Archive for the ‘U.S. Military’ Category

As always, we pause a couple times every year to remember the veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States. Today we recognize all veterans of the Armed Forces on the anniversary of the Armistice, which was the end of WW1. Previous generations of Americans referred to today as “Armistice Day”.

So if you know a Veteran, tell them thanks for their service to our nation.

I’d like to take this time to thank my now passed maternal grandfather, who served as a 1st Sgt. in the United States Army stateside during WW2.

I’d also like to thank a friend of all Republicans, “Pony Tail” Paul Cauley for his service to our country during the Vietnam War.

Lastly, We would like to thank the Mayor of Indianapolis, Lt. Col. Greg Ballard, USMC (ret.) for his service to our country in the Corps and his continued service to the City of Indianapolis.

Feel free to give your thanks to veterans who matter to you the most in the comments…

(H/T Blue Grass, Red State)

Via Scott Tibbs comes the latest chatterings of the lefties in the People’s Republic:

John McCain’s flying experience somehow makes him presidential material? But didn’t McCain get shot down? Wouldn’t a good pilot not get shot down? So we should hire a mediocre pilot as president?

Scott answers this ably at the above link; good and bad pilots get shot down in war.

George H.W. Bush got shot down during a war; I don’t recall anyone saying that he was a bad pilot.

John. F. Kennedy’s boat got run over and sunk by a Japanese destroyer during a war; I don’t recall anyone saying that he was a bad sailor.

Military service can be noble in terms of an individual’s character, but it is not the end-all and be-all of presidential requirements (just ask John Kerry, whose campaign thought it was). I think that this has been evident by McCain, for whom his time in Vietnam is a defining moment in his life and his character, but for whom that was only the beginning of a lifetime of public service and experience as a reform-minded maverick frequently at odds with both parties in Washington.

Evan Bayh appeared Sunday morning on Face the Nation on CBS.

Let’s just charitably say it wasn’t his best performance.

The transcript isn’t up yet, so I’ll settle for the reporting on the Indy Star.

Interviewed on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” the Indiana Democrat said McCain is given to “bellicose rhetoric which has a tendency to inflame conflicts rather than to defuse them.”

This “bellicose rhetoric which has a tendency to inflame conflicts rather than defuse them” would stem from McCain supposedly, according to The One’s own advisers and surrogates, having “roughly the same position” as the Obamassiah?

From the Washington Post:

Richard Holbrooke, an ambassador to the U.N. in the Clinton administration and an Obama supporter, objected to the suggestion that Obama had been late in coming to a tough condemnation of Russia. Obama and McCain are now more or less on the same page in decrying the aggression, he said.

“It is based on an exaggerated and deliberately misleading perception of Senator Obama’s initial statement, which was issued early, while the crisis was unfolding,” he said. “This is an attempt by people supporting Senator McCain to politicize a great international tragedy and it’s not worthy of the dimensions of the problem, especially when both candidates have roughly the same position.”

Perhaps Evan Bayh should explain himself.

Which is it?

Does Barack Obama have “roughly the same position” as John McCain?

Are they “more or less on the same page in decrying the aggression”?

How do such statements square with Bayh’s assertion that McCain is engaging in “bellicose rhetoric”?

(Read more after the leap) (more…)