me like Mr. Bush accepted it.

That's really a shame.

 

[jdinca]

Sigh. He accepted in a gracious and dignified manner and he's vilified for it. Had he not accepted it and the soldiers feelings been hurt, he would have been vilified for it.

The RNC digs up dirt on the DNC and the left screams in protest. The DNC digs up dirt on the RNC and the right screams in protest. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Given the microscope a president lives under and the decisons they have to make, it's no wonder that for every four years in office, they seem to age at least ten.

 

[mrhnau]

Sigh. He accepted in a gracious and dignified manner and he's vilified for it. Had he not accepted it and the soldiers feelings been hurt, he would have been vilified for it.

The RNC digs up dirt on the DNC and the left screams in protest. The DNC digs up dirt on the RNC and the right screams in protest. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Given the microscope a president lives under and the decisons they have to make, it's no wonder that for every four years in office, they seem to age at least ten.

You speak the truth. Politics grows tiresome...

 

[michaeledward]

Sigh. He accepted in a gracious and dignified manner and he's vilified for it. Had he not accepted it and the soldiers feelings been hurt, he would have been vilified for it.

The RNC digs up dirt on the DNC and the left screams in protest. The DNC digs up dirt on the RNC and the right screams in protest. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Given the microscope a president lives under and the decisons they have to make, it's no wonder that for every four years in office, they seem to age at least ten.

Who has been villified, by whom? Digs up dirt? ... reading an article in a news paper is 'digging up dirt'?

Wow.

 

[tellner]

It's not even in the same galaxy.

The Republicans started a political doctrine based on, explicitly based on and dependent upon, slander and lies starting in the late 70s. Its founder, Lee Atwater recanted on his deathbed and begged the forgiveness of those whose lives he, in his own words, destroyed. The Arkansas Project, an explicit and official action group within the RNC, had as its stated aim the creation and spreading of lies about Bill Clinton and the character assassination of his wife. It's an undeniable matter of record. They were the ones who came up with and spread the lies about Vince Foster and the "mysterious deaths" of anyone who opposed then Governor Clinton, the series of rapes he was supposed to have committed while in office and so on.

So they got themselves an admittedly and proudly partisan prosecutor who went on a fishing expedition. Several years. Hundreds of millions of dollars. He got everything he asked for - from a Democrat-appointed AG no less - and finally admitted that he couldn't find any basis for the original charges. None. Not a one. So he started looking for anything he could find and came up with a blowjob. At the time the Greedy Old Plutocrats were full of pious outrage (including the ones who had been banging married women). The President, they declared, had no private life. The Speaker of the House, they declared, was Constitutionally co-equal with the President.

Since getting back control of Congress and the Senate the Democrats have done very, very little. There are six years of completely absent oversight. The most they will do is have hearings on some of Bush's underlings. The first thing they did was rule out impeachment of him and the VP for the good of the country. They're ignoring everything from proudly declared conflicts of interest, the use of public funds and government facilities for explicitly partisan political action, corruption on a scale that makes Teapot Dome look pale and war profiteering to the destruction of our most basic civil rights, the unprecedented politicization of public service and government offices, torture, kidnapping, Chilean style "disappearances" and mass murder.

If our Sock Puppet in Chief accuses anyone who disagrees with him of treason - and he does as do the two puppeteers Rove and Cheney who have their hands firmly embedded in hom from fundament to forehead - let's consider this. What is the technical definition of treason? Under our basic law it is defined in part as "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,".

Let's go back a few years to when Cheney and Rumsfield were on the board of directors of a certain Swiss nuclear power concern. They raised no objections when nuclear reactors and technology were sold to North Korea. We were and are at war with North Korea. At the time it was officially recognized as an enemy of the United States. If selling the Kim family the means to make nuclear weapons isn't providing aid and comfort I can't imagine what is. And while Bush may dismiss the Constitution as "that damned piece of paper" and declare that the Unitary Executive has the power to interpret and craft the law that doesn't make it true.

So yes, Bill Clinton got his plugs cleaned by a zaftig intern cum cigar humidor. And after a relentless years-long effort he was indicted which is what impeachment is. George Bush has presided over the most destructive and criminal regime we've ever suffered under. His political opponents have ruled out bringing him to justice.

How are the two cases comparable? On what possible scales do they balance?

 

[crushing]

Sigh. He accepted in a gracious and dignified manner and he's vilified for it. Had he not accepted it and the soldiers feelings been hurt, he would have been vilified for it.

The RNC digs up dirt on the DNC and the left screams in protest. The DNC digs up dirt on the RNC and the right screams in protest. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Given the microscope a president lives under and the decisons they have to make, it's no wonder that for every four years in office, they seem to age at least ten.

The loyal partisans will always somehow rationalize their own dirt digging, but point a finger of digust at their counterparts do the same.

 

[Sukerkin]

Tellner, I sadly can't rep you again for your forthright accuracy in this thread but that last post was outstanding in shining its light into the dark corners of the American body politic.

________________________________

That's not to imply that I think our lot are any better in an absolute moral sense (thankfully tho' we do have the monarchy to rein them in if it all gets too out of hand).

 

[JBrainard]

Js Fg Ct.

Agreed.

 

[Carol]

Agreed.

Translation?

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Translation?

"Jesus ****ing Christ."

 

[Carol]

"Jesus ****ing Christ."

Now THAT makes sense. Thanks :asian:

 

[mrhnau]

The Republicans started a political doctrine based on, explicitly based on and dependent upon, slander and lies starting in the late 70s. Its founder, Lee Atwater recanted on his deathbed and begged the forgiveness of those whose lives he, in his own words, destroyed. The Arkansas Project, an explicit and official action group within the RNC, had as its stated aim the creation and spreading of lies about Bill Clinton and the character assassination of his wife. It's an undeniable matter of record. They were the ones who came up with and spread the lies about Vince Foster and the "mysterious deaths" of anyone who opposed then Governor Clinton, the series of rapes he was supposed to have committed while in office and so on.

documentation please. Since this is an undeniable matter of record, lets see it. I don't care to see some nutcases blog. That is not a matter of record, but possibly of conspiracy.

So they got themselves an admittedly and proudly partisan prosecutor who went on a fishing expedition. Several years. Hundreds of millions of dollars. He got everything he asked for - from a Democrat-appointed AG no less - and finally admitted that he couldn't find any basis for the original charges. None. Not a one. So he started looking for anything he could find and came up with a blowjob. At the time the Greedy Old Plutocrats were full of pious outrage (including the ones who had been banging married women). The President, they declared, had no private life. The Speaker of the House, they declared, was Constitutionally co-equal with the President.

I'm no fan of fishing for charges, but both sides are doing that. See post #34. Politics at its finest.

There was no declaration of Speaker being "co-equal". At least until Pelosi starts trying to be a diplomat w/out WH approval.

Since getting back control of Congress and the Senate the Democrats have done very, very little.

THANK GOD! That's the best state of things in DC.

There are six years of completely absent oversight. The most they will do is have hearings on some of Bush's underlings. The first thing they did was rule out impeachment of him and the VP for the good of the country. They're ignoring everything from proudly declared conflicts of interest, the use of public funds and government facilities for explicitly partisan political action, corruption on a scale that makes Teapot Dome look pale and war profiteering to the destruction of our most basic civil rights, the unprecedented politicization of public service and government offices, torture, kidnapping, Chilean style "disappearances" and mass murder.

[sarcasm]Yes, we are truly living in one of the lower levels of hell. Better get out before its too late! [/sarcasm]

I tend to like the Presidency being opposite the House/Senate. Less gets done. However, I do suppose if we were smart enough to elect democrats for Congress/Presidency, bright lights would shine down from heaven and every politician would become sparkly clean, right? They have been that way in the past, right? We all realize only Republicans are capable of corruption and general naughtiness

If our Sock Puppet in Chief accuses anyone who disagrees with him of treason - and he does as do the two puppeteers Rove and Cheney who have their hands firmly embedded in hom from fundament to forehead - let's consider this. What is the technical definition of treason? Under our basic law it is defined in part as "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,".

So, its ok to declare the war lost before the surge is given time to work? Let's work on discouraging our troops. That's always good. It's good for the Speaker to go politic w/ Syria w/out discussing w/ the WH? It's ok for Clinton to go bad-mouth our nation to european students? How about playing politics w/ a war spending bill while talking out of the other side of their mouths about supporting the troops? These guys are mostly the Viet Nam generation and are desperately seeking another Viet Nam. We lost just about as many troops in Clintons administration as in this war.

Let's go back a few years to when Cheney and Rumsfield were on the board of directors of a certain Swiss nuclear power concern. They raised no objections when nuclear reactors and technology were sold to North Korea. We were and are at war with North Korea. At the time it was officially recognized as an enemy of the United States. If selling the Kim family the means to make nuclear weapons isn't providing aid and comfort I can't imagine what is.

We are/were at war with NK? I thought we were negotiating w/ them. I guess I missed the memo. Didn't NK get nuclear technology from us during the Clinton administration? Couldn't he block such a sale? Isn't most of their nuclear tech given as part of our negotiations? I guess that doesn't matter, since it's is Clinton.

And while Bush may dismiss the Constitution as "that damned piece of paper" and declare that the Unitary Executive has the power to interpret and craft the law that doesn't make it true.

Check my signature. I guess we can badmouth Lincoln too.

So yes, Bill Clinton got his plugs cleaned by a zaftig intern cum cigar humidor. And after a relentless years-long effort he was indicted which is what impeachment is. George Bush has presided over the most destructive and criminal regime we've ever suffered under. His political opponents have ruled out bringing him to justice.

How are the two cases comparable? On what possible scales do they balance?

So, given a crystal ball, what would Gore have done? If 9/11 happens (which is quite likely), what would the wise choice be? Intellegence. You find out what happened, and you go after it. Afghanistan was just in many ways. The intellegence was bad in Iraq (or we think it was), and given the same intel, Gore may have done the same thing. Intellegence is not a crystal ball giving all knowledge.

Comperable? Perhaps not. Thats like comparing Lincoln to any non-war president. One living in a period of civil war, the other in relative peace. We live in a post 9/11 world, whether you choose to believe it or not. Given the same set of world events, I think Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Bush would look somewhat comperable, at least with regard to the war. Looking in hindsight is easy. I think the comparrison to Lincoln is a strong analogy. I suspect many of his decisions would have been close to Bush's.

I will give you credit, this was well thought out and written. I just disagee w/ almost all of it

 

[Flying Crane]

Now THAT makes sense. Thanks :asian:

You are all welcome!!

 

[Flying Crane]

Sigh. He accepted in a gracious and dignified manner and he's vilified for it. Had he not accepted it and the soldiers feelings been hurt, he would have been vilified for it.

My position in this isn't partisan. I simply belive it is an inappropriate gift, and inappropriate for Mr. Bush to accept it. He can certainly decline it, he can do it graciously and gracefully and without hurting the feelings of the Veteran who wanted to give it to him. But Mr. Bush lacks that insight, and lacks that grace to be able to even recognize how inappropriate it is, and then act appropriately.

By accepting this medal, Mr. Bush has made a mockery of the medal itself, and insults every soldier who legitimately earned it thru their own bloodshed in the heat of battle.

It becomes nothing more than a kindergarten consolation prize given out to everyone who played the game, to make sure nobody feels left out. Mr. Bush needs to grow up, in so many different ways. This one just seemed obvious.

 

[michaeledward]

My position in this isn't partisan. I simply belive it is an inappropriate gift, and inappropriate for Mr. Bush to accept it. He can certainly decline it, he can do it graciously and gracefully and without hurting the feelings of the Veteran who wanted to give it to him. But Mr. Bush lacks that insight, and lacks that grace to be able to even recognize how inappropriate it is, and then act appropriately.

By accepting this medal, Mr. Bush has made a mockery of the medal itself, and insults every soldier who legitimately earned it thru their own bloodshed in the heat of battle.

What I find interesting, and fodder for further thought, is that the Purple Heart Medal is given - in the name of the President. By contrast, the Medal of Honor, the highest military recognition in our country, is awarded "in the name of Congress".

All soldiers receiving the Purple Heart during the current conflicts, receive the recognition in the name of a President who would accept the symbol of recognition as a gift, for "emotional wounds" suffered under political adversaries.

I am with Mike on this. I feel by accepting this gift, the President belittles the award given ~ in his name ~ to thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

To accept this gift, under these circumstances seems to be diametrically opposed to the idea of "Supporting the Troops."

 

[jdinca]

My position in this isn't partisan. I simply belive it is an inappropriate gift, and inappropriate for Mr. Bush to accept it. He can certainly decline it, he can do it graciously and gracefully and without hurting the feelings of the Veteran who wanted to give it to him. But Mr. Bush lacks that insight, and lacks that grace to be able to even recognize how inappropriate it is, and then act appropriately.

By accepting this medal, Mr. Bush has made a mockery of the medal itself, and insults every soldier who legitimately earned it thru their own bloodshed in the heat of battle.

It becomes nothing more than a kindergarten consolation prize given out to everyone who played the game, to make sure nobody feels left out. Mr. Bush needs to grow up, in so many different ways. This one just seemed obvious.

You start out by saying your position isn't partisan, and then you go on to trash the President over not just how he handled the situation but as a person. A very partisan viewpoint, imo.

I'm wondering where the outrage is at the vet who decided what HE wanted to do with HIS medal was to give it to the Commander in Chief? If he hadn't chosen to do this in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, would we?

I'm pretty pissed off at George myself. He had a golden opportunity to truly make a difference in the middle east and he porked it by listening to the wrong people. In addition, I find him to be one of the most fiscally liberal presidents we've ever had. Regardless, I'm not going to make personal attacks on the man who is trying to do his best in the most difficult job in the world at one of the most difficult points in history.

 

[michaeledward]

You start out by saying your position isn't partisan, and then you go on to trash the President over not just how he handled the situation but as a person. A very partisan viewpoint, imo.

I'm wondering where the outrage is at the vet who decided what HE wanted to do with HIS medal was to give it to the Commander in Chief? If he hadn't chosen to do this in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, would we?

I'm pretty pissed off at George myself. He had a golden opportunity to truly make a difference in the middle east and he porked it by listening to the wrong people. In addition, I find him to be one of the most fiscally liberal presidents we've ever had. Regardless, I'm not going to make personal attacks on the man who is trying to do his best in the most difficult job in the world at one of the most difficult points in history.

So, there can be no thoughtful criticism that is not described as "trash" and "very partisan".

If you believe the actions of President Bush were taken because you he was "listening" to the wrong people, I would say that you are delusional. The President of the United States of America. He has access, if he so chooses, to the smartest and most knowledgable people in the world. The decisions he makes are his own; be those ignoring the most important conflict in the 20th century, or invading a nation that was no threat.

Even today, the President and his spokesperson are reinforcing your belief in 'It's all someone elses fault - Not poor little Mr. President', when they describe the escalation of the Iraq campaign as "General Patreaus' New Strategy". President George W. Bush gave those orders. They belong to him. Passing the buck ~ by claiming he listened to the wrong people ~ is psycophantic and unthoughtful.

Lastly, thought, or even criticism, about a military medal given to the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military is not a personal attack. Denying the primary responsibility of the Executive Branch of government, is deconstruction of the Constitution, in my opinion.

 

[mrhnau]

In addition, I find him to be one of the most fiscally liberal presidents we've ever had.

This I wil agree with. Spending has been a bit out of control. However, tax receipts are at record highs, despite tax cuts. Still, I'd love to see spending curtailed and have us work on our debt and actually have a balanced budget...

 

[Flying Crane]

You start out by saying your position isn't partisan, and then you go on to trash the President over not just how he handled the situation but as a person. A very partisan viewpoint, imo.

I'm wondering where the outrage is at the vet who decided what HE wanted to do with HIS medal was to give it to the Commander in Chief? If he hadn't chosen to do this in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, would we?

My position isn't partisan because I'm not trying to link this to a Democrat vs. Republican thing. I'm not saying this was a poor choice due to the fact that Mr. Bush is a Neocon in the guise of a Republican, and that somehow it reflects his politics. This particular act, of accepting the medal, was wrong and it makes no difference his political alliance.

Yes, I believe the idea to give Mr. Bush the medal in the first place was also erroneous. The Vet who did this did it out of good intentions, but it was most certainly an inappropriate choice as well.

However, Mr. Bush should certainly have risen above the situation, recognized how inappropriate it was, invited the Vet to the whitehouse for a visit, thanked him for his generous spirit and good will, and declined to accept the medal. As the man who currently sits in the White House, the man who's duty it is to give out the Purple Hearts in the first place, Mr. Bush should have known better.

Anyone who claims the title "President", regardless of political alliance, should know better.

 

[jdinca]

My position isn't partisan because I'm not trying to link this to a Democrat vs. Republican thing. I'm not saying this was a poor choice due to the fact that Mr. Bush is a Neocon in the guise of a Republican, and that somehow it reflects his politics. This particular act, of accepting the medal, was wrong and it makes no difference his political alliance.

Yes, I believe the idea to give Mr. Bush the medal in the first place was also erroneous. The Vet who did this did it out of good intentions, but it was most certainly an inappropriate choice as well.

However, Mr. Bush should certainly have risen above the situation, recognized how inappropriate it was, invited the Vet to the whitehouse for a visit, thanked him for his generous spirit and good will, and declined to accept the medal. As the man who currently sits in the White House, the man who's duty it is to give out the Purple Hearts in the first place, Mr. Bush should have known better.

Anyone who claims the title "President", regardless of political alliance, should know better.

We have some minor disagreements but well put as usual.