The comments posted on this message board represent the individual opinions of their respective posters only and are not to be construed as statements of proven or alleged fact.
Recognizing this link is from an ultra left soldier's blog... Kirk has been misleading at best (lying at worst) for years about his military record. Five years ago he was claiming to be an Iraq War vet.
Sorry but that is not even close to the dirt on Giannoulias. While I may not like it, I can live with a little over-statement of his military record. Fact is - HE SERVED IN THE MILITARY. That is not in dispute. The only place Giannoulias has ever "served" is in Mom and Dad's bank, handing out loans to criminals, and then attempting to blame it on George Bush when his bank fails.
If that's the best they can come up with against Kirk, I don't think it will be enough for people to reject Giannoulias and all his b.s. in the next election. At least I hope so. Then again, this is Illinois. We tend to elect folks like this all the time.
You expect objectivity from a blog? You know the best part is that Kirk doesn't need to exaggerate. But he's been doing it for such a long time that people take it as truth.
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." William James
The strange thing about people claiming they served in Vietnam when in fact they didn’t, is that it’s the exact opposite of the way Vets of the time had to present (or hide) their service experience.
All too often, the guys who came back from Vietnam were viewed with disdain, called “baby killers,” and were presumed to be on drugs. It was rarely true... but it was best to just keep one’s mouth shut about having been there.
Like many, I served in the National Guard during “The Vietnam Era” — and, like many, I felt obligated to say (when pressed) that, no, I had not actually gone to Vietnam... and, in fact, I never left the good ol’ U.S. of A.
Those of us in the Guard and Reserves were generally respected more than those who actually served, because we were willing to be called up “if really needed,” whereas the troops who were actually there were participating in “an unnecessary war.” Go figure.
This distinction was important in not only polite social conversation, but was an absolute necessity when filling out important forms such as job, rental, or mortgage applications.
How times change.
(Full disclosure: years later, I did produce the “Platoon” trailer for HBO.)
Posts: 1342 | Location: Glen Ellyn, IL USA | Registered: March 21, 2003
Listen. I am in a profession that exaggerates for profit. I never called him a liar. I merely compared his situation to Blumenthal. You are the apples and oranges guy.
From what is on the blogs, I think he has a bigger problem with DADT.
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." William James
Seems unlikely your friend the "anonymous" secret service agent really said that. Politicians can clearly be a**holes. We've all heard the oops from the still on mics. But as Snopes says, it's unlikely secret service agents spread rumors anonymously. They conclude it appears to be a typical Republican mudslinging memo.
