Draft dodger vs. decorated veteran

[mcfudd]

Many of my Republican friends cannot stand the thought of Kerry running the White House. Bush is doing a fine job of keeping the nation "safe." Kerry is one of those soft Democrats who will drop the ball if elected.

However, Bush spent Vietnam pulling a coveted National Guard tour arranged -- no doubt -- by his very influential "skull and bones" daddy. Bush cannot even come clean about whether or not he showed up for that. (Kerry is also "skull and bones" and probably could have pulled strings to get a National Guard tour if he wanted to.)

Kerry on the other hand, enlisted, and earned numerous medals while serving in actual combat in Vietnam. He earned his stripes and has my respect as a real military leader. Just like McCain, he has been there.

So who do you want in office to clean-up the Iraq mess. A former coke-addict who is making his oil buddies richer with your tax money? Let's not forget Rummy running the Pentagon for another four years.

Or, do you want a decorated war veteran? Not a perfect person, just someone who has more solid credentials.

[dopefiend]

Neither of them. :mad:

[takao]

Neither of them. :mad:

couldn't agree more ...

[skunk]

couldn't agree more ...
Kerry couldn't be WORSE. Could he? :confused:

[takao]

Kerry couldn't be WORSE. Could he? :confused:

of course he could be worse and bush could be worse too...

i don't have much sympathy for kerry but at least it is not bush

[Neserk]

I'd have no problem with Bush dodging the draft if he did legitmately. It the claiming he served his country in the National Guard when he didn't that pisses me off. If you don't believe in a war and refuse to go that is one thing. It is a whole other thing to be a warmonger and claim you served your country when you didn't.

[IJ Reilly]

couldn't agree more ...

With all due respect, this is a decision for US voters to make.

[janey]

I'd have no problem with Bush dodging the draft if he did legitmately. It the claiming he served his country in the National Guard when he didn't that pisses me off. If you don't believe in a war and refuse to go that is one thing. It is a whole other thing to be a warmonger and claim you served your country when you didn't.
how does one dodge the draft legitimately? Like applying for conscienscious objector status isnt dodging the draft, having a legitimate medical reason or two doesnt quite mean you dodge the draft...

[mcfudd]

With all due respect, this is a decision for US voters to make.

It is true this will be decided by US voters. But, the outcome will impact nearly every country on earth.

If Bush wins, even by one vote, then it sends a message to the rest of the world that the "US voters" support his policy in Iraq and elsewhere. It does not account for all of the people who vote against Bush (and his possie Cheney, Rumsfield, Ashcroft, etc.)

If Kerry wins, it can send a message to the UN and Europe that the Bush policy was a mistake and it is time to rebuild relationships between allies (ie. Germany, France, etc.) and the UN --- and regain some credibility.

A win for Bush will put his "doctrine" into overdrive. It will validate everything he has done up to this point.

I don't know about you, but the US is looking less like a constitutional democracy, and more like a fascist dictatorship (think Patriot Act, Carnivoir, CAPPS 2, Total Information Awareness, Etc.)

[Neserk]

how does one dodge the draft legitimately? ...

Flee to Canada, go to jail, etc.

If you are going to dodge the draft than do with pride because you think the war or war in general is wrong. Don't do it and then turn around and start a war, especially not an illegitimate war.

[Neserk]

A win for Bush will put his "doctrine" into overdrive. It will validate everything he has done up to this point.

I don't know about you, but the US is looking less like a constitutional democracy, and more like a fascist dictatorship (think Patriot Act, Carnivoir, CAPPS 2, Total Information Awareness, Etc.)

This is exactly what I have been saying for a while now.

[Desertrat]

Just to muddy the waters:

Dubya's getting into the NG was no different than tens of thousands of others. His behavior while therein is subject to debate, but it's piddlin' in the whisky to get excited that he was in the NG.

Kerry's three Purple Hearts were from self-reported wounds, with no hospital time. The doctor who treated the third wound stated it was a piece of metal about one millimeter in thickness and some three millimeters in length; it was removed with tweezers and "treated" with a BandAid. After the third, he asked to be removed from the RVN.

Compare: An administrative problem in WW II in the ETO was for guys to go AWOL from hospitals to rejoin their outfits in the front lines, rather than be sent back to England or the States. Another problem was that the guys at the front wouldn't report any non-incapacitating wounds, in order to not leave their buddies.

We're a little short of heroes...

'Rat

[Neserk]

We're a little short of heroes...

'Rat

War heroes are the kind I can do without. There is no glory or honor is killing others. The real heroes are the ones who help others, not the ones who harm others.

[mcfudd]

Dubya's getting into the NG was no different than tens of thousands of others. His behavior while therein is subject to debate, but it's piddlin' in the whisky to get excited that he was in the NG.

No doubt. I would have done a tour in Canada if I could not get one in the NG. However, Kerry did not opt for this. He enlisted and put himself in harms way. Not a popular thing for a rich kid during the 1960s to do.

The point is more along the lines of what is "W" doing sending kids to die in Iraq when he was not willing to do the same.

You might argue -- the Vietnam war was an unpopular war waged by the Washington elite in an effort to support the military-industrial complex. Well I have yet to see any evidence the Iraq mess is any different.

[Desertrat]

Neserk, sounds to me like you have a rather distorted view of folks who've been in war. They know better than most why war isn't fun. The heroism part shows that they have the self-discipline to control their fears. Medals for valor commonly are awarded because they put themselves in harm's way to protect or save others on the scene at that time.

It's real easy to help others when there's no stress involved...

mcfudd, as to Vietnam, read up on the SEATO agreement, signed by Ike and ratified by Congress. It's a bit more accurate, in assessing that war, to say it was "fought stoopid", rather than the fight was unjustified. IMO, the antecedent political error was the assumption by John Foster Dulles that Communism was a monolithic, uniform-goal worldwide unity. The appendix of Lederer's and Burdick's book "And He Is Us" offers some worthwhile explanatory reading, although the entire book is quite valuable...

'Rat

[Neserk]

Neserk, sounds to me like you have a rather distorted view of folks who've been in war. They know better than most why war isn't fun. The heroism part shows that they have the self-discipline to control their fears. Medals for valor commonly are awarded because they put themselves in harm's way to protect or save others on the scene at that time.


all I know is what I hear from people who have been there. And it is pretty pathetic.

And why are they putting themselves in harms way? Because they are in someone else's country fighting against them? When you are the aggressor it doesn't count. That is called Karma, I believe.

[Sayhey]

The heroism part shows that they have the self-discipline to control their fears. Medals for valor commonly are awarded because they put themselves in harm's way to protect or save others on the scene at that time.

Which is of course what Kerry did when he won his Silver and Bronze Stars. You seem to dismiss this while not taking Bush to task for using his considerable family influence to get into the National Guard. An act that prevented him from ever having a realistic possibility of seeing live fire. 'Rat, do I need to provide the links from testimony that shows how Bush family friends got him in the NG over many others more qualified? I think you know it and don't want to acknowledge it. At the same time you are willing to buy every slander put out by the Bush campaign to slur Kerry's distinguished record. If you think none of this matters, then fine, but don't waste the time trying to compare what Bush and Kerry did.

[mcfudd]

mcfudd, as to Vietnam, read up on the SEATO agreement, signed by Ike and ratified by Congress. It's a bit more accurate, in assessing that war, to say it was "fought stoopid", rather than the fight was unjustified. IMO, the antecedent political error was the assumption by John Foster Dulles that Communism was a monolithic, uniform-goal worldwide unity. The appendix of Lederer's and Burdick's book "And He Is Us" offers some worthwhile explanatory reading, although the entire book is quite valuable...

Whether you are talking about Kissinger and "containment" or the Bush/Cheney doctrine of "preemptive" strikes, the whole thing stinks.

I don't need another CNN analyst or Washington insider to tell me what is going on. The real beneficiaries of these conflicts are:

1. The intellectual advisors who get to test their academic ideologies in the real world. (Namely, Kissinger’s belief in the falling domino theory and desire to contain the spread of communism in Vietnam.)

2. The defense contractors and the rest of the pigs that comprise the military-industrial complex.

But, to risk moving away from the original point of this post, I still think Bush took the cowards’ way out compared to Kerry.

It makes me particularly angry now that "W" is so arrogant with his "social engineering" and his effort to turn Iraq into a US approved democracy.

[Sayhey]

mcfudd, as to Vietnam, read up on the SEATO agreement, signed by Ike and ratified by Congress. It's a bit more accurate, in assessing that war, to say it was "fought stoopid", rather than the fight was unjustified. IMO, the antecedent political error was the assumption by John Foster Dulles that Communism was a monolithic, uniform-goal worldwide unity. The appendix of Lederer's and Burdick's book "And He Is Us" offers some worthwhile explanatory reading, although the entire book is quite valuable...

'Rat

'Rat, did you ever read the Pentagon Papers? It has been years since I've read them, but I remember them as a searing indictment of the Vietnam War. Oh, and in case you have forgot, they were penned by folks in the Pentagon.

[Krizoitz]

all I know is what I hear from people who have been there. And it is pretty pathetic.

And why are they putting themselves in harms way? Because they are in someone else's country fighting against them? When you are the aggressor it doesn't count. That is called Karma, I believe.

Yeah what were we thinking during WWII we should just have stayed home and let Hitler alone...

[dopefiend]

War heroes are the kind I can do without. There is no glory or honor is killing others. The real heroes are the ones who help others, not the ones who harm others.

What about the people having to kill to help others?


Yeah what were we thinking during WWII we should just have stayed home and let Hitler alone...

Don't try to convince a wall that its a window, its a hopeless cause.

[skunk]

Yeah what were we thinking during WWII we should just have stayed home and let Hitler alone...
I think you'll find WWII was not a war of aggression...

[dopefiend]

I think you'll find WWII was not a war of aggression...

:eek: Thats a joke right?

[skunk]

:eek: Thats a joke right?
No. Pay attention. We were talking about the US going in to WWII. As far as I remember, the Allies were not the aggressors in WWII :rolleyes:

[Stelliform]

If you phrase the argument draft dodger vs. decorated veteran, Kerry might not have a chance. Lets look two elections back. On one hand we had Clinton who was smoking pot in England during the Vietnam war, and then we had Bob Dole who was severely wounded in WWII, and still bears the signs.

Guess who won the election. So I don't think that the fact that Kerry went to Vietnam will resonate with voters come November.

[Desertrat]

Again: Dubya's getting into the NG was part of an "everybody's doing it" pattern, with the "everybody" being the muckety-mucks of the country. Personally, I don't approve of it, but I'm not gonna get my shorts in a wad over common behavior: Parents have different views of how to protect their kids.

Whatever Dubya did thirty years ago, I don't really care. Whatever Kerry did thirty years ago, I don't really care. If I vote against Kerry, it will be due to his voting pattern in Congress and my views of what that shows me of his fundamental political philosophy.

As far as the Pentagon Papers, they're irrelevant to such things as the SEA Treaty and SEATO. If you can't look at the whole pre-LBJ Vietnam deal in the context of the 1940s and 1950s, forget it. Events don't "just grow like Topsy"; there are reasons. That's why I brought up the Lederer/Burdick book.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Again: Dubya's getting into the NG was part of an "everybody's doing it" pattern, with the "everybody" being the muckety-mucks of the country.

Again: Clearly, not everyone was doing it. And again: This wouldn't even be an issue if we weren't hearing these constant recitations of questions about Kerry's service record.

[Neserk]

What about the people having to kill to help others?


As I said earlier, when you invade another person's country and are fired upon, its Karma.




Don't try to convince a wall that its a window, its a hopeless cause.

WWII is a completely different matter.

[Neserk]

Whatever Dubya did thirty years ago, I don't really care. Whatever Kerry did thirty years ago, I don't really care. If I vote against Kerry, it will be due to his voting pattern in Congress and my views of what that shows me of his fundamental political philosophy.



Best prediction of future behavior is past behavior. You should care *very much* what Dubya did 30 years ago!

What he did to TX he did to the US.

[mcfudd]

Whatever Dubya did thirty years ago, I don't really care. Whatever Kerry did thirty years ago, I don't really care. If I vote against Kerry, it will be due to his voting pattern in Congress

Too bad Kerry cannot bury his voting record in his father's Presidential Library ---- just like Bush did with all of the records from his tour-of-duty as Governor of Texas.

If he was such a good leader in TX, then why hide everything from public scrutiny. Secrets and Lies ---- is anybody thinking Nixon????

:eek:

[Desertrat]

By and large, Bush' doings during his tenure as governor were pretty good for the state. I don't have a clue why there's any secret about his doings as governor, or even how they'd be secret. Now, personal notes and commentaries, what do they have to do with what's publicly known? The notes and commenaries might show why he'd approve or veto something, but so what? The record is public as to Yea or Nay on legislative issues which came to his desk.

I'll say this much about the boy: He was, overall, more competent at the gubernatorial level than he's been at the presidential level. He hasn't quite "risen to the occasion" as did Truman. I'd agree with those who say he's not curious enough, and that he trusts his advisors' advice to too great a degree.

'Rat

[Desertrat]

You might find this book review of interest:

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_07/review.html

While all of the review is of interest, and I'm gonna buy the book, this paragraph might give you an idea about ex-military folks in politics:

"Curiously, too, almost none of the neoconservatives who back up the Vulcans served in the armed forces—most avidly sought out deferments, with Vice President Dick Cheney getting five of them because, as he said later, “I had other priorities.” Yet their policies are unidimensionally devoted to using military force, at almost every turn and with very few of the old rules and principles to hold them back. Here, too, they stand in sharpest contrast to the American establishment that came out of World War II. Almost all the leaders of that establishment were military men, some of them true heroes, and their contribution to their generation and to their country was to establish great peaceful institutions spanning the world that uniquely combined the political, the economic, and the social with the military only secondary in their plans."

My point, earlier, obviously not well made, speaks to "...great peaceful institutions..."

'Rat

[Neserk]

You might find this book review of interest:

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_07/review.html

While all of the review is of interest, and I'm gonna buy the book, this paragraph might give you an idea about ex-military folks in politics:

"Curiously, too, almost none of the neoconservatives who back up the Vulcans served in the armed forces—most avidly sought out deferments, with Vice President Dick Cheney getting five of them because, as he said later, “I had other priorities.” Yet their policies are unidimensionally devoted to using military force, at almost every turn and with very few of the old rules and principles to hold them back. Here, too, they stand in sharpest contrast to the American establishment that came out of World War II. Almost all the leaders of that establishment were military men, some of them true heroes, and their contribution to their generation and to their country was to establish great peaceful institutions spanning the world that uniquely combined the political, the economic, and the social with the military only secondary in their plans."

My point, earlier, obviously not well made, speaks to "...great peaceful institutions..."

'Rat

I'll have to check it out (literallyl, from the library).

What I don't get is that if the military people are so anti-war then why do they vote for people like Bush? From what I gather around here the military is primarily Republican. Republicans are more likely to give up quickly on diplomacy and jump into war. :confused:

[Sun Baked]

couldn't agree more ...I guess that leaves Ralph Nader... who would probably get SUVs removed from the road during his term in office. :p

[numediaman]

There's not really a good thread for this, and I don't think it merits a new one, so . . .

Check out this site for a series of "ads":

http://homepage.mac.com/rcareaga/diebold/adworks.htm#the_top

Sample:

[IJ Reilly]

There's not really a good thread for this, and I don't think it merits a new one, so . . .

Check out this site for a series of "ads":

Brilliant stuff. Thanks.

[KingSleaze]

all I know is what I hear from people who have been there. And it is pretty pathetic.

And why are they putting themselves in harms way?.

As someone who has served his time, and been there-It's a learning experience for which there is no equal.

I retired from the US Navy recently after completing 20 years of service. It is a great service that I and many others like me have performed and are performing to protect you expected way of life. Freedom isn't free.

The war in Iraq isn't just about oil, it isn't just about weapons of mass destruction, it isn't just about terrorists.

Wake up and pull your heads out. There are several countries in the Middle East where a large portion of the population doesn't like America. Not Americans, America. Many of those that don't like America, are actually in training to do something that they feel will bring down America. They are commonly referred to as terrorists. Some can be national leaders.

Finally, as unpopular as a war may become, the President is the Commander in Chief. An elected official. If you don't like it, don't vote for the person. I only ask that you learn some facts before you spout garbage.

[skunk]

The war in Iraq isn't just about oil, it isn't just about weapons of mass destruction, it isn't just about terrorists.
No, apparently it's about regime change. Wait a minute, though: what war? I thought your C-in-C said it was over? Oh, never mind, I'm sure he knows what he's doing: he's got access to secret information which we haven't got clearance to see. We'll just have to trust him.

Wake up and pull your heads out. There are several countries in the Middle East where a large portion of the population doesn't like America. Not Americans, America.
Actually, ALL the countries in the Middle East (apart from the 51st state) dislike America. And quite a few in Europe, Asia and South America too. Do you ever stop to wonder why?

Many of those that don't like America, are actually in training to do something that they feel will bring down America. They are commonly referred to as terrorists. Some can be national leaders.
So, "many" of this "large portion" - good statistical terminology there - are in training, are they? Who are these people? America has shown it is quite prepared to bring down other countries. Why do you not expect the same? As for "national leaders", yours is seen as a terrorist by increasing numbers of people.

Finally, as unpopular as a war may become, the President is the Commander in Chief. An elected official. If you don't like it, don't vote for the person.
Wars can be mongered, launched (and mismanaged) well within a single term of a Presidency, so that option ain't good enough.

I only ask that you learn some facts before you spout garbage.
Hmm. And you were doing SO well...

[Neserk]

With Skunk around I don't have anything left to say. :D

[skunk]

With Skunk around I don't have anything left to say. :D
:D

[Neserk]

:D

AMazing, isn't it?

[skunk]

AMazing, isn't it?
Quite spookily so! :eek: :rolleyes:

[Neserk]

Quite spookily so! :eek: :rolleyes:
Is "spookily" a word?

And, yes. It is spookily so ;)

[Neserk]

, the President is the Commander in Chief. An elected official.

Did you forget the "elections" of 2000? He wasn't elected, he was appointed.

(Skunk, you missed this one :D)

[skunk]

Is "spookily" a word?
Ask Edna Everage. :)

[skunk]

Did you forget the "elections" of 2000? He wasn't elected, he was appointed.

(Skunk, you missed this one :D)
I thought I'd leave that one to you: you're so good at it. :)

[Neserk]

Ask Edna Everage. :)

EDNA?????????? EDNA??????????????? EDNA??????????????????

She won't answer.

I found her!

http://www.dameednaeveragetoo.com/

[Neserk]

I thought I'd leave that one to you: you're so good at it. :)


I have to keep repeating myself. Why is that?

[skunk]

I have to keep repeating myself. Why is that?
Life's like that, I guess. :cool:


It's nearly 2am: I'm off. It's been a slice!

[Neserk]

Life's like that, I guess. :cool:


It's nearly 2am: I'm off. It's been a slice!

night. only 6 pm here!

[Voltron]

Did you forget the "elections" of 2000? He wasn't elected, he was appointed.

(Skunk, you missed this one :D)
He was elected, Al Gore tried to get the Supreme court to steal the election for him. :mad:

[Desertrat]

Neserk, do you ever question your premises? Do you ever wonder whether those who think there was a real need to go into Iraq just might have merit to their views?

Military folks don't see war as a first resort. That doesn't mean they're afraid to go to war when ordered. If the cause seems righteous to them, they'll show respect to the CinC.

As far as "Republicans are more likely to give up quickly on diplomacy and jump into war.": Wilson was a Republican? Or FDR? Or Truman? Or JFK? Or LBJ? Reagan did an in-and-out in Grenada, and a raid on Libya--hardly what you could call a "War". Bush I did an in-and-out in Panama--again, hardly a "War". Bush I under UN aegis did Desert Shield/Storm. Would you have been happier had S. Hussein remained in Kuwait, and quite possibly then gone into Saudi Arabia? Now Bush II and Afghanistan/Iraq.

Wasn't a lot of offering of negotiation from Al Qaida/Taliban on 9/11.

I'm in accord that the hard-core NeoCons are war-happy, and they've seemingly taken over Bush' foreign policy for Iraq and terrorism. But they're a relative minority among Republicans.

'Rat

[Neserk]

Neserk, do you ever question your premises? Do you ever wonder whether those who think there was a real need to go into Iraq just might have merit to their views?


These are the reasons given: WMD, Imminent threat, Dictator.

Saddam is gone and going on trial. (Forget that there are dictators all over the world and for some reason he was the one Bush decided to go after). There are no WMD (and they lied when they said there were) and Rumsfield denied ever saying they were an imminent threat (which was also a lie, he said there was when there wasn't -- I've lost track-- is that 3 or 4 lies now?) At this point all that is being done is justification.

The human mind works like this: we are here. We are killing people. Why are we doing it? Then the justification starts. Now we have to find reasons for being there instead of admitting this was *not* a just war. It never was.


Military folks don't see war as a first resort. That doesn't mean they're afraid to go to war when ordered. If the cause seems righteous to them, they'll show respect to the CinC.


Could have fooled me. That isn't what I've been seeing. I've been seeing mindless support for Bush and the war by *most* miitary personnel. Granted, it isn't a scientific survey, but that is what is out there.



As far as "Republicans are more likely to give up quickly on diplomacy and jump into war.": Wilson was a Republican? Or FDR? Or Truman? Or JFK? Or LBJ? Reagan did an in-and-out in Grenada, and a raid on Libya--hardly what you could call a "War". Bush I did an in-and-out in Panama--again, hardly a "War". Bush I under UN aegis did Desert Shield/Storm. Would you have been happier had S. Hussein remained in Kuwait, and quite possibly then gone into Saudi Arabia? Now Bush II and Afghanistan/Iraq.


I've only been alive since 1969, end of. That is what I've seen. I'm not a modern history person so I can't comment on previous presidents. I am aware of the general publics views and Republican Civilians are certainly more likely to want to go to war at the drop of a hat.



Wasn't a lot of offering of negotiation from Al Qaida/Taliban on 9/11.
[/qoute]

Afghanistan is hardly a war. And I'm not arguing against going there. It is Iraq that is the main issue here. Is Bush even doing much there? One never even hears about it anymore.

[quote]
I'm in accord that the hard-core NeoCons are war-happy, and they've seemingly taken over Bush' foreign policy for Iraq and terrorism. But they're a relative minority among Republicans.


Again, not from what I've seen. But if you say they are a minority, I'm glad to hear that. But they sure do have big mouths and lots of power!

[Desertrat]

The fact that you're only 35-ish doesn't mean you can't at least browse the history books a bit. "Overview" and "perspective" are meaningful words, and are dependent on knowing more than one's own adult observations during a trivial number of years. And I see my own 70 years as a rather trivial length of time in reviewing history.

History is a collection of vignettes involving human nature, human emotions. If the premises of, e.g., "The Fourth Turning" (Check it out at Amazon.com) have any credibility, history runs in cycles. Thus, if one has some sort of handle on the past, there's at least a half a chance to try to figure out what might be coming next.

(Usually, what's coming next is "BOHICA!")

:), 'Rat

[Neserk]

The fact that you're only 35-ish doesn't mean you can't at least browse the history books a bit. "Overview" and "perspective" are meaningful words, and are dependent on knowing more than one's own adult observations during a trivial number of years. And I see my own 70 years as a rather trivial length of time in reviewing history.


You got me there. I'm a bit lazy when it comes to Western History. Probably because when I got to college I discovered they'd left out some important information when I was in Middle/High School. Or maybe it is because I inherently don't trust historians because yesterday's historians are today's reporters. They do say the winners write the books.

I guess I get to the point that I don't know *who* to believe so I just stop believeing anyone.

That being said: The mass of republicans do want to go to war at a drop of the hat. The exception are the odd Religious Pacifists who are Republican because they are anti-abortion. They get stuck between which issue to vote on: abortion or war.


History is a collection of vignettes involving human nature, human emotions. If the premises of, e.g., "The Fourth Turning" (Check it out at Amazon.com) have any credibility, history runs in cycles. Thus, if one has some sort of handle on the past, there's at least a half a chance to try to figure out what might be coming next.


I've been saying for some time that the best way to determine what someone is going to do is to examine what they have done. I *am* a student of human behavior -- Psychology, specifically. Thus my mantra: Bush screwed TX so I knew he'd screw the US. Despite some thinking I'd have to be a psychic to know, one simply has to understand human nature, as you pointed out.


(Usually, what's coming next is "BOHICA!")

:), 'Rat

BOHICA? :confused:

[Neserk]

By and large, Bush' doings during his tenure as governor were pretty good for the state. I don't have a clue why there's any secret about his doings as governor, or even how they'd be secret. Now, personal notes and commentaries, what do they have to do with what's publicly known? The notes and commenaries might show why he'd approve or veto something, but so what? The record is public as to Yea or Nay on legislative issues which came to his desk.

I'll say this much about the boy: He was, overall, more competent at the gubernatorial level than he's been at the presidential level. He hasn't quite "risen to the occasion" as did Truman. I'd agree with those who say he's not curious enough, and that he trusts his advisors' advice to too great a degree.

'Rat
He killed education in Texas, and more people were put to death during his tenure than under anyone else. Plus, he lied. When he was elected he said he'd complete his term, he didn't. That is what I remember off the top of my head. When my dad told me about him I checked him out. From what my dad said he sounded pretty good. Then I started to do some research on him and was repulsed.

[screener]

The fact that you're only 35-ish doesn't mean you can't at least browse the history books a bit. "Overview" and "perspective" are meaningful words, and are dependent on knowing more than one's own adult observations during a trivial number of years. And I see my own 70 years as a rather trivial length of time in reviewing history.

History is a collection of vignettes involving human nature, human emotions. If the premises of, e.g., "The Fourth Turning" (Check it out at Amazon.com) have any credibility, history runs in cycles. Thus, if one has some sort of handle on the past, there's at least a half a chance to try to figure out what might be coming next.

(Usually, what's coming next is "BOHICA!")

:), 'Rat

I guess they were'nt up on their history then, wasn't it Rumsfeld that said
who could have forseen this mess?

[Sayhey]

I guess they were'nt up on their history then, wasn't it Rumsfeld that said
who could have forseen this mess?

Nah! Rummy and his fellow neocons were told exactly what kind of mess they were getting into. He and his friends are just so arrogant they believe only they know anything about the world. Check out James Fallows article entitled Blind into Baghdad (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/fallows.htm) to know just how much these folks ignored the warnings of every real expert on Iraq and in war planning. This is one of those articles that is a must read for anyone who wants to be knowledgeable about the history of this war.

[screener]

Not sure if it was Rummy, but of them said who could have forseen this,
actually lied.
Republicans hate liars so much they are willing to spend years and millions chasing liars, oh right , it has to be about sex and land deals.
Dead soldiers and civilians for a personal belief, what's a couple of lies.

[mcfudd]

Neserk, do you ever question your premises? Do you ever wonder whether those who think there was a real need to go into Iraq just might have merit to their views?

Yes. They had a damn good reason for invading Iraq.

Halliburton shareholders all need a new Mercedes Benz. :p

[Desertrat]

BOHICA: "Bend over; here it comes again."

According to a buddy of mine who recently retired from the Brownsville, TX, school system, the changes under Bush were positive. One of the major changes is that an Education degree won't get you a teaching position above (IIRC) fourth grade. You must have a degree in the subject. This change definitely jacked up teacher competency.

As to history and lies, the problems are in the conclusions, not in the listing of events. So, multiple browsings on some particular event can provide enough info such that you can come to an independent conclusion. No different from the current news sources.

As far as finishing a term, I don't recall any governor who finished his term if he had a chance at the presidency. Clinton certainly wasn't the first, nor Bush merely the second. (Granted, Bush shoulda kept quiet about "staying the course". But, like a lot of folks, he couldn't say, "I don't know." I never have figured out why folks can't admit to having doubts or a lack of knowledge, or that they're still studying on a subject.)

:), 'Rat

[Neserk]

BOHICA: "Bend over; here it comes again."

According to a buddy of mine who recently retired from the Brownsville, TX, school system, the changes under Bush were positive. One of the major changes is that an Education degree won't get you a teaching position above (IIRC) fourth grade. You must have a degree in the subject. This change definitely jacked up teacher competency.


The statistics of TX schools before and during his time say otherwise. I'm basing mine on what I read about him from a fairly balanced article. It simply listed what he did and didn't do, what happened.


As far as finishing a term, I don't recall any governor who finished his term if he had a chance at the presidency. Clinton certainly wasn't the first, nor Bush merely the second. (Granted, Bush shoulda kept quiet about "staying the course". But, like a lot of folks, he couldn't say, "I don't know." I never have figured out why folks can't admit to having doubts or a lack of knowledge, or that they're still studying on a subject.)

:), 'Rat

Apparently the difference is Clinton never said he would. Bush vowed in his campaign he would finish his term. And remember, Bush is above all of us. HE is going to restore integrity to the White House. What people don't understand is that the reason Clinton was forgiven for his misdeeds is that he never put himself out there as being better and holier than everyone else. I knew when I voted for him he had probably cheated on his wife already. It is when someone claims to be upstanding and turn out to be a turd that people get PO'd.

Edit: Found a link! http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3880e7ec3aaf.htm

[Voltron]

Apparently the difference is Clinton never said he would. Bush vowed in his campaign he would finish his term. And remember, Bush is above all of us. HE is going to restore integrity to the White House. What people don't understand is that the reason Clinton was forgiven for his misdeeds is that he never put himself out there as being better and holier than everyone else. I knew when I voted for him he had probably cheated on his wife already. It is when someone claims to be upstanding and turn out to be a turd that people get PO'd.

Edit: Found a link! http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3880e7ec3aaf.htm
So its ok to be a lieing, wife cheating, immoral and unethical bastard as long as your honest about it?

[Neserk]

So its ok to be a lieing, wife cheating, immoral and unethical bastard as long as your honest about it?

:rolleyes:

[screener]

:rolleyes:

And nobody had to die for his sins.

[Voltron]

And nobody had to die for his sins.
I guess those folks in that aspirin factory and other places don't count.

[screener]

What's that got to do with cheating on your wife?

[mactastic]

I guess those folks in that aspirin factory and other places don't count.

Why should they? You don't count those killed by Israelis or by US forces.... Or those tortured by same. Get off that high horse Sly. Or do you want to start keeping track of Bush's civilian casulty counts vs. Clinton's? :eek:

[mcfudd]

So its ok to be a lieing, wife cheating, immoral and unethical bastard as long as your honest about it?

I think it has more to do with hypocrisy.

Clinton was just having a good time. He was not out there like Gingrich and the boys pointing fingers and living a double standard.

:cool:

[Sayhey]

I think it has more to do with hypocrisy.

Clinton was just having a good time. He was not out there like Gingrich and the boys pointing fingers and living a double standard.

:cool:

Notice how the discussion has switched to Clinton's sex life from Bush's lies around Iraq and his "distinguished" war record? Debates with Slyhunter/Voltron always travel this route. :rolleyes:

[mcfudd]

Notice how the discussion has switched to Clinton's sex life from Bush's lies around Iraq and his "distinguished" war record? Debates with Slyhunter/Voltron always travel this route. :rolleyes:

That's ok. There is some common ground. Both Bush and Clinton are draft dodgers -- and liars.

Bush dodged the draft and lied about showing up.

Clinton dodged the draft by spending his time in England as a Rhodes Scholar smoking pot --- and he lied about smoking pot.

Two peas in a pod. Except Bush inhales through his nose --- coke baby.

[Sayhey]

That's ok. There is some common ground. Both Bush and Clinton are draft dodgers -- and liars.

Bush dodged the draft and lied about showing up.

Clinton dodged the draft by spending his time in England as a Rhodes Scholar smoking pot --- and he lied about smoking pot.

Two peas in a pod. Except Bush inhales through his nose --- coke baby.

There is the "tiny" little difference that Clinton opposed the war, while Bush supported sending other folks to Vietnam. Bush ain't nothing but a chickenhawk who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth that enabled him to get out of the line of fire. I call that a significant difference.

[mcfudd]

There is the "tiny" little difference that Clinton opposed the war, while Bush supported sending other folks to Vietnam. Bush ain't nothing but a chickenhawk who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth that enabled him to get out of the line of fire. I call that a significant difference.

Don't get me wrong. I like Clinton. He knows what being President is all about --- scoring chicks!!!

Bush on the other hand, he is wasting all of his time making his oil buddies richer. He needs to lighten up. There is plenty of time to leverage the future of the country with tax cuts for the super rich, by ignoring our allies and the UN, and obliterating the envoronment.

Take a vacation.

[Sayhey]

Don't get me wrong. I like Clinton. He knows what being President is all about --- scoring chicks!!!

Hmm... sure. :rolleyes: Never bought into that whole "uphold the constitution" thing did you? Trivia I know, sorry for bringing it up.

[mcfudd]

Hmm... sure. :rolleyes: Never bought into that whole "uphold the constitution" thing did you? Trivia I know, sorry for bringing it up.

No. Upholding the Constitution went out of vogue during Nixon's reign of terror.

Now it is mostly about scoring chicks.

Hey. I wonder what the Bush twins are up to???? :D

[screener]

Now it's trying to change the constitution to suit your prejudices, religious
beliefs.

[Krizoitz]

all I know is what I hear from people who have been there. And it is pretty pathetic.

And why are they putting themselves in harms way? Because they are in someone else's country fighting against them? When you are the aggressor it doesn't count. That is called Karma, I believe.

It must be nice to live in such a world of black and white where everything is so simple. Now I'm not saying that a war of aggression, as you put it, is a good thing, nor am I claiming that Vietnam was a good thing either, but its easy to look back on it now, with all the evidence we have and how it all turned out and judge it. Its a totally different thing to look at it from the perspective of the people at the time, with the information they had, and try and be more understanding of why it happened.

I would suggest that you look into course offerings at your local college or university and see if they have any courses on military history. I took one and it was fascinating, and no it wasn't a course about how cool it was to shoot people and blow things up. It was a well balanced look at what led us into war, why we fought in them, and the consequences.

Far too often we look back and make snap judgements without taking into account the big picture.

The real bottom line of this whole thread is the difference between the three (yes three cause I know Clinton has been dragged into this) people we are comparing.

Clinton: Opposed the war not just for himself but for others as well
Bush: Supported the war as long as he didn't have to fight, went out of his way to avoid being drafted by getting into the National Gaurd where he was virtually gaurunteed not to see combat, and even then might not have fulfilled his duties.
Kerry: Volunteered to serve his country, was wounded, and when he saw what the war was actually doing tried to convince people it wasn't worth it.

I can disagree with some of Clintons moral choices, but in terms of the war at least he was honest and consistent.

I can disagree with some of Kerry's positions, but he served our country and when he realized the horrors of the war tried to help stop it.

What Bush did makes me sick. But what really gets me is how the Republican party will even malign its OWN who served just to keep him in power. Eisenhower must be turning over in his grave...

[Frohickey]

... why are we talking about Clinton and Dole again? :p

[Stelliform]

Clinton: Opposed the war not just for himself but for others as well


That makes him almost sound honorable. I thought he skipped Vietnam so he could smoke pot with his buddies in England?

Which brings me to my earlier point. With Clinton/Dole, miltary history did not resonate with voters. Why should it resonate now?

Kerry's post war activities negate his war activites to many people. So you really have an evenly balanced war record between Bush and Kerry.

[screener]

"Kerry's post war activities negate his war activites to many people. So you really have an evenly balanced war record between Bush and Kerry"

A joke? Isn't there another thread for jokes?

[IJ Reilly]

That makes him almost sound honorable. I thought he skipped Vietnam so he could smoke pot with his buddies in England?

Which brings me to my earlier point. With Clinton/Dole, miltary history did not resonate with voters. Why should it resonate now?

Kerry's post war activities negate his war activites to many people. So you really have an evenly balanced war record between Bush and Kerry.

1. According to whom?

2. Who said it should?

3. Ha-ha. That's a good one! (You're joking, right?)

[mactastic]

Which brings me to my earlier point. With Clinton/Dole, miltary history did not resonate with voters. Why should it resonate now?

Um, maybe because there's a war on these days? People's priorities might be a little different?

Or maybe because the incumbent is running on the strength of his war leadership?

[Durandal7]

In the words of John McCain during an equally pointless squabble about this in the Senate: "Can we the declare the Vietnam War to be over already?" :rolleyes:

[Dont Hurt Me]

In the words of John McCain during an equally pointless squabble about this in the Senate: "Can we the declare the Vietnam War to be over already?" :rolleyes:God, thank you. isnt this 2004?

[numediaman]

Oh, oh. He's drinking again.

[Desertrat]

IJ & screener, over the last year or so there has been a fair amount of both letters and articles in Soldier of Fortune magazine about the Nam-era behavior of both Bush and Kerry.

Bush doesn't get a free ride, by any means. From what I've seen there is more anti-Kerry than anti-Bush attitude. The NamVets seem to be more impressed by the present Bush views than by Kerry's. Same for active military.

The NamVets I've known over the last 30 or so years seem to have more resentment over how the war was fought than against the war itself.

I'm not trying to argue pro or con about Nam. I'm just pointing out what seems to be a majority attitude among the guys who were there.

'Rat

[wwworry]

sorry for double post, seemed more appropriate here

BUSHIDO:THE WAY OF THE ARMCHAIR WARRIOR (http://www.newyorker.com/shouts/content/)

Knowledge is not important. The armchair warrior strives to attain a state beyond knowledge, a state of deep, non-knowing connection to the universe: in particular, to that portion of the universe which is rich, powerful, or related to him by blood.

The unenlightened speak of “failures of intelligence.” But the armchair warrior knows that “intelligence”—the effort of the mind to observe facts, apply reason, and reach conclusions about what is true and what ought to be done—is a delusion, making the mind turn in circles like an ass hitched to a mill. The armchair warrior feels in his hara, or gut, what ought to be done. He is like a warhorse that races into battle, pulling behind him the chariot of logic and evidence. When the people see the magnificent heedlessness of his charge, they cannot help but be carried along.

The warrior spirit resides in the hara. It is this spirit, and not any deed, that is the mark of the true warrior. Thus, a man who has avoided military service may be a greater and braver warrior than a man who has served his country in battle, sustained grave wounds, performed “heroic” deeds, and been honored with clanking, showy medals pinned to his garment.

Because human beings are prone to illusion, the sounds and sights of battle—the groans of the wounded, the maimed bodies of one’s comrades—may remain in the mind for many years, like a cloud that confuses judgment. Hence, a man who has fought on the battlefield and has later risen to high office may be fearful of leading his people to war. Such weakness does not afflict the armchair warrior, who at all times is firm in his resolve.

The armchair warrior does not fear death, especially not the death of other people.

... (continued)

[Sayhey]

I'm not trying to argue pro or con about Nam. I'm just pointing out what seems to be a majority attitude among the guys who were there.

'Rat

'Rat,

the problem with this statement is from where you take your sample. Soldier of Fortune magazine readers are hardly indicative of the attitudes of Vietnam Era Vets. I would hazard a guess that the readership is skewed to the more conservative politically. Millions upon Millions of people in this country opposed the war in Vietnam, many tens of thousands of veterans came back and opposed the war. The proof of that was the very large membership of VVAW during the time period. It is also seen in the huge vote that Kerry received from veterans during the primary season.

What we have now is folks who supported the war trying to portray any of the millions who opposed it, particularly the veterans, as somehow illegitimate or even treasonous in their views. This is not some accident; it is part of the organized effort of the Bush campaign to try to counter the valid perception that Kerry's service in Vietnam was much more honorable than the special treatment Bush received as a fortunate son of the political elite.

[screener]

IJ & screener, over the last year or so there has been a fair amount of both letters and articles in Soldier of Fortune magazine about the Nam-era behavior of both Bush and Kerry.

Bush doesn't get a free ride, by any means. From what I've seen there is more anti-Kerry than anti-Bush attitude. The NamVets seem to be more impressed by the present Bush views than by Kerry's. Same for active military.

The NamVets I've known over the last 30 or so years seem to have more resentment over how the war was fought than against the war itself.

I'm not trying to argue pro or con about Nam. I'm just pointing out what seems to be a majority attitude among the guys who were there.

'Rat

I agree with the resentment over how the war was fought, but wasn't that a good reason to be against it?
Different times, multiple enemies,aka, Soviets, China, targets that were off limits for fear of killing Soviets, Chinese.
Not understanding the enemy before you go to war is never considered good planning and this is what is happenning in Iraq.
Defending and supporting this ineptitude is baffling to me, more so with the changing reasons and constant justifications for it.
Just because you support a political party does'nt mean your choice is
infallible, sometimes excusing there rational makes you aid and abet
stupidity.
You get a pass if no one dies.

[Frohickey]

I'm not trying to argue pro or con about Nam. I'm just pointing out what seems to be a majority attitude among the guys who were there.

'Rat

Yeah, but 'Rat, NamVets are irrelevant. They are the baby-killers. They are the force of oppression and murder. They are the manifestation of the immoral use of force by an unpopular government on the people of Vietnam.

(okay, did I do the liberal mindset right, professor? No.... not the electric probes again. I said what you told me I should have said. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo............. <whimper> )

[Sayhey]

Yeah, but 'Rat, NamVets are irrelevant. They are the baby-killers. They are the force of oppression and murder. They are the manifestation of the immoral use of force by an unpopular government on the people of Vietnam.

(okay, did I do the liberal mindset right, professor? No.... not the electric probes again. I said what you told me I should have said. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo............. <whimper> )

I think this little bit of nonsense is a prime example of my point. Anyone who disagreed with the Vietnam War (again that was millions and millions of Americans) must hate all Vets and be the mindless drones of a liberal elite. What a bunch of ...

The John O'Neills and Ted Sampleys of the world would like to rewrite history in this way, all the while working for the Rove disinformation effort, but that doesn't make it so.

[numediaman]

I think this little bit of nonsense is a prime example of my point. Anyone who disagreed with the Vietnam War (again that was millions and millions of Americans) must hate all Vets and be the mindless drones of a liberal elite. What a bunch of ...

The John O'Neills and Ted Sampleys of the world would like to rewrite history in this way, all the while working for the Rove disinformation effort, but that doesn't make it so.

Exactly. This kind of **** pisses me off. Who hates the troops: those that don't want to see them thrown into battle for a bad cause, or those who want them fighting any battle, at any time, anywhere, for any reason.

Frohickey, you pulled a Slyhunter on that post.

[IJ Reilly]

Exactly. This kind of **** pisses me off. Who hates the troops: those that don't want to see them thrown into battle for a bad cause, or those who want them fighting any battle, at any time, anywhere, for any reason.

It's an almost perfect repeat of Vietnam era rhetoric. Never thought I'd encounter it again. All questions about and dissent from the current policies must be grossly associated with something really, really bad. This is the only way they can be discredited and ignored. What an unhappy place this brought us to 35 years ago. And here we go again.

[Frohickey]

It's an almost perfect repeat of Vietnam era rhetoric. Never thought I'd encounter it again. All questions about and dissent from the current policies must be grossly associated with something really, really bad. This is the only way they can be discredited and ignored. What an unhappy place this brought us to 35 years ago. And here we go again.

Who was the one that was discounting the sentiments proposed in the magazines that 'Rat quoted? It wasn't I. (ZAP! Noooooooo.... <whimper>)

[IJ Reilly]

Who was the one that was discounting the sentiments proposed in the magazines that 'Rat quoted? It wasn't I. (ZAP! Noooooooo.... <whimper>)

Nor I. Looks like you zapped yourself, again.

[Sayhey]

Who was the one that was discounting the sentiments proposed in the magazines that 'Rat quoted? It wasn't I. (ZAP! Noooooooo.... <whimper>)

I suppose you think that is what I said? Of course if you read my post it isn't what I said at all. I said Soldier of Fortune readers are skewed to the more conservative part of the spectrum. That doesn't in any way say that such sentiments don't exist. If you want I guess you can continue to distort what I said and not deal with the fact that huge numbers of Americans opposed the war in Vietnam, including enormous numbers of Vets, and those folks who dissented from Government policy around the war are not in some way unfit for leadership or not supportive of the troops. In fact, a very good case can be made for those willing to to stand up and denounce mistaken policies like Vietnam and the ill advised war in Iraq as just the kind of courageous leaders we need.

[Frohickey]

I suppose you think that is what I said? Of course if you read my post it isn't what I said at all. I said Soldier of Fortune readers are skewed to the more conservative part of the spectrum. That doesn't in any way say that such sentiments don't exist. If you want I guess you can continue to distort what I said and not deal with the fact that huge numbers of Americans opposed the war in Vietnam, including enormous numbers of Vets, and those folks who dissented from Government policy around the war are not in some way unfit for leadership or not supportive of the troops. In fact, a very good case can be made for those willing to to stand up and denounce mistaken policies like Vietnam and the ill advised war in Iraq as just the kind of courageous leaders we need.

In that case, we have a showdown come this November. :)

I'm pretty sure that the candidate that I vote for will lose, at least in California, but I vote for 3rd party most of the time anyways. :p

[screener]

"I'm pretty sure that the candidate that I vote for will lose, at least in California, but I vote for 3rd party most of the time anyways."

So what did or does that get you.

[Neserk]

Bush doesn't get a free ride, by any means. From what I've seen there is more anti-Kerry than anti-Bush attitude. The NamVets seem to be more impressed by the present Bush views than by Kerry's. Same for active military.


Seems to me this just proved *my* point in another argument in another thread. :eek: You know, the military, Republicans, and war?

[Desertrat]

Neserk, just from curiosity, were you as opposed to our actions against Serbia as against Iraq? After all, the Balkans are the prime route for Big Oil to pipeline in to western Europe, so Takao can have plenty of diesel. Milosevic hadn't done nearly so much murdering as Hussein.

While there were those who, early on, opposed following the requirements of the SEA Treaty, that opposition to the first phases of the Vietnam war was a rather small minority. The balance changed as it was realized that the SV government was totally corrupt and that there was no real civilian support for it. And, as I said, as it became obvious that even with our victory during Tet of '68, we were "wasting" our people. There's a reason guys in Nam coined the phrase, "Don't die stupid."

A country which has no ability to consider policy beyond four or eight years can't win a land war with a country which thinks in terms of an unending number of generations. I've never argued with MacArthur's theory...

'Rat

[blue&whiteman]

do any of you actually see draft dodgers as bad people? I see them as people exercising their right to freedom of choice. you should never be forced to fight a battle if you don't agree with it or are anti-violent.

the draft is just one more thing about world history that makes us humans look like a bunch of sick freaks.

[dopefiend]

do any of you actually see draft dodgers as bad people?

Only in wars that are called for and threaten our freedom.

Then you should be labeled a coward.

[Neserk]

do any of you actually see draft dodgers as bad people? I see them as people exercising their right to freedom of choice. you should never be forced to fight a battle if you don't agree with it or are anti-violent.

the draft is just one more thing about world history that makes us humans look like a bunch of sick freaks.

No, I don't think they are bad people, or that they are even making a bad decision. People shouldn't be forced to kill others.

[zimv20]

Only in wars that are called for and threaten our freedom.

Then you should be labeled a coward.
how incredibly vague, subjective and jingoistic.

[dopefiend]

how incredibly vague, subjective and jingoistic.

Use smaller words please. K, thanks. :)

edit: and how is that vague, subjective, and jingoistic?(did you make this word up? lol)

edit again: Ohhh fanatically patriotic :cool:

[dopefiend]

I don't see how I am wrong though.

I mean, you will live in a free country, but if its compromised at all and needs your help, you won't risk your life to save it and many others. Instead, you will run away to another country like a coward...

[Neserk]

jingoistic.

It has been a while since I've seen this word. Now I know what it means :D But how does one pronounce it?

[mactastic]

Like a jingo with an istic at the end! :p

And as for cowards, people with principle join up and serve, or publicly refuse to serve. Cowards get deployments to units that fly outdated airplanes guarding Texas during a draft... :eek:

[IJ Reilly]

I don't see how I am wrong though.

I mean, you will live in a free country, but if its compromised at all and needs your help, you won't risk your life to save it and many others. Instead, you will run away to another country like a coward...

Try this on for size: Your government is fighting a war you don't support, a war predicated on lies. Your draft number has come up. Do you let Uncle Sam put a gun in your hands, or do you do something to avoid that fate? What is the correct, moral choice? Which is the brave one, and which is cowardly? I ask because for a lot of people this was a very real set of circumstances, not so long ago.

I only missed having to make this choice myself by a few months, and I'll confess to not knowing what I'd have done. I was only 18, not a particularly good time in a person's life to sorting out right from wrong.

[takao]

I don't see how I am wrong though.

I mean, you will live in a free country, but if its compromised at all and needs your help, you won't risk your life to save it and many others. Instead, you will run away to another country like a coward...

i wouldn't volunteer...
but the really ironic thing is that my country doesn't wan't me to defend the country itself:
there are 4 states for the in which you can be as a male with age >18

1.you are in the army are you are actually serving your consription service
2.milita-status: those are the first to called to arms
3.present-status: can be drafted for the army from age 18 to 55
4.reserve-status: in the case of a war, those are the ones who would called to arms at last theoretically but the inofficially policy is that before they get 'drafted' the country would surrender ...

after my conscripction service time i skipped milita and present-status imedeatly and became 'reserve' which means i would never have to fight for my country... and why ? because i am a _student_
from our company with 150 soldiers all current students,Engineers or other former students with a degree imedeatly moved to reserve-status after the service ... for a defensive war our country only would draft workers,farmers and other people without a degree from age 18 to 55
in a war my father would get drafted before they would draft me :eek:

but on the other side all the students (i know quite a few) get letters from the army all the time inviting to "information day about a possible career as a officer" or inviting to a "information evening about international security operations and the related career possibilities"
i even got invited to the "international afghanistan operation information meal" with the sentence "for the fast-deciding comrades, a subscribtion place is available" ...this sentence is already a true classic...

[numediaman]

Here's another story from Capital Hill Blue. As I mentioned before, this is not exactly a great source. But the story is sure to drive Bush supporters wacko, so it'll be fun:

Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Jun 4, 2004, 06:15

President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind.

In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as “enemies of the state.”

Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.

“It reminds me of the Nixon days,” says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. “Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That’s the mood over there.”

In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be “God’s will” and then tells aides to “**** over” anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration.

“We’re at war, there’s no doubt about it. What I don’t know anymore is just who the enemy might be,” says one troubled White House aide. “We seem to spend more time trying to destroy John Kerry than al Qaeda and our enemies list just keeps growing and growing.”

Aides say the President gets “hung up on minor details,” micromanaging to the extreme while ignoring the bigger picture. He will spend hours personally reviewing and approving every attack ad against his Democratic opponent and then kiss off a meeting on economic issues.

“This is what is killing us on Iraq,” one aide says. “We lost focus. The President got hung up on the weapons of mass destruction and an unproven link to al Qaeda. We could have found other justifiable reasons for the war but the President insisted the focus stay on those two, tenuous items.”

Aides who raise questions quickly find themselves shut out of access to the President or other top advisors. Among top officials, Bush’s inner circle is shrinking. Secretary of State Colin Powell has fallen out of favor because of his growing doubts about the administration’s war against Iraq.

The President's abrupt dismissal of CIA Directory George Tenet Wednesday night is, aides say, an example of how he works.

"Tenet wanted to quit last year but the President got his back up and*wouldn't hear of it," says an aide.*"That would have been the opportune time to make a change, not in the middle of an election campaign but when the director challenged the President during the meeting Wednesday, the President cut him off by saying 'that's it George. I cannot abide disloyalty. I want your resignation and I want it now."

Tenet was allowed to resign "voluntarily" and Bush informed his shocked staff of the decision Thursday morning. One aide says the President actually described the decision as "God's will."

God may also be the reason Attorney General John Ashcroft, the administration’s lightning rod because of his questionable actions that critics argue threatens freedoms granted by the Constitution, remains part of the power elite. West Wing staffers call Bush and Ashcroft “the Blues Brothers” because “they’re on a mission from God.”

“The Attorney General is tight with the President because of religion,” says one aide. “They both believe any action is justifiable in the name of God.”

But the President who says he rules at the behest of God can also tongue-lash those he perceives as disloyal, calling them “****ing assholes” in front of other staff, berating one cabinet official in front of others and labeling anyone who disagrees with him “unpatriotic” or “anti-American.”

“The mood here is that we’re under siege, there’s no doubt about it,” says one troubled aide who admits he is looking for work elsewhere. “In this administration, you don’t have to wear a turban or speak Farsi to be an enemy of the United States. All you have to do is disagree with the President.”

The White House did not respond to requests for comment on the record.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_4636.shtml

[Desertrat]

Well, if there's any truth at all in the article, I prescribe a week off. Do a river trip down the Rio Grande canyons. Go to a redneck bar and have an attitude-adjustment session. Drive home, listening to long-haul truckers on the CB.

After that, all this other political BS will seem as trivial as it really is.

Seems to me the man's getting a lot of bad advice. He needs a new set of advisors; people to whom he can say, "Clean up this mess, and keep in mind the good of the country," you should pardon my idealism.

Never happen.

As to Neserk's comment about being "forced to kill others": This is fine if one is caught up in a war where lies got it started and there is no reason for it. No argument. However, if one's country is attacked in the proverbial "extension of politics by other means", one's killing of others is a matter of survival.

Not necessarily my own survival, but quite possibly the survival of my wife and child...I've always respected Heinlein's comment, "Patriotism means women and children first." All that is, is the hardwired biology of survival of one's species.

'Rat

[blackfox]

Numedia (or anyone else) explain the nature of the above source?...I am not familiar with it...from the title it seems to be based in DC (or concerning it) and Democratic (in the partisan sense)...I crave context...

[numediaman]

Numedia (or anyone else) explain the nature of the above source?...I am not familiar with it...from the title it seems to be based in DC (or concerning it) and Democratic (in the partisan sense)...I crave context...

EDIT: I've deleted my post here because it probably was not a good description of Capital Hill Blue. Here is a link that may give you an idea of why good bloggers are a little leery of CHB: from Kevin Drum's site (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2003_07/001576.php)

[blackfox]

gotcha...thanks

[IJ Reilly]

Well, if there's any truth at all in the article, I prescribe a week off. Do a river trip down the Rio Grande canyons. Go to a redneck bar and have an attitude-adjustment session. Drive home, listening to long-haul truckers on the CB.

Doesn't George Bush already spend more time on vacation than any president in recent history?

[skunk]

Doesn't George Bush already spend more time on vacation than any president in recent history?
He certainly seems to be out to lunch a lot...

[IJ Reilly]

No, it's true -- Bush takes more time away from the White House than any recent president, going back at least to Carter.

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20031001.html

[Desertrat]

I never have figured out how it's a "vacation" when you're spending a whole bunch of hours being briefed on various situations, and getting the unending case of "tired ear" from a phone. I guess having some time off to play the gentleman rancher beats sitting indoors in the White House, though. Would for me, if for nothing else but the fresh air.

Lordy! Anything to be free for a while from the Secretary of Flatulence, or Grand Senator Halitosis.

Or the media's insatiable appetite for trivia, for that matter...

'Rat

[wwworry]

how about this: He has spent more time away from the office than other recent president. Whatever it is he has taken more of it.

Also did you know that his Crawford "ranch" is a total photo-op? It was decided to build there when it looked like Bush would get the nomination. Construction was scheduled to finish on the day of the election. The town of Crawford was incorporated. He has horses but he does not know how to ride them. It's more of that gop pr machine.

[IJ Reilly]

How about this as a way of figuring it out: When Bush received the now famous briefing memo in August 2001, he was in Crawford for a month-long stay (call it what you will). No way to get any face time with his CIA director, no way to call a meeting of his cabinet.

Now, I'm not one of those people who thinks the president should be chained to his desk, but the man is supposed to be running the government, and that government is located in Washington, DC. Since we are, after all, supposed to be at war, don't you think the "war president" should spend a little more time in his office?

[Voltron]

How about this as a way of figuring it out: When Bush received the now famous briefing memo in August 2001, he was in Crawford for a month-long stay (call it what you will). No way to get any face time with his CIA director, no way to call a meeting of his cabinet.

Now, I'm not one of those people who thinks the president should be chained to his desk, but the man is supposed to be running the government, and that government is located in Washington, DC. Since we are, after all, supposed to be at war, don't you think the "war president" should spend a little more time in his office?
That is ancient dinosaur way of looking at things we have progressed from the spot where even the president if need be could run his affairs from bed if he had to. He has everything he needs anywhere he is to do everything he is required to do, he doesn't have to be physically in the Whitehouse to do it.

[Neserk]

That is ancient dinosaur way of looking at things we have progressed from the spot where even the president if need be could run his affairs from bed if he had to. He has everything he needs anywhere he is to do everything he is required to do, he doesn't have to be physically in the Whitehouse to do it.

uh-huh... but we all know that Georgie isn't doing this. This is common knowledge. We aren't even sure if Georgie is working when he *is* in the whitehouse!

[Voltron]

uh-huh... but we all know that Georgie isn't doing this. This is common knowledge. We aren't even sure if Georgie is working when he *is* in the whitehouse!
Common knowledge? No it isn't.

[screener]

That is ancient dinosaur way of looking at things we have progressed from the spot where even the president if need be could run his affairs from bed if he had to. He has everything he needs anywhere he is to do everything he is required to do, he doesn't have to be physically in the Whitehouse to do it.

Doesn't even have to be on this planet.

[Neserk]

Common knowledge? No it isn't.

That was a joke, Vol ;)

[screener]

First thing to go when a persons hero is under attack, sense of humor?

[Neserk]

First thing to go when a persons hero is under attack, sense of humor?


Good point.

[skunk]

Doesn't even have to be on this planet.
That's just as well :rolleyes:

[Voltron]

First thing to go when a persons hero is under attack, sense of humor?
FYI Bush aint my hero. He is simply better than the alternative ---> Kerry and he's not nearly as bad as folks on this here forum tend to try to make him appear to be.

I wish we had a better choice but we don't and we have to settle for the choices we have and Bush is the better choice. Even tho he waited 12 months too long before going into Iraq and thus risked losing more men than luckily he did. Even tho he enacted legislation that shouldn't of been enacted increasing our deficit more than it had to be increased. Even tho he spent too much time trying to appease the left when they were unappeasable. He is still the better choice.

[screener]

Voltron, Sly whatever,

Your'e nowhere near as bad as these guys
http://www.macnet2.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=3

but they're a lot of fun. LOL
Ever been there?

[skunk]

Voltron, Sly whatever,

Your'e nowhere near as bad as these guys
http://www.macnet2.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=3

but they're a lot of fun. LOL
Ever been there?
They seem like a nice bunch... :eek: :eek:

[screener]

They seem like a nice bunch... :eek: :eek:

Yeah, I almost know what Voltron feels like when I post there,
except I don't take them too seriously. Just goofin'
over there.
I know Voltron takes you guys with a grain of salt but he respects you, I think.

[Voltron]

Yeah, I almost know what Voltron feels like when I post there,
except I don't take them too seriously. Just goofin'
over there.
I know Voltron takes you guys with a grain of salt but he respects you, I think.
I particular like this thread http://www.macnet2.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=851&sid=159b32a451cd249778247bdcbc268956

[screener]

Why am I not surprised.

[Neserk]

Why am I not surprised.


Geesh. How do you stand it there?

[screener]

Geesh. How do you stand it there?

They have this anti Michael Moore banner at the top of their site (red flag?)
And something made me click on the forums button. Yikes, this one guy
jeffsg4mac, I had to respond, Voltron, you got nothing on this hatefull turd.
Seems like the whole political forum has been taken over by 2 moderators
and that clown. I can't help myself, just wish I was as good expressing my
distaste for their views as most of you are in expressing your views.

How do I stand it?
Ya gotta have fun and yank there chain.

[skunk]

Seems like the whole political forum has been taken over by 2 moderators and that clown.
I thought mods were meant to moderate, not spout drivel.

[screener]

I thought mods were meant to moderate, not spout drivel.

I guess the other members don't want to contribute for whatever reason
and they just like to congratulate each other on how right they are?
Gotta say there are a couple others that are alright but as one said to the
pinhead, "Jeff, you scare me", then edited the post and deleted the scare me remark.
I'm new at posting in forums, but the O'Reilly thread here got my ire up
and this thread on MacNet,
http://www.macnet2.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=836
really pissed me off.
You guys with your knowledge of the facts and the links to back them up
could blow them out of the water and maybe get some more of the members to join in.
Hell, it might get interesting.

[skunk]

You guys with your knowledge of the facts and the links to back them up
could blow them out of the water and maybe get some more of the members to join in.
Hell, it might get interesting.
You seem to be doing just fine. :)

[screener]

You seem to be doing just fine. :)

Thanks. but all I can go on is how I feel about what's right and wrong and just plain dumb.
Maybe when I feel that it would help my argument, I could use some links
that are posted here?

[skunk]

Thanks. but all I can go on is how I feel about what's right and wrong and just plain dumb.
Maybe when I feel that it would help my argument, I could use some links
that are posted here?
I'm sure that would be fine. But you'll have your hands full just pointing out what's plain dumb, by the look of it. :rolleyes:

[screener]

I won't try to make a crusade of it.
Just have a bit of fun, got a bit of a nasty streak in me when it comes to bullys.