August 03, 2004
BRING THE CONGRESSIONAL CHILDREN HOME
Queensland's Tom Knox, in a letter to The Australian, points out yet another Mike Moore misrepresentation:
The movie Fahrenheit 9/11 asserts the children of US congressmen are under-represented in US forces in Iraq.
There are 300 million Americans; 130,000 US troops in Iraq; 535 congressmen and women; and at least five children of congressmen serving in Iraq.
Thirty seconds of intellectual effort shows that children of US congressmen are very over-represented in Iraq; but 30 seconds is way over the capacity of admirers of Fahrenheit 9/11.
Posted by Tim Blair at August 3, 2004 03:22 AM
Thirty seconds of intellectual effort
that's asking an awful lot of moore...
Posted by: Mr. Bingley at August 3, 2004 at 03:28 AMWell, MM could always sub-contract his intellectual effort out to Ben Affleck.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 3, 2004 at 03:42 AMThis misrepresentation is just one of 59 deceits noted here.
Pretty balanced analysis from a self-professed Nader voter.
Posted by: dazed at August 3, 2004 at 03:42 AMAnd of our 535 congresspeople, how many of them even have children who of an age and health to serve in the military (sounds like a question for my research assistant, Mr. Google)? Certainly not all of them, so their over-representation is even greater than Mr. Know asserts.
Posted by: TK Moore at August 3, 2004 at 04:28 AMIs Mikey's phalanx of attack attorneys going to take Mr. Knox to court for impugning Moore's truthfulness? Or can this issue be settled more definitively in a grade school math class?
Posted by: c at August 3, 2004 at 04:31 AMWell, it's not quite as simple as Mr Knox makes it out to be. The LHS denominator in this comparison should be the number of American *parents*, not the number of Americans. I don't know what that number is, but I suspect the answer is still the same. And I agree -- it's hard to imagine many of MM's sycophants having the mental tools to actually work these things out.
Posted by: Harry at August 3, 2004 at 05:32 AMTo be more precise, I suppose the correct comparison would be to compare the total number of parents in the US with children of military age over the total number of troops and then the same comparison in the Congress - # of Reps with children of military age vs. # serving.
Let's make a rough approximation though - lets assume that all people from the age of 40 to 79 have children of military age and likewise all Congressional Reps. - the errors are likely to be in the same direction (overstated in both cases) and so even out. According to this site
http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile2-1.txt
there are around 130 million in the 40 to 79 age group. So the rate of service is around 1 per thousand potential parents. Applying this to Congress, you'd expect less than 1 child in Iraq, but instead we get 5.
Here's one way to look at it: 1 out of every 107 Congressional families has a child in Iraq (5/535). Does 1 out of every 107 "familes", with at least one member over the age of 30, have a child in Iraq? Only if the 280,000,000+ people in the US are packed into 13,910,00 (107 x 130,000) or fewer familes. That would be 20+ people per family, and cousins and uncles don't count since they comprise their own family. No way in hell.
Posted by: Lew at August 3, 2004 at 05:58 AMIn fairness, how many American's and Congressmen have children who are of age?
Posted by: aaron at August 3, 2004 at 06:06 AMThe late segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina probably has six or seven kids serving in the Middle East but we don't know it because they're black.
Posted by: JDB at August 3, 2004 at 07:57 AMThe groupthink on this site is un-bloody-believable. Read the damn stories. Who are Mr Knox's 5 congressional kids and are they in the military, or are they in IRAQ (big difference, you know)? One of your reader's (dazed) own links says the following: Johnson, who appears to be the only member with a child on the front lines in Iraq, said that America will win the war and, as a result, the world will "be a better place."
Can't be stuffed linking, but it's here (this is a link from the 'deceits' article that "dazed" linked to): http://web.naplesnews.com/03/04/naples/d930340a.htm
But, WTF, Knox said something you want to hear, it's close enough to resemble something that might be truth, so let's all jump on board.
You all accuse MM of playing word games with verbs etc yet it's your main stock in trade. Go smell what you're shovelling.
And by the way, http://www.electoral-vote.com/, which includes all the polls, not just the ones you like to read, currently has Kerry ahead 289 to 232 in predicted Electoral college votes - and that's prior to the DNC.
Posted by: Swade at August 3, 2004 at 09:57 AMThinking and logic become a little difficult when you have to shake off the effects of harpoons.
Posted by: BC at August 3, 2004 at 10:06 AMUntil someone on the internet can list all five, I'll stick with Kopel's figure of two (which is still over-represented compared to the population in general, though not statistically significant)
Posted by: Andjam at August 3, 2004 at 10:12 AM*steeples his chubby fingers and laughs* Goood. Goooooooood. Send Swade his biscuit.
Posted by: Michael Moore at August 3, 2004 at 10:28 AMEven if there were no children of US congressmen in the army that wouldn't really matter. As was shown above statistically to be inline with the general population we would round it up and expect one person to be in the millitary. However zero in Iraq does not statistically tell us anything remotely useful. The numbers are too small. Indeed even with five in the millitary that is also too small to be of any use.
The bottom line, sure it would be nice if more of the congressmen had a personal link to Iraq so that they could take that into account when making decisions. But as congressmen one would expect they would do that any way. The left is making a lot of cheap calls, this is one of them, but we expect that.
Posted by: Sam at August 3, 2004 at 11:34 AMPretty balanced analysis from a self-professed Nader voter.
Err... that might qualify as a "deceit" by Kopel. The man is a member of the Cato Institute. I recommend you actually read his endorsement of Nader that he links to.
Posted by: ChrisV at August 3, 2004 at 11:45 AMInteresting that another deception has made it to the AP site:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MOORE_NEWSPAPER?SITE=ILBLO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Posted by: Art Vandelay at August 3, 2004 at 12:25 PMActually what makes me stand open-mouthed with amazement is how or why any parent (whether in Congress or not) is supposed to order their children into the Army or to Iraq ?
Surely people in the West join the Army because it is their choice (and some may join because it means 3 square meals a day etc. etc.). Fact is, nobody forces them to.
Mind you, Swade, I have never seen MM comment on inequities of Saddam Hussein conscripting all those soldiers to fight in Iran, but as we know from his 'documentary' Saddam's Iraq was a peaceful, happy place, where nobody was ever forced to do anything ....
Troglodyte.
Posted by: Andrew at August 3, 2004 at 12:44 PMMore foul,evil leaders.
Reminds me of that damned Churchill.
How many of his kids stormed the beaches.
Posted by: fred at August 3, 2004 at 01:18 PMWasn't Moore at one point boasting of a "war room" that would smack down such scurrilous arguments as this? Did that get scrapped? Or are they merely biding their time? Perhaps there is a subtle tactical advantage to waiting a few weeks before announcing "these claims are all easily refuted by the fact that the Bush administration is a bunch of mean old poopy-heads."
Posted by: Guy T. at August 3, 2004 at 01:29 PMMikey's war room misled us into thinking that they could handle any opposition, but the brave resistance has given them more than they could handle.
Posted by: Sortelli at August 3, 2004 at 01:52 PMThe whole ``sending your children to Iraq'' thing is a crock for two reasons, one of which has already been pointed out:
1. Nobody can ``send'' his child into the military, and
2. Enlisting brings no guarantee as to where you'll serve - you go where you're sent. My older son (4 years in the Marines, now in the Army) has been in California, England, California again, Okinawa, Korea, then back to CA. In the Army it's been Germany, Iraq, and back to Germany, where he is now. The younger son (a Marine for one year so far) is on his first duty station, which is Okinawa. He may end up in Iraq one day, or on an aircraft carrier for a long period, or in some other hotspot which nobody has thought of yet.
So people who jeer about ``Why isn't YOUR kid in Iraq?'' are missing the point twice over, in addition to being boors.
http://web.naplesnews.com/03/04/naples/d930340a.htm
According to this the numbers are quite high demographically.
Posted by: Eric Pobirs at August 3, 2004 at 02:34 PMFrom Eric's resource:
"The small group of lawmakers who've announced or confirmed that their kids are now serving includes Johnson, Kline and Republican Reps. Todd Akin of Missouri, Duncan Hunter of California, Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado, Ed Schrock of Virginia and Joe Wilson of South Carolina. "
It appears that the President's party is way over-represented. Chickenhawks, indeed. Just remember not to dilute your calculations with anti-war congressmen.
Posted by: Reid at August 3, 2004 at 02:53 PMAnd of course, if you add in nieces and nephews, perhaps even grandchildren, the numbers in favor of Congressional family presence goes even higher.
One Senator's nephew was recently killed by an IED in Iraq.
Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 3, 2004 at 03:37 PMMoore should talk. He won't even send his kid to public school.
Posted by: newshound at August 3, 2004 at 04:59 PMI think it should go one step further!
Let's take it back to the middle ages when the person who actually made the decision to go to war was also the person who led the initial cavalry charge.
How about being ON the battle field sipping sherry in a pavillion whilst the front rank gets mangled? No ..still not good enough.
How about flying in to an aircraft carrier post "victory" and strutting about in a flight suit? NO ...front rank or nothing.
I wonder how many wars we'd see in modern times if a type of Queensberry rules of engagement existed that denoted that the people who make the decisions to send others to their certain deaths, must also partake in that risk as well?
Posted by: Darp Hau at August 3, 2004 at 05:00 PMDarp,
You are an idiot.
Just to take some random examples - King John never fought at Bouvines (Middle Ages), Edward never fought at the Battle of the Standard (Middle Ages). King George never fought at Waterloo. Queen Anne never fought at Blenheim etc. etc.
Yes, Medieval kings often led their armies more than modern politicians, but they frequently relied on those who were as well suited, if not better.
If I was an infantry squaddie, I sure as well would not want Kerry or Blair leading me over the top, just as much as if I were employed by a large multi-national I would not want some deranged leftie as CEO - not that that stops them from commenting on how to run the world/business more efficiently.
It takes a really sick sort of mind to think that the death of every single soldier does not weigh on the conscience of politicians (as I am sure it did not on the minds of dictators that people like you are so busy arguing to keep in power) but, hey - why let that stop your little rant of moral superiority ?
Posted by: Andrew at August 3, 2004 at 05:18 PMKnock off the chickenhawk routine, Darp. Speaking as a soldier, the last person I want in command of tactical or even strategic operations is an untrained leader. Even in medieval times, a trained and experienced soldier had a major advantage in battle over some pompous fool wannabe soldier.
An experienced commander can actually save lives, something that every ethical military leader is concerned about.
Bush understood this during the Iraq invasion -- he let the trained professionals run the daily show. Even Rumsfeld kept his hands off (although it was plain that Rumsfeld didn't feel comfortable about that).
Your idea really stinks, Darp. Truly it does.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 3, 2004 at 05:28 PMAs a note, the last British monarch to lead troops into battle was George II.
Letting your battle commanders lead from the front was one of the reasons the Scots lost the Battle of Flodden in 1513.
They sneered at the English commanders for "skulking" at the back of their army.
Without proper direction, the Scots were beaten by the English and, to add insult to injury, since most of the Scottish lords died with their King, no one was left to organise a retreat and the defeat turned into a rout.
Posted by: Quentin George at August 3, 2004 at 05:32 PMLet's take it back to the middle ages when the person who actually made the decision to go to war was also the person who led the initial cavalry charge.
You really betray an ignorance of medieval battle Darp.
The Renaissance revolution in generalship lead to the opposite of this, and greatly improved battle tactics.
Posted by: Quentin George at August 3, 2004 at 05:33 PMI think you put it better than I, Real JeffS.
Good on you.
Yeah, Darp, and why aren't you out there trying to tear down that apartheid wall right now anyway? Where is your semtex vest?
Posted by: Sortelli at August 3, 2004 at 05:34 PMI reckon that wars that democracies wage are waged for better reasons than wars in the middle ages.
Posted by: Andjam at August 3, 2004 at 06:16 PMIt's kind of sad when the smarter political side is still dumb. What does that say? Simple! All far right people and all far left people are idiots.
Posted by: caspian at August 3, 2004 at 07:55 PMThanks, Caspian, for adding nothing to the discussion.
As for Darp, he obviously learned about Medieval battles by watching old Bullwinkle reruns.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at August 3, 2004 at 08:20 PMIt's kind of sad when the smarter political side is still dumb.
Smarter political side? You haven't met many on the left, have you?
Posted by: Quentin George at August 3, 2004 at 09:16 PMI think all lefties that want to comment on global trade should have to start a company from scratch and grow it into a multinational first before opening their mouths.
At present, I think maybe George Soros and those Ben and Jerry guys are the only leftists that may ever speak again.
Posted by: yobbo at August 3, 2004 at 09:33 PMI'm still trying to get my head around caspian's "smarter side" comment.
How does spending most of the Cold War as a collection of useful idiots for the Soviet bloc constitute "smart"?
Posted by: Quentin George at August 3, 2004 at 10:02 PMDamn that Queen Elizabeth! Why wasn't she sailing one of the ships that defeated the Spanish Armada, instead of waiting, like a pussy in an armored vest, on shore? All she did was make one of those typically right-wing war-mongering speeches. And she didn't send her kids off to war. Mostly because she didn't have any.
(oh, and caspian really enervates me.)
Posted by: ushie at August 3, 2004 at 10:20 PMYou know what was great about WW2?
FDR advancing on Berlin in his armoured attack-wheelchair.
That was sweet.
(Wait, what do you mean, that didn't happen...but FDR can't have been a chickenhawk...can he? CAN HE?)
Posted by: Quentin George at August 3, 2004 at 10:34 PMWell - my comment was kinda tongue-in-cheek, but it's honestly great (chortle) to see how seriously you've taken my assertion that our leaders should head into battle.
Switch on your sarcasm/jocularity detectors guys!
I suppose some of you could tell me if Richard III actually went into battle on Bosworth Field?
Come on, it's funny how when something vaguely "butch" and militaristic comes up you all huff and puff and stumble around trying to out-do one another in the knowledge stakes of "guns and bombs".
Why am I suddenly under the impression that you're all a big group of "Gareth Keenan" (from The Office) type chaps. Blokes that just love guns and war, war, war, war, war - bloody war.
Sortelli,
I've done my time in the OT thanks, and the only vest I was wearing was fuck-all protection against a "rubber-coated" bullet that popped my rotator cuff.
I saved a similar bullet - I'll put it up on eBay soon. You dudes will love it I'm sure!
Posted by: Darp Hau at August 3, 2004 at 10:41 PMIf you review the numbers of those in both the senate and congress who were military veterans, you will find that it is 25%. That is over-represented w.r.t the populace.
And Darp, WTF is your point?
Posted by: capt joe at August 3, 2004 at 11:04 PMDarp,
A dildo does not count as the rubber bullet you saved you know.
Posted by: Mr. T at August 3, 2004 at 11:27 PMLeftist can't do math anyway.
It's why they believe that -on one hand- there is an infinite number of rich people to tax, and - on the other hand - believe that resources are finite and that life is a ZERO SUM GAME.
In other words, someone must lose for anyone to gain, currency is finite and has to be redistributed... the labor needed is finite, so shorten the work-week to redistribute jobs...
that sort of nonsense!
Darp, I'll bet dollars to donuts that your comment was not tongue in cheek. It was sincere. You are just moving the goalposts to cover your ignorance.
Piss ant.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 4, 2004 at 12:35 AMSpeaking of "vaguely 'butch' and militaristic" --
I've done my time in the OT thanks, and the only vest I was wearing was fuck-all protection against a "rubber-coated" bullet that popped my rotator cuff.
Heh, so you got knocked down by a hippy tickler? Good. (By the way, I hope it wasn't too difficult to masturbate with that damaged rotator cuff. I know how you get when you can't wank off regularly.)
Posted by: Andrea Harris at August 4, 2004 at 01:36 AM
Why am I suddenly under the impression that you're all a big group of "Gareth Keenan" (from The Office) type chaps. Blokes that just love guns and war, war, war, war, war - bloody war.
Um... because it matches your prejudices and lets you dehumanize all those icky people who disagree with you. HTH. HAND.
Posted by: Patrick Chester at August 4, 2004 at 02:42 AMWhat sort of diseased mind types "chortle", honestly?
Posted by: Ryan in OH at August 4, 2004 at 03:05 AMMichael Moore's dishonesty goes far beyond playing word games with verbs. It is trivially easy to show that he edits film clips to distort their content, and he is now being sued by a newspaper for falsifying what was printed.
As for the offspring of leaders, FDR had a son in the Marine Raiders, right at the tip of the spear.
Yes, my father served with James (I think it was) Roosevelt. He had no unkind words to say about him. Dad didn't necessarily rank him real high, but as a Gunnery Sgt, his standards for superior leadership were pretty strong. By the time Guadacanal rolled around not many crappy Marine officers were in combat. Roosevelt face enemy fire about as much as anyone who didn't actuall storm the shores in the first wave. A great many Marine officers with rank of Major, Lt. Col, or Col were killed or wounded by enemy fire. I do know that Roosevelt was warmly welcomed at Raider reunion meetings, and they didn't put up with phonies.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at August 4, 2004 at 06:12 AMI've done my time in the OT thanks, and the only vest I was wearing was fuck-all protection against a "rubber-coated" bullet that popped my rotator cuff.
So you leave the martyr operations to the poor ethnic Palestinians, huh? Fucking coward.
Posted by: Sortelli at August 4, 2004 at 09:42 AMDarp,
Maybe some blokes huff and puff when historic militaristic things come up. But basically people respond to messages to ensure that you, me, us, receive further knowledge on a subject or to correct distortions of the truth.
One thing that was a big mistake and you should know it living here in Oz, was "shooting a line" about yourself (ie: fuck-all protection and rubber bullets). You do know what I mean don't you?
Posted by: Lofty at August 4, 2004 at 10:35 AMSmarter political side? You haven't met many on the left, have you?
I've met a few, but I've seen a lot of people on the right. People on the left wing cant possible be stupider.
Posted by: caspian at August 4, 2004 at 12:06 PMJorgeXMcKie — Hard to pin any of the Roosevelts as chickenhawks. Teddy had San Juan Hill and tried to get into WWI but Wilson wouldn't have him; he lost a son in France in 1917. His nephew(?) Gen. Theodore Roosevelt, was a big part of the reason the Americans got off Normandy Beach instead of being butchered in the sand, and later died during the fighting in the bocage.
There is no record of any of them taking home movies by the way.
Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 4, 2004 at 01:54 PMYou're right, caspian, we've made most of these lefties we're mocking up out of whole cloth. A version of the "you don't get it" argument. Like the comedian said, "Here's your sign." (I believe it says "Dumbass.")
Posted by: Andrea Harris at August 4, 2004 at 02:16 PMStop picking on him, I think he's suffering from higher education.
Posted by: Sortelli at August 4, 2004 at 02:56 PMI do geology, I dont do political science or anything. I could point out massive amounts of crap on this site, but since none of you would listen, I dont see any point. Im not a blind ignorant person either. I read from a lot of viewpoints, and the fact is that the left are right. It's amazing how easy you right wingers are offended when someone brings up a slightly different viewpoint. The left wingers are bad, but not as bad. Thats the only problem with politics. It's interesting but the people who are most interested in it are blind ignorant bastards- both on the left and the right.
Posted by: caspian at August 4, 2004 at 04:01 PMHint -- When proclaiming your intellectual superiority, be sure that you:
1) KNOW HOW TO SPELL
2) KNOW HOW TO PUNCTUATE
3) DON'T SOUND LIKE A RETARDED KINDERGARTEN STUDENT WHOSE POLITICAL INSIGHT CONSISTS OF NOTHING MORE THAN "EVERYONE IS BAD"
caspian, it's not that we don't like disagreement, it's that your disagreement is not based on the real world, nor on complete facts. It's known as "open mouth, insert foot", or possibly as "looking stupid".
The ability to clearly communicate is quite important, only one notch below thinking. If you "do geology" as poorly as you think and communicate, I expect that you will spend most of your adult life earning a minimum wage.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 4, 2004 at 05:05 PMHint -- When proclaiming your intellectual superiority, be sure that you:
1) KNOW HOW TO SPELL
2) KNOW HOW TO PUNCTUATE
3) DON'T SOUND LIKE A RETARDED KINDERGARTEN STUDENT WHOSE POLITICAL INSIGHT CONSISTS OF NOTHING MORE THAN "EVERYONE IS BAD"
Well, I just typed it up quickly. I have over things to do then check my spelling and punctuation. Im not saying everyone is bad.. Actually, I am. It juist saves time from getting further disillusioned in the future.
And if you think you have to be smart to be good at geology, you're wrong. :D
Posted by: caspian at August 4, 2004 at 05:38 PMIm not a blind ignorant person either. I read from a lot of viewpoints, and the fact is that the left are right.
You see, this is the type of statement that points you out as either a partisan, or a fool.
No single ideology has a monopoly on being "right", as I pointed out earlier, spending the Cold War trying to push moral equivalence between the US and USSR does not constitute "right" in my book.
Posted by: Quentin George at August 4, 2004 at 05:39 PMand Ill be happy to debate anyone on my position, and on the war in Iraq, how bush is an idiot etc. on MSN. Doing it here sucks. If you think you can beat me (which I doubt), my email address is ork_the_moocow@hotmail.com (Dont ask about the weird email, it was funny when I was in year 7, okay?)
Posted by: caspian at August 4, 2004 at 05:40 PMSortelli,
I didn't "leave" any Palestinians to do the suicide bombing, I abhore suicide/homicide bombing/blowing yourself up and taking innocents with you.
Don't think your "Fucking Coward" comments are warranted either.
Andrea,
Lucky for me I jerk off with my LEFT hand.
(CUE collective appoplexy from the Blair-Brigade)
"Darp admits he tosses, hahahahaha...he actually masturbates and blows his biscuits all over the place - hahahah...how ..abnormal".
Wanna know more? The ground floor dunnies at Ben-Gurion airport. I had a flog in the third cubicle from the back.
Posted by: Darp Hau at August 4, 2004 at 06:06 PMSigh. Time to ban Dork How again. Oh -- and be kind to Caspian -- he's obviously new to the Intarweb. You sure you want to challenge these guys to an email debate, Caspy? Some of them are a bit older and more experienced than you in... I'm guessing just about everything.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at August 4, 2004 at 08:33 PMI must admit Andrea, I am tempted to debate caspian. He seems so young and innocent with regards to the world.
But I don't think it would do any good. Anyone else want to have a stab at it?
Posted by: Quentin George at August 4, 2004 at 09:25 PM...And it looks like Darp has finally cracked.
Wanna know more? The ground floor dunnies at Ben-Gurion airport. I had a flog in the third cubicle from the back.
Indeed.
Posted by: Quentin George at August 4, 2004 at 09:44 PMI can't schedule in an email debate with caspian. I have over things to do.
Posted by: ushie at August 4, 2004 at 10:27 PM"And if you think you have to be smart to be good at geology, you're wrong. :D"
caspian, I agree with that. But I never used the word "smart". I said "If you "do geology" as poorly as you think and communicate...". There's a difference. It has to do with getting people to give you money for being a geologist.
Quentin is right, you are young and innocent. Good luck on the college degree.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 5, 2004 at 12:29 AM..I give up. What this blog needs is a forum board. There a lot easier to chat/fight/argue in. Someone should make one.
Posted by: caspian at August 5, 2004 at 10:49 AMSomeone should get his own website and do whatever the hell he wants with it instead of telling other people what to do with theirs.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at August 5, 2004 at 11:56 AMJust a note on FDR's son.
""As for the offspring of leaders, FDR had a son in the Marine Raiders, right at the tip of the spear.""
Roosevelt, James
Papers, 1937-1967
James Roosevelt, eldest son and second child of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, was born in New York City, December 23, 1907. In 1936 James Roosevelt received a commission as lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps. He accompanied FDR to the Inter-American Conference at Buenos Aires after the 1936 election as a military aide. Roosevelt resigned his lieutenant colonelcy and applied for an appointment as Captain in the Marine Corps Reserve in September 1939. In April 1941, the President sent James on an around the world military diplomatic mission. In August 1941, he joined the staff of Coordinator of Information, William J. Donovan as the officer assigned to the job of working out the exchange of information with other agencies. After the United States entered the war, James Roosevelt served with distinction in the Pacific Theater of Operations. He served in the Solomon and Gilbert Islands, the second battle of Midway and at Kiska in the Aleutian Islands. He was second in command to Evans Carlson in the Marine Raider raid on Makin Island. Roosevelt later trained with his own Raider unit. He was a colonel when released from active duty in August 1945. He was awarded the Navy Cross and a Silver Star. He continued in the Marine Corps becoming a Brigadier General USMC Reserve, retired.
212 feet
source:http://www.history.navy.mil/sources/ny/narafdr.htm
Posted by: LarryConley at August 5, 2004 at 01:03 PM"Second" battle of Midway? Do I have to reread my Manchester?
Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 5, 2004 at 01:15 PMOn the note of 'leading the charge', you're looking for this guy.
Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, 1611
There's others mentioned on that same page.
He died, predictably enough, from acute iron poisoning.
Posted by: Alan Blue at August 5, 2004 at 03:00 PMFound via Google: "Teddy Roosevelt's oldest son - Brig. Gen. Theodore Roosevelt Jr. – was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for his gallantry on a Normandy beachhead where he was killed in 1944."
Also, fred, Churchill's son Randolph served behind German lines in Yugoslavia during World War II, in a small unit that also included Evelyn Waugh and Lord Somebody-Whose-Name-I've-Forgotten. (Those three may have been the entire unit.) If the Germans had gotten lucky, they could have nabbed the PM's son, England's greatest living novelist, and a Lord in a single raid.
Posted by: Dr. Weevil at August 5, 2004 at 03:04 PMDamn that Queen Elizabeth! Why wasn't she sailing one of the ships that defeated the Spanish Armada, instead of waiting, like a pussy in an armored vest, on shore?
Unfortunate metaphor. Was it not the case that the Virgin Queen's pussy was encased in its own armored vest?
Posted by: lex at August 5, 2004 at 03:07 PMJust a few notes on Brig Gen Theodor Roosevelt.
The son of the President of the same name, and the cousin of then President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodor Roosevelt had already fought in World War I. At this stage in his life (in his 50's) he wasn't even supposed to be on active duty, and certainly shouldn't have been on the front lines. He suffered from heart disease, and walked with a cane because of rheumatoid arthritis. The only reason he was able to be part of the landing at Normandy on Utah Beach was because of "political connections", after he fiercely argued with the powers that were that having a brigadier general on the beach would prove to be an inspiration to the men.
He was right. He led the first group of soldiers to land on Utah Beach, and after fighting his way on shore, with a pistol and cane, he checked the maps and discovered that his men had came on shore a mile south of where they were supposed to. His assessment was "We'll start the war from here!!"
As far as being an inspiration to the troops. . . .General Omar Bradley, who was on the beach with Roosevelt, stated that the single bravest act that he saw during the war was Roosevelt, with a cane and a pistol, leading several infantry assaults on the beachhead. Seemingly impervious to danger, his actions that day were legendary, and he received the medal of honor and a promotion because of bravery and leadership.
Unfortunately, Roosevelt never knew about the medal of honor or promotion, since he died of a heart attack five weeks after D-Day.
Roosevelt and his son Quentin II were thought to be the only father and son pair to have landed on Normandy on D-Day.
Posted by: Narniaman at August 5, 2004 at 03:31 PM
Poor Darp must have spent too much time 'doing geology' by looking at holes in the ground.
He apparently hasn't progressed enough to where he is able to differentiate between a bat cave and MM's southern exposure.
I hope he invites us to his high school graduation.
Posted by: 49erDweet at August 5, 2004 at 05:57 PMCaspian,
A lot of my friends are left, a few are right. However even though I disagree a lot with my left wing friends I would never say "and the fact is that the right are right", why? Only a fool would make such a generalized statement. If you honestly see the world in such a black and white "the left is right, the right is wrong" then I really do pity you and have no interest in debating someone who has already decided I am wrong on everything.
Oh and you think it is the right who can't stand opposing views? Readers of Tim Blair would be well aware of the counterprotests organised by rightwing Melbourne, Monash and Latrobe uni students to take on the left. Have a look around the Melbourne Indymedia website and see if you can find the topic "Bash young Liberals!" thats what happens when somone disagrees with the left.
Hmmm.
Well. Since the Democrats are doing their chest-pounding bit then how about this:
How many children of *Democrats* are IN the military at all?
Or has Chelsea Clinton signed up lately?
Our men and women who serve in the United States military are not "children"!
Posted by: syn at August 5, 2004 at 10:18 PMI hate to rain on anyone's parade, but I actually saw the film...
and I just reviewed the transcript.
I can't find any place where MM makes the assertion that "the children of US congressmen are under-represented in US forces in Iraq."
(the implied meaning being-that members of congress have less children serving in Iraq than the percentage of the general population do)
it's a straw man argument, a faulty premise from it's very inception.
those are the words of the article's writer, trying to attribute something to MM that he simply did not say.
what MM does do is ask members of congress if they would be willing to send their children..to set an example.
(the reality)
read the transcript if you need to.
http://www.redlinerants.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1089705299&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&
This is what he posts on his site as "evidence". What was the name of the congressman he cut off before he had a chance to say he had a nephew serving?
From Moore's website:
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: "Out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq."
“Only four of the 535 members of Congress have children in the military; only one, Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., has a child who fought in Iraq.” Kevin Horrigan, “Hired Guns,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 11, 2003.
Posted by: Cog at August 5, 2004 at 11:15 PM"Our men and women who serve in the United States military are not "children"!"
of course they are:
One entry found for child.
Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: 'chI(&)ld
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren /'chil-dr&n, -d&rn/
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jathara belly
1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
3 usually childe /'chI(&)ld/ archaic : a youth of noble birth
4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : DESCENDANT
5 : one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
6 : PRODUCT, RESULT
Darp,
Whether its Queensberry type rules or Geneva convention type rules, I trust you on the left will exempt the terrorists/tyrannies, etc from following them.
After scanning the comments, I'm a little surprised that no one has made this connection, especially in response to Darp:
Does no one remember that in addition to the big flaming buildings in NYC, there was also a big flaming building in Washington? And a smoldering pit in Pennsyvania that was, according to the available evidence, supposed to be intended to be the Capitol Building instead? You know, the Capitol Building, where Senators and Congressmen are sometimes rumored to gather?
Senators and Congressmen (and Pentagon workers, and the President himself) ARE on the front lines of this war, and have been since its opening salvo. They don't need their children to be put in harm's way to show their bravery and resolve. They need only show up for work.
Posted by: arminius at August 5, 2004 at 11:45 PMSwade,
Even if the number is ONE, it still prove MM lied. Why cant you "smell what you are shoveling?"
hbarner. Yes, Moore asks a Congressmen who *has no children* if he would be willing to send his children. Had he asked one with an offspring in the military, do you think he would have included the response in his film?
No.
Posted by: Oligonicella at August 5, 2004 at 11:49 PM"The movie Fahrenheit 9/11 asserts the children of US congressmen are under-represented in US forces in Iraq"
That's not true. All Mike Moore did was ask the people that authorized the Iraq war (members of congress) if they would send thier kids to Iraq. The logic of it has one to do with morals, not statistics. If you voted for the Iraq war, you be a hypocrite to not send your kids to it. That's the only point Mike Moore was making there.
Go watch the damn movie before you go off on it.
Posted by: Casey at August 5, 2004 at 11:50 PMExcept that Moore is still being false, despite how you want to spin it, Barner. ANd the media are letting him get away with it. Hell, you're living proof -congratulations.
Nobody "sends" their "children" to war. They can't, because it's imposiible.
Citizens - adult men and women - enlist of their own voalition. Your so smart - why didn't you write that?
Let me bumper-sticker it for you, Mr. Truth-speaker:
"I'm not a child, I'm a choice"
Gods - you know I loved writing that.
Posted by: Tommy G at August 5, 2004 at 11:54 PM
Awww, poor Casey - Bet you wished you'd waited just 5 more minutes before you posted? Simpleton.
Moore's only off by 95%. Close enough for anti-government work.
Posted by: charles austin at August 6, 2004 at 12:36 AMI couldn't care less if the kids of Senators and Representatives end up in the fight, or even in the service. I want to serve only with good soldiers who understand that every day in the armed forces of the US means you are ready to sacrifice for your country, family, and friends.
Will a leftist ever understand that?
I've seen no evidence of that level of understanding of soldiers yet.
Note to Swade:
"They also serve, who only stand and wait"
Posted by: Lord Whorfin at August 6, 2004 at 02:15 AM"Moore should talk. He won't even send his kid to public school."
Oh, my Gawd!!! You mean to say that the Moore has... reproduced??? AIEEEEE!!!
(Poor little kid... I feel sorry for him/her. Inevitably this child will be trotted out as some sort of political pawn sooner or later.)
Posted by: Mary in LA at August 6, 2004 at 04:58 AM"There are 300 million Americans; 130,000 US troops in Iraq; 535 congressmen and women; and at least five children of congressmen serving in Iraq.
Thirty seconds of intellectual effort shows that children of US congressmen are very over-represented in Iraq; but 30 seconds is way over the capacity of admirers of Fahrenheit 9/11."
My goodness. When I looked at the US Census site yesterday, they only listed 293 million Americans. Even considering immigration, that makes us a randy bunch of folks. I suppose being off by 7,000,000 people might be excused as a rounding error.
Also - 1.3/2930 vs 5/535 and it takes you thirty seconds of intellectual effort? OK, it's hyperbole on your part, but it's more like 3 seconds rather than 30.
I think the real point here is that the basis of the question is stupid: I do not want my congress-critter deciding to go to war with the reason to free-Iraq/stop-terrorism/steal-the-oil/whatever based upon how it will impact said Senators family. I'd want her to make the decision based upon what it would do for my country and the world. Sad to say, I live in Washington state, and so the decision will be based upon the impact on her re-election. I guess that's not bad; a Senator who listens to her employers is better than average.
My parents are about the same age as most Senators. They cannot only send me to war, they can't even send me on a date.
Mr Moore does propaganda, not truth. Enjoy his movies if you wish, but don't pretend that his movies reflect the real world. He is an idiot.
Posted by: David D at August 6, 2004 at 05:44 AM>You mean to say that Moore has...reproduced???
Yeah, no doubt by fission.
caspian: LOL PWNT GB2CS NOOB
Posted by: DensityDuck at August 6, 2004 at 05:50 AMI recently spent time on a web site called bushflashforum.com I just happened to stumble into the site and began reading. Under the WWIII section there is a post asking what the difference is between common murderers and thugs as opposed to the American soldier. These folks actually believe that genocide and atrocities are the norm for the American soldier. I attempted to defend myself after truthfully identifying myself as a disabled army veteran with 23 years of active duty, who served as a medic in Vietnam. I also quite truthfully identified myself as a conservative registered democrat who supports Bush. I attempted to defend my brothers in arms but was attacked in the most foul puerile way possible. The head fellow there is named "Hurricane". He repeatedly called me a fraud even after I posted dates, units, etc. The funny thing is that when I did a little research, I discovered two things: first is that his chosen motto under his user profile is "jihad against the infidel" and the closest to combat he ever came was in an airforce motorpool. Anyway, I digress. I just wished to illustrate my motivation in rebutting Darf.
The reason I am posting here is because of the comment by Darf:
"How about flying in to an aircraft carrier post "victory" and strutting about in a flight suit? NO ...front rank or nothing."
A couple of points... I was responsible for much of the medical planing for the first gulf war for the "First Cav Division" at Fort Hood, Texas. I personally knew and briefed the then Div Cdr, General Tommy Franks. General Franks has a new book out in which he notes that President Bush flew into the carrier at his suggestion.
Second... President Bush actually was an F102 Interceptor pilot in the reserve... and yes, he did show up. They don't just give away aviator wings. You have to earn them.
Third, after my experience at Bushflash, I feel truly mobilized and I have decided to jump in no matter what the group when I see drivel posted that is intellectually dishonest. G.W. Bush did exactly what he should have as CDR in Chief. I believe his gesture was overwhelmingly appreciated by the active duty force.
"OK, it's hyperbole on your part, but it's more like 3 seconds rather than 30."
Well, this blog has been accused of unjustly bashing Michael Moore. That accusation is patentedly untrue, but I expect that Tim wanted to give Fat Mikey the benefit of the doubt with that additional 27 seconds.
I think that was extremely generous on Tim's part.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 6, 2004 at 05:57 AMDoes anybody really think that the Congress is a representative sample of the US population?
(Sorry about the pun - unintentional.)
As far as "unjustly bashing" Moore, that's a phrase that makes no sense. Anything we say against him is just.
Steeldoc, that's a good post. Honest and objective. Thank you.
Darf is a typical troll here, and seems to think much like this "Hurricane", although I can't say if he is motivated by jihad, or just an infantile need for attention.
I'm in the reserves myself (25 years, including active duty time). I really appreciated the gesture by President Bush when he landed on the carrier, both symbolically and physically. I for one do not care to ever land on an aircraft carrier (I've heard that process described as a "controlled crash").
As a former Guardsman, I sympathize with the drill record controversy. I fully understand the service GWB performed while he was in the Guard. I personally know a number of Guard personnel who skated through the system (one step ahead of trouble all the way) to retirement. They weren't there for service, they were there for the paycheck.
And that's why I don't appreciate the likes of Darf sneering at these as "character flaws", or even proof of character flaws. In point of fact, they demonstrate the positive side of GWB....if people would only open their eyes.
(And for those looking for fault in my post, please note that I admire GWB, I do not worship him. There is a difference.)
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 6, 2004 at 06:31 AMDid I miss something? Who are the five, and are they in Iraq?
Posted by: Eazy at August 7, 2004 at 02:43 AMI don't think Moore really thinks through this line of reasoning. If you follow the "do you have a vested interest" line of thought to its logical conclusion, a congressman would have to have a child in the service to vote yes for war. Couple this with the "chickenhawk" criticism, and you have a very fascist like vewpoint. IE. one must have served or have had family members who have served to have the right to vote yes for war. Since voting yes or no for war is one of the requirements of the position of congressman, this would exclude anyone who has not served or has no immediate relative serving from being a member of congress. Really, quite a stupid argument altogether. If someone would just point this out we could be done with this nonsense once and for all.
Posted by: Russ at August 7, 2004 at 03:35 AMRuss, the problem is that MM and his leftoid parasites tend to react reflexively, without thinking much or well.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 7, 2004 at 04:07 AMI am amazed that you right wingers need a site/ blog like this to entertain and reassure yourselves. All you have to do is turn on your tv, maybe watch a little FOX and begin to allow the brainwashing to cleanse all that horrible truth away. The best part is, when you go to bed after "the cleanse", you don't even have to close your eyes, bause they were never really opened in the first place.
Self confessed """evil lefty""".wooo, wooooo. Boo!!!
Posted by: David From Brisbane at August 7, 2004 at 04:52 PMRuss.
If you follow the "do you have a vested interest" line of thought to its logical conclusion, a congressman would have to have a child in the service to vote yes for war. Couple this with the "chickenhawk" criticism, and you have a very fascist like vewpoint. IE. one must have served or have had family members who have served to have the right to vote yes for war."
You clearly miss mm's not so subtle message he is trying to portray. My recommendation: See the movie again, hopefully if you pay actual attention with an open mind to question, you might just get the faintest idea of the message he is trying to convey.
Come now,,,,,, if ewe want to be sheep, go to New Zealand
DIGGS>>>
"I couldn't care less if the kids of Senators and Representatives end up in the fight, or even in the service. I want to serve only with good soldiers who understand that every day in the armed forces of the US means you are ready to sacrifice for your country, family, and friends.
Will a leftist ever understand that?
I've seen no evidence of that level of understanding of soldiers yet.
Posted by: Diggs at August 6, 2004 at 01:37 AM"
Us lefty swine have a name for people like you......Cannon Fodder. A better name still is "Lamb to the slaughter"(being on the subject of sheep and all).
Posted by: David From Brisbane at August 7, 2004 at 05:16 PMMore on the "leading from the front" stuff:
Oh, and Canada's only first-class general, Arthur Currie (of WWI vintage) was knighted on the battlefield by King George V. :-)
Modern warfare, though, requires less posturing heroism...
Posted by: Ben at August 7, 2004 at 05:48 PMEazy -
it would seem
Sen. Tim Johnson, D-SD
Son Brooks Johnson, 31, a staff sergeant with the Army's 101st Airborne Division.
and probably (because people keep quoting two)
Rep. John Kline, R-MN
Son, Dan Kline.
other people who have children who might be sent
Rep. Todd Akin, R-MO
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-CA
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-CO
Rep. Ed Schrock, R-VA
Rep. Joe Wilson, R-SC
It is possible there are some who have not openly declared the location of their sons (or daughters) I guess.
Posted by: Scottie at August 7, 2004 at 08:52 PMscottie, some people would think it tasteless for an elected official to advertise the fact that their child has gone to war. Quietly tell friends and family, yes. But stand up and tell the world? They'd be seen as using the service of their offspring for their personal gain, and rightly so.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 8, 2004 at 01:03 AMDavid from Brisbane: your posts are a joke, right? No one could possibly be that stupid.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at August 8, 2004 at 01:51 AM