Presidential News Conference

[Mason]

Let me first state that I am not a fan of Mr. Bush. However, this is rather painfull to watch. He doesn't answer the tough questions and is basically non-responsive to any question which challenges any of his previous judgments. I can't imagine this conference will be well-received. I'm curious as to whether this will hurt his standing with some of the people who were unsure of him and his policies.

Also, did he say "I'm disappointed in some of the troops"!?!?

[pooky]

I too am very surprised at the low quality of the president's responses. If he doesn't shape up his impromtu speaking skills, Kerry will rip him apart in the debates.

But I have to say, I'm proud of the press corps for growing some spines. I was afraid that they'd give him an easy ride, as they've been known to do.

[vwcruisn]

i like when he was asked why he would testify to the 911 commission together with cheeny (as opposed to seperately as the commision requested) he basically answered.. uhh were going to answer questions. When the reporter called him on it, stating that was not his question, bush again danced around it and basically stated the same thing.. to answer questions.

Also, I loved when he got called on by a reporter if he would appoligize to the families of 911 for any failure that might have occured. He basically said it was bin laden that did it, and therefore refused to appoligize for the loss of the 3000 US victims.

[IJ Reilly]

Of all the muddled presentations I've seen Bush give, this was by far the most disorganized. The question about what mistakes he might have made brought the most astonishing response of all. He seemed genuinely confused to have been asked the question and actually admitted to nearly as much. All of the questions which went to his qualities of leadership were fielded in a similarly vague and inept manner.

[mactastic]

Aw crap. I missed the whole thing. Got home as Dubya turned his back and walked away from the podium. Maybe I'll get to see a replay. Heard he again claimed that questioning his leadership aids our enemy, a charge that will be leveled more and more forcefully between now and November.

[wwworry]

He said he does not make mistakes. What a bonehead! How come no asked him about the fact that Ossama is still on the loose and a third of Afghanistan is under control of various warloards, opium production is way up and the taliban are on the rebound?

Than that talk of God calling on American to invade. That's sure to win the hearts and minds of Muslims everywhere.

[IIvan]

I couldn't believe what a poor presentation Bush gave. He speech was very droll, evoking god, mentioning JUNE 30TH a bunch, and generally just restating what he always said.

BUT THE Q&A PART! He was terrible! He avoided every question, dancing around them in a such a manner that not one set of hands clapped the entire time. He talked much, and said nothing. When asked simple Yes or No kinc of questions, he went off on tangents, often leaving the people I was with to say "...eh, what was the question again??" He was being very evasive and would not admit, even when asked forcefully several times, any wrongdoing. Also, he stumbled and seemed genuinely confused.

NOT a good showing by our nearly majority approved leader... :(

[IJ Reilly]

I have to admit while watching this thing that I was feeling embarrassed for the President and even wondering whether he was sober. It was altogether very strange and disturbing.

[zimv20]

thanks for the impressions; i missed the whole thing. watching ted koppel right now, seems the press' feeling is not dissimilar to the above.

[pseudobrit]

I guess if you put it into a political context, that's the kind of thing the voters will decide next November. That's what elections are about. They'll take a look at me and my opponent and say, let's see, which one of them can better win the war on terror? Who best can see to it that Iraq emerges as a free society?...

I look forward to the debate and the campaign. I look forward to helping -- for the American people to hear, what is a proper use of American power; do we have an obligation to lead, or should we shirk responsibility.

I read through some of the transcript at whitehouse.gov

This gem portends the campaign strategy: if you don't go to out to war and kill people, we'll be attacked at home again.

[Frohickey]

Also, did he say "I'm disappointed in some of the troops"!?!?

Yes. But it was aimed at the Iraqi police that ran and did not fight the insurgents. Essentially, aimed at the people that made a promise to do a job, but when push came to shove, ran away instead.

[Frohickey]

Aw crap. I missed the whole thing. Got home as Dubya turned his back and walked away from the podium. Maybe I'll get to see a replay. Heard he again claimed that questioning his leadership aids our enemy, a charge that will be leveled more and more forcefully between now and November.

Go to www.cspan.org (http://www.cspan.org)

[Mason]

Yes. But it was aimed at the Iraqi police that ran and did not fight the insurgents. Essentially, aimed at the people that made a promise to do a job, but when push came to shove, ran away instead.

Ah. I was only half listening at that point and didn't hear whatever he had said before that. Thanks.

[pseudobrit]

Essentially, aimed at the people that made a promise to do a job, but when push came to shove, ran away instead.

Sort of like getting strings pulled to go into the Air National Guard to avoid a draft?

[IIvan]

Did anyone else notice how he entered the room, no one applauded, no one appluaded any of his points, even the ones he paused after, one laugh was heard when he forgot a reporters name, was questioned severely, and left again in silence?

Maybe the press is tired of how he ****s with them

[Mike Teezie]

Dang, sounds like I missed a show.

Headed over to cnn.com to check it out....

[Frohickey]

Sort of like getting strings pulled to go into the Air National Guard to avoid a draft?

I think if you talk to a few National Guard soldiers/air-men and accuse them of joining up in order to avoid the draft, you might just come back with a few loose teeth in the process.

Guard units and Reservists are more deployable than draftees. Fresh draftees require Basic Training, and Advanced Individual Training before they are considered deployable, especially to a combat unit.

Guard units, and Reservists would have already had their Basic Training requirement taken care off, and are probably in the midst of AIT, much more along the process to becoming deployable.

Somehow, its gotten hold in the public consciousness that joining the reserve components of the military is akin to avoiding military service. If anything, its volunteering to go ahead of the draft! :eek:

Sure, some people volunteer and join the National Guard or Reserve units, and get into programs that require a longer period of training than the 11Bravo draftee (infantry soldier), but the fact that people are needed to be trained for the 11Foxtrot3Hotel (F-16 pilot) for the National Guard means that some other National Guard F-16 pilot has already been called up and is serving in active duty.

Guess who is the next F-16 pilot to be called up when more are needed in the fight?

Some of us were serving in the Reserves during the Gulf War I. We were under no illusion that if the fight were to turn sour that we would be the next to go, ahead of the civilian that hasn't been drafted yet. I suggest that you put the brain into gear before engaging the mouth/fingers. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Sayhey]

I don't like the man or trust him as far as I could throw him, but I think his opening statement was effective. He is a horrible speaker, but he delivers his simplistic lines earnestly. If he had stopped there it would have been a success for the White House. Unfortunately for him, the Press Corps asked some pointed question and his inability to think on his feet or have a command of issues that he should know inside and out was exposed. His famous smirk also came out again in the Q&A. All in all a bad night for Bush.

[pseudobrit]

I think if you talk to a few National Guard soldiers/air-men and accuse them of joining up in order to avoid the draft, you might just come back with a few loose teeth in the process.

Guard units and Reservists are more deployable than draftees.

How many Texas Air National Guardsmen were deployed to Viet Nam?

I suggest that you put the brain into gear before engaging the mouth/fingers. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Before you get so sanctimoniously pissed, answer the above question.

[3rdpath]

finally some tough questions...not that he answered them...

he came across as a sociopath hell-bent on spreading the gospel of bush regardless of the human cost....or "dead bodies on tv" as he so eloquently put it.

he is too simplistic to know that bragging about handing out purple hearts just enforces the perception that we're in another vietnam.

how this silver-spooned posterboy of entitlement can expound about the high price of the freedom he never defended is beyond me...


edit: and frohicky...give it a rest will ya. you know the issue isn't about the reserves...it's about bush's jumping line to get into it, training in an aircraft not usually used in vietnam, then brokering a deal to get out early. sheesh.

[G5orbust]

He also said Saadam supported "suiciders" among other things and had a rich piece on how the UN supported the US and how the US "went in and took care of business."

Bravo, Dubya. Bravo.

[kuyu]

I thought W did a pretty decent job, but I was listening on the radio. The press kept throwing him curves and fastballs, and it sounded like he was hitting most of them back.

Did anyone notice the change in his attitude toward the end. He seemed to say "I'm the president, damnit, and I refuse to back down. If you don't like it, see you in november".

[miloblithe]

Somehow, its gotten hold in the public consciousness that joining the reserve components of the military is akin to avoiding military service. If anything, its volunteering to go ahead of the draft! :eek:

Applied to Bush and Vietnam, that is the most illogical argument I've ever heard. It's like some bad time travel movie.

[Frohickey]

How many Texas Air National Guardsmen were deployed to Viet Nam?

Before you get so sanctimoniously pissed, answer the above question.

How many Air National Guardsmen were deployed to Vietnam? (http://www.ngaus.org/ngmagazine/sidebar600.asp)
Four tactical fighter squadrons--the 120th (Colorado), 174th (Iowa), 188th (New Mexico), and 136th (New York)--deployed to Vietnam. And although not a Guard unit, the Guard can claim credit for a fifth squadron, the 3755th: 85 percent of this tactical fighter squadron's personnel were Air Guard volunteers from New Jersey and the District of Columbia.

None from Texas.

Are you saying that the next time we are in a war, that in order to give the appearance that no one is shirking their duty, that the whole military be deployed, with NO ONE STAYING BEHIND?!!! Oh, I forget, we'll protect the whole country using militia. Oh, but wait, don't you support disarming people because they are not militia (read Second Amendment present particle (http://www.2asisters.org/unabridged.htm)), but now they can be armed when they are militia, but only when they are called up, because its the right of the militia, and its really a state's right. Forget the words right of the people.

(end_sarcasm)

[IJ Reilly]

I read through some of the transcript at whitehouse.gov

This gem portends the campaign strategy: if you don't go to out to war and kill people, we'll be attacked at home again.

Can you post a link to the transcript? This press conference included some classic Bushisms.

[Frohickey]

Applied to Bush and Vietnam, that is the most illogical argument I've ever heard. It's like some bad time travel movie.

Its funny how Democrats all of a sudden get pro-military service when their guy is a Vietnam veteran that is multiply decorated.

But when their guy was known to have dodged the draft (http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/clinton.html) and he was running against a decorated and disabled WW2 veteran (http://www.townhall.com/spotlights/archive/8-28-95/dolebio.html), military service doesn't matter.

[zimv20]

Its funny how Democrats...
are you talking to anyone in particular?


But when their guy was known to have dodged the draft (http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/clinton.html) and he was running against a decorated and disabled WW2 veteran (http://www.townhall.com/spotlights/archive/8-28-95/dolebio.html), military service doesn't matter.
the appalling treatment of max cleland in his unsuccessful senatorial re-election bid trumps anything before it, and hopefully anything after it. don't pretend the GOP is taking the high road on the service thing.

[jefhatfield]

Its funny how Democrats all of a sudden get pro-military service when their guy is a Vietnam veteran that is multiply decorated.

But when their guy was known to have dodged the draft (http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/clinton.html) and he was running against a decorated and disabled WW2 veteran (http://www.townhall.com/spotlights/archive/8-28-95/dolebio.html), military service doesn't matter.


it's called politics ;)

when my dems make a big stink about iraq but then praise kerry for vietnam service, i know this must not come across as the best tactic to win middle of the road voters

if kerry is to be praised, it should be for something he did more recently

[SlyHunter]

Its funny how Democrats all of a sudden get pro-military service when their guy is a Vietnam veteran that is multiply decorated.

But when their guy was known to have dodged the draft (http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/clinton.html) and he was running against a decorated and disabled WW2 veteran (http://www.townhall.com/spotlights/archive/8-28-95/dolebio.html), military service doesn't matter.
Kerry received 3 purple hearts the wounds in total didn't even require 2 days in the hospital. When he got his third purple heart it was due to him purposely raming his boat onto enemy turf (against commanders orders who told him not to do that anymore) accidentally right on top of a fox hole. Somehow he got scratched. Anyhow the Vietcong in the fox hole jumped out and ran away while under the fire of Kerry's M-60 gunner. The Vietcong made it behind a building but was incapacitated. Kerry jumped out of the boat around the building and slit the guys throat thus gaining the Silver Star. This as reported by his fellow crew mates and his commanding officer who was thrilled to see Kerry after his 3 whole months of service leave. A technicality allows anybody with 3 purple hearts to leave. Actually it requires it some soldiers hide wounds to keep from getting that third purple heart but Kerry wasn't one of them. All of them were for bandaid wounds that most Military personel would be embarrassed to receive a purple heart for and would be the favorite joke in his platoon if he did irregardless whether or not he wanted it for a long while.

Kerry's 3 months of vietnam service does not trump George Bush's 5 years several months of his 6 year guard service. BTW I was in the guard if I was sick they would let me skip a weekend, they would not pay me for that weekend but I would not be called awol. If I had a viable excuss like special inventory at work or whatever maybe volunteering for duty helping a candidate get elected they would even give me, a nobody, several weekends (thus months) off without pay and without reporting me as awol or dessertion as such Bush got no treatment I could not have gotten during my 2 year stay in the National Guard.


Don't you ever wonder why kerry continoully refuses to allow his military medical records to be viewed by the public while the democrats demanded that Bush's VP open up his and Bush also opened up his own. They demanded a day to day accountability of Bush's stay in the National Guard while ignoring Kerry's unopened medical file. Talk about hypocrits.

[SlyHunter]

“[T]he fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations,Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, told me — 30 years ago when he was still CNO —that during his own command of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass,by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets.‘We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control,’ the admiral said. ‘Bud’ Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions — but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage.” And this statement was made despite the fact Zumwalt had personally pinned a Silver Star on Mr. Kerry.

Mr. Kerry was assigned to Swiftboat 44 on December 1, 1968. Within 24 hours, he had his first Purple Heart. Mr. Kerry accumulated three Purple Hearts in four months with not even a day of duty lost from wounds, according to his training officer. It’s a pity one cannot read his Purple Heart medical treatment reports which have been withheld from the public. The only person preventing their release is Mr. Kerry.

By his own admission during those four months, Mr. Kerry continually kept ramming his Swiftboat onto an enemy-held shore on assorted occasions alone and with a few men, killing civilians and even a wounded enemy soldier. One can begin to appreciate Zumwalt’s problem with Mr. Kerry as commander of an unarmored craft dependent upon speed of maneuver to keep it and its crew from being shot to pieces.

Mr. Kerry now refers to those civilian deaths as “accidents of war.”And within four days of his third Purple Heart, Mr. Kerry applied to take advantage of a technicality which allowed him to request immediate transfer to a stateside post.

Once back in the States, Mr. Kerry joined “the struggle for our veterans,” as he called it last week in Atlanta, by joining a scruffy organization called the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The VVAW’s executive director, Al Hubbard, supposedly a former Air Force captain wounded in Vietnam, quickly appointed Mr. Kerry to the executive committee.

Mr. Kerry participated with the VVAW at agitprop rallies such as Valley Forge and the “Winter Soldier” guerrilla theater atrocity trials in Detroit, finally testifying in April 1971 before the Senate as an authority on the war crimes his fellow American servicemen had committed in Vietnam.

Outside of his own “accidents of war,” there is no evidence that Mr. Kerry had then or has now the least idea what may or may not have been the realities of ground combat. However, he had no problem reeling off for the Senate a series of unproven, secondhand allegations that would have been perfectly at home at the Nuremberg trials indicting his fellow veterans.

Mr. Kerry stated there were “war crimes committed in Southeast Asia...not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-today basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.” Then Mr. Kerry got specific:

“They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam...we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free-fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam.”

In other words, My Lai was just another day in the life of the Vietnam War.

This wasn’t a one-time occasion. The VVAW had been peddling this line from the day Mr. Kerry joined them and had been publishing charges like this for the previous two years. Mr. Kerry repeated them on “Meet the Press” with Al Hubbard, who was found to be a total fraud and who never served in Vietnam, much less was wounded. However, Mr. Kerry has never renounced the charges he made.

Recently, his fellow VVAW supporter, Jane Fonda, has tried to minimize a potentially damaging picture of him a few rows behind her at the three-day VVAW Valley Forge rally in September 1970. And many members of the press fell for the line that it was accidental or coincidental, including Fox’s Chris Wallace and ABC’s Tim Russert.

However, there were only eight or nine speakers that day, including Donald Sutherland, Mark Lane, Bella Abzug, and Ms. Fonda. And far from being a casual audience member, Mr. Kerry, an executive committee member, not Ms. Fonda, was the lead speaker.

Ms. Fonda had been funding VVAW events since before Mr. Kerry joined its executive committee. At Valley Forge, Ms. Fonda said: “My Lai was not an isolated incident but rather a way of life for many of our military.”

Their appearance together in that picture may be a lot of things, but it was not a coincidence.

Mr. Kerry has already confessed his complicity in killing civilians as “accidents of war.” However, he has offered a classic Nuremberg defense that this was not only a commonplace occurrence throughout the Vietnam War, but he was carrying out a policy “with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”

His commander of naval operations in Vietnam, who specifically designed the mission that Mr. Kerry and the other Swiftboat commanders executed, Admiral Zumwalt, clearly disagreed. An examination of the truth behind this disagreement is not an attack on Mr. Kerry. It is a matter of vital historical interest.

[SlyHunter]

I didn't watch that news conference but Someone had a totally different opinion on it.

President Bush came out swinging last night at his nationally televised press conference, and as usual, the media made a bunch of idiots out of themselves. But that's par for the course, I suppose. Bush began with a 17-minute address to the nation that focused entirely on the situation in Iraq. Throughout the course of his remarks, he shot down just about every argument the Democrats and the media have been making about Iraq. Don't expect to see that analysis in the press reports of his news conference today however.

The president said that the violence in Iraq is neither a civil war, nor an uprising, but rather a power grab by Islamic militants. This fact is clear to anyone who takes a rational view of the situation. So much for the Vietnam comparison. He also stood by the June 30th deadline for handing over power to the Iraqis, much to the consternation of the left and Democrats in Congress. He correctly pointed out that if the Coalition steps back from that pledge, the Iraqis will feel betrayed, something he is not going to let happen. In other words, he wants the word of the United States to actually mean something. Imagine that. If some previous presidents, both Republican and Democrat, had felt the same way we might not be in this fix today.

Then it was send in the clowns time as the media started asking their questions. It wasn't so much a question and answer period as it was an interrogation. First question? How could Bush be so wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and how could he take us to war on false premises? Straight out of the liberal playbook. At the beginning of the war in Iraq John Kerry had the same view on WMDs as did George Bush; ditto for the United Nations and most of Europe. To hear the media tell it there was only one person in the world last March who felt that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMDs, and that person was George Bush.

Then, we had the question that Bush would not answer...and it was priceless, because they tried more than once. Does the president feel any personal responsibility for 9/11? The first question that comes to mind is whether or not it is even appropriate for a reporter to demand apologies from the president at a presidential news conference? But ... ask the question they did.

Look ... he didn't do it. They did it. Osama bin Laden and his assortment of Islamic maniacs. The president's job is not to apologize. His job is to react; to pursue the people who did this thing ... and permanently remove them as a threat to our security and interests.

We started this orgy of apologies during the Clintonista era. They are little more than moral exhibitionism. The reason this reporter was pressing Bush for this apology is because he realizes that an apology would be a de facto acceptance of culpability. Maybe Clinton should apologize.

Then someone asked him if he ever admits any mistakes. He couldn't think of any. The liberals in the media must be seething over that one. Then came the question about the PDB, and they couldn't get him on that either. The underlying premise of many of the questions is the standard liberal mantra these days: that President Bush knew about the attacks on 9/11 before they happened and did nothing. To them, it's all a big conspiracy.

Liberals believe in virtually every conspiracy under the sun, except the one true and obvious conspiracy; the media is liberally biased.

Bush was also repeatedly questioned on his "plan" to resolve the situation in Iraq and bring our troops home. What do they want, an hour-by-hour timetable? The plan stands to turn over Iraqi sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30th. American troops will stay to protect against insurrection. Following the transfer of power there will be free elections. What do they expect from Bush, the names of the candidates?


I like his viewpoint of the speech better than yours.

[SlyHunter]

I remember somewhere posted Bush's income tax report he paid like 228,000 and Kerry's income tax report he paid only 90,000 and it talked about paying their fair share.
A very interesting question I heard on that.

Well, President Bush filed his taxes. Of course, being president, these things are always made public. George and Laura Bush reported federal adjusted gross income of $822,126 and paid $227,490 in federal income taxes, or about 28%. Fairly straightforward, and nothing out of the ordinary. So what about sKerry's taxes? This is where it gets good.

Now, remember..the Bushes filed their taxes together. With much fanfare, the Kerry campaign released his 2003 return, and it showed $395,000 in taxable income with $90,575 in federal income taxes paid, or about 23% of his income. Senator Kerry filed all by his lonesome. Now, obviously all of the mansions that Kerry routinely inhabits around the world aren't coming his way on $395,000 a year. The big money comes from his wife, who is worth millions. But what did she pay? What about her fair share? That we don't know.


Kerry's wife talks bad about wal-mart at some womens club about how their an evil corporation then its found out she owns more than 5 million of their stock. Kerry talks bad about outsourcing jobs and then finds out his wife's company outsources 70% of Heinz Catsups manufacturing units.

Kerry promises 10 million new jobs like he's the only one who can make it happen and then it is reported on tv by Economist that in the next 4 years irregardless to who wins the election as long as they don't mess up the economy's current growth we will have 10 million new jobs in the next 4 years. A record they are predicting irregardless which candidate wins. I don't see how when Kerry plans on taxing business into moving overseas but thats what they said.

[mactastic]

I think if you talk to a few National Guard soldiers/air-men and accuse them of joining up in order to avoid the draft...


Did you ever take Reading Comprehension 101?

In case you didn't.....HE'S TALKING ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH!!!!

[SlyHunter]

Did you ever take Reading Comprehension 101?

In case you didn't.....HE'S TALKING ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH!!!!
If you are saying the Bush joining the guard was to skip out of the war then you are either saying everyone who joins the guard is trying to skip out of the war and insulting all of them or you are saying you are psychic and knew what was going on in Bush's brain.

Another point someone made is the guard fights in allot of the wars so joining it does not mean you skip the war. They use the Air National Guard on bombing missions and would have used Bush's unit had the war gone on longer. They were due for rotation into the arena but got saved by the bell of the peace talks.

Believe it or not not everyone male fought in Vietnam War and not doing so does not disqualify them from becoming president or being commander in chief. In fact most men even of legal age back then did not fight in the war.

Also spending 4 months and getting scratch 3 times committing cold blooded murder on a helpless individual at least once does not give you any special qualification on being the President or Command in Chief either.

[IJ Reilly]

Where are you getting this "information?" No, Bush's unit would not have been called to serve in Vietnam under any circumstances. They were flying old interceptors that would've been useless in that conflict. The chances of him being called up were close to zero.

And yes, serving in the National Guard was one common method of avoiding the draft, and substantially reducing the chances of being sent to 'Nam. That being said, I don't devalue the service of the National Guard, nor do I disrespect those who felt very strongly about not fighting in that war. What a do devalue are the efforts of people like you, who would try to discredit someone who did choose to fight, and earned numerous decorations for their service to the country. Now that's simply scurrilous, disrespectful, and dishonorable.

[SlyHunter]

Where are you getting this "information?" No, Bush's unit would not have been called to serve in Vietnam under any circumstances. They were flying old interceptors that would've been useless in that conflict. The chances of him being called up were close to zero.

And yes, serving in the National Guard was one common method of avoiding the draft, and substantially reducing the chances of being sent to 'Nam. That being said, I don't devalue the service of the National Guard, nor do I disrespect those who felt very strongly about not fighting in that war. What a do devalue are the efforts of people like you, who would try to discredit someone who did choose to fight, and earned numerous decorations for their service to the country. Now that's simply scurrilous, disrespectful, and dishonorable.
Discredit someone who spent a whole 4 months in vietnam, someone who got 3 purple hearts for getting scratched and a silver star because he was too lazy to take prisoners and slit the guys throat instead. Someone who when their voting record against the military is being discussed argues back "well II was in Vietnam". Durn I feel ashamed of myself.

[Sayhey]

Slyhunter

when quoting a source in your post it is customary to give a link to that post. I would like to see where you get your information about Kerry's service to see if it originates in Rove's FUD machine like most of this stuff has in the past. I would refer you to the numerous statements of all but one of Kerry's crewmates who are campaigning for him as to his Vietnam experiences. I'll take their word over yours any day. Check out the videos on Kerry's website that have extensive use of footage of his crewmates. Particularly look at "Brothers in Arms" and "Kerry Reunites with Fellow Veteran in Iowa." Yes, these are campaign pieces, but nobody is forcing these Vets to give their glowing endorsement of Kerry.

Kerry videos (http://www.johnkerry.com/videos/)

As to Bush's career in the National Guard, I would only point you to the Boston Globe's numerous articles on this question and the established fact that political influence was used to jump Bush over many others in order to get him into the Guard. This was into a unit that only could see fire if the Vietnamese Air Force started attacking Houston. A slight exaggeration, perhaps, but not much of one.

[SlyHunter]

Slyhunter

when quoting a source in your post it is customary to give a link to that post. I would like to see where you get your information about Kerry's service to see if it originates in Rove's FUD machine like most of this stuff has in the past. I would refer you to the numerous statements of all but one of Kerry's crewmates who are campaigning for him as to his Vietnam experiences. I'll take their word over yours any day. Check out the videos on Kerry's website that have extensive use of footage of his crewmates. Particularly look at "Brothers in Arms" and "Kerry Reunites with Fellow Veteran in Iowa." Yes, these are campaign pieces, but nobody is forcing these Vets to give their glowing endorsement of Kerry.

Kerry videos (http://www.johnkerry.com/videos/)

As to Bush's career in the National Guard, I would only point you to the Boston Globe's numerous article on this question and the established fact that political influence was used to jump Bush over many others in order to get him into the Guard. This was into a unit that only could see fire if the Vietnamese Air Force started attacking Houston. A slight exaggeration, perhaps, but not much of one.
If their word was worth anything why hasn't Kerry releashed his military medical records?
And if you noticed in the material itself my source was his commanding officer.

[Sayhey]

If their word was worth anything why hasn't Kerry releashed his military medical records?
And if you noticed in the material itself my source was his commanding officer.

So the words of his crewmates who faced enemy fire with him is worth nothing? If I remember correctly Bush has also refused to release his medical records. Maybe privacy is an issue with both of them. I know many are interested to see Bush's records for clues as to why he refused to get his last physical that grounded him from flying. As to Zumwalt's comments, I ask again give me a source and I'd like to check them out.

[SlyHunter]

So the words of his crewmates who faced enemy fire with him is worth nothing? If I remember correctly Bush has also refused to release his medical records. Maybe privacy is an issue with both of them. I know many are interested to see Bush's records for clues as to why he refused to get his last physical that grounded him from flying. As to Zumwalt's comments, I ask again give me a source and I'd like to check them out.
Bush released his records, he released his guard records, his payroll records and yet they still call him a liar. But Kerry hasn't released his medical records to show the damage that he sustained in earning those purple hearts and yet you take his word for it. Even when his own commanding officer reported on Nation wide Television that Kerry didn't deserve them. (quote is above in this thread).

I saw the interview I havn't found that same interview posted here on the internet but I did find a news source of someone talking about his interview which I posted and who it is that posted it is immaterial because you will automatically discount it a right wing propaganda unless it came from some left wing media source. Prove everyone wrong and make Kerry release his medical records. What does he have to hide? Its written right in his military records the conditions for all his awards. And the fact that he only spent 4 months in vietnam is well documented fact.

[SlyHunter]

here is another quote with a specific link for you.

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | I would not have contemplated writing anything even mildly critical of John Kerry's Vietnam service, were he not making it the centerpiece of his campaign, and were not he impugning President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. But as lawyers say before cross examination: "if the witness opens the door..."

Kerry joined the Navy after graduation from Yale in 1966, became an officer, and volunteered for Vietnam. After service on a destroyer, Kerry volunteered again to be a swift boat commander. This was courageous and commendable. Service on the swift boats, which patrolled the Mekong river, was about the only way a sailor who wasn't an aviator or a SEAL could get shot.

Kerry served on swift boats for about four months. During that time, he was awarded the Bronze Star (the lowest decoration for heroism in combat) and the Silver Star (the next higher decoration for valor) and three Purple Hearts for wounds sustained in battle. These latter decorations — like my title of "nationally syndicated columnist" — sound more impressive than they are. All three wounds were minor cuts from shrapnel, which, according to Kerry, caused him to miss a grand total of 2 days of duty.

For soldiers and Marines, especially of the enlisted variety, a Silver Star is a big deal. You've got to do something profound to get one. But the rules were different for officers, especially for naval officers.

This is the action on Feb. 28, 1969, for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star: A Viet Cong fired a B-40 rocket at Kerry's boat, Patrol Craft Fast-94. Tom Belodeau, manning the twin 50-caliber machine guns at the rear of the boat, opened fire on the VC, wounding him. The VC fled behind a hooch. Kerry ordered PCF-94 to shore, leaped out of the boat, pursued the VC, and finished him off.

I can envision grizzled infantrymen shaking their heads. "He got the Silver Star for that?"

Kerry had an advantage most servicemen do not. Medal recommendations have to be made by the commanding officer of the unit in which the heroism took place. Kerry was the commander of PCF-94. Presumably, Kerry's medal recommendation was made by the commander of the squadron to which PCF-94 belonged. But Kerry's commander wasn't there. The evidence he had of the heroism of Lt (jg) John F. Kerry came chiefly from the after action report of Lt. (jg) John F. Kerry.

Shortly after being awarded the Silver Star, Kerry took advantage of a provision in Navy regulations that permits a sailor who has been wounded three times to obtain early release from his combat tour. For Kerry — since his wounds were so minor — this was taking advantage of a technicality. There is nothing wrong with this. Many officers similarly situated would have done the same. But it wasn't heroic.

To recap: Kerry was a double volunteer. As a swift boat commander, he was brave and able. But I am unaware of any soldier or Marine who was awarded a decoration of any kind — much less the Silver Star — just for killing a wounded man who was running away.

Though it is being hyped far beyond what it warrants, Kerry's Vietnam service was honorable. What is not honorable is the way Kerry — in testimony before Congress in April, 1971 — falsely accused his fellow Viet vets of routinely committing grisly war crimes. Nor does it speak well of Kerry that in several demonstrations he marched under the flag of the Viet Cong. It is one thing to oppose the war in Vietnam. It is another to cheer for the enemy.

In the senate, Kerry has a reputation for trying to have things both ways. Kerry exhibited this tendency early on at an antiwar protest in which he flung medals over a fence at the White House — but the medals weren't his own. Kerry says now that he is proud of his Vietnam service. But he said then that he was ashamed of it.

If Kerry plans to use his war service as a credential, he also should also be held to account for his behavior in its aftermath.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1076040/posts
Loussy right wing propagandist right?

[SlyHunter]

And here is Kerry admitting he's a war criminal.

Don't get it second-hand, hear for yourself what Navy veteran John Kerry had to say about the Vietnam War when he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee back on April 19, 1971.
Kerry's statement before the committee will be broadcast on C-SPAN's "Road to the White House" on Sunday, March 21, at 6:30 and 9:30 p.m.
The following Sunday at the same times, "Road to the White House" has Kerry's appearance on "The Dick Cavett Show," also from 1971, when he debated another Navy veteran about the war.

watched with interest the replay of the debate between Kerry and O'Neal on the Dick Cavett Show taped during the month of June, 1971. During the debate, Kerry admitted that he and/or we (his boat crew)commited atrocities during his tour of duty in Viet Nam. He stated this as a way of defending his charge that atrocities were widespread thoughout the war.

How does he now comport his admitted war crimes with his proud claim to have honorably served his country...?


http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/edits/cctblogs/jc/archives/000199.htm

If this is true, and since it came from Kerry's mouth and you claim he's not a liar, then he should be in jail for committing war crimes.

[SlyHunter]

Bet you didn't read this on any of the left wing liberal media channels

against them in Vietnam.”

This is the aspect of Kerry’s record that the major media don’t want to touch. They are apparently intimidated by the medals he won while fighting for the U.S. side against the communists. But there are two groups determined to get the media to pay attention to what Kerry did after he returned from service. They want the public to know that Kerry came back to America, accused his fellow soldiers of atrocities, marched with those seeking a communist victory in Vietnam, and then ran a Senate committee that gave up hope of rescuing American POW/MIAs that were left behind after the war.

The groups are Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry and Vietnamese Americans Against John Kerry. The Vietnamese Americans are angry that Kerry promoted diplomatic relations with Hanoi while failing to promote human rights in Vietnam. They are not alone. One 30-year U.S. Army veteran wrote to us saying that he is “revolted” that the media are failing to reveal Kerry’s dark “secrets.” He calls Kerry the “War ‘Hero’ Traitor” because of how he turned against the war when his fellow soldiers were still fighting and dying on the battlefield.

POW/MIA researcher Roger Hall comments, “Now that it is fashionable for veterans to promote their military status publicly—now that it is popular to be a Vietnam Veteran—Senator Kerry touts his service and medals. But in the 1970s, when it became fashionable to protest the war, he chose that issue to begin his political career and appeared to throw his medals over the fence. Now he retrieves them to flash before our eyes to distract us from his devious ways.” Hall acknowledges that Kerry performed honorably in Vietnam. But he adds, “One brave moment does not outshine a devious and duplicitous person.”

He points to something that has been documented by the Center for Public Integrity, which is hardly a conservative group. It notes that Kerry ran a Senate committee “to investigate the possibility that U.S. prisoners of war and soldiers designated missing in action were still alive in Vietnam.”

But it notes that Kerry’s participation in the committee “became controversial in December 1992 when Hanoi announced that it had awarded Colliers International, a Boston-based real estate company, an exclusive deal to develop its commercial real estate potentially worth billions.” Stuart Forbes, then the CEO of Colliers, is Kerry’s cousin. For his part, Kerry decided there were no living American POW/MIA in Vietnam and the process of restoring diplomatic relations with Vietnam proceeded. Kerry later visited Hanoi to meet with its Communist rulers.


http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/john-kerry-vietnam.html

[numediaman]

Thought some of you guys would get a kick out of this:

From Daily Kos:
Dana Priest reveals in today's WaPo that "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" was just one in a long line of PDBs explicitly designed to catch the attention of even the most disengaged Commander in Chief. Like the August 6 briefing, the earlier reports were clearly titled to give a sense of urgency to the gathering Al Qaida threat, yet Bush and his minions somehow saw fit to write them off as "historical" and devoid of "anything new."

In April and May 2001, for example, the intelligence community headlined some of those reports "Bin Laden planning multiple operations," "Bin Laden network's plans advancing" and "Bin Laden threats are real."

Hmm. "Plans advancing?" "Threats are real?" Looks like someone thought that something "new" was happening -- and was trying to communicate that in very simple words so that the even most uninterested observers would get the effing picture. Of course, it didn't work.

This isn't surprising. In fact, a similar course of events unfolded only 15 years ago, when Bush was playing baseball tycoon. If you look at the Texas Rangers' Owner Scouting Reports (OSRs) from early 1989, you'll note that then-owner Bush may have missed out on the central information that the scouts were trying to impart:

Give Sosa Time To Develop
Sosa Will Be a Bona Fide Starter in 2-3 Years
Sosa: Future All-Star, Possible Hall-of-Famer. No Question.
Trading Sammy Sosa -- A Man Who Will Probably Hit Over 500 Home Runs in His Career -- Will Ruin Rangers Franchise for Decades, You Jackass

The guy just can't take a hint.

[Sayhey]

Bush released his records, he released his guard records, his payroll records and yet they still call him a liar. But Kerry hasn't released his medical records to show the damage that he sustained in earning those purple hearts and yet you take his word for it. Even when his own commanding officer reported on Nation wide Television that Kerry didn't deserve them. (quote is above in this thread).

I saw the interview I havn't found that same interview posted here on the internet but I did find a news source of someone talking about his interview which I posted and who it is that posted it is immaterial because you will automatically discount it a right wing propaganda unless it came from some left wing media source. Prove everyone wrong and make Kerry release his medical records. What does he have to hide? Its written right in his military records the conditions for all his awards. And the fact that he only spent 4 months in vietnam is well documented fact.

Bush did not release his medical records, unless you claim his dental exam was the sum total of his medical records.

I don't see why you can't just provide a link to the quote you posted and let us all see where this font of knowledge comes from. I don't automatically assume if it comes from the Weekly Standard or the Wall Street Journal that it is wrong. I would like to check out your source - why the refusal to let us see it?

As to if Kerry deserved his medals, just how do you think he got them? What undo influence over Zumwalt and others did he have? If you want to be taken seriously around these subjects you should back up your smears.

[IJ Reilly]

How about despicable? I think that was the adjective I was groping for. Contemptible, cheap, low, reprehensible, disgusting ... these words also work to describe this kind of, loathsome, feculent character assassination.

[SlyHunter]

Bush did not release his medical records, unless you claim his dental exam was the sum total of his medical records.

I don't see why you can't just provide a link to the quote you posted and let us all see where this font of knowledge comes from. I don't automatically assume if it comes from the Weekly Standard or the Wall Street Journal that it is wrong. I would like to check out your source - why the refusal to let us see it?

As to if Kerry deserved his medals, just how do you think he got them? What undo influence over Zumwalt and others did he have? If you want to be taken seriously around these subjects you should back up your smears.
I bet you posted this before I wrote those followup links one of which come from his own lips.

[SlyHunter]

How about despicable? I think that was the adjective I was groping for. Contemptible, cheap, low, reprehensible, disgusting ... these words also work to describe this kind of, loathsome, feculent character assassination.
You mean like calling Bush a desserter? :p

[numediaman]

How about despicable? I think that was the adjective I was groping for. Contemptible, cheap, low, reprehensible, disgusting ... these words also work to describe this kind of, loathsome, feculent character assassination.

Is this an exact quote from my last performance review?

[SlyHunter]

Thought some of you guys would get a kick out of this:

From Daily Kos:
Dana Priest reveals in today's WaPo that "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" was just one in a long line of PDBs explicitly designed to catch the attention of even the most disengaged Commander in Chief. Like the August 6 briefing, the earlier reports were clearly titled to give a sense of urgency to the gathering Al Qaida threat, yet Bush and his minions somehow saw fit to write them off as "historical" and devoid of "anything new."

In April and May 2001, for example, the intelligence community headlined some of those reports "Bin Laden planning multiple operations," "Bin Laden network's plans advancing" and "Bin Laden threats are real."

Hmm. "Plans advancing?" "Threats are real?" Looks like someone thought that something "new" was happening -- and was trying to communicate that in very simple words so that the even most uninterested observers would get the effing picture. Of course, it didn't work.

The guy just can't take a hint.

Nothing there tells us what to guard. You cannot guard/protect everything. You cannot arrest a bunch of Middle Easterners for learning how to fly even if you suspect that they are here to commit terrorism. Prior to 9/11 there was nothing anyone could do to stop them that was legal. You cannot stop the world and put up 100% terrorist proof barriers around every building, plan, and military facility and nor would anyone had been willing to pay for even a percentage of that protection. They would've announced that Bush was taking money away from the poor to protect those who are paid to protect us (the military), or taking money away fromt he poor to fix something that wasn't broken (air port security). Prior to 9/11 nobody would've been willing to allow Bush or anyon president to do what was necessary to prevent 9/11.

[IJ Reilly]

You mean like calling Bush a desserter? :p

Who did that?

[mactastic]

You mean like calling Bush a desserter? :p


Of course he likes desserts! Who doesn't? The question is whether he was AWOL at any point from his unit and therefore considered a deserter :D

And lets see if I can get this straight... You're denigrating a man who served this country in combat and proudly holding up Dubya's service record as something to be proud of while Kerry should be ashamed of his? I suppose you hold your highest regard for those who skipped off to Canada during Vietnam by that logic! :eek:

[Sayhey]

How about despicable? I think that was the adjective I was groping for. Contemptible, cheap, low, reprehensible, disgusting ... these words also work to describe this kind of, loathsome, feculent character assassination.

I agree, IJ. In 1996 the Clinton campaign waged a hard fought and tough campaign against Bob Dole. Never to my knowledge did they spread lies about his service in WWII. In 2002 the Rove inspired campaign against Georgia Senator Max Cleland had his face morphed into Osama bin Ladin and depicted the decorated Vietnam Vet as a traitor because of his vote that would have preserved union rights for Homeland Security employees. These are two end of the spectrum of how a campaign can be waged. Now Rove and friends are trying to continue this kind of character assassination of Kerry through the web where there are no editors to say that there is no proof.

Again, I will trust the men who served with Kerry, including the one sailor who went on shore with him in the engagement where he won his silver star, and who now have taken time out from their lives to campaign for him for President.

Slyhunter, if you don't think atrocities where committed in Vietnam by US troops you should read the Pulitzer Prize winner articles on the Tiger Force published in The Blade of Toledo, Ohio.

Tiger Force (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE)

[mactastic]

Who did that?

All liberals obviously.

[Sayhey]

I bet you posted this before I wrote those followup links one of which come from his own lips.

You still haven't posted the original link I requested. I tried your link to the Cavett interview but all I get is a bulletin board of the Cape Cod Times with comments about his supposed atrocities. I will look at CSPAN and see if I can get the footage. You also don't seem to want to respond to points I've made, but rather throw up another long quote of folks who agree with you.

[IJ Reilly]

Sayhey, I suppose that's true, but I don't need to validate my point by comparison. Low is just low. Lies and slanders are just lies and slanders. I'm sickened by the fact that the talk radio mentality has become an integral part of the political discourse in the US.

Too much is made of this military service thing, anyway. Like I said before, I don't hold someone's finding a way to escape serving in Vietnam against them. People made the choice to serve or not serve for reasons of their own, and unless we're anxious to open that old wound, we should respect these decisions, and at long last, just let that one go. Personally, I'm grateful to have not been faced with the decision, though I came close (the draft ended the year before I was eligible).

So now, we're faced with a really strange situation: two presidential candidates, one of whom was in favor of the war in Vietnam, but found a way out of serving; and another, who was opposed to the war, but decided to serve, and did so with distinction. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would buy the spin that the former conducted himself during this time with more honor then the latter. It just boggles the mind.

Still, I'd just as soon leave the entire military service question out of the debate. It's really just a distraction from the important issues we face. But from a political point of view, we know why Kerry has to be attacked for his service during the Vietnam war -- it's entirely about what his conduct during this time says for about his character, and by unflattering reference, what it says about Bush's character. So it has to be brought up in this weird and twisted way, and not by Kerry, but by the attack dogs of the right. Just so we understand what's going on here.

[Frohickey]

Nothing there tells us what to guard. You cannot guard/protect everything. You cannot arrest a bunch of Middle Easterners for learning how to fly even if you suspect that they are here to commit terrorism.

Why not?

Their guy did much more after the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. Maybe we should have rounded up every single person with a strange sounding last name that prays in the direction of Saudi Arabia and put them all into concentration camps.

(the above is sarcasm)

[Sayhey]

Sayhey, I suppose that's true, but I don't need to validate my point by comparison. Low is just low. Lies and slanders are just lies and slanders. I'm sickened by the fact that the talk radio mentality has become an integral part of the political discourse in the US.

Too much is made of this military service thing, anyway. Like I said before, I don't hold someone's finding a way to escape serving in Vietnam against them. People made the choice to serve or not serve for reasons of their own, and unless we're anxious to open that old wound, we should respect these decisions, and at long last, just let that one go. Personally, I'm grateful to have not been faced with the decision, though I came close (the draft ended the year before I was eligible).

So now, we're faced with a really strange situation: two presidential candidates, one of whom was in favor of the war in Vietnam, but found a way out of serving; and another, who was opposed to the war, but decided to serve, and did so with distinction. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would buy the spin that the former conducted himself during this time with more honor then the latter. It just boggles the mind.

Still, I'd just as soon leave the entire military service question out of the debate. It's really just a distraction from the important issues we face. But from a political point of view, we know why Kerry has to be attacked for his service during the Vietnam war -- it's entirely about what his conduct during this time says for about his character, and by unflattering reference, what it says about Bush's character. So it has to be brought up in this weird and twisted way, and not by Kerry, but by the attack dogs of the right. Just so we understand what's going on here.

IJ, I won't vote for Kerry because he is a war hero. Too many of my friends refused to serve in that war on moral grounds for me to care what people did concerning serving or not serving in Vietnam. My only interest in Bush's record is in the hypocrisy it shows in his willingness to send others off to die in wars. Even his use of political influence to get into the Guard over others is more of an indictment of his father than G.W. Bush. If it wasn't for his policy in Iraq it wouldn't be an issue at all.

The smears that are being circulated are another matter all together. These attempts to rewrite history to make Kerry into a war criminal or a ambitious rich boy who somehow didn't earn his medals are just part of the same machine that puts out innuendo about about Dick Clarke's sex life, outs Ambassador Wilson's wife as a CIA agent, or smears the character of Generals who raised questions about Iraqi war plans. I agree with you the reasoning of anyone who would buy the spin coming out of the White House does indeed boggle the mind.

There also does seem to be attempts to call into question Kerry's loyalty on the basis of his anti-war record when he returned home. If we have to revisit those old battles then I would remind the Bushies that there were an awful lot of us who opposed the Vietnam War. They cannot try to paint all of the millions who helped end that war as unpatriotic and expect no response. If Rove wants to fight this out on who supported Vietnam War and who did not, then he must expect Bush's record in that time to become an issue. Slyhunter's delusions aside, that is not a contest they can expect to win.

[kuyu]

It seems like some people are grilling Bush for not acting soon enough regarding bin Laden and the PDB. This seems rational, until we consider what would have happened if he would have acted. If bin Laden's org would have been destroyed in 6 weeks, the Kennedy's of the world would have called Bush a "war-monger", "violent killer", and "unprovoked".

However, the same people that want Bush impeached for NOT pre-empting 911, want him impeached for pre-empting Saddam. Clinton and Bush BOTH got multiple PDB's about Saddam's plans for future anti-American violence.

Well, using the logic that every PDB regarding a nearly sure threat to the US requires decisive military intervention, then the case for the Iraq war becomes apparent.

Therefore, by arguing that Bush should have responded to the PDB about bin Laden, we are TOTALLY backing Bush's reasons for going to war with Iraq.

Bush's main point last night was that in a post 911 world, pre-emption has become a necessary step in the protection of innocent American's. Blood will be shed, no matter which course our nation chooses. However, it's either going to be shed by us and on our own soil... or it's going to be shed by our enemies on their soil. As the president, Bush must watch out for us first. If that means pre-emption, then the course is clear. If that means passivity and diplomatic stalling, we may wake up one day to find that our nation is no longer the strong, free, and liberated America that our forefathers died to create.

[toontra]

Well, using the logic that every PDB regarding a nearly sure threat to the US requires decisive military intervention, then the case for the Iraq war becomes apparent.

What threat did Iraq pose to the US?

[mactastic]

What threat did Iraq pose to the US?

Apparently Saddam had been repeatedly breaking into Frohickey's home and killing his pets. :p

[toontra]

Apparently Saddam had been repeatedly breaking into Frohickey's home and killing his pets. :p

Ah - no wonder he's pissed. :p

[zimv20]

However, the same people that want Bush impeached for NOT pre-empting 911, want him impeached for pre-empting Saddam. Clinton and Bush BOTH got multiple PDB's about Saddam's plans for future anti-American violence.

Well, using the logic that every PDB regarding a nearly sure threat to the US requires decisive military intervention, then the case for the Iraq war becomes apparent.

consider the different levels of 9/11 "pre-emption". one would be to invade afghanistan. another would be to inform the FAA and airlines of hijacking threats. (apparently, the second one was never done)

iraq: one method of pre-emption was sanctions. from a WMD standpoint, it's becoming painfully apparent how successful it was.

[numediaman]

It seems like some people are grilling Bush for not acting soon enough regarding bin Laden and the PDB. This seems rational, until we consider what would have happened if he would have acted. If bin Laden's org would have been destroyed in 6 weeks, the Kennedy's of the world would have called Bush a "war-monger", "violent killer", and "unprovoked".

However, the same people that want Bush impeached for NOT pre-empting 911, want him impeached for pre-empting Saddam. Clinton and Bush BOTH got multiple PDB's about Saddam's plans for future anti-American violence.

Well, using the logic that every PDB regarding a nearly sure threat to the US requires decisive military intervention, then the case for the Iraq war becomes apparent.

Therefore, by arguing that Bush should have responded to the PDB about bin Laden, we are TOTALLY backing Bush's reasons for going to war with Iraq.

Bush's main point last night was that in a post 911 world, pre-emption has become a necessary step in the protection of innocent American's. Blood will be shed, no matter which course our nation chooses. However, it's either going to be shed by us and on our own soil... or it's going to be shed by our enemies on their soil. As the president, Bush must watch out for us first. If that means pre-emption, then the course is clear. If that means passivity and diplomatic stalling, we may wake up one day to find that our nation is no longer the strong, free, and liberated America that our forefathers died to create.

I do not believe Bush should be impeached because of 9/11. His administration's judgement and anti-Clinton prejudice certainly did not do anything to protect America -- but none of that is illegal.

However, I do believe invading Iraq is an impeachable offense. First, while the preemptive invasion of another nation is legal if it is self-defense, I have seen absolutely no evidence that Saddam was preparing an attack on the U.S. Second, this is an impeachable offense because of the lies associated with the invasion.

But frankly I do not think we should waste our time impeaching the President. For one thing, we have an election in November that will do the trick. Secondly, the Republicans will simply say this is revenge for Clinton.

But, once Kerry is in office, however, I think Bush (and others) should be handed over to the Hague. :D

[zimv20]

I think Bush (and others) should be handed over to the Hague. :D
the irony of such an action would fill an ocean. and i love irony.

[Frohickey]

But, once Kerry is in office, however, I think Bush (and others) should be handed over to the Hague. :D

I think not. That would be handing sovereignty away from the United States, and for that, you need to have a Constitutional Convention.

If its done without a Constitutional Convention, I would urge people to do what it takes to take back their sovereign nation, and hold the people involved for trial for treason.

[SlyHunter]

Of course he likes desserts! Who doesn't? The question is whether he was AWOL at any point from his unit and therefore considered a deserter :D

And lets see if I can get this straight... You're denigrating a man who served this country in combat and proudly holding up Dubya's service record as something to be proud of while Kerry should be ashamed of his? I suppose you hold your highest regard for those who skipped off to Canada during Vietnam by that logic! :eek:
Ok people show how Kerry voted against he F-16, the anti missile rocket, military pay raises, a bunch of other military stuff that makes it easier for us to win. People show how kerry voted against the 87 billion to pay for em.

What is Kerry;'s reply? "You can't denigrate my patrotism I was in vietnam."
1. they weren't talking about his patrotism.
2. what does him being in vietnam have to do with the way he voted against our military capabilities thus for weakening our military structure?
3. If he and or his spokes people feel to make it a big issue that Bush took a couple of Authorized days off in the NG and call him a desserter then stand on his vietname 4 months of service we have a right to question him. And thus the right to see his military record to see just how did he really get those purple hearts.

BTW I spent 2 years NG. If I was sick with the flu I called in sick and took the weekend off (thus month 1 weekend a month means I skipped the whole month). They had no problem with it I was not paid but it counted towards my 2 year stay. If I needed time to do inventory, help someone win an election whatever and asked for time off they would have given it to me. Especially if I was near the end of my tour of duty for training time is wasted on those about to out process. But they may have simply been nice guys. You are saying Bush should not have gotten the same considerations I did get when I spent time in the NG. Your saying he should've been treated special and forced to work every single schedule weekend even tho they don't do that to everyoen else. There is no proof he did go awol yet you keep harping on it. There is proof Kerry is making a big deal out of 4 months in vietnam while real soldiers spent 1-2 years over there, the ones who lived to tell the tale. I want equal treatment between presidential candidates.

[Sayhey]

I think not. That would be handing sovereignty away from the United States, and for that, you need to have a Constitutional Convention.

No, the Constitution recognizes treaty commitments as the highest law of the land. All the US would have to do is ratify the 1998 treaty that established the Court. We are now one of seven countries - including China, Iraq, Libya, Qatar, Yemen, and Israel - that have refused to ratify the treaty.

[kuyu]

What threat did Iraq pose to the US?

We'll never know... And that's the point.

None of us seriously thought that bin Laden posed a threat to the US before 911. But we sure as heck found out that he did that morning.

Our presidents' knew about bin Laden, Saddam, Uday, Qusay, and a litany of other tyrrants years ago. We are always under threat. The difference is, we now understand that these terrorists have declared war on us. We must fight them. Saddam paid for, trained, and rewarded terrorists and their families. However, thanks to our president and Congress (including Kerry), he won't do it again.

Iran's probably next. The message is simple: Support nationless armies of radicals, we WILL end you. Harbor terrorists, we WILL end you. Kill inocent civilians, we WILL end you.
Disuade and disarm such groups, we WILL reward you.

[SlyHunter]

As to whether or not Bush shared his medical record either you are mistaken or this is a lie.

Medical records open for review
NBC’s David Gregory reported on MSNBC’s “Hardball” that White House officials were divided over whether to release the president’s entire personnel record, fearing that reporters would be able to go “trolling for stories” unrelated to his service in the Guard. But in the end, they decided that they had to honor Bush’s commitment in an interview last weekend on NBC’s “Meet the Press” to open up all of his service record, officials said.

Bush’s medical records — dozens more pages in all — were also opened for examination Friday by reporters in the Roosevelt Room, but that material was not being distributed publicly.

Those records documented that Bush was suspended from flying status beginning Aug. 1, 1972, because of his failure to have an annual medical examination.

His medical checks, from 1968 through 1971, show no signs of illness at the time except for a brief episode of hemorrhoid symptoms.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4251208/
And don't give me no crap about right wing propaganda this came from PMSNBC themselves.

USA today

President Bush released his Vietnam-era military records Friday to counter Democrats' suggestions that he shirked his duty in the Texas Air National Guard. These documents detail Bush's service in the Guard from 1968 until 1973. Bush's medical records were opened for examination by reporters in the Roosevelt Room, but those documents were not allowed to leave the room and are not included below.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-02-14-bush-docs.htm
This link also takes you to links that show pdf's of Bush's guard record.

[mactastic]

We'll never know... And that's the point.

What point? That we can do what we want?

None of us seriously thought that bin Laden posed a threat to the US before 911. But we sure as heck found out that he did that morning.

I don't know about you, but I sure knew UBL was a threat and had declared war on the US prior to 9/11. And if I knew that, the president damn well should have too.

Our presidents' knew about bin Laden, Saddam, Uday, Qusay, and a litany of other tyrrants years ago. We are always under threat. The difference is, we now understand that these terrorists have declared war on us. We must fight them. Saddam paid for, trained, and rewarded terrorists and their families. However, thanks to our president and Congress (including Kerry), he won't do it again.

Ok, so first you say none of us seriously thought UBL was a threat then you turn around and say we knew about the threat for years. Which is it?

Iran's probably next. The message is simple: Support nationless armies of radicals, we WILL end you. Harbor terrorists, we WILL end you. Kill inocent civilians, we WILL end you.
Disuade and disarm such groups, we WILL reward you.

Yeah like we rewarded Saddam in the '80's? The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

[numediaman]

We'll never know... And that's the point.

None of us seriously thought that bin Laden posed a threat to the US before 911. But we sure as heck found out that he did that morning.

Our presidents' knew about bin Laden, Saddam, Uday, Qusay, and a litany of other tyrrants years ago. We are always under threat. The difference is, we now understand that these terrorists have declared war on us. We must fight them. Saddam paid for, trained, and rewarded terrorists and their families. However, thanks to our president and Congress (including Kerry), he won't do it again.

Iran's probably next. The message is simple: Support nationless armies of radicals, we WILL end you. Harbor terrorists, we WILL end you. Kill inocent civilians, we WILL end you.
Disuade and disarm such groups, we WILL reward you.

I agree with nothing here. 1) I knew Bin Ladin was a threat before 9/11. The Cole was in 1998, and he had publicly declared war on the U.S. by then. CNN had an interview and profile on Bin Ladin in 1997, and Bin Ladin had been indicted by the U.S. in 1996.

2) As for Iraq, where was the threat? We effectly controlled 50% of the country thanks to the no-fly zone, and he clearly couldn't move a finger without the threat of U.S. intervention.

Unless, of course, you are saying that Iraq equals the war on terrorism -- in which case you immediately go on the ignore list (unless you can come up with evidence. To date, Bush, Powell and the CIA can't. Can you?)

[SlyHunter]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Hundreds of pages of documents that the White House said comprise President Bush's entire military record offer no new answers to the election-year questions that have swirled around his Vietnam-era service. Democrats who have led the criticism greeted Friday's release of documents with skepticism.

"Each revelation of material from the Bush White House has raised more questions than it has answered," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Debra DeShong. "It remains to be seen if these newest documents will provide any answers."

The documents also show no sign that Bush received special treatment either to get into the Guard when there were long waiting lists at the height of the Vietnam War or to be discharged from it nearly eight months before his six-year service obligation was completed in order to attend Harvard Business School; that he was subject to any disciplinary action while in the military; or that damaging details were hidden in his medical record.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040214/D80N1IDO0.html

Reminder if I a nobody wanted to take off early to help in an election, volunteer for the peace corp, whatever anything that sounded halfway valid they would have let me.

[vwcruisn]

We'll never know... And that's the point.

None of us seriously thought that bin Laden posed a threat to the US before 911. But we sure as heck found out that he did that morning.

Our presidents' knew about bin Laden, Saddam, Uday, Qusay, and a litany of other tyrrants years ago. We are always under threat. The difference is, we now understand that these terrorists have declared war on us. We must fight them. Saddam paid for, trained, and rewarded terrorists and their families. However, thanks to our president and Congress (including Kerry), he won't do it again.

Iran's probably next. The message is simple: Support nationless armies of radicals, we WILL end you. Harbor terrorists, we WILL end you. Kill inocent civilians, we WILL end you.
Disuade and disarm such groups, we WILL reward you.


Didnt know bin laden was a threat? are you kidding? what about the weapons he supplied and the orders he gave to somalia to down our blackhawks. and the previous attack on WTC. Hmm, what about the PDB document entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." ****ing A' if thats not a threat.. then what would have to happen for someone to be considered as such?

[SlyHunter]

Didnt know bin laden was a threat? are you kidding? what about the weapons he supplied and the orders he gave to somalia to down our blackhawks. and the previous attack on WTC. Hmm, what about the PDB document entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." ****ing A' if thats not a threat.. then what would have to happen for someone to be considered as such?
Lots of people threaten to attack the US. Right now N. Korea is threatening to nuke California would you suggest we skip diplomacy and nuke them?

We can't react to every threat we have to pick and choose based on our nations best interest and priorities. 9/11 made Bin Laden a priority he wasn't one before then. Ok they may play with that word and say he was "a priority" but he wasn't "the priority" 9/11 demanded immediate reaction. Saddam taking 12 years with no end in sight showing that diplomacy wasn't working demanded action.
The other examples, let diplomacy work awhile longer.

If Bush had tried to do anythign about Ben Laden before 9/11 the press would've been all over is rear. And you would've demanded his impeachment. When you are in a no win situation you do the best you can and let the chips fall where they may.

[Sayhey]

SlyHunter, so Bush let medical records be viewed by a few reporters but would not let any be released to the public. Seems like that is what you are asking Kerry to do, but you don't hold Bush to the same standard. This is because you want to know if Kerry's wounds were significant enough to warrant the Purple Heart. Kindly show me where it says that wounds must disable a soldier or sailor for a certain amount of days for him or her to qualify for the award.

Purple Heart criteria (http://www.purpleheart.org/Awd_of_PH.htm)

You consistently denigrate Kerry's tour in Vietnam, but have yet to tell me what you think of the statements of the sailors and soldiers that served with him or were saved by his actions. Why don't you go back to the links I provided and spend some time listening to people who are in the position to know the truth.

[kuyu]

Okay, I'm going to try to respond to all three of these at once. Bear with me.

;)
One, bin Laden always posed a threat to the US. But none of thought it was imminant. How many of you called your local police department to report bin Laden as dangerous and suspicious? The FBI? Anyone... thought not. Otherwise the attacks never would have happened.

The point is... Had we taken out bin Laden for Somalia (clinton), WTC one (Clinton), Cole (clinton), CNN profile (clinton), 1996 indictment (clinton), or the august PDB (Bush), the attack wouldn't have likely happened. But we didn't. So, we saw what happens when madmen are left to hatch more schemes.

Iraq's the same story. Had we taken out Saddam for killing thousands of Kurds (Reagan, i think), invading Kuwait (Bush I), training terrorists to highjack planes (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush), paying terrorists (R, B, C, B), ignoring umpteen UN resolutions (BCB), forcing inspectors to retreat to cypress (bush), sending MIG's into the no fly zone to "lock" our jets (BCB), giving weapons to terrorists (RBCB), then the attack on our.................... Wait, this attack never happened because we FINALLY learned that we can't just hope these guys go away, and kicked Saddam's butt.

He won't be the last tyrrant to fall at the hands of the US.

Oh yeah, if I train, fund, scout, recruit, equip, and mobilize terrorists, then doesn't that make me a terrorist?

[SlyHunter]

SlyHunter, so Bush let medical records be viewed by a few reporters but would not let any be released to the public. Seems like that is what you are asking Kerry to do, but you don't hold Bush to the same standard. This is because you want to know if Kerry's wounds were significant enough to warrant the Purple Heart. Kindly show me where it says that wounds must disable a soldier or sailor for a certain amount of days for him or her to qualify for the award.

Purple Heart criteria (http://www.purpleheart.org/Awd_of_PH.htm)

You consistently denigrate Kerry's tour in Vietnam, but have yet to tell me what you think of the statements of the sailors and soldiers that served with him or were saved by his actions. Why don't you go back to the links I provided and spend some time listening to people who are in the position to know the truth.
People who have political reasons to want him to win.
Nah I'll skip em.

[mactastic]

Oh yeah, if I train, fund, scout, recruit, equip, and mobilize terrorists, then doesn't that make me a terrorist?

Are you referring to the Reagan/Bush policy of arming and training Islamic militants? Or are you referring to the School of the Americas? :eek:

[mactastic]

People who have political reasons to want him to win.
Nah I'll skip em.

Lol... And you don't think those same political forces aren't at work on both sides? Get real!

[SlyHunter]

Are you referring to the Reagan/Bush policy of arming and training Islamic militants? Or are you referring to the School of the Americas? :eek:
There was a stupid short sighted policy that everyone including myself (but I was a naive kid) thought was good and that is arming the lesser of evils to get rid of the worst of evils hopeing that the ones we helped would appreciate the help and grow into better Governments, people, whatever. Didn't work with Saddam, didn't work with allot of people and because we screwed up in the past is not a argument for not coming up with methods that might work better in the present.

[mactastic]

There was a stupid short sighted policy that everyone including myself (but I was a naive kid) thought was good and that is arming the lesser of evils to get rid of the worst of evils hopeing that the ones we helped would appreciate the help and grow into better Governments, people, whatever. Didn't work with Saddam, didn't work with allot of people and because we screwed up in the past is not a argument for not coming up with methods that might work better in the present.

Sure, only problem is that you are advocating the same methods that have landed us in the position we are in now. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is........

[Sayhey]

People who have political reasons to want him to win.
Nah I'll skip em.

So I'll just take it that you don't want the truth to interfere with your opinion based on smears put out by political opponents. If you can't take the time to listen to the people who would be in the position to know then how can anyone take what you say seriously. On top of that you still haven't provided the link I asked for pages ago. Are you just throwing out nonsense and trolling for a response?

[Sayhey]

OK, for the record, here is an account given by a former Green Beret of the "cowardly" actions that no good John Kerry was guilty of in Vietnam.

Rassmann was 21 at the time, a Special Forces lieutenant in charge of a company of American and Chinese fighters. On that day, they traveled on a convoy of five patrol boats led by the 25-year-old Kerry, a Navy lieutenant — and they were on the run, being chased down the Bay Hap River by enemy soldiers firing guns and rockets.

The group had already lost one soldier that day. As they sped down the river, one boat was blown out of the water, and then another. An explosion wounded Kerry in the arm and threw Rassmann into the river. Rassmann dove to the bottom to avoid being run over by the other boats. When he surfaced, he saw the convoy had gone ahead.

Viet Cong snipers fired at him, and Rassmann submerged over and over to avoid being hit. The bullets came from both banks, and Rassmann had nowhere to go. He began thinking his time had come, but the fifth time he came up, he saw the convoy had turned around. Kerry had ordered the boats back to pick up the man overboard.

Kerry's boat, under heavy fire, sidled up to the struggling soldier. Rassmann tried to scramble up a cargo net at the bow but was too exhausted to make it all the way. He clung to the net as bullets whizzed past.

"Next thing I knew, John came out in the middle of all this," Rassmann says. "I couldn't believe it. He was going to get killed. He ran to the edge, reached over with his good arm [Kerry had been wounded in his right arm] and pulled me over the lip."

Rassmann later recommended Kerry for the Silver Star, and was upset when the Army instead awarded Kerry a lesser Bronze Star with a "V" for valor. The medal citation described Kerry's actions on the river that day.


LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-vietnamvet13mar13,1,4247569.story?coll=la-headlines-nation)

Damn, what a no good sleaze who used his influence to get a gravy assignment! ;)

P.S. - Rassmann is a registered republican.

[SlyHunter]

Sure, only problem is that you are advocating the same methods that have landed us in the position we are in now. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is........
Saddam had 12 years to abide by the peace treaty how much longer were we suppose to wait? This isn't us siding with the least evil this is removing and obstacle to real peace.

[takao]

Oh yeah, if I train, fund, scout, recruit, equip, and mobilize terrorists, then doesn't that make me a terrorist?

example
USSR vs afghanistan war:

cia trained taliban in guerilla tactics
cia helped them with funding and had no problem with their opium-dealing either
equip: stinger missiles, need i say more ?
recruit/mobilize:same here

doesn't make this the CIA a terrorist organisation too ? ;)

the USSR called those groups terrorists when they were at war with them
the third reich called the members of the french,polish,jugoslawian resistance terrorists

if you call somebody a 'terrorist' or 'fighter for liberty' is only determinited by the point of view


personal view:
*first to take away the power from saddam hussein or the taliban was a good thing (IMHO)
what was wrong was:
*in both cases nobody knew what to do afterwards
*the way it was done (no support from the UN in case of iraq)
*the reasons why it was done

for me personnaly the things the terrorists are doing were and still are terrible but i do not dare to decide if the things they are doing are right or wrong
they are just in the same boat as the palestinians suicide bombers, the isrealian politicians or the coalition forces in iraq
only history will tell who was right and if the actions were justified

[poopyhead]

off topic
but
who is this slyhunter?
who has time to post 64 times in one day?
who would post 64 times in one day with every single post ardently supporting bush and nothing else?
who joins a mac forum, lists their computer as an IBM, and then takes it upon themselves to hijack the political discussions?

has the bush campaign taken it upon themselves to hire individuals to post into online political forums?
where did slyhunters information come from?
is it baseless bush propaganda?

[zimv20]

who has time to post 64 times in one day?

is that right? holy cow! and there's still a few hours left


has the bush campaign taken it upon themselves to hire individuals to post into online political forums?

interesting theory. too bad there's no way we can verify it.

[SlyHunter]

example
USSR vs afghanistan war:

cia trained taliban in guerilla tactics
cia helped them with funding and had no problem with their opium-dealing either
equip: stinger missiles, need i say more ?
recruit/mobilize:same here

doesn't make this the CIA a terrorist organisation too ? ;)

the USSR called those groups terrorists when they were at war with them
the third reich called the members of the french,polish,jugoslawian resistance terrorists

if you call somebody a 'terrorist' or 'fighter for liberty' is only determinited by the point of view


personal view:
*first to take away the power from saddam hussein or the taliban was a good thing (IMHO)
what was wrong was:
*in both cases nobody knew what to do afterwards
*the way it was done (no support from the UN in case of iraq)
*the reasons why it was done

for me personnaly the things the terrorists are doing were and still are terrible but i do not dare to decide if the things they are doing are right or wrong
they are just in the same boat as the palestinians suicide bombers, the isrealian politicians or the coalition forces in iraq
only history will tell who was right and if the actions were justified
I define a terrorist as someone who picks their targets not on their military value but on the value on the heartstring of the folks he's attacking. I define a terrorist as someone who blows up a movie theater to kill civilians to make a point.
A freedom fighter fights the military forces not the civilians.
And yes civilians die in any war the difference is in the motives and ethics of those doing the attacks.

And yes the US has done bad things in our past. No we should not then not do anything at all for fear someone will hold our past against us. We can only try to do what is right in the present and the future.

[SlyHunter]

off topic
but
who is this slyhunter?
who has time to post 64 times in one day?
who would post 64 times in one day with every single post ardently supporting bush and nothing else?
who joins a mac forum, lists their computer as an IBM, and then takes it upon themselves to hijack the political discussions?

has the bush campaign taken it upon themselves to hire individuals to post into online political forums?
where did slyhunters information come from?
is it baseless bush propaganda?
I got bored in the forum I was in. The only folks that were left were the ones who agreed with me and the lunatics that could never be convinced they were wrong. I did a search on Google for Left Wing radicals who needed their blindfolds removed and this was the top of the list. I have no interest in discussion macs and I could've left IBM completly off my profile but decided it would probably be interesting to see who it would iritate if I didn't. When it comes down to it for the purpose of this discussion it doesn't matter if I was using a Commodore 64 or an Atari 64 for as I read somewhere in some rules you should attack the message and not the messenger.

[Rower_CPU]

I got bored in the forum I was in. The only folks that were left were the ones who agreed with me and the lunatics that could never be convinced they were wrong. I did a search on Google for Left Wing radicals who needed their blindfolds removed and this was the top of the list. I have no interest in discussion macs and I could've left IBM completly off my profile but decided it would probably be interesting to see who it would iritate if I didn't. When it comes down to it for the purpose of this discussion it doesn't matter if I was using a Commodore 64 or an Atari 64 for as I read somewhere in some rules you should attack the message and not the messenger.
(emphasis mine)

With rhetoric like that your departure from this forum won't be due to boredom.

First and only warning to adhere to the forum rules (http://forums.macrumors.com/announcement.php?s=&forumid=4). This goes for everyone else, too. Please report posts.

[poopyhead]

I got bored in the forum I was in. The only folks that were left were the ones who agreed with me and the lunatics that could never be convinced they were wrong. I did a search on Google for Left Wing radicals who needed their blindfolds removed and this was the top of the list. I have no interest in discussion macs and I could've left IBM completly off my profile but decided it would probably be interesting to see who it would iritate if I didn't. When it comes down to it for the purpose of this discussion it doesn't matter if I was using a Commodore 64 or an Atari 64 for as I read somewhere in some rules you should attack the message and not the messenger.

there was not attack
simply a noting of facts
and a series of questions

alluding to questions of ones possible credibility or lack thereof in no way constitutes an attack

[poopyhead]

He said he does not make mistakes...

I've always found people who were unable to admit their mistakes or at least admit to the possibility that they have been wrong disgusting. My question is, is a man such as bush who is unable to see fault in any of his actions fit for leadership? I do not direct this question/statement as so much a slam against bush's dealings in Iraq for while I feel that he was misguided it seems much to early to judge the long term outcome or possible righteousness of his actions, I instead aim this more squarely at what seems to be a personal flaw. Sure the reporter put him on the spot, but what man or woman capable of self reflection or hindsight is not able to find fault within himself? More directly, if a man or woman is unable to clearly reflect upon their past actions can they truly asses the present or the future and thereby be trusted to act responsibly and with circumspect
thought?

[SlyHunter]

I've always found people who were unable to admit their mistakes or at least admit to the possibility that they have been wrong disgusting. My question is, is a man such as bush who is unable to see fault in any of his actions fit for leadership? I do not direct this question/statement as so much a slam against bush's dealings in Iraq for while I feel that he was misguided it seems much to early to judge the long term outcome or possible righteousness of his actions, I instead aim this more squarely at what seems to be a personal flaw. Sure the reporter put him on the spot, but what man or woman capable of self reflection or hindsight is not able to find fault within himself? More directly, if a man or woman is unable to clearly reflect upon their past actions can they truly asses the present or the future and thereby be trusted to act responsibly and with circumspect
thought?
It was a trap. If Bush admitted to any mistake then the press would announce it repeatedly for the next 8 months that even Bush admits he was wrong lets elect Kerry.

[poopyhead]

It was a trap. If Bush admitted to any mistake then the press would announce it repeatedly for the next 8 months that even Bush admits he was wrong lets elect Kerry.

He previously admitted that trading sammy sosa (?) was the worst thing he has ever done
he could have easily come up with a non political response
such as
"I let Laura cut my hair"
"while on my ranch I tried to milk a stear"
"I bought cheney a double quarter pounder with cheese *insert awkward smirk here* I thought we were gonna' have a national security incident when his heart turned into a wmd *uncomfortable wink to the ladies*"
"that second bottle of butter schnapps last night"

[takao]

I define a terrorist as someone who picks their targets not on their military value but on the value on the heartstring of the folks he's attacking. .

well you just defined the US air force, the RAF or any other air force as terrorists
50 years ago it was called "carpet bombing" now it's called "shock and awe"


I define a terrorist as someone who blows up a movie theater to kill civilians to make a point.

what about shooting with an tank gun into a hotel with foreign journalists by mistake ?
or hitting an embassy with a cruise missile by mistake ?
or hitting an _iranian_ oil refinery during a war in _iraq_ by mistake ?
illegal crossing of austrian airspace with armed stealth bombers in the radar shadow of an allowed unarmed transport flight ?


A freedom fighter fights the military forces not the civilians.
And yes civilians die in any war the difference is in the motives and ethics of those doing the attacks.


it would be nice if this would have held true in history...
who decides which ethics are right and which are wrong ? the USA ?


And yes the US has done bad things in our past. No we should not then not do anything at all for fear someone will hold our past against us. We can only try to do what is right in the present and the future.

same here: who decides what is right and what is not ? _your_ ethics ?

mankind _can_ and _should_ learn from the past even from the past of a different country .... ignore the mistakes of the past and you will make the same mistakes over and over again

but i will end now because i need some sleep (nearly 4 am here)
i will end my posts with some quotes from historic peoples or some nice lyrics which i like for you to think about:

"The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted all the alternatives."
- Winston Churchill

...
There's something wrong with the world today,
Only the people that are fighting for...
...A better place in the world today,
They don't believe that they gone too far,
...They're falling down.
...
- "Rebellion in Dreamland" - Gamma Ray

"People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an
election."
-Otto Von Bismarck


"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a
crime."
- Ernest Hemingway

and now the 'in the face' versions:
from 1995: Refused - "Burn it"
"....
human life is still worth less than possession of power
we are the slaves of today under fascist co-operation
structure to maintain the awareness and civilization we made
the lands we plundered and the cultures we raped
we are all a part of progression - the victims of a capitalist system
just statistics in history books that glorify the mass-murders and the genocide's
..."
i'm not going to post the best lyrics because i would get banned for them (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Hate-Breeds-Hate-lyrics-Refused/955AC5183C27BFB748256C68002BECFE)

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter

I define a terrorist as someone who blows up a movie theater to kill civilians to make a point.


what about shooting with an tank gun into a hotel with foreign journalists by mistake ?
or hitting an embassy with a cruise missile by mistake ?
or hitting an _iranian_ oil refinery during a war in _iraq_ by mistake ?
illegal crossing of austrian airspace with armed stealth bombers in the radar shadow of an allowed unarmed transport flight ?


Key word there is by mistake. I do realize its very little consolation to the ones who got hit by that mistake but still.
That illegal crossing one tho I don't know what I would call that?

[poopyhead]

Key word there is by mistake. I do realize its very little consolation to the ones who got hit by that mistake but still.
That illegal crossing one tho I don't know what I would call that?

we are a big boy country with big boy weapons
THE most powerful, technologically advanced, expensive, and supposedly most accurate weapons in the world.
I find it odd that we continually "mistakenly" hit advantageous tactical/political targets.

[Frohickey]

mankind _can_ and _should_ learn from the past even from the past of a different country .... ignore the mistakes of the past and you will make the same mistakes over and over again

but i will end now because i need some sleep (nearly 4 am here)
i will end my posts with some quotes from historic peoples or some nice lyrics which i like for you to think about:


What mistakes of the past are we making now? Should we have appeased various ruthless dictators, just like Neville Chamberlain did? Remember "...peace for our time..."?

I'll end this with another quote.

"Never turn your back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!" -- Winston Churchill

[Frohickey]

we are a big boy country with big boy weapons
THE most powerful, technologically advanced, expensive, and supposedly most accurate weapons in the world.
I find it odd that we continually "mistakenly" hit advantageous tactical/political targets.

I don't think the weapons target themselves. People are still in the loop, and people are the ones responsible for targetting the weapons. If you have a lot of targets that are to be hit, and you have a set amount of people, you might not have as much time to check and recheck the targets. That is what happened.

Besides, what we have are precise weapons, not necessarily accurate weapons.

[zimv20]

what we have are precise weapons, not necessarily accurate weapons.
i'm a big fan of that distinction

[poopyhead]

I don't think the weapons target themselves. People are still in the loop, and people are the ones responsible for targetting the weapons. If you have a lot of targets that are to be hit, and you have a set amount of people, you might not have as much time to check and recheck the targets. That is what happened.

Besides, what we have are precise weapons, not necessarily accurate weapons.

but still
what we want to do is hit the correct target once
instead of the wrong target repetedly

they are being sold to us as being precise
that was the point of the GPS integration

[IJ Reilly]

It was a trap. If Bush admitted to any mistake then the press would announce it repeatedly for the next 8 months that even Bush admits he was wrong lets elect Kerry.

Yeah, that's right -- he can't admit an error because someone is liable to notice. No, in fact he can't admit an error because he believes he is never wrong.

[SlyHunter]

Yeah, that's right -- he can't admit an error because someone is liable to notice. No, in fact he can't admit an error because he believes he is never wrong.
I didn't realize you were Psychic.

[poopyhead]

It was a trap. If Bush admitted to any mistake then the press would announce it repeatedly for the next 8 months that even Bush admits he was wrong lets elect Kerry.

you appear to prognosticate as well

[IJ Reilly]

I didn't realize you were Psychic.

No, just observant.

[numediaman]

As far as I know, the only evidence I have ever seen produced by the White House to support their claim that Saddam Hussein supported Al Qaeda was the assertion that Abu Musad al-Zarqawi was being hosted in Baghdad for a time in order to get medical treatment.

Now this from a Molly Ivins column today:

. . . we now learn that Abu Musad al-Zarqawi has two legs.

This will not strike you as a stop-the-presses moment unless you remember that al-Zarqawi was one of Osama bin Laden's No. 2 men (we seem to have captured several "No. 2 " men already, with more still out there.) Pre-war, the Bush administration claimed the reason it was so certain Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda was that al-Zarqawi had gone to Baghdad to get his leg amputated. But now, oops, he has two.

I'm sure conservative dismiss Ivins because she is both a Texan and a liberal (i.e. traitor), but I don't remember her making things up -- though, this is the first time I've read this.

[Sayhey]

As far as I know, the only evidence I have ever seen produced by the White House to support their claim that Saddam Hussein supported Al Qaeda was the assertion that Abu Musad al-Zarqawi was being hosted in Baghdad for a time in order to get medical treatment.

Now this from a Molly Ivins column today:

. . . we now learn that Abu Musad al-Zarqawi has two legs.

This will not strike you as a stop-the-presses moment unless you remember that al-Zarqawi was one of Osama bin Laden's No. 2 men (we seem to have captured several "No. 2 " men already, with more still out there.) Pre-war, the Bush administration claimed the reason it was so certain Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda was that al-Zarqawi had gone to Baghdad to get his leg amputated. But now, oops, he has two.

I'm sure conservative dismiss Ivins because she is both a Texan and a liberal (i.e. traitor), but I don't remember her making things up -- though, this is the first time I've read this.

I'd heard this before, but I didn't understand the significance of al-Zarqawi now being believed to have both of his legs. I didn't know that was the reason given for his supposed medical treatment in Iraq. It seems like another reason for the Iraq invasion that Bush will chalk up to faulty intelligence. Never mind that no one else believed these supposed ties existed, including almost everyone in the US intelligence agencies.

[SlyHunter]

There was a photo spread around on tV about two kids holding up a poster that said this solder killed my dad now we are friends or something like that. The photo was faked. The real photo is too big to post here without disrupting the normal width of the posts so I'll just paste a link.
http://www.imagedump.com/index.cgi?pick=get&tp=59682&user=all3
In case they delete the link for some reason the sign actually said "Lcpl Boudreax saved my dad then he rescued my sister."

Not putting this up for propoganda there are actual photos pro and against everything putting this up because those who are against seem to feel they have to increase their argument thru the use of lies and deceit.

[SlyHunter]

I'd heard this before, but I didn't understand the significance of al-Zarqawi now being believed to have both of his legs. I didn't know that was the reason given for his supposed medical treatment in Iraq. It seems like another reason for the Iraq invasion that Bush will chalk up to faulty intelligence. Never mind that no one else believed these supposed ties existed, including almost everyone in the US intelligence agencies.
Nevermind the fact that we found and destroyed an Al-Qaeda training camp in Iraq.
Nevermind the fact that Saddam pays checks = to 10 years of their income to the family members of suicide bombers as a reward for being a terrorist.
Nevermind the fact that Saddam proved by invading Kuwaitt that he couldn't be trusted to not want to spread his wings if/when he had the weapons to do so.
nevermind the fact that Saddam would probably nuke Israel the first chance he gets if he ever actually got Nuclear weapons.
Nevermind the fact that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people.
Nevermind the fact that he's the type to run torture and crap like the one where he hangs women upside down when their on their period just for fun.
Nevermind the fact that Saddam is an animal and you don't negotiate with animals.
Nevermind the fact that Saddam in 12 years never followed thru on his promises to abide by the surrender agreement that he himself signed.
Lets ignore all of that.

[Sayhey]

Nevermind the fact that we found and destroyed an Al-Qaeda training camp in Iraq.
Nevermind the fact that Saddam pays checks = to 10 years of their income to the family members of suicide bombers as a reward for being a terrorist.
Nevermind the fact that Saddam proved by invading Kuwaitt that he couldn't be trusted to not want to spread his wings if/when he had the weapons to do so.
nevermind the fact that Saddam would probably nuke Israel the first chance he gets if he ever actually got Nuclear weapons.
Nevermind the fact that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people.
Nevermind the fact that he's the type to run torture and crap like the one where he hangs women upside down when their on their period just for fun.
Nevermind the fact that Saddam is an animal and you don't negotiate with animals.
Nevermind the fact that Saddam in 12 years never followed thru on his promises to abide by the surrender agreement that he himself signed.
Lets ignore all of that.

OK, I said this before, but because you are new to these forums I will say it again. I worked with Iraqis who called Saddam a fascist and organized for his overthrow when Reagan and Bush thought he was the answer to their prayers and helped to arm him against the Iranians. I haven't changed my position on what Saddam was and is in the last twenty years. I'm very glad he is in prison. Does any of that mean that I think the preemptive invasion was a good thing for the US to do? NO! Democracy is not brought about at the point of a bayonet. It was and is a stupid policy if one actually believes any of the administration's three reasons for launching the war (WMDs, al Qaeda ties, or to build democracy in Iraq.) If you actually read the perspectives of the neoconservative architects of this war, which have been published over the last decade, then you find the geopolitical reasons for the projection of military power in the region as the real impetus for the invasion.

Oh, and if you think the attacks on Ansar al-Islam's camps prove a link between al Qaeda and Saddam you need to do some more reading. If you think the monetary link to families of Palestinian suicide bombers is a reason to invade then we need to invade most all of the Islamic countries of the Middle East.

[SlyHunter]

Oh, and if you think the attacks on Ansar al-Islam's camps prove a link between al Qaeda and Saddam you need to do some more reading. If you think the monetary link to families of Palestinian suicide bombers is a reason to invade then we need to invade most all of the Islamic countries of the Middle East.
I do think that.
I just don't think its feasable or affordable to do so.

[IJ Reilly]

Bush couldn't identify any slip-ups of his. In the process, he gave wrong facts about Libyan arms.

From Reuters

April 15, 2004

WASHINGTON — While struggling unsuccessfully during his news conference this week to think of a single mistake he had made since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, President Bush committed three factual errors about weapon finds in Libya, the White House said Wednesday.

Bush, long known for his grammatical conundrums and confusing phraseology, told reporters twice during Tuesday's news conference that 50 tons of mustard gas were discovered at a turkey farm in Libya.

On the second occasion, he was responding to a reporter who asked him to identify the biggest mistake he had made since Sept. 11.

He could not. But as he searched for an answer, the president reaffirmed his decision to invade Iraq and said weapons of mass destruction might still lie hidden there.

"They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm," said Bush, referring to Libya's voluntary disclosure of weapons in March.

Wednesday, the White House said the accurate figure for the Libyan mustard gas was 26 tons, not 50 tons.

Moreover, the substance was found at different locations in Libya, not at a turkey farm. And observers did not find mustard gas on the farm but, rather, unfilled chemical munitions, the White House said.

"We just want to correct the record," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-errors15apr15,1,7042550.story

[Frohickey]

but still
what we want to do is hit the correct target once
instead of the wrong target repetedly

they are being sold to us as being precise
that was the point of the GPS integration

Of course we want to hit the correct target once. If I have a precision instrument, lets say a laser-range finder with a micrometer attachment, that can precisely measure distances. And you go tell me that 3295.3004806 meters away from this location, there is a cache of Powerbook G5s, and I go and use this precision instrument, and go try to find the cache of Powerbook G5s, but I don't find it, its not the fault of the precision instrument.

The reason I didn't find the cache of Powerbook G5s is that the information given to me was wrong, or inaccurate. I prefer to use the word 'wrong'.

[3rdpath]

I didn't watch that news conference but Someone had a totally different opinion on it.

I like his viewpoint of the speech better than yours.



you might want to at least watch the speech that IS the subject of the thread before throwing around opinions. oh wait, the opinions you post aren't even yours.

how desperately shallow...