Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Bush in Bagdad for Thanksgiving
Topic Started: Nov 27 2003, 01:58 PM (828 Views)
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
What has he done to disrespect the office? Has he had interns performing sex acts on him? Has he fired an entire travel office and replaced it with a relative and a political crony? Has he covered up the suicide of one of his staffers for three years? Has he accepted campaign donations from the Chinese military, Buddhist monks, or Columbian drug dealers? Was Laura Bush able to turn a $1000 investment into $100,000 with no knowledge of the futures market? Did he comprimise national security by attempting to set up "strategic partnerships" with the Chinese? Did he advance another nation's space program by twenty years by allowing classified materials and computers to be shipped to China?

I am so pleased we are through with that regime. As I said earlier, the Clinton administration IMO gave us (the U.S.) one of our darkest periods in history. For a while (a very short while, thankfully) I thought Clinton would be in office for more than two terms. When people I know scoffed at this, intimating that it was impossible (the rules during Roosevelt being long gone) for this to occur, I feared that somehow, some way, he would find a way. Wouldn't instituting marshal law have perpetuated his tenure in office beyond eight years?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
starbase63
Member Avatar
The Old Man
You know what the best part of the visit for me was? In one of the Associated Press photos taken at the airport, one of the soldiers standing a few bodies back from the President may have been my nephew, who is in Baghdad and is stationed at the airport.
I even got an email from him for Thanksgiving...
Hopefully he may be back home by Easter, if not sooner.
:)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Admiralbill:

Quote:
 
Sorry, that isn't only bull, but it is proven bull! He was NEVER AWOL, and certainly not for a year. I've seen the so-called evidence, and as someone who HAS ACTUALLY FILLED OUT AND PROCESSED THAT PAPERWORK, it looks nothing like that.

To be clear, you're talking about the copies of his military records that show he hadn't reported for guard duty for over a year, right? You and I have had this conversation before and, if I remember right, you consider those copies to be false. I disagree, but you're entitled to your view. I doubt either of us will change the other's mind about that. But I ask then, where are the military records showing he was serving during that period between 1972 and 1973? It's funny that no one has brought those out to clear the air. It would be an easy thing to do and then there would be no more question about it... :rolleyes:

Quote:
 
More BS from that Bushlies site? C'mon, IE, I thought you way too intelligent to fall for a mass of uncorroborated bull$h!t.

No, actually I'm reading the book and the sources of it's information are very well documented. It's far from "uncorroborated bull$h!t".

Quote:
 
Funny, weren't you supportive of this trip to Baghdad at first?

My position has never changed. I have never supported the war in Iraq. Actually, I participated in a quiet protest against it before it began. I have always agreed that the problems in Iraq needed to be addressed, but do not agree with the timing or manner in which Bush chose to address them.

Quote:
 
What has he done to disrespect the office?

I didn't say he has disrespected the office (although I probably could). I was arguing Gabe's point that a leader/President should be respected just because he/she is the leader/President "no matter who".

Wichita:
Quote:
 
As to your comments about what George Bush "said" or "didn't say" - I can't say. I have never seen documentation of those comments.

The sources are numerous. I am reading a book entitled The Lies of George W. Bush by David Corn. He pieces together information from numerous interviews, newspapers, magazines, Bush speeches, etc.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Dec 1 2003, 08:16 PM
I am reading a book entitled The Lies of George W. Bush by David Corn.

Will you be reading a book that is in support of Bush and his administration - to balance out the information set up in that obviously biased book?

When some one wants to find something – they often do.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
^^

Well said. :)

I'm fascinated by the eagerness to avoid my question. I've asked it several times before - yet it never gets a response.

Apparently it's because there isn't one ... ;)

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Wichita
Dec 1 2003, 09:32 PM
I'm fascinated by the eagerness to avoid my question.  I've asked it several times before - yet it never gets a response.

If you are talking about the documentation I have answered it. (If not, I honestly don't know what question I have been "avoiding".) As for the documentation, it's all in the book. If you're looking for specifics, that would be impossible to give on this messageboard. I would have to piece every source with each piece of information that specifically comes from each source. That would be like rewriting the book on this messageboard...

I also think that was obvious from my last reply. :rolleyes:

If you want the specific documentation, feel free to open the book.

Dandandat:
Quote:
 
Will you be reading a book that is in support of Bush and his administration - to balance out the information set up in that obviously biased book?

I get balance through everything that I read and hear. Obviously, the book isn't the only information I ever receive about Bush. My belief based on ALL the information I have heard to date (before opening the book), is that there is a solid basis for such a book. The book isn't shaping my views. It's just organizing information. Also, of all the things I have to read right now, it's my bottom priority.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ImpulseEngine
Dec 1 2003, 07:16 PM
Admiralbill:

Quote:
 
Sorry, that isn't only bull, but it is proven bull! He was NEVER AWOL, and certainly not for a year. I've seen the so-called evidence, and as someone who HAS ACTUALLY FILLED OUT AND PROCESSED THAT PAPERWORK, it looks nothing like that.

To be clear, you're talking about the copies of his military records that show he hadn't reported for guard duty for over a year, right? You and I have had this conversation before and, if I remember right, you consider those copies to be false. I disagree, but you're entitled to your view. I doubt either of us will change the other's mind about that. But I ask then, where are the military records showing he was serving during that period between 1972 and 1973? It's funny that no one has brought those out to clear the air. It would be an easy thing to do and then there would be no more question about it... :rolleyes:

Quote:
 
More BS from that Bushlies site? C'mon, IE, I thought you way too intelligent to fall for a mass of uncorroborated bull$h!t.

No, actually I'm reading the book and the sources of it's information are very well documented. It's far from "uncorroborated bull$h!t".

Quote:
 
Funny, weren't you supportive of this trip to Baghdad at first?

My position has never changed. I have never supported the war in Iraq. Actually, I participated in a quiet protest against it before it began. I have always agreed that the problems in Iraq needed to be addressed, but do not agree with the timing or manner in which Bush chose to address them.

Quote:
 
What has he done to disrespect the office?

I didn't say he has disrespected the office (although I probably could). I was arguing Gabe's point that a leader/President should be respected just because he/she is the leader/President "no matter who".

Wichita:
Quote:
 
As to your comments about what George Bush "said" or "didn't say" - I can't say. I have never seen documentation of those comments.

The sources are numerous. I am reading a book entitled The Lies of George W. Bush by David Corn. He pieces together information from numerous interviews, newspapers, magazines, Bush speeches, etc.

Hell, IE, I read an extensively researched and documented book that "proved" that LBJ was behind the Kennedy assassination. That doesn't make Corn's book any more truthful, but... you're going to believe what you want to believe. What I don't understand is, "Why the visceral hatred for the man?" Is it because he is a moral man (that makes ultra-lefties squirm, but I don't categorize you as such). Is it his religion? He found his faith after he stopped drinking. Before you put any faith in David Corn, do a little research for yourself.

As for the records showing Bush was serving during that time, I've never looked BECAUSE I NEVER HAVE HAD TO LOOK. The burden is always on the accuser, even though you seem to think it is on the "accused." Have you ever wondered why there has been no attempt by the Bush Administration to answer these charges (like Clinton's half-assed attempt to explain his letter to Col. Holmes)? Because it wasn't worth mentioning. Here's a little FYI which should bury this once and for all: Each command, whether air, ground, or sea, is required to fill out an evaluation form (that was what the so-called "smoking gun" form was). That command must submit a report, EVEN IF THE SERVICEMAN IS NO LONGER THERE. In the Navy, we'd fill in the report as "Not Observed" if the man was no longer there. The air force (and air national guard) use a similar terminology, "Not observed at this station" to say the same thing during or immediately following a transfer. This MORON Corn obviously does NOT come from a military background and does not understand what the document says. Also, as I recall from Navy pilot buddies of mine, you are suspended from flying until you complete your annual PHYSICAL exam.

George W. Bush decided to go to Harvard Business school in the fall of 1973. He asked for, AND RECEIVED, an honorable discharge eight months before his service was scheduled to end. By the way, Al Gore requested the same thing to go to divinity school. The difference? Bush GRADUATED and Gore dropped out. By law, you can NOT grant an honorable discharge to any man/woman who has been AWOL or AOL (absent over leave). That is an Article 86 violation of the UCMJ and is punishable by confinement or hard labor. Bush received an honorable discharge and went to business school.

While you have the free time, read this article:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertn...n20020808.shtml

It details how the Clinton Administration modified data from the Commerce Department to LIE about the state of the economy in 2000... and other shenanigans before that.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
ImpulseEngine
Dec 2 2003, 04:07 AM
Wichita
Dec 1 2003, 09:32 PM
I'm fascinated by the eagerness to avoid my question.  I've asked it several times before - yet it never gets a response.

If you are talking about the documentation I have answered it. (If not, I honestly don't know what question I have been "avoiding".) As for the documentation, it's all in the book. If you're looking for specifics, that would be impossible to give on this messageboard. I would have to piece every source with each piece of information that specifically comes from each source. That would be like rewriting the book on this messageboard...

I also think that was obvious from my last reply. :rolleyes:

If you want the specific documentation, feel free to open the book.


Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

This is the fourth or fifth time (at least) that I have asked this or a very similiar question. EVERY time it's been treated like I never said a thing.

Quote:
 
Why did Bill Clinton not go to jail or, failing that, Canada? Until you answer that question, in a manner that makes sense to those of us who lived through the period, then your criticism of George Bush is irrelevant because it is inconsistent.

My brother disagreed with the war. He stated he disagreed with the war. He got a draft notice. NO ONE was going to take his phone call for a last minute entry into the National Guard. Had they done so, he would have been prosecuted (or sent into the draft) for not showing up to even be inducted into the Guard. He went to Vietnam where he was shot.

If George Bush (and incidentally, Howard Dean) got out of active duty due to "influence", how the hell does a person in his early 20's from a small town in Arkansas with no apparent family connections, get a draft notice, negotiate a last minute National Guard position directly with the head of the state National Guard, renege on both and NOT get prosecuted?


Although I usually get accused of "playing games" about this point ....
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Admiralbill:
Here's an article that views what I said and also what you said about an honorable discharge as BOTH true: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html

So an honorable discharge doesn't automatically mean he couldn't have been AWOL. For example, maybe it just shows the extent of the Bush family influence... (which is no real surprise)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Oh come ON. Give me a friggin' break. What pull did the Bush family have in 1973? Seriously. Go look it up. (Think of it... what can the head of the RNC do? Especially during WATERGATE. Answer? Nada!)

As a former military officer, let me tell you that NO ONE can get an honorable discharge if they have been AWOL.

Drop this FALLACIOUS accusation.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Wichita
Dec 1 2003, 11:31 PM
ImpulseEngine
Dec 2 2003, 04:07 AM
Wichita
Dec 1 2003, 09:32 PM
I'm fascinated by the eagerness to avoid my question.  I've asked it several times before - yet it never gets a response.

If you are talking about the documentation I have answered it. (If not, I honestly don't know what question I have been "avoiding".) As for the documentation, it's all in the book. If you're looking for specifics, that would be impossible to give on this messageboard. I would have to piece every source with each piece of information that specifically comes from each source. That would be like rewriting the book on this messageboard...

I also think that was obvious from my last reply. :rolleyes:

If you want the specific documentation, feel free to open the book.


Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

This is the fourth or fifth time (at least) that I have asked this or a very similiar question. EVERY time it's been treated like I never said a thing.

Quote:
 
Why did Bill Clinton not go to jail or, failing that, Canada? Until you answer that question, in a manner that makes sense to those of us who lived through the period, then your criticism of George Bush is irrelevant because it is inconsistent.

My brother disagreed with the war. He stated he disagreed with the war. He got a draft notice. NO ONE was going to take his phone call for a last minute entry into the National Guard. Had they done so, he would have been prosecuted (or sent into the draft) for not showing up to even be inducted into the Guard. He went to Vietnam where he was shot.

If George Bush (and incidentally, Howard Dean) got out of active duty due to "influence", how the hell does a person in his early 20's from a small town in Arkansas with no apparent family connections, get a draft notice, negotiate a last minute National Guard position directly with the head of the state National Guard, renege on both and NOT get prosecuted?


Although I usually get accused of "playing games" about this point ....

Despite your claim to the contrary, I addressed that question (the ONE other time you asked it) already and the question doesn't fit this discussion. You were attempting to compare situations between Clinton and Bush implying that if I find Clinton's actions acceptable, but not Bush's that I am being hypocritical. My answer pointed out why I disagree that they are comparable situations. That is the only answer that I can give that remains within the scope of this discussion.

If you want to call that "avoiding your question" or "being treated like I never said a thing", so be it. I call it remaining on topic and not allowing myself to get sidetracked. And the discussion is about Bush, not Clinton. As I stated before, it makes no difference what Clinton did or didn't do when discussion what Bush did or didn't do... :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Dec 2 2003, 12:50 AM
As I stated before, it makes no difference what Clinton did or didn't do when discussion what Bush did or didn't do...  :rolleyes:

But you aren’t discussing what Bush did or did not do. You are discussing why ImpulseEngine thinksBush did or did not do these things.

As some one who has not researched into things as much as both you and Bill have - from a clear prospective it isn’t clear what the truth is, and you cant very well claim to be the holder of it, with out entering in your opinion as to why you interpreted it in that way.

So in truth there cannot be a dissection of what Bush DID and DID NOT do. Just what ImpulseEngine thinks he DID and DID NOT do (which is fine)

But then the question by Wichita stands. If ImpulseEngine does not think it was wrong for Clinton to have done what he was alleged to have done. Yet ImpulseEngine believes that a similar action perpetrated by Bush is wrong. Than the process of coming to a conclusion of wrong or right in ether case by ImpulseEngine is suspect to (suspect to not proof of) hypocrisy if the conclusions are different.

I believe Wichita does not understand how you can come up with both, that Clinton was right under similar circumstances and Bush was wrong, when the whole premise comes down to how ImpulseEngine interprets the truth of the situation (see first, second, and third paragraphs)

So with out voicing an opinion ether way – I believe Wichitas question is valid. Your interpretation of the Clinton affair is integral to your interoperation of the Bush affair.



Posted ImageI hope this makes sence - it makes sence to me

All in good fun Posted Image
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
ImpulseEngine
Dec 2 2003, 04:50 AM
Despite your claim to the contrary, I addressed that question (the ONE other time you asked it) already and the question doesn't fit this discussion.





LOL! That isn't even the first time I asked it on this board, but, hey, if it makes you feel better about ignoring it ...

Quote:
 
You were attempting to compare situations between Clinton and Bush implying that if I find Clinton's actions acceptable, but not Bush's that I am being hypocritical.  My answer pointed out why I disagree that they are comparable situations.  That is the only answer that I can give that remains within the scope of this discussion.


Are you saying I don't have your permission to ask a question if it's not - in your opinion - "within the scope of this discussion"? I don't know about you, but I haven't noticed too many threads on this board staying strictly on topic.

For the record, again, my question is:

If George Bush (and incidentally, Howard Dean) got out of active duty due to "influence", how the hell does a person in his early 20's from a small town in Arkansas with no apparent family connections, get a draft notice, negotiate a last minute National Guard position directly with the head of the state National Guard, renege on both and NOT get prosecuted?

Quote:
 
And the discussion is about Bush, not Clinton.  As I stated before, it makes no difference what Clinton did or didn't do when discussion what Bush did or didn't do...  :rolleyes:


Again, are you saying I need your permission to discuss what I want to on this board? If that is the case, I wouldn't be holding my breath if I were you ... :no: :no:

There is no reason in the world that you have to answer the question, but there is also no reason that I cannot ask it or point out that I can't get an answer to it.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
I read an extensively researched and documented book that "proved" that LBJ was behind the Kennedy assassination.

Admiral,

What did you come away believing about this (specifically LBJ's involvement) after you read it? (The JFK assassination has been an interest of mine for several years.)

[This one may need to be moved to an appropriate thread.]
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Actually, I thought that LBJ had a lot to gain, but he wouldn't have sunk this low. While Lyndon was a man with few scruples and fewer morals, he didn't condone killing. He was a politician, and for a VP, wielded a tremendous amount of power because of his former position as majority leader in the Senate. I thought the book took a lot of liberties and made a lot of assumptions, based on their data.

One thing that always brought me back to reality was a quote: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. (Statistics can be manipulated.)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus