You don't appear to know much at all about the policies of the Illinois National Guard unless you can prove all these sources which have been posted that claim she does indeed still "serve" are wrong.
If you had clue one, you'd realize that the Illinois National Guard is still subject to Army Regulation, and National Guard Regulation (NGR). Exceptions to policy exist in just about everything, but in todays drawdown envirionment, just about anyone that has even a minor health issue is being separated from service. She obviously has a host of physical limitations that would prevent her from being fit for duty and thats plain from AR 40-501 (medical fitness standards).
Form, perhaps you should get more consistent on this issue. On one hand you get really upset about the 'welfare' of keeping soldiers on a payroll, but here is this woman who by all rights should be medically discharged, and you defend her being in the service. Do you think she can pass a physical fitness test in her condition?
Yet it clearly has nothing to do with this thread.
It does if the story in the OP shows said bias. Which it does.
And yet you won't vilify and condemn him as you would any Democrat. Why is that?
Because i'm mature enough to understand what the man is saying and also that he never called her not a true hero, and even issued a clarification stating that he absolutely does consider a hero.
He clearly insinuated she was not a "true hero" like those who aren't running for office so they have no reason to mention their qualifications, and that her only supposed qualification was serving in the military which you are still parroting despite her holding important positions in the government while actually advocating veterans benefits.
Pertinent word highlighted. I dont think his intent was to imply she wasnt a true hero at all, and her certainly didnt do that directly, and in fact once that 'insinuation' was mentioned he clarified his thoughts clearly.
Form, did he or did he not directly say she is indeed a war hero? Yes or no?
As you obviously were above in the first post on this page? So the word "hypocrisy" really doesn't have any meaning with you.
Nice irony there.
You were trying to compare an opinion piece from Huff Post with news articles from CNN and USA Today that you claimed disputed the facts in that article. And you still haven't provided any proof they did. Now why is that?
'Cause I dont have to just to please you, thats why. I did go read additional articles in reference to the story. Hell, I thought you'd be glad I didnt use Foxnews.
You mean the ones who were deliberately placed in the limelight so a clearly unqualified bimbo might even become the president if an elderly man died? Even Fox News attacked Sarah Palin for clearly being unqualified to hold any major political office.
I think criticism of her qualfications perfectly legitimate. What wasnt was the attacks on her family, her kids, her faith, and a whole host of other things that were just as wrong as what is being done in this story.
There was no "hypocrisy" there. You continue to misuse that word as you did above. There is clear hypocrisy for attacking any Democrat who would make any comment like these while not doing so with a Republican who did the same thing.
Nice double standard there Form. Very nice indeed.
Why do you think that is even credible? Why do you "pretend" it likely is?
Well, it doesnt contain an ounce of insinuation, planned or not planned; so why shouldnt it be credible?
Look, I dont think this guy is being smart; but the worst I can accuse him of is being a dumbass for choosing the way he is pursuing his election. You feel differently. Imagine that.
And yet it clearly isn't. There isn't a single Republican in this forum who has posted outrage in this thread about the conduct of a man who is clearly not fit to be a congressman. Instead, you are actually trying to rationalize his comments.
Why be outraged? Do you get all frothy mouthed any time any says something stupid? I guess everyone needs a hobby.
Why won't you "defend Lt Col Duckworth"? Because she is a Democrat instead of a Republican?
I did defend her. I said she absolutely should use her military service to her advantage as long as she adheres to military regulation in the course of that. Good for her for making it hard on her opponent to counter her strategy. If the guy isnt smart enough to figure it out then he doesnt deserve to win. Simple.
But him being stupid doesnt make him Satan. It just makes him stupid.
I hope you don't decide to run for political office against someone so cowardly that he criticizes you for speaking about your qualifications you think you have from serving in the military. It is no different than Romney claiming that being a successful businessman makes him qualified to be president.
So now you think military service is great for being qualified to hold office. Man, so much for consistency.
