Ben Barnes on George W. Bush and the Nat'l Guard

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sayhey, Aug 27, 2004.

  1. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #1
    For those who don't know that George W. Bush got into the Air National Guard and out of the line of fire through the use of family influence, here is a interesting video clip of the man who got him in over the more qualified applicants.

    Former Texas Lt. Governor Ben Barnes
     
  2. macsrus macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Terra Firma
    #2
    What does over more qualified applicants mean? I keep seeing people repeat that and was wondering.... how qualified must a person be to enter the Guard?

    AS to Lt. Governor Ben Barnes comments.... its just political partisan rhetoric.
     
  3. mypantsaretight macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    #3
    Having posted my thoughts over on the Kerry Purple Heart thread, I felt I should add something here as well.

    The issue of the rich making the poor take one for the team is a valid point of discussion, which makes this entire topic a bit difficult for me to reach a conclusion on. I believe that the Vietnam War was wrong (to put it mildly). As a consequence I certainly do not question those who did what they felt they had to do to avoid the madness.

    Bush has never pointed to his Guard service as Kerry has his Naval service. Therefore I don't see this as a worthy topic (just as I don't see the Kerry medal question as such either). Bush did what he felt should do, that's it. I'm not going to question it. There are plenty of other more important issues out there.

    That said, I think this is exactly why there should be a draft in the US. Perhaps the politicians would think twice about war if their sons and daughters had to hold the line with the rest the country.

    m
     
  4. macsrus macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Terra Firma
    #4
    While I can agree with your other part of your post... I dont think that a draft would change anything....
    The draft IMO would foster the same sort of influence pedeling and Rich/Politicians sons and daughters would still get the prefered slots...

    Furthermore I would expect the 60's and 70's style protesting in the streets over the draft....
     
  5. mypantsaretight macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    #5
    See folks, civility IS possible in a political discussion between people of disparate political views (assuming I have read your other posts correctly as to your political leanings). A lot of people on both sides seem to have forgotten that in this election.

    On the draft, I would prefer it be universal -- everyone goes, no exceptions for anything short of paraplegia. And why would 60's and 70's style protesting in the streets be a bad thing? ;) It's about time people woke up.

    m
     
  6. macsrus macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Terra Firma
    #6
    I actually had posted a mandatory 2 year service for all 18 year olds... But removed it from my post... because those with influence will still get the spots.... Of course There really is no way of stopping that... We are humans afterall
     
  7. Sayhey thread starter macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #7
    Sorry folks, if Kerry's service can be questioned with lies and no proof, then the man who intervened in getting Bush into the National Guard, meaning others went to Vietnam in his stead, gets to speak out on the ethics of the Bush family.

    I don't much care about what Bush did all those years ago, but I do care about his use of SBVT to smear Kerry. I do care about the use of power to cover up his own record while lying about others. I do care about a President that will do anything to get elected. That is the kind of President we have now and it is fair play to expose his two-faced behavior.
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    As well he couldn't, but keep in mind, he was in favor of the war in Vietnam, but elected not to serve.
     
  9. mypantsaretight macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    #9
    No sense getting all excited for Bush or Kerry. They merely represent competing factions of the business party and the election is of little consequence to the American populace.

    After all, the American system was designed to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." - James Madison (founding father, Constitutional author, noted patriot, etc.) Or if you want it in the most blunt terms, "The people who own the country ought to govern it." - John Jay (founding father, Constitutional author, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court)

    Illusions to the contrary nonwithstanding.

    m
     
  10. Sayhey thread starter macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #10
    The idea that there is no difference between the two candidates is not believable. Tell that to the people of Iraq, the US soldiers who have been wounded and the families of the dead. I could go on for pages of differences on questions of the environment, reproductive rights, civil rights, etc. Just because both do not challenge the basic assumptions of capitalism does not make them the same.
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    You haven't been in the trenches long enough. I've been called a communist, a friend of terrorism, weak, and a number of other things during this election season. It doesn't excuse me or anyone from their actions, but I'm sick of cedeing the low ground to the right because those tactics work. As I've said before, nearly everyone will tell you that they despise attack politics while at the same time watching the lions devour the hapless victim so to speak. If Kerry is to have any chance at winning against the Rove smear machine he MUST swing back just as hard. That doesn't mean he has to lie, but questioning Bush's service when his own has been questioned is a legitimate tactic. It doesn't make me happy that I have to get down into the sewer and trade smears, but liberals for too long have had a reputation for being gun-shy when it comes to this kind of behavior. You remember Dukakis. He thought he could ride above the fray, and was demolished because he wouldn't fight back right-wing-style. I don't want the criticism of Kerry this year to be that he wasn't willing to take the fight to the right. I'm sorry if this is distubing or offensive to you, and I would like to see a return to rational discourse in politics, but I see another 4 years of a Bush presidency as a disaster that must be avoided at all costs. Am I expecting Kerry to be a knight in shining armor? No, in fact I'm pretty sure I won't like him much either. But it will be a far better period to get back to working on finding a candidate I do like. One of my bottom lines, I don't want Bush appointing ANY Supremes.

    How about for objectors? Perhaps an alternate Peace Corp style service if your beliefs prevent you from violence?

    Perhaps the first to go in a draft should be the sons and daughters of the polititians who vote to go to war. No exceptions. If it's not important enough to risk your child's life, it's not important enough to ask someone else to risk their own, or their child's life.

    AFAIK however, there has never been a draft system devised that didn't see the children of the well-connected finding ways around serving.
     
  12. mypantsaretight macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    #12
    If I were a Kerry supporter I would perhaps share your opinions. However, I think both candidates are useless and that the election is a sham. Therefore I really don't care who wins. That being said a wise man once said never agrue with a fool as people might not know the difference, and that is the core problem with swinging back.

    The idea of the draft is intended more as a deterrent to politicians electing to wage war, so any aspects that enhance that effect are welcome. But really, it's more of an intellectual argument than a real policy option.

    Perhaps another option is greater democracy. Require a national referrendum with mandatory voting on all wars. Of course the business party would never allow that...

    m
     
  13. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #13
    Goodness me oh my! So "Bedroom Ben" Barnes is still alive? :D I was in Austin during his tenure as Speaker of the House and then as Lt. Gov. He's the epitome of everything mypantsaretight resents in politicos. Were BBB to say the sun rises in the east, I'd check my compass.

    'Rat
     
  14. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #14
    Wow. My feelings exactly. I hate having to stoop to their level, but I remember very well what happened when Dukakis tried to take the high ground: a lot of the mud started to stick. Dukakis did start to fight back, but it was very late in the campaign, and by then it was too little, too late.

    And I agree completely about the Supreme Court. If Bush makes any appointments at all, it'll be all over for liberals and moderates in this country.


    I've been saying this (albeit not in this forum) for a long time. Things are much, much worse now than in the late '60s, yet we don't see much protesting going on, even among young people. Are we so disheartened? Has the "You can't fight City Hall" attitude become so ingrained that all we feel we can do nowadays is sit there and take it?

    I for one would love to see the kind of protests we saw in the '60s make a comeback.
     
  15. macsrus macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Terra Firma
    #15
    When I lived in D.C. I watched several attempts at protest... But when it started to rain most of the Nintendo generation ran off to the local Starbucks..
     
  16. mypantsaretight macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    #16
    lmao. Very nicely put.

    m
     
  17. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #17
    Probably off to do some serious WiFi Protest Blogging... :rolleyes:
     
  18. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #18
    In my own memory of the '60s, the younger generation was tagged as being too spoiled and lazy to take matters in their own hands. Then, when they did, they were called "dirty hippies," and "communist agitators," or worse. This transition occurred in the space of five years or less.

    I would never underestimate the capacity of any group of people to rise up out of anger, frustration or self interest. It happens all the time, and it often comes as a complete surprise to people who claim to understand such things.
     
  19. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #19
    I don't believe it was a "transition": it was just that they (we) were as uninterested in the work offered as passionate about the wrongs perceived. Simultaneously.
     
  20. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but I'm thinking of the growth of the US anti Vietnam war movement, which was created out of children of the baby boom, probably the most well-fed generation in American history. In the late '50s and early '60s this was probably also one of the most inert and (to use the cliche of the time) conformist generations imaginable. The post-war kids had everything. The change in their attitudes towards the powers that were between, say 1963 and 1968, is pretty astonishing. And I don't recall anyone predicting that.
     
  21. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #21
    I was there, I think. I don't remember anything about it. :D
     
  22. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #22
    IJ, I'll take a stab at it. But this is a "kinda, sorta" view.

    We'd been in some sort of combat fairly steadily from '41 through '53, for all there was a hiatus '46-'50. The start of the Cold War caused an "at war" view of the world. While this was business as usual for parents, it was scary for kids. Fallout shelters and huddling under desks...

    We had a helluva lot of prosperity building through the late 1940s and all through the 1950s. Thus parents were beginning to afford a car for the kid, without a lot of scrimping. Example: I started 10th grade in 1948, in a school of 3,500. Maybe 200, at most, had their own cars. By the middle 1960s, roughly half of high school student had cars. To me, that's a pretty good increase in buying power, E-Z Credit or no. Draftees didn't like getting jerked away by the Draft from what was indeed a pretty good life.

    Factor in TV, with war's horrors now being shown on the nightly news. We learned of the corruption in the regime of this "ally". We had the inflation due to LBJ's guns'n'butter policy. Older guys like me remembered MacArthur's advice, "Never get in a land war in Asia."

    Stuff like the above is part of it, I guess. Lotsa other things contributed..."Winds of change..."

    'Rat
     
  23. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #23
    Except for your characterization of inflation during the Johnson administration, which was in fact negligible, I generally agree with you. For youth in the '60s the other obvious lightening rod for change was the draft. By the time the mid-60s rolled around, nearly everybody knew somebody who'd been killed in Vietnam. Whenever one of those plaques appeared on the wall of my high school lobby I think we all got a sinking feeling in the pit of our stomachs thinking about our upcoming 18th birthdays, and knowing that we could be next. Then when we began to discover that our leaders were actively deceiving us to maintain support for the war, well, that was the deal-breaker. That's when the political earth began to move. I would never say that it can't happen again.
     
  24. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #24
    I guess nothing has changed. They are still deceiving us to maintain support for the war.
     
  25. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #25
    :) IJ, we've been through the inflation deal before; I still rely on my memory and the specific datum of the 30% pay raise given us by the state lege because of inflation. Had to be the 1969 session; the lege meets every other year, in odd years. (Apropos, somehow.) Possibly as late as '71, but I don't think so...

    If you're going by dot-gov numbers, well, Neserk's comment applies to far more than Bush's regime...

    'Rat
     

Share This Page