Fri 26 Aug 2005
Hardball has the video up of Hackett’s apprearance. Here are my comments:
VERY solid.
Perfect for that show. Honest and he talked like a real person, not just going full tilt partisan. Came off as very mature about the situation. The way he played off of what the academic was saying was really nice. He works good with Matthews too. Gave honest answers that weren’t just talking points and Matthews loves that. As soon as you start dodging he goes in for the kill.
I’d even say statesman like, but still totally Hackett. Real. His best TV appearance yet.
I liked him talking about the importance of Bush saving face. Us partisans underestimate the importance of stuff like that. If you don’t give your opponent an out the only way they can go is through you.
As for the talk of overkill, if every appreance was like the one on Real Time goofing on Bush, than he might run a real risk. People need to be very careful going head to head against professional comedians. There’s a reason so few of them become politicians, and they love to help you tie your noose. (BTW, Phyllis Schlafly’s appearance was about as solid as I’ve ever seen anyone on that show, and this is coming from someone who is NOT a fan of hers. )
Talking like he did today about solutions and not just about it helping the Democrats and he’s on very solid ground. He has to avoid being labled as nothing but a pretty boy Bush bashing lightweight. He certainly wasn’t that last night.
His words have real weight behind them because he lived it and he can articulate it well, AND like Wesley Clark he doesn’t have the baggage of Clinton or Kerry of supporting this mess blindly. That puts him shoulders about them. If he added some talk about more general terrorism issues his voice would be very powerful. The cameras already like pointing in his direction. America’s listening.
August 26th, 2005 at 3:05 pm
In his tv ads he said the marines “get it” meaning that what we are doing is worthwhile. Now he says something completely different. I am sure the tv ad was a false impression he was trying to leave with conservative voters in Ohio 2nd and this version is the true Hackett.
There was no mention of his shipping out with his unit. Lots of talk in generalities, but what decision will he make about staying in his unit and going to whether they go.
August 26th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
He’s running for Senate, so get used to it.
August 26th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
So much for the one promise he could have kept.
August 26th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
To Eric Minamyer: If he does/did go back he could mysteriously be ‘removed’ via ‘friendly fire by the likes of you.
His heart is telling him to go back, but HOPEFULLY his brain (and his wife) are telling him that it might not be such a great idea due to unexpected risks, over and above the declared’ enemy. American needs Paul Hackett to be alive and well and if that means not deploying back to Iraq, due to the risks other than the ones he expected, then so be it.
How about Barbara and Jenna taking his place??
August 26th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
How dare you accuse anyone of intending to harm Hackett or anyone else.
I have no idea about the president’s children’s intentions. I would say they would be a major target for the terrorists and should stay out of the Middle East. I will remind you that the president’s wife did go there, although I thought it was foolish to do so.
It is not a matter of taking his place anyway. He is a major and a lawyer. His duties are of a legal nature. Since neither of the Bush daughters is a lawyer they could not take his place.
I served five tours since 9/11/01, not just one. My stepsons are there now, one on his second tour.
Hackett’s the one who pledged to go back. He is a serving Marine Reserve Officer. He will have to resign or be transferred to avoid deployment.
We need all our service members to get back safely, not just Hackett. Hackett would not ascribe to your theory of intentional friendly fire, I am certain.
August 26th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
I certainly have the right to accuse ’someone’ of intending harm to Paul Hackett or
anyone else, just as Pat Robertson proclaimed a few days ago. (Or did everyone misunderstand his what he said and his intentions). How naive of you to insinuate that this is not feasible or a serious possibility. Can you personally guarantee that he would not be an intentional target? Who do you think you might be kidding??
Regarding Paul’s service as a major and a ‘lawyer’, I don’t know of that many lawyers
these days that do ‘house calls’ in Iraq. Paul’s service in Iraq was much more than
lawyering, as you well know. And regarding the Bush daughters, I don’t know their plans either, but if their father says the greatest calling is to serve one’s country, and neither of them happens to be employed at the moment (I don’t believe), then perhaps they should accept the noble calling and step up to the bar. They can surely get trained to do SOMETHING of value, even if it’s not nearly what Paul Hackett could accomplish. I hardly believe there’s nothing they could contribute to the noble cause.
And about them being a ‘major’ target for the terrorists, what about being an American
fighting in Iraq is unusual about being a ‘target’??; the nearly 1900 deaths of US troops to date have been due to them being major targets as well. And it wouldn’t be much different if Paul Hackett returned to Iraq, as you might well know–he would be a major target, too, due to his recent notoriety; I hope that’s not what you’re condoning. Yes, he did say he would re-deploy, but others, NOT he, of course, have suggested he reconsider that decision. He probably would not initially ascribe to my theory of intentional friendly fire, but perhaps under more consideration he might realize it might be a possibility and would reconsider. At least I, and many others I know, hope so. We don’t underestimate anything that Pat Robertson, Karl Rove, and the like might do to accomplish their objectives. We’ve already seen what’s been done with, and to, Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson, Cindy Sheehan, Max Cleland, etc. You aren’t quite that wet behind the ears, I don’t believe. BTW, did you notice that our own President did not reject Pat Robertson’s recommendation as an act of terrorism, as illegal and un- and anti-Christian?? Slightly hypocritical, wouldn’t you agree. And btw, what happened to the ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ commandment?? Is that to be only selectively applied?? Give me a break.
We certainly need all our service members to get back safely, with that I agree. We’ve got some common ground here. Let’s support the troops by bringing them home now rather than letting them be the targets in a more and more out of control societal situation in Iraq. How many deaths does it take to see that many people have died for a less than noble cause??
August 26th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
The terrorist do not care about Paul Hackett. They would love to capture the presidnet’s children or kill them.
What does Pat Robertson’s idiotic statement have to do with me or GW Bush? I condemn Robertson for what he said and later retracted.
I went to war for my country. If you think people should sign up, why haven’t you? I respect your right not to join and I was proud to defend every American, even those with whom I disagree.
In your ealier posting you said “like me.” I took that as an accusation of murderous plot to which I had already subscribed.
This is just an excuse so he can go back on his word both during the campaign and when he rejoined the reserves. Paul Hackett will have to take a positive step now to get out of his unit. Will he take that step? What excuse will he offer if he does?
I think the prsident is wise to stay out of the Robertson created mess. It is enough of a diplomatic issue as it is. Why fuel it?
I spent most of 2 1/2 years of my life dedicated to this cause. The war on terrorism is as noble as it gets. The terrorist would kill you if they could. They did kill your fellow countrymen. Saddam pretended to have WMD after he agreed to dismantle them. Remember he did have them before and used them. Chemical stockpiles have been found.
We cannot sit back and wait for more attacks. When will you think it is time to fight?
Hackett is not so famous for the terrorist to care about him. Noteriety as a losing candidate is not impressive to them. The daughters of the president would be.
August 26th, 2005 at 9:43 pm
Minameyer-
-ALSO, PEOPLE ARE CAPABLE OF CHANGING THEIR MINDS!!!!!!
Speaking of losing candidates, how many votes did you get again?? how is your 4.7% of the vote treating you, you right wing reactionary jackass??
There is more than one way for someone to serve his country. If Paul Hackett opts to act upon the wave of support that carried him to near victroy on Aug 2nd, and run to serve the people of Ohio in higher office, why is that any different than him serving in Iarq? Civil service is just as important as military service, especially when his experiences offer him unique insight into the prosecution of the conflict. Providing our brave servicemen and women with a voice in either sate or federal government is just as important as fighting along side them. We need to make sure that someone has there backs here at home, a job at which the republican administrations in both washington and columbus have FAILED MISERABLY.
Seeing as how the OH02 special election is over, why dont you and all of your whiny right wing friends stop complaining about Hackett’s “deceptive” television ads, which were anything but. Just because he had video of the president saying, “there is no higher calling than service in our armed forces,” does not in any way mean that he is or was trying to decieve anyone in any way. Maybe he and his campaign liked the sentiment of what was said in that part of Bush’s speech?? Did that ever occur to you, or were you too worried about how you could “fight the horrors of homosexuality” for any rational ideas to get through your horrible leave it to beaver haircut and thick skull.
Hackett WAS in combat. You were in Bahrain, living in a FLAT, where you said that there were roving gangs of YOUTHS WITH ROCKS. hmm what is more dangerous…. YOUTHS WITH ROCKS, or insurgenst with AK-47s and RPGs??? What is a more comfortable living environment, CAMP FALLUJAH, which was in a combat zone and subject to FREQUENT mortar attacks or your FLAT in BAHRAIN where you DROVE A CAR to your OFFICE every god damn day???
-I dont mean to marginalize your service any more than any other member of the armed forces, all of whom i both honor and respect. Their sacrifice does in fact make it possible for people like us to live our lives in peace. I do however believe that, as a civillian, i have very little right to say whether or not someone has TRULY served their country, and the only reason i did so in your case was to CONTRAST things that you said during the campaign in order to marginalize the efforts of a TRUE COMBAT VETERAN, Maj. Paul Hackett.
-Furthermore, as someone who has served in the military, and who is more than willing to say that any “good republican” who has served has done so with honor and is above reproach or criticism. it is abhorent and despicable for you to criticize the service of anyone who has served in a combat zone, especially when you are only doing so to marginalize that service in an effort to score some cheap political points.
YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF.
THERE IS A REASON THE PEOPLE OF OH02 ONLY CAST 2,111 VOTES FOR YOU ON JUNE 14TH.
August 26th, 2005 at 10:25 pm
My name is spelled MINAMYER.
Hackett not only made the promise in the campaign to gain votes, he also made a commitment to the Marine Corps. His unit depends on having all three lawyers when it goes back.
I spent $60,000 and finished reasonably close to a candidate that spent nearly $1,000,000. Everyone that beat me had two things: more money and being taken seriously by the press from the start. I only got notice from the press with about two weeks left. We were rising in the polls. I have been elected and re-elected over a sixteen years career. A loss is no disgrace. My success in the election is not the issue.
The issue was whether the terrorist would consider Hackett a target of special interest. The answer is no.
Hackett did not pledge to run for higher office. He pledged to return with “his marines” to Iraq. There is nothing about Hackett’s duties that make him any more qualified for “prosecution of the war” than any other veteran. His primary role was as a lawyer working with contractors rebuilding the cities in Iraq.
The ad was deceptive in many ways. He never mentions his party affiliation and uses the image of a president he says he hates. He refers to his fellow marines as “my marines” implying command of his unit the 4th CAG. He says the young marines “get it” alluding to carrying out the mission to bring democracy to Iraq while at the same time condemning the war as immoral, denouncing “nation building” and calling the war a failure. That’s deceptive.
Using the president’s image implies endorsement to many. He knew that and that is why he used it. It also explains why the special election was no bellwether about Bush.
The reason you know about my circumstances in the Middle East is because I have never exaggerated my role. The single example of combat listed by Hackett was on one convoy on one particular day. Two IEDs were set off near the convoy he was riding in from Ramadi to Fallujah. He did not receive a CAR which means no small arms fire was exchanged. If there is another example of his combat experience I am all ears. You mentioned mortar fire. Was he subject to frequent rocket attacks? I never saw or heard him say he was.
As for the gangs near my area and in the soccer field behind my flat, where did you get the “with rocks” stuff. I never saw anyone with rocks and never said I did. A bomb was detonated about 30 meters from my office though. One of our officers was gunned down on the street.
We were spread out throughout the city so no one area would hold enough Americans to be worth attacking. The buildings had to have over 50% Arab occupancy. There were other security measures.
Bahrain was very much safer than Iraq, but not as safe as anywhere in the US. I have never claimed to have been in combat nor refered to my fellow sailors as “my sailors” thus implying command.
My haircut in the pictures on my website and blogsite are my navy haircut, if that matters.
As for my skull thickness, it is what it is. I did manage to obtain a BA, JD and LLM and get certified as a SPHR, but hey I am just plain stupid according to those who do not agree with me. I must be otherwise I would agree with them, right?
Your reference to homosexuality is a puzzle to me. What does that have to do with Hackett’s return to Iraq? Likewise, are you one of those who thinks name calling makes you sound smart?
Fact: Hackett pledged to stay in his unit and go where they go. “His marines” are depending on him. So is his CO, XO and everyone else above him in the unit.
Fact: Now he seems to be backing out of those commitments.
August 26th, 2005 at 11:45 pm
It’s a shame that you don’t understand that it’s possible for them to “get it” at the same time as the President doesn’t.
Personally, I’ll never understand how a man can leave his beautiful family to go fight half way around the world just because our President says so. But I don’t have to understand why they do it to be grateful for the men and women that do. I’d certainly never question them for doing it nor would I question them for reconsidering.
I will say that we could certainly use Paul Hackett right now. I don’t see very much leadership coming out of Washington when it comes to Iraq. We need people who can tell the American public the truth and have the courage to listen to what people are saying.
There was a time when one of the few voices talking about the problems in Iraq was Eric Minamyer. What happened to that voice? We could sure use him again.
August 27th, 2005 at 1:30 am
Minamyer: No, your various degrees indicate that you’re not stupid academically, but the Johnny-One-Note rants are puerile, and would tend to rule you out for a real chance at higher office. Your various degrees did not imbue you with the people-skill called charm or charisma. Funny, you passed along the office gossip that Hackett had spoken sarcastically, or some such - (I’m not going to bother to look it up)- but you dwell constantly on personal attack on another, in this case Paul Hackett. Is this from a member of the political party that gave the term “swift-boating” to the American lexicon?
Your terms: “pledge”, “promise” and “commitments”. It’s my understanding he indicated that he would return to Iraq if his unit was recalled. He had to get an exemption to rejoin the Marines at his age- young 40’s. Now he’s a year older, and as he said on “Hardball”, has a 9 yr. old daughter, and 2 young sons to consider (this in regard to a Senate run, not concerning a return to Iraq), and his young family should rightly be his highest priority. It’s called “family values”, remember?
August 27th, 2005 at 2:38 am
minniemouse can’t get any traffic on his blog so he has to come here and rant. I don’t even give him the time of the day.
August 27th, 2005 at 5:13 am
Susie: Hackett ran for the House, which would have required him to go to Washngton. The Senate is no different, just a longer term.
You excuse Hackett’s sexism as sarcasm? Even if it was sarcasm rather than the viciousness I believe it was, it was inappropriate and demeaning to a woman.
Hackett would not need a waiver to return to an active status in the reserves, since he already had the commission. He would just be transferring from one reserve status (S-1) to another (R-1).
As for his age, he is far from the retirement age for an officer and had to know he would be older when his unit deployed in the future. I was 48 in 2001 when I went on active duty following the attacks on New York and DC and I was 50 in 2003 when I came home for good.
He will have to transfer or resign his position in his unit to avoid any deployment by the unit.
I do not consider it a personal attack to remind folks of Hackett’s very public pledge to return to Iraq with “his marines”. Nor is it a personal attack to give a concrete example of actual behavior by one who holds himself out as a champion of civil rights. A personal attack would more like namecalling and statements about lacking charisma. By the way, have we met?
Editor: I do not agree that Hackett is right about Iraq. I have said before that I disagree with him. In addition, I do not see him as a “plain speaker” or a man of the people. I see him as misleading and conniving.
You are twisting the “get it” line from the tv ad, but somehow I know you realize that. You don’t see me justifying the misdeeds of republicans or excusing their words in the campaign.
Hackett very publicly pledged to return to Iraq with his unit. He did so with as much machismo as he could muster, which for him is a lot. He wanted people to see him as a warrior ready to return to the battle.
“Reconsidering” is another way of saying not living up to his promise to the voters and to the Marine Corps. I will be the first to praise him for keeping his word to the corps if he stays with his unit.
Roamingcoyote: OH2 can attest that I have been a frequent poster here, even before I had a blogsite. I am just responding to the postings of other bloggers here at OH2 to my comment at 1. above and then the progression. You are yet another namecaller trying to act smart by belittling other’s names. To you “ranting” is saying something with which you do not agree. My postings are as long as they need to be to respond to the length of other postings.
August 27th, 2005 at 9:55 am
My favorite part of this whole thread is when rahrahgirl said,
” And regarding the Bush daughters, I don’t know their plans either, but if their father says the greatest calling is to serve one’s country, and neither of them happens to be employed at the moment (I don’t believe), then perhaps they should accept the noble calling and step up to the bar.”
From what I hear, stepping up the bar is about all the Bush twins do, following in their Daddy’s staggering drunken footsteps.
August 27th, 2005 at 9:59 am
Don’t bring peoples kids into it. That’s not what this blog is about.
August 27th, 2005 at 10:06 am
But this is all about other people’s kids, like Casey Sheehan, whom Bush sent to die in Iraq for, as Hackett would say, whatever reason Bush is spouting today.
August 27th, 2005 at 10:30 am
Casey Sheehan was not a kid and neither are George Bush’s daughters. No one “sent” Casey Sheehan to die. Heroically, just as Paul Hackett, Eric Minamyer, and many others have done, he freely accepted the risks and volunteered to serve his country in the battle to defeat Islamicist terrorism. What President Bush said in that clip was that there is “no HIGHER calling” than service in our armed forces, not that everyone MUST serve in our armed forces in order to serve. [url=http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2005/07/06/bush_daughter_is_said_to_volunteer_in_s_africa/?page=full]For instance. [/url]
August 27th, 2005 at 10:32 am
Let me try that again: http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2005/07/06/bush_daughter_is_said_to_volunteer_in_s_africa/
August 27th, 2005 at 10:55 am
Sorry, can’t seem to get the link to work. Try googling “bush daughters africa”
August 27th, 2005 at 11:19 am
Imeade says, “No one” sent Casey Sheehan to Iraq” That’s amazing! An unseen, unknown power moving upon the earth plucked up Casey Sheehan and 140,000 other Americans and put them down in Iraq, where they were greeted by hostile forces and had no choice but to defend themselves. Perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it. But no, FSM is not an evil deity. (www.venganza.org) Well, someone had to send him there–and the name George Bush just keeps popping up.
I think, rather, that Casey signed up to defend his country, but his mother and I can’t figure out how attacking Iraq contributes to the defense of America or the defeat of Islamicist terrorism. As for the latter goal, it has done the complete opposite, creating a booming terrorist industry. Read http://www.antiwar.com/orig/berga.php?articleid=7081
August 28th, 2005 at 9:12 am
Note to eecummings: If you want to be taken seriously and have others check out your recommended readings, I suggest you not begin your comments by blatantly misquoting what someone else just said.
August 28th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Imeade: Please tell me the difference between what you wrote and my paraphrase.
Noun: No one
Verb: sent
Direct Object: Casey Sheehan
You wrote “to die” and I wrote “to Iraq” which is where Casey died.