Scott Brown delights in talking up his military cred, and enjoys posting pictures of himself in uniform on campaign-related websites. Yet, in case you missed this a few days ago:
[H]e has never been deployed to a war zone…. Despite his long career, Brown, unlike many Guard members, has never been in a unit sent to a combat zone such as Iraq or Afghanistan, nor has he volunteered for active duty in a war zone, as some Guardsmen have. As a military lawyer assigned to the state headquarters unit, Brown is unlikely to be assigned to a war zone, said Christopher Henes, a 38-year veteran and former colonel in the Guard who served with Brown for many years….
Brown has a range of duties in the 6,200-soldier Guard. He defends soldiers facing disciplinary action before administrative discharge boards, provides estate planning advice, and has even helped in real estate transactions to those deploying overseas to war zones.
“I’m the head trial defense attorney,” Brown said. “If anybody does anything stupid, they come to me.” He added: “We do everything from assaults, sexual assaults, sexual or other discrimination, drug boards, and contracts. I do everything.”
Defends soldiers accused of sexual assault. Provides estate planning advice. So … he’s a lawyer. Further, he works out of state headquarters, but unlike many of his fellow guardsmen, he’s never seen combat. And this, from the guy who said of Martha Coakley that “instead of being a patriot, she’s being a lawyer.” Funny, that.
if the wave of nonsense from hit-and-run right-wing commenters will end after the special election. We can only hope.
The essence of patriotism.
Everyone who contributes in their own way, whether as citizen or soldier (or both in Scott Brown’s case) advances the ideals of our democracy. Let’s hope the nastiness subsides when the national right- and left-wing interest groups are finished savaging each of our candidates. By any measure, Scott Brown and Martha Coakley are decent, honorable, thoughtful and good people. They disagree on most issues, but that’s a happily different experience from the lack of meaningful choice we usually confront on our ballots in Massachusetts. This race will have a significant impact on the direction our country takes in coming years on issues that affect each one of us. Decide and choose, as citizens. Whatever the outcome next Tuesday, I think we’ve all already won by such a competitive, spirited (finally!) race between two good people.
Maybe he could do it for the USO though. I certainly applaud them for the Monti scholarship but am pretty sure Monti wouldn’t be demeaning Scott Browns service. Vote against Scott Brown because his ideas are dangerous, I certainly agree. Don’t demean his service, it only serves to make our side look petty.
Classy. Actually, not classy at all.
<
p>Let’s leave Mr. Monti out of this.
<
p>No one is demeaning Brown’s service, however intoxicating it might be to fantasize about such an charge. What the poster has pointed out is that Brown is a trust and estates lawyer with a desk job who has been acting like he is GI Joe on the front lines for political gain: plastering his campaign websites with pictures of himself in uniform in violation of DoD rules.
I just went to http://www.brownforussenate.com/ and did not see one picture of him in uniform. Please provide the link to Scott Brown’s website that has him in uniform? I’m sure you keyboard patriots could provide that.
Which means the folks saying they were in violation were right.
<
p>The campaign ad with him in uniform seems to be gone as well.
They’re still on the “Brown Brigade” site, and on the Facebook campaign site. Those are just as much campaign websites as brownforussenate.com is.
Let me amend my post to: “the pictures of Scott Brown in uniform on his bio page have been taken down.”
Here
<
p>Please note the disclaimer:
<
p>
in my post? Obviously not, because if you had, you would have seen that the three pages I linked — the “Brown Brigade,” which is Brown’s online campaign organizing site, and two pictures on his campaign Facebook page, are pictures of him in uniform. Go back to the post and click the links. Then come back and whine some more.
..that the facebook site is not a “primary” campaign site.
from Steve Stein’s excellent comment elsewhere on this thread:
<
p>
<
p>So the issue isn’t whether the Facebook or Brown Brigade site is a “primary” site. The issue is whether the picture in uniform is “the primary graphic representation in any campaign media,” which includes any campaign-related website. I suppose, arguably, that the pics on Facebook could pass muster there, since those pics do not at present appear on the main page. But it’s a much closer call for the pics on the Brown Brigade site, since there’s a big one on the main page, and also the favicon is a pic of Brown in uniform.
If he wins they should fine him $1,000.
by saying its a desk job and saying all he does is help soldiers with trust and real estate law you are denigrating the service. I say that is still a valuable service and I am glad someone is doing it.
Why isn’t someone going on Dan Rea’s WBZ Nightly Coakley Bashing and bringing out these facts?!!! Brown has callers from in and out of state calling in to sing his patriotic praises off carefully scripted bullet points…one after another with Rea’s gleeful encouragement…
<
p>Men and women who served there country on battlefields and those who are risking their lives right now deserve better than Scott Brown’s phony posturing in a uniform that doesn’t even see dust! My father earned a purple heart on Iwo Jima, my brother served in Viet Nam and Kuwait…Brown disgusts me using the uniform to advance his personal career when he never has to know what it’s like to risk his life for a cause…he is a lawyer, all right, the very worst kind.
<
p>There will be no vote for pseudo-soldier Brown from this Marine family…we can see through the costume…but I suspect others may be fooled by the advertising visuals and the “me patriot” rhetoric…
<
p>
for other JAG legislators who have seen deployment to warzones in either Iraq or Afghanistan while Scotty Boy is drafting estate plans: former Rep. Brian Golden (D) and Rep Hank Naughton (R). I’m sure there are others and they should be acknowledged. Scotty should be ashamed of himself.
…unless something has changed in the last week. Guess it’s time to give the rep a call… đŸ™‚
Hank is a BIG D! My bad. I may have opened myself up to a libel suit! Mea culpa. Anyway, the point remains that Scott Brown is a Fraud.
during a war but saw no combat, and who supports the torture of suspected terrorists? If we’re not careful, this guy could be the next president
My grandfather was a cook on a destroyer and deployed the day the bomb dropped on Hiroshima but he still served his country, still risked his life, and still could wear the uniform proudly. Lindsey Graham, Scott Brown, and anyone serving in the JAG Corps is doing a great service to their country and taking out time from their careers to help the military anyway they can. A family friend served in the reserves and was recently injured in a car accident in Kosovo of all places, and i dare you to tell his family that he is somehow less patriotic because his crippling accident happened outside of a combat zone and was unrelated to fighting. Another family friend died during training. In the event of another WWII Brown would be called up as a combat officer and has trained as such, as all JAG officers are. Let us also net forget that JAG officers are the ones defending the rights of the detainees in Guantanamo, several of them risking their careers to ensure they received a proper trial. Or the JAG officers that coordinated that basically invented human rights law at Nuremberg.
<
p>Lew Ayers was one of the most decorated soldiers in WWII and was a c/o assigned to a medic unit and never fired a shot. Chaplains, similarly, are considered cowardly under your logic but many of them stay stateside providing an invaluable service to their country and to soldiers confronted with the spiritual crises of warfare. Many of them also are sent to combat zones and risk their lives defending their faith, the most decorated WWII veteran in Cambridge was a Navy chaplain and Catholic priest. MPs serve stateside, but as the Ft. Hood shooting showed, they are constantly in risk of danger.
<
p>Similarly shame on you David for suggesting that all that Jags do is defend soldiers accused of sexual harrasment and help their real estate, Jags defend their civil rights during military trials and have been instrumental in getting them veterans benefits after they return. The swiftboat attacks were so awful not because they were Republican attacks against a Democratic soldier, but because they were partisan attacks against someone’s service. I do not question anyone’s service, George Bush’s, John Kerry’s or Scott Browns and want this partisan abuse of the military to stop on all sides.
I don’t see the basis for saying, “Screw you.” I am not really persuaded that your friends’ and relatives’ service somehow means Brown is a bigger patriot than Coakley. Brown could have put his money where his mouth is, and volunteered for a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. He didn’t. Nobody is saying Brown’s service is somehow shameful; they are questioning the implications of his appearing in campaign literature wearing BDU and questioning others’ patriotism. By his own account, all that he has done in uniform has been to act as a lawyer. Please explain how he has the standing to make that “instead of being a patriot, she’s being a lawyer” remark.
HL Peary called brown a desk jockey and said his service doesn’t count and called him a chicken hawk. Ergo my grandpa, Mike Dukakis, Ted Kennedy, and a host of soldiers who never saw combat are chicken hawks. That is the post that I replied with ‘screw you’ too, although for whatever reason it put it way down here. I am an opponent of Scott Brown, I held my nose and voted for Coakley because Scott Brown and his ideas are a danger to this state and this country. In no way am I a friend of Scott Brown. I think we can attack him for his support of endless war in Iraq and Afghanistan, his ignorant statements on foreign and economic policy, his support of torture and his opposition to civil liberties and due process, and his opposition to equality for gays. All valid areas where any voter in our state trying to defend the values Ted Kennedy fought for should be apalled. All valid avenues of attack. To attack his service and engage in a petty pissing match about which candidate is more patriotic is exactly the opposite of doing that and only serves to highlight Scott’s service and shows progressives disrespecting the military feeding into right wing talking points.
HL Peary did none of those things. He did call Brown a pseudo soldier and said he was posturing in the uniform. I don’t find those characterizations inaccurate. He did not attack Brown’s service; he noted that the service is not as Brown’s presentation implies that it is.
<
p>HL Peary did not say or imply anything about your grandfather or any of the other people you wrote about; he only referred to Scott Brown. If it clarifies anything for you, my own military service was non-combat (in a war zone), but I am not offended by what HL Peary wrote. He wasn’t talking about me, either.
“Similarly shame on you David for suggesting that all that Jags do is defend soldiers accused of sexual harrasment and help their real estate”
<
p>Where did he do that?
He says all Brown does is
. I am sure as the top JAG in the state he has more duties than that, and even if those are the only things he is doing he is still serving, in uniform, for his country and we should not be belittling his service. We can and should belittle his stupid quote and belittle his dangerous ideas on torture, due process, war, and civil liberties. That is the weighty argument we should be having, not this petty debate about uniforms and if his service really counts or not. And by responding to his petty attacks on Coakley’s patriotism with more petty attacks we are just playing Brown’s game and distracting the electorate from the truth of how horrible and bush esque his policies are.
… Brown’s words and his reference to them is accurate. Second of all, nobody asserted that this “…all that Jags do…”. David, in his very next words, summed it up thusly: “So … he’s a lawyer.” There isn’t any loaded implication there. (By contrast, Brown explicitly set up ‘lawyer’ and ‘patriot’ as mutually exclusive, thus explicitly saying something offensive about the job ‘lawyer’ the occupation.)
<
p>David just referred to what Brown said and then summarized. If you’re going to be offended, then be offended at what David actually said, and if you’re going to be offended at what David actually said then be offended at what Brown said. If your going to add mental qualifiers to what was said in order to make them more offensive (“simply“, “all that Jags do“), then kindly do that for Brown as well (although I would suggest not doing it at all).
…that Scott Brown is probably the most qualified soldier in the entire state, just ask him. This self-appointed status for Brown is a particularly amazing feat considering it puts him above the many reservists, full-timers, and National Guard who have served multiple tours in war zones- while, through seven long years of war, Brown is has not been called up Iraq of Afghanistan even once. Isn’t it weird that it worked out that was for the State Senator?
Learning advanced counterinsurgency/counterterrorism by watching “24” by candlelight, while eating quiche with a knife.
According to the article, “he spent about 10 days in Paraguay in 2005 and a week in Kazakhstan in 2007 for a disaster and counterterrorism exercise”.
<
p>He spent 2 1/2 entire weeks fighting for our freedom, drafting wills in a godforsaken third world barracks. He might have gotten splinters from the table he was writing on!
Attack Scott Brown for being a conservative and a moron, don’t attack his service. That is petty and foolish, and the kind of tactics and politics that I hoped would change with the election of progressives but sadly has not.
My comment was a reference to his comic book approach to antiterrorism that gives aid and comfort to our enemies.
<
p>Pursuant to which, he might have taken the time to read the Army/Marine Corps FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency Manual, and considered some remedial work with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Some folks serve in military, some don’t. Of those who serve in the military, some see combat, some don’t. Some who see combat survive, some don’t (sadly). A great many older veterans served in the military because they were forced to by a coercive draft. A great many younger veterans served in the military because they were forced to by a coercive socio-economic system.
<
p>Some combat survivors and military veterans are morons who trumpet (and in many cases invent or embellish) their military service for their personal gain — the military experience claimed by Ronald Reagan (he actually made training films during WWII) and George Bush (he actually ducked or was AWOL for virtually ALL of his National Guard tour) come to mind.
<
p>Folks, including David, are attacking Scott Brown because he is conservative, Republican, and moronic (it really is striking how frequently those three come together). When Mr. Brown chose to don his uniform and pose for illegal campaign photos, he introduced his service to the debate. From that point onward, criticism of the manner in which performed or did not perform that service and criticism of his intent in introducing it is fair game.
<
p>In fact, that is one reason why the prohibition on using the uniform in campaign literature exists.
<
p>Nobody is attacking you or your family. The criticism of Scott Brown and — yes, his military service — is going to continue because Mr. Brown introduced it to the campaign.
<
p>Can we move on to more substantive issues (like his advocacy of torture)?
We can move on to more substantive issues, like the torture, that’s exactly what I have been arguing this entire time. Let us argue like the smart liberals we are instead of arguing on the terms moron conservatives keep introducing. Leave his service alone. My grandpa was a cook, but HLPeary and other people here are denigrating his service by denigrating Brown for staying stateside and in a reservist position. Nowhere did Brown claim to be a GI Joe, nowhere did he claim to see combat, nowhere is he lying about his record. John Kerry and John McCain used their uniforms in their campaigns so I really see attacking him on that as a pedantic and irrelevant exercise that distracts from the real issues. We could ask Hey Brown your a soldier would you want the enemy to torture you? Or you support the military yet your party has consistently cut veterans benefits where do you stand? Or you are a soldier so do you want to be deployed to fight endlessly in Afghanistan? we can use those lines of attack. But to say he is a chicken, a coward, a desk jockey, or any of the other attacks people have been using is a low blow style of attack us Democrats should be above. So lets drop it and focus on the real issues.
He’s a lawyer who ignores DoD directives when it suits him. He has photos of himself in uniform on his campaign’s Facebook website, in violation of DoD directive 1344.10.
…if we got official word from a court or DoD itself about whether this constitutes a violation rather than asserting it ourselves.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/direct…
<
p>”4.3.2. Members included in subparagraph 4.3.1. (Members not on active duty who are nominees or candidates) may NOT, in campaign literature (including Web sites, videos, television, and conventional print advertisements):
<
p> 4.3.2.1. Use or allow the use of photographs, drawings, and other similar media formats of themselves in uniform as the primary graphic representation in any campaign media, such as a billboard, brochure, flyer, Web site, or television commercial. For the purposes of this policy, “photographs” include video images, drawings, and all other similar formats of representational media.”
So as long as a pamphlet produced by the Brown campaign uses another graphic representation of Brown as the largest and/or most prominent photo, they could also include a photo of him in uniform?
has been broken without notice or care.
Didn’t we see footage of Bob Dole, John McCain, and John Kerry in uniform during their respective presidential bids (including campaign ads), or is old footage in the context of the time they actually served OK so long as they don’t pose in uniform for the specific purpose of use in campaign lit?
That was splashed all over Jacks brochures in 60′. Most of John Kerry’s brochures, John McCains ads, pretty much any politician who has served in the military has violated this rule on both sides.
This directive applies to current members of the Armed Forces, including “…members of the National Guard, even when in a non-Federal status…” It does not apply to previously discharged veterans.
<
p>But I agree that we are wasting an awful lot of oxygen on a pretty minor issue. I believe Brown deserves a slap on the wrist from the Nat’l Guard, but that is probably reason #587 to oppose his candidacy.
who like to put on a militaristic, macho, super-patriot persona and then try to use that persona to pummel the other side and drown out all semblance of reason or logic.
<
p>There are still reasonable Republicans out there, but unfortunately this attitude has infected too large a portion of the contemporary conservative movement.
I’m not going to disparage his military service- even though he’s never been deployed, he still has a role to play in the National Guard and that is admirable, but I am curious about what can only be described as triple-dipping.
<
p>In last week’s Herald article about the per diems, it was noted that, last year, he made $77,000 from his private law practice, which is a pretty good part-time salary. The above article says that he is the “head trial defense attorney” of the Mass National Guard. All this, on top of the fact that he is a full-time legislator with six different committee assignments and a minority leadership position. 1+1+1 does not equal 3.
<
p>My State Senator (Tarr-R) is working a 60-hour week, attending town meetings, community events, committee hearings and grand openings. I’ve seen my State Rep (Jones-R)at weekend festivals, weeknight dinners and plenty of community events. He is also the minority leader.
<
p>How does Scott Brown balance a full-time legislator’s job, a $77K/year private practice and his role as a top military lawyer? It would appear to me that someone, somewhere along the line, is not getting their money’s worth.
What a sorry bunch of complainers. And angry too. Did someone take your toy away at the sandbox? Heaven forbid Scott Brown wins… what will be the attitude of BMGers then? “He stole the election!” “He lied about himself” “Can we have a recall becuase he was wearing GI Joe’s uniform?” “Tell Kirk not to vacate Teddy’s seat”
<
p>Grow some fortitude and stop your whining. But rest assured that if Scott pulls this off, I’ll be writing so many comments you’ll rip your own eyes out rather than read about my glee.
<
p>My 7 year old’s donation to Brown went through fine. I’ve been pushing my Mother to donate to the cause as well. I asked for some more Scott Brown signs because I have willing people but every part of the state is requesting more signs. Something might actually happen here folks. Either way, I love seeing how BMG does under pressure… not good! Glad you all aren’t defending our borders… RUN RUN !!!!!!
But don’t be a dick about it. If he’s elected he’ll be their Senator too. Our Senator, not “my” Senator.
<
p>It would be a good time to show how mature we can be by being above the fray and such childish practices such as the nyah nyah nyah… got me, sport?
The glee will be overwhelming. I won’t be able to contain my happiness at the smug group here. Want to call me a dick then call away. Thank you for reminding me AND EVERYONE ELSE that if elected Brown will be their Senator too. Kerry and Brown carpooling to Washington. Thurston Howell III and Gilligan! Scott Brown consulting with Barney Fwank. Precious!
For God’s sake man, pull yourself together and show some self respect. Just because your candidate runs around in a military uniform but is actually a desk-job bureaucrat, and has now publicly been called out on it and made to look ridiculous, doesn’t mean you have to make things worse for yourself with this kind of weepy Limbaugh-esque sweaty-man logorrhea.
<
p>Your job is to be the straw man. You put up feeble, poorly reasoned Republican talking points that you consider to be marvels of sound reasoning (which makes the whole exercise that much more amusing). We read and enjoy them for what they are worth. Win-win.
<
p>But when you get all emotional like this, it’s almost like watching a clown burst into real tears, or the final pathetic “I am not a crook” implosion of Richard Nixon, or George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech, or any of the other high points in the history of the Republican Party. Too personal. Unseemly. The tragic side of farce.
Part of my fugue was I just got my Q4 commission check and when I see I just paid more taxes by Jan 12 then the average American pays in the entire year, it caused a short circuit in my temporal lobe.
<
p>Sorry…
Isn’t that sweet.
<
p>To our new friend Robert Costa at National Review, who makes it impossible to email him directly for some reason: I am not “taking on Brown for his military service.” I am, rather, pointing out that Brown’s military service consists of … being a lawyer. There’s nothing wrong with that — unless you think that being a lawyer and being a patriot are somehow incompatible. I don’t happen to think that’s the case. But Scott Brown does, apparently, at least to listen to him talk about Martha Coakley. So the only one “taking on Scott Brown” for his military service is Scott Brown himself, by denigrating the work that lawyers do.
I’m not trying to pick a fight, I just can’t remember if you are a lawyer along with your singing career.
Don’t forget that part. Scott Brown asked me to make sure to remind you.
They need all the help they can get, poor devils.
I think Scott Brown is a bit of a tool, and I’m desperately afraid of finding myself on the same side (sort of) of JohnD, but I don’t see the point. He’s not a tool because he’s a lawyer in the National Guard; he’s a tool who happens to be in the National Guard.
<
p>Nonetheless, he does the work that someone has to do in the Guard. It’s too bad he’s never been deployed; it generally sucks for the families involved and would be a good experience for a politician.
<
p>I may be missing the point, but I assume the guy has done his drill weekends, etc. Service is service and worthy of acknowledgement. Unless he portrays himself as Sgt. York, I don’t see the problem.
He’s a lawyer attacking his opponent… for being a lawyer:
<
p>
Great minds. I doff my virtual cap to you, huh. Well done.
but in an election where we have to hate the opponent no matter what, I can see how that can’t possibly be the case.
Over here on the reality-based side.
and you know it. Everyone hates. Hating people who are diametrically opposed to you politically is the new American pastime.
<
p>I try not to, mostly because there’s no point to it. It’s just a tactic to galvanize support and increase political power. We need less of that in Washington.
<
p>I don’t hate Martha. Like I said (and was castigated for), I like hardass women. I have no doubt that she would prosecute and execute terrorists in civilian court if she had the chance — that doesn’t mean I think it’s the right way to do it.
<
p>All things considered, the amount of personal dreck being poured on Scott Brown on this site is disappointing given how much I appreciate the fact that people on this site tend to be exponentially more intellectual than the Kossacks or other left-wing bloggers.
<
p>I would love to have a discussion on the merits of trying terrorists in a civilian court but it keeps coming back to “he did a skin shoot when he was 22” and the fact he cussed out a bunch of brats who most likely deserved to get cussed out.
<
p>I think taking what Scott Brown said about her being a lawyer at absolute face value with no reading between the lines as to the intent of what he said is exactly what I expect out of contemporary American political discussion –not that Republicans are much more interested in the practice of dismissing what could be a potentially damaging sound-bite because what was said was not what was intended (harry reid, anyone?)
<
p>I don’t think Scott meant lawyer as an occupation more than he did a demeanor any more than I think Clinton saying Obama should be getting him coffee is racist.
Oooh, getting touchy are we, Joe?
<
p>It looks to me like most of the exchanges on this site are more like this from sabutai:
<
p>I missed the skin shoot reference in here, can you point it out for me? The brutally frank commentary about Scott Brown’s suggestion that we trash our civil liberties has been focused on his outrageously repulsive suggestions (such as his advocacy of the methods of torture). If anything, I view the skin-shoot exchanges as a relatively light-hearted attempt to escape the reality of just how offensive this candidate really is.
<
p>You and the rest of this community know that I have very limited enthusiasm for Martha Coakley. Even I must say, though, that candidate Scott Brown (who knows what he’s actually like in person) makes her look like Thomas Jefferson, Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, FDR, and JFK all rolled into one. I mean, really, Joe. Torture?
<
p>You seemed to equate Martha Coakley’s hard-hitting attack ad with the right-wing smear campaigns like Willie Horton and Swiftboat.
<
p>In that exchange, as in these, it sounds to me like you don’t like truth about Scott Brown being spotlighted.
<
p>He does support the Bush-era policies of torture. He did attempt to further restrict abortion rights. He is a Republican.
<
p>Until your team offers up some new ideas and a candidate who passionately advocates them, I encourage you to stop your whining.
I guess I needed to read the previous post too.
<
p>The tool comment still stands.
By attacking Brown for being a lawyer? And a military lawyer at that?
Brown: “instead of being a patriot, she’s being a lawyer.”
<
p>But he himself is a lawyer.
<
p>In effect he accused himself of not being patriotic. Or something.
<
p>So that’s the point with respect to being a lawyer.
<
p>As to his National Guard service, you’d think from the way his uniform is splashed all over his campaign materials that he was with the Green Berets in Afghanistan in October 2001 or something. In fact, he’s been behind a desk helping soldiers with trust and estate problems. So he’s being misleading, in addition to violating Department of Defense rules that prohibit using the uniform in that way.
You’d think from him stating dozens of times that he’s a National Guardsman in the JAG Corps that he has a non-combat function in the United States Military.
<
p>The only people who keep acting like wearing the uniform of the military means you have to have seen combat to be proud to wear it are you guys.
I think there’s a difference between literally risking your life for your country, and being associated with the military in some other way. For all I know, people in the military don’t recognize a difference, and would be offended by such a dichotomy. I really don’t know.
But personally, I believe the difference is significant.
but it’s the difference between someone building a car and the legal team making sure the way the car is built conforms to the laws and standards that allows it to be sold.
<
p>Being a JAG does not make him unimportant and demeaning or acting like his “desk job” is something he should be less proud of than someone fighting on the front lines in Iraq- its just partisan hate-mongering.
<
p>You can’t have a military of just soldiers. You need mechanics, medics, recruiters, advertisers, and yes, lawyers. JAG officers do provide real-estate services and other seemingly unimportant tasks, but its those men and women in uniform who make sure women in the military aren’t sexually abused and prosecute the people who do commit those heinous acts among other things
<
p>We owe a great debt to the people on the front lines risking their necks, but they’re all on the same team as Scott. He’s spent 30 years in the Guard and made his rank – they don’t just hand ranks out like candy.
<
p>I don’t care if you’re a Private, a Lt. Col. or a General: you have earned that rank and that uniform whether you’re Scott Brown or John Kerry.
Just a point of reference: Brown, according to what he told the Globe, does defense work, not prosecution. So he defends “the people who do commit those heinous acts.” Not that there’s anything wrong with that. đŸ˜‰
Defends the innocent as well.
No, Joe, questioning someone’s patriotism because she disagrees with you on an important policy question is partisan hate-mongering. What we’re doing here is pointing out that Brown’s position is internally inconsistent. There’s nothing hatey about that.
partisan, yeah.
You are responding to partisan hate mongering with more partisan hate mongering. It is one thing to say, Brown is being dishonest when he says lawyers are no patriots because he is a lawyer. A perfectly reasonable statement with which I wholeheartedly agree. It is another to say that his service in the Guard as a lawyer somehow makes him less patriotic than a combat soldier, to denigrate the work of JAGs by saying all they do is defend soldiers accused of sexual harrasment, which btw also implies soldiers are heinous individuals as well, and to ridicule him for wearing the uniform of his country, which you have never done in any capacity. I am willing to hear a combat veteran criticize Brown, but for us civii’s we can critique his idiotic policy proposals, but his service is off limits.
in which I do anything that you claim I did. You are simply repeating the National Review’s bullshit talking points. Nicely done, Mr. “Progressive.”
<
p>As far as defending soldiers accused of sexual assault, that’s exactly what Scott Brown himself says he does, among other things. I would have no way of knowing about it other than reading what he told the Globe. Did you even read the Globe article?
<
p>I’m not denigrating the work of lawyers — I am one myself, after all. It’s Scott Brown who has done a fine job of that. I’m just pointing out the painful irony of Brown’s position.
And if you read my statement I said that it is perfectly reasonable to criticize Brown for his idiotic remarks. What I specifically disliked was denigrating his service as a Jag, there is a way to criticize Brown by basically saying “Brown is a moron with idiotic ideas”, a truthful statement IMO, and there is another way which is saying “Brown is not really serving his country since he is a JAG” which is a statement that I do not think is truthful or pertinent to the debate at hand.
<
p>You can point out the irony of Brown’s position by calling him a lawyer and simply letting his own statement speak for itself showing us how absurd and stupid it is. But to say that his work as a JAG, even if it is stateside, even if it is simply defending soldiers charged with harassment and helping them with real estate transactions, is still service to the country that should be encouraged not belittled.
Nobody is saying that. When you put quotes around stuff you’ve invented paraphrased, it appears as though you’re making an exact quote, and you are not. Furthermore, your paraphrasing is off the mark; nobody is saying what you claim they are saying.
But here goes.
<
p>
<
p>Ah, but you see, I didn’t do that. I asked for a quote showing otherwise; you couldn’t provide one.
<
p>
<
p>Ah, but you see, I didn’t say that either. I asked you to quote the part of my post that said anything like that, and you couldn’t do it. Because I didn’t.
<
p>
<
p>That sentence doesn’t make sense, but I assume what you meant was that I was belittling his JAG work. But, again, I didn’t do that.
<
p>You can set up all the strawmen you want, but what you can’t do is detract from my basic point, which is that Brown, for all his military GI-Joe macho shtick, is a lawyer — and there’s nothing wrong with that. What’s wrong is Brown saying of Martha Coakley that “instead of being a patriot, she’s being a lawyer,” as though one can’t be both. And, of course, if Brown is right about the two being mutually exclusive, then that says something odd about him.
Don’t put ‘mr progressive’ in quotes. I held my nose for Coakley because Brown supports torture, opposes due process, opposes civil liberties, opposes civil rights for guys, opposes health care reform. Coakley is way out in left field on abortion and has been on both sides of the fence on a variety of progressive issues, but I am confident that if she fails to deliver we can vote her out in 2012. Brown will also be voted out in 2012 but will do a lot of damage on his way out the door.
<
p>Let me clear I am no supporter of Scott Brown. That said I will defend his service record, because it exists and he did it, just like I will defend the service record of anyone who has served this country, put on the uniform, and risked their lives. Just because he served his country doesn’t make him any less of a regressive, conservative moron, but I think this is one area where attacking him is petty, counterproductive, and opens up the left to attacks of being anti-military. The best way to defeat a moron is to be smarter than him, lets engage him on the big issues and do so intelligently, engaging him on these petty issues of patriotism and service reduces us to arguing at the moron level.
LOL typos are funny.
Well for guys that like other guys, and girls that like other girls.
Panic sets in as candidates figure out how much they got left to spend. “Omigawd!, I gotta tell the voters my opponent is worse a person than I am.”
<
p>Get out the “good stuff” long ago prepared by the advertising firm, often with help of private investigative services. Go.
<
p>Used to be, long ago, that a film would be prepared and brought to stations to play by an armed man. The reel would be run, transmitted, and rewound. The man would then take the film to the next station, never letting the film leave his sight.
<
p>A few of us remember the Dukakis film of GHW Bush in ’88. Wow, sheer poetry.
<
p>The good thing about a January election is that we can concentrate on one election. Make this time so more special.
<
p>Why pay money to have your family tree traced; go into politics and your opponents will do it for you. ~Author Unknown
Also 39th Massachusetts Attorney General.
Author of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Delegate to the Continental Congress. Representative at the Constitutional Convention. Second President of the United States. Never served a day of military service. I guess that wouldn’t be patriotic enough, either.
<
p>I find it notable that Brown — who DOES make money using his law license — has so little respect for both his own profession and for the Constitution that he has sworn to protect and uphold.
Does that make his brief service in the Army any less honorable? Let us not forget Joe made sure his last son in the Army was guarding the NATO HQ in Europe while other less prominent sons were sent to the killing fields of Korea. And yeah its exactly what war hero George HW Bush did with his son as well to keep him out of Vietnam. I do not begrudge either situation because at least the sons of privilege actually served in the military. Today very few people, on either side of the fence respect it. Scott Brown is a moron, and his political ideas would set the country and this state back, that said I honor his service and hope to emulate it myself someday, JAGS do wonderful things for their country and we shouldn’t belittle them-or anyone who wears the uniform in any capacity.
I know several myself, including a friend in Alabama who closed down his lucrative practice in Alabama for 18 months when the Navy sent him to Afghanistan. I know that JAGs all receive military training, and know how to shoot to kill. They can be sent into harm’s way; although as a practical matter most are not. Being a JAG is an honorable and worthy choice.
<
p>What I DO belittle is this crap about how “I’m a soldier and you’re JUST a lawyer” combined with the wearing of a uniform, implies Brown is more patriotic than thou. It’s even more disturbing when you consider the fact that he is showing such utter contempt for the Constitution that all lawyers — yes, including JAGS — are sworn to defend. This demeaning of the role which lawyers on both sides play to be sure that a case is justly before a court is, I suggest, the truly unpatriotic act.
<
p>
<
p>THE case which John Adams was most proud of handling over his long career was defending the British soldiers charged with murder for their participation in the Boston Massacre. He took that case because he believed in the rule of law, the principle that all defendants deserve a competent and zealous defense. Compare that to the way that Brown is embracing the Dick Cheney theory of military justice — one that not only subverts the rule of law, but makes us LESS safe. Brown seems to be forgetting that JAGs are assigned to represent the defense as well as the accusers — and are bound by the rules of professional responsibility to provide zealous representation.
<
p>Oh, and BTW, JConway — in 1941, my father was a 19 year old Canadian citizen who had lived in LA since he was seven. He chose to enlist in the Army, and ended up n the Army Corps of Engineers, where he was assigned to work on radios and electrical engineering. In four years of service in WWII, the closest he got to service was being half-way to Japan when the bomb dropped. For all we know, our dads could have been on the same ship. So puh-leeze, don’t tell me I don’t respect service.
I didn’t see you belittle his service, it was HLPeary who criticized Brown for being a ‘desk bound soldier’ and David who criticized Jags as defenders of sexual harassment defendants and real estate lawyers. BTW I have said repeatedly that Scott Browns statements are stupid, but to denigrate Jags in progressive replies to that statement is not only stupid but completely insulting to our armed forces. And it would be really cool if my grandpa served with your dad, and like I have said, both in my view served their country even if they never saw combat-something HL Peary did not agree with.
His most celebrated case was defending the British soldiers who opened fire in the incident that became known as the Boston Massacre. Yes, he took a bit of flak for that at the time, but historically his reputation as a patriot is intact.
<
p>He also represented the young nation in diplomatic posts, which is also patriotic service.
although without quite as much vitriol. I’m very opposed to Scott Brown, and I get the point of the original post. However, many of the subsequent comments have been ridiculous. One thing many on the left (including myself)learned during the Iraq war was to appreciate the service of men and women in the military. I always sort of took it for granted during peacetime, but reading about casualties got me emotionally upset in a way I hadn’t previously experienced. We’ve also learned to appreciate the sacrifices of military families. So I don’t think preparing wills for soldiers going into combat is a meaningless exercise. Criticizing Brown for implying that lawyers aren’t patriots, while he himself is a lwayer, is perfectly legitimate. But snarky criticisms that he “might get a splinter” or ripping him because he didn’t volunteer to go to Iraq or Afghanistan just smacks too much of that old lefty condescension towards those in the military.
<
p>And it is beyond ironic for people on this site to criticize a defense lawyer for representing guilty people. Are we really opposed to defense lawyers now?
Nor does anyone else here. Except Scott Brown, who thinks that lawyers aren’t patriots.
<
p>That’s the point.
I based my post on comments like “A round of applause for other JAG legislators who have seen deployment to warzones in either Iraq or Afghanistan while Scotty Boy is drafting estate plans” and
<
p>”Brown could have put his money where his mouth is, and volunteered for a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. He didn’t.” and
<
p>”He spent 2 1/2 entire weeks fighting for our freedom, drafting wills in a godforsaken third world barracks. He might have gotten splinters from the table he was writing on!” and
<
p>”your candidate runs around in a military uniform but is actually a desk-job bureaucrat” and
<
p>”In fact, he’s been behind a desk helping soldiers with trust and estate problems”.
<
p>It’s just silly to claim that these comments don’t demean his service, just because no one directly says “I demean his service.” I get the criticism about him using “lawyer” as a slur, when he’s a lawyer himself. But as far as I know, he has never claimed his service is anything other than what it is. If he’s breaking regulations by using photos of himself in campaign literature, then by all means criticize him. But claiming that posing in his uniform is akin to portraying himself as a combat veteran is specious.
Its ludicrous to say that people on this thread have not been denigrating Scott Browns service, they definitely have been and I am opposed to that as much as I am opposed to Brown questioning the patriotism of lawyers and more broadly Scott Brown in general.
He didn’t believe that accused terrorists deserved a defense. One wonders what he would do if tasked to defend a terrorist in a military tribunal. No doubt he would not defend to the best of his ability, but rather purposefully do a shitty job for his country. Cause that’s the patriotic thing to do.
Look, David, I accept your explanation of this post. But in truth it doesn’t quite justify what appears every bit like your dismissal of Brown’s service credentials unless you yourself have served in combat. I have, I served in Somalia in 1993 with BLT 2/5-15th MEU in the Mogue. I’m not saying you must’ve served to have an opinion on the military, but to essentially imply that a non-combat MOS diminishes someone’s currency is to fundamentally misunderstand that the military isn’t solely comprised of infantry soldiers and Marines. Obviously so, in fact, given that infantry assets receive supplies from non-combat elements, and without the former the latter can’t function – just as the infantry wouldn’t know where to go sans the intelligence apparatus.
<
p>It’s true that JAG isn’t quite as viscerally “necessary” as, say, combat teams or intelligence assets, but I ask you this question: If we didn’t have JAG, who would’ve punished Lt. Bill Calley for the My Lai massacre? Has Scott Brown prosecuted such high-level offenders? Not to my knowledge, but that doesn’t mean his service is less-than-honorable.
<
p>Brown’s point about Coakley was evident: He’s a lawyer, yes, but a lawyer in the military. It’s fairly hard to argue that his service is less than patriotic; it is in the military, after all. I’ll admit it was a clumsy point, but if you can’t see the difference between a military and private or non-military public sector lawyer, I guess maybe logic and facts aren’t terribly crucial to you. I don’t intend that as a jab, but as a direct recognition of the facts.
<
p>Look, of the 17 sailors killed in the Cole bombing, I’m fairly sure roughly 15 were in non-combat MOS’s. Of the war dead in Iraq, I’ve heard numbers as high as 40-45% were “non-combat” personnel. Granted, all of those people were deployed, but that doesn’t make hay in this discussion because certain MOS’s simply aren’t deployable. And unless someone wants to argue that Brown selected a non-deployable MOS as a way to avoid combat, I guess I’m more than proud he’s in the military. And if someone DOES want to make that argument, let’s remember that he joined at a time where we weren’t engaged in a war – thus there was no combat to avoid, and signing up of your own volition is hardly an act of “ducking” combat.