Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: strk on January 20, 2004, 05:51:26 PM
-
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/157243_bush20.html
What was Karl Rove thinking? (for Bush)
-
How many have you attended?
-
Is strk Commander in Chief of the US Military?
-
Two questions:
1. How many family members of slain soldiers has he and/or the First Lady met with?
2. Which dead serviceman's (or woman's) funeral should he have gone to? And if you answer all of them you lose.
-
Originally posted by takeda
Is strk Commander in Chief of the US Military?
No - which would give him plenty of time to go do some house calls.
-
have to totaly agree with dunes on this. Not becuase I think bush is an exceptional president but because he is the president. It would not be right for him to pick and choose wich funerals he goes to nor would he have time for them.
-
Im of two thoughts on this matter. I think the President should attend the funeral of any and all Americans who die in service to their country and I think he should'nt. Im torn on the issue, but I cant help but think that strks criticism is driven more from his political beliefs than from his personal intellect, but I can't say for sure.
What are the historical guidlines for Presidents attending funeral services during war? How many Amercians died in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam? Did presidents attend any of those funerals?
All of them?
Some clarification on that question might swing me one way or the other......
-
just another limp wristed hate jab from the left ...
-
How many have you attended?
I will tell you one thing - if I was the President and I sent my military to war I would WANT to attend every one. I know that wouldnt be possible, but I would would be at some at least. Dont tell me Bush has no time to go to ANY.
He doesnt want the american viewing audience to see or think about dead american soldiers or relate it to him in any way.
Its not a good photo op for him. We never see any caskets coming back either, do we? Not on the news. Rest assured they are coming back, about 500 dead so far. And what about the thousands wounded? We never see them either.
Here is the kicker - there were no WMDs. Bush claimed he had evidence and asked us all to believe him. When it came time to prove it up, the evidence wasnt there. He had lied to get his war. Anyone who fails to see that at this point is kidding themselves.
Those dead and wounded are on his hands. You'd think that the man who was going to bring Dignity and Honor to the White house would at lease go to a few funerals to pay his respects for the people who died for his folly
A man spends things cheaply when he doesnt pay for the value of them. Bush doesn't know what real war, or struggle is like. He is happy to serve those that made him rich and made him president. He is nothing more than a cheerleader, another Rush but with a Bully Pulpit
-
Bush has never been to a single military funeral??
Yes he has….each time I kneel down and hand off a flag to a crying family member.
~~~~~~~~~~
On behalf of the President of the United States, the Department of the Air Force and a grateful nation, please accept out country’s flag for the years of honorable and faithful service given by your loved one.
~~~~~~~~~~~
-
I was wondering were all of this was coming from.
"The press is trying to gin up a
particularly insidious scandal against
President Bush, claiming that he doesn't
appreciate the sacrifices of U.S. troops in
Iraq because he hasn't attended any
military funerals."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/11/135658.shtml
-
IMHO having the President at a funeral would turn it into an impersonal circus. Isn't it better to stay away to allow families to grieve rather than have a small convoy of secret service agents, a couple of hundred tv crews etc invading an extremely personal moment?
Perhaps, for PR, he could attend, or maybe out of respect he stays away?
-
If he doesnt attend he "doesnt appreciate the sacrifice"
If he does attend and shed a tear for the fallen its "just another bush photo op"
Please! this is a stupid argument drawn up by the haters. Funerals are extremely personal moments for familys
As russian says the president is reprisented as well as the rest of the nation with the passing of our flag
-
How about we just quiet down and give a proper respect for fallen comrades?
(http://pages.sbcglobal.net/simfreak/pics/MIA.jpg)
-
Thank you.
-
Yeah.
~S~
culero
-
Originally posted by Kieran
How many have you attended?
As honour guard for buddies - three, as paying my respects to veterans ( Moths's Memorable Order of Tin Hats) - twelve, and you?
-
My intent is not to outdo you or strk, but to drive home a point; this is nothing more than a political jab. He's no more concerned about those servicemen than he perceives Bush to be.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
IMHO having the President at a funeral would turn it into an impersonal circus. Isn't it better to stay away to allow families to grieve rather than have a small convoy of secret service agents, a couple of hundred tv crews etc invading an extremely personal moment?
Perhaps, for PR, he could attend, or maybe out of respect he stays away?
I would have to agree with this.
It also puts the family at danger because of all the liberal gay marriage loving commie Bush-HATERs who want to assassinate Mr. Bush.
It isn't that Bush doesn't want to attend... it's out of respect for the family and their loss.
-
Kieran: My intent is not to outdo you or strk, but to drive home a point; this is nothing more than a political jab. He's no more concerned about those servicemen than he perceives Bush to be.
If you asked him whether itw as a political jab, he would have admitted it - thus sparing you making a fool out of yourself by ad hominem attack.
Why should we care whether strk gives a damn for those dead soldiers? He is not elected a president, so unlike Bush, caring is not in his job description.
The fact that Bush have not visited a single funeral yet is a serious indication for people familiar with phsychology that he is possibly living in an imagined world of his - or his handlers - creation and may have propblems facing reality.
Possibly having a mentally unbalanced C-in-C is quite a valid concern.
miko
-
they didnt have to die for a worthless cause.
-
If you asked him whether itw as a political jab, he would have admitted it - thus sparing you making a fool out of yourself by ad hominem attack.
Miko, shouldn't you be writing yet another "the sky is falling!" post? (How's THAT for an ad hominem attack?)
He was making a political statement, as he has made very clear. Get over yourself.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
...The fact that Bush have not visited a single funeral yet is a serious indication for people familiar with phsychology that he is possibly living in an imagined world of his - or his handlers - creation and may have propblems facing reality.
Possibly having a mentally unbalanced C-in-C is quite a valid concern...
Can you really infer these "possibilities" about the potus from his not attending a military funeral?
Heck, I don't even like the guy and I can find many good reasons for him not to have attended.
-
Kieran: Miko, shouldn't you be writing yet another "the sky is falling!" post?
He was making a political statement, as he has made very clear. Get over yourself.
Yes he was. So instead of replying to it with your own political statement, you start a personal squabble accusing him of making a perfectly valid political statement.
As for odering us around - what we should be doing and what kinds of statements we should be making, you are confusing yourself with God or Skuzzy or maybe mr. Bush.
miko
-
Yea, i agree with furious. It is just bad morale for bush to attend the funerals or meet with troops with legs missing.( not being sarcastic)
-
I think there was a very valid point in that the news organizations are not showing wounded and dead from the war.
Bush is concerned about all facts of military life except the reality of it. He poses for camera ops on the deck of a carrier in the pacific and even brings troops turkeys for thanksgiving.. So why not honor the dead that are fully his responsibility..
Its a for gone conclusion that he cannot attend all funerals.. But he should do something to recognize these deaths that have occured in his oil war... or whatever war you choose to call it.. A rightous person would take and show responsibility.... Especially since hostilities are over.. Hes still solely responsible...
I hope he does...
question: Do troops deployed in Iraqi still receive hazzard pay??
-
Alot of them still have to buy their own body armor.
-
Furious: Can you really infer these "possibilities" about the potus from his not attending a military funeral?
From just that single fact - no. From a combination of observations one can make amasingly good picture of someone's mental processes.
I've closely observed some people living in their imagined worlds that have very little relation to reality. Those people employ all kinds of unconcious mental tricks to avoid seing something that would contradict their worldview.
They usually exibit a lot of similar symptoms.
Heck, I don't even like the guy and I can find many good reasons for him not to have attended.
I do not dislike him at all. I believe he is an earnest fellow leading us to hell by the road paved with good intentions. If not him, some similar guy would have been elected by the public.
I am somewhat familiar with his schedule. He spends a lot of time on his ranch, meeting with all kinds of children, workers and other people of no importance - other for his re-election vote gathering.
Dead soldiers are his past. He is concerned with pandering to new groups, not facing the concequences of his past decisions, whether right or wrong.
miko
-
And on the flip side of politics...how many Firefighter & Police funerals did Mrs Clinton attend?
-
Originally posted by LePaul
And on the flip side of politics...how many Firefighter & Police funerals did Mrs Clinton attend?
How many did he send to war??
-
No no...you cant have it both ways here, you are trying to demonstrate a lack of compassion in Bush. My simple questions is, before you start chucking stones...is how many did the Left's hero, Mrs Clinton, attend?
You know the answer. Its zero.
Frankly, I wish the President had the TIME to attend funerals but that's impractical. How many did FDR attend? You want him to attend all of those rather than serve his role?
Its pretty amazing how high a standard you wish to set with President Bush. We couldnt get some of you to conjure up such a novel idea with Mr Clinton
-
Miko,
On at least one occasion I can think of off the top of my head, he and the First Lady have met with the family members of dead soldiers and those still overseas. Hardly "ducking" the past.
Bush meets with families of war dead
By Anne E. Kornblut and Wayne Washington, Globe Staff, 11/25/2003
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/25/bush_meets_with_families_of_war_dead/
-
As for odering us around - what we should be doing and what kinds of statements we should be making, you are confusing yourself with God or Skuzzy or maybe mr. Bush.
Lost me there, bud. He posted a comment on a public BBS. I made a reply. It appears that reply doesn't meet your standards and you are trying to tell me what to say and how to say it. Or am I misreading you?
Hey, just because I grew tired of your "doom-N-gloom" drumbeat doesn't have to mean I don't think you're very smart. Post like this more often and I might change my mind.
-
Originally posted by kappa
IBut he should do something to recognize these deaths that have occured in his oil war...
he does, he's authorized the purchase of more body bags for the military... this will stimiulate more growth, create more jobs, and improve the US economy.
Also, his new medical policy has a clause to ensure that soldiers are no longer wounded and maimed... they should just die, it costs less to bury a soldier than to equip him/her with a wheel chair for life.
Oh, and for Military familly members... once the service member is dead, they have 7 days to vacate their military housing, and they have to pay their own way back home if they happen to be stationed over seas.
Well... at least that's what the "Gay Liberal (We Hate Bush) Gazette" reported.
-
Kieran: Lost me there, bud. He posted a comment on a public BBS. I made a reply. It appears that reply doesn't meet your standards and you are trying to tell me what to say and how to say it. Or am I misreading you?
You are mistreading me a bit.
He posted an obviously political comment - not hiding it in teh least. Instead of replying to his comment with you own political comment, you have accused him of making a political comment as if it is somehow unethical or invalidates the content of his comment.
I did not argue your right to post that - I did not say you should not post whatever you wish. I just said that this particular post of yours was not the best example of episemology you are capable off - as we all know.
You seem to avoid a point he was making by attacking him for the very fact of having a political opinion and posting it in a political forum. In fact he started his own thread, not infringed on yours or somebody else's.
He invites a discussion and you are making a point that his discussion is not valid, so his claims should not be addressed or considered. But nobody makes you participate in this thread at all.
There are plenty of posts each of us does not address or consider - by ignoring them, not pointing out the personal flaws of a poster.
Hey, just because I grew tired of your "doom-N-gloom" drumbeat doesn't have to mean I don't think you're very smart. Post like this more often and I might change my mind.
If you grew tired of my posts, I regret that, but - respectfully - it is only a reason for you to stop reading them for a while, not for anyone else to do anything different.
In this particular thread I only spoke along the lines of this discusison and you were the one to drag in here my "doom-N-gloom" posts from other threads.
You are absolutely not obligated to participate in every thread I post and I will hold no grudge against you.
On the other hand, whenever you decide you have anything to contribute or you want to change my opinion through argument on the issues, I will greatly appreciate your input.
The only thing I ask is to read what I type carefully and to reply to what I said, not to some views attributed to me that I have never subscribed to. If I seem to make a contradictory statement, I would rather have you ask for clarification and wait with launching an attack.
And while it is your prerogative to question anyone's motives for posting rather than address the views, it is not productive as discussions go. If you dislike someone's motives, you have a much better chance to change them by successfully arguing against that person's views than by declaring which motives are bad wad which are good.
Regards,
miko
-
Miko-
You know, I'd consider it a more genuine application of your concern if it was applied equally across all the posters. You've singled my pretty inocuous statement out for treatment, ignoring the majority of far more partisan comments- including the original post. Why, I can't understand. If Strk wants to make partisan comments I don't see any reason not to point it out. Or did you miss his Karl Rove section?
-
I try to avoid them myself.
-
Kieran: Miko- You know, I'd consider it a more genuine application of your concern if it was applied equally across all the posters. You've singled my pretty inocuous statement out for treatment, ignoring the majority of far more partisan comments- including the original post.
Absolutely, I do not treat all posters equally. Do not even read many of the posts in a thread.
Despite our recent run-in which is puzzling to me (since you argued views attributed to me that I never proclaimed), you are on my list of posters I pay more attention to and care about the opinions of.
One is a fool who is arguing with fools. It's not productive to say the least.
Not so pointing out an occasional foolish act to a wise man. In fact really wise men activaly seek such a feedback from people who's opinion they respect.
Why, I can't understand. If Strk wants to make partisan comments I don't see any reason not to point it out.
That is a valid if redundant observation. But then you completely ignored a point about Bush and instead made an unwarranted accusation about strk's character - "this is nothing more than a political jab. He's no more concerned about those servicemen".
If you have reasons to believe that he is not concerned about servicemen, you should have mentioned them to substantiate your claim.
And even if he really does not care about the servicemen, that has no bearing on whether mr. Bush cares about them.
Or did you miss his Karl Rove section?
I happen to believe myself that Bush is steered by his advisors more than any other president - and that Karl Rove is a major genius "behind the throne".
The supporters of Bush administration had no problem when Karl Rowe's political genius was credited with winning Bush his election, engineering winning a midterm victory for republicans and other great feats. Rowe is believed to be a great influence.
And that is not a slander on Bush. Nothing wrong in principle about having trusted and influential advisors. Any president is mostly as good a a staff he has assembled.
I am sure that if Karl Rowe said "George, you should attend one of those funerals or at least meet the caskets coming home like it is customary for any president", Bush would have listened.
I am surprised he did not decide to do so himself - maybe out of some phsychological phobia? - and if he did, whether his advisors (Rowe & Co) dissuaded him.
Basically, I believe that whatever strk's motivations, the discussion he raised is totally valid and not original. The same quiestion has been raised for months.
miko
-
I wonder if Bush were to die in office... if he would even show up for his own funeral. :rofl
-
Oh, yes, Kieran. When I attack an opinion of an apparently wise man and I happen to be wrong - however incredibly that sounds :) - I stand better chance to be corrected by him than by some fool.
Any fool can stumble on the right opinion. Few people can defend and explain one.
miko
-
strk, do you have any original thoughts? You seem to have hopped onto the liberal bandwagon:
"Tuesday morning, "Today" show host Katie Couric chose to commemorate Veterans Day by grilling Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers about the Bush administration's decision not to permit coverage of bodies arriving at Dover Air Force Base.
"The policies in effect at Dover go back to 1991 and have been consistent since then through three administrations now," Gen. Myers explained. "What it's really about is proper dignity and respect, and not making a spectacle of all returning heroes such as those that have fallen."
The pundit class' sensitivity to the issue of whether a president is attending enough military funerals is a relatively new phenomenon. Though casualty rates during the Clinton years never approached the levels now being sustained in Iraq, combat deaths weren't exactly unheard of."
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
Oh, and for Military familly members... once the service member is dead, they have 7 days to vacate their military housing, and they have to pay their own way back home if they happen to be stationed over seas.
Well... at least that's what the "Gay Liberal (We Hate Bush) Gazette" reported.
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They have 30 days to vacate housing and are authorized an extension if TMO is unavalable or if 30 days is not practical.
If a family member is overseas the military pays for their trip home to there "Home of records" or were the sposor enlisted from. They aslo foot the bill for all houshold goods and an automobile if it was shiped overseas to begin with.
They are also etitled to FULL DLA wish is Dislocation Allowence. It usually equates to about $1600 wich is for the inconvience of setting up a new houshold somweres else.
Even if a spouse is overseas and she just decides to divorce the member the MILITARY pays for the shippment of her houshold goods and a plane ticket to her port of entry. Plus they are entitled to HALF of the DLA I mentioned above.
What ever source you're qouting QUIT cause their ducks are NOT in a row!
-
Originally posted by slimm50
Though casualty rates during the Clinton years never approached the levels now being sustained in Iraq, combat deaths weren't exactly unheard of."
Clinton actually refered to the combat losses in somalia as insignificant in a press conf.
-
Originally posted by slimm50
strk, do you have any original thoughts? You seem to have hopped onto the liberal bandwagon:
"Tuesday morning, "Today" show host Katie Couric chose to commemorate Veterans Day by grilling Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers about the Bush administration's decision not to permit coverage of bodies arriving at Dover Air Force Base.
"The policies in effect at Dover go back to 1991 and have been consistent since then through three administrations now," Gen. Myers explained. "What it's really about is proper dignity and respect, and not making a spectacle of all returning heroes such as those that have fallen."
The pundit class' sensitivity to the issue of whether a president is attending enough military funerals is a relatively new phenomenon. Though casualty rates during the Clinton years never approached the levels now being sustained in Iraq, combat deaths weren't exactly unheard of."
Most excellent original thoughts there Slimm... O wait.. did these!? were these!? O nevermind.........
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Clinton actually refered to the combat losses in somalia as insignificant in a press conf.
bullchit!! out of context perhaps...
-
Miko, what can I tell you? I'm a failed, pitiful human being that threw a silly comment back at someone who made a silly comment. Color me guilty. I didn't expect it would cause a federal case, but the way lawsuits work anymore, how can you ever know for sure? Since I really have no beef with you over it, I'm just going to nod my head and agree with anything further you have to say on it, 'cause quite honestly I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill... or a worm mound... something like that...
-
What do you do if you're president?
Do you show up for the photo op where the parents of the soldier slap you in the face for losing their son/daughter, or;
Do you show up for the photo op where the parents hug you and thank you for doing what you are doing, because their son/daughter was proud to serve and die for their country?
Which case would make you angrier? It's a no-win, because in the former case political enemies will use it for fuel to help their "War for Oil" diatribes, in the latter political enemies will suggest it is fake or staged. Don't pretend for a second it wouldn't happen.
Such a question as the thread opener suggests it's a simple matter to attend funerals of fallen soldiers, that there are not people ready to make an adversarial statement about it one way or another. Now personally in these situations I say, "Screw 'em, do what is right", but what is right? Attend a funeral for someone you don't know and act as though you really cared about them, or don't and be perceived as uncaring?
Now if someone is buried in a national cemetary such as Arlington, yes by all means the president should be there. If on the other hand it isn't such a ceremony, I'd leave it to the president's descretion as to whether or not he should attend.
-
How about just 3 mins in last nights speech about our fallen military personnel..??
To me you dont have to goto the actual grave.. A part of the SotU speech last night dedicated to the more than 500 dead and more than 6000?? wounded would have been great!!
why not talk about the realities of war since war is the state of our union.......
-
Kieran: What do you do if you're president?
Do you show up for the photo op where the parents of the soldier slap you in the face for losing their son/daughter, or;
Do you show up for the photo op where the parents hug you and thank you for doing what you are doing, because their son/daughter was proud to serve and die for their country?
I would send a representative to a family beforehand to politely inquire if they would mind my presence there and whether they will make an unsightly scene.
I would probably select a family that wrote in the letters to its son/daughter (which was read by military censor) something along the lines of "Be brave, my child. If you die, know that we are all proud and will consider your sacrifice necassary."
Now if someone is buried in a national cemetary such as Arlington, yes by all means the president should be there. If on the other hand it isn't such a ceremony, I'd leave it to the president's descretion as to whether or not he should attend.
Do you mean that none of the ~500 of our troops who've died in Iraq opted to be buried at Arlington? I find that hard to believe. That would be a very significant indication of our military's spirit if that was true.
miko
-
Either way you are politicizing the death of a soldier. Either way you go you'll be criticized for politicizing the death.
"Do you mean that none of the ~500 of our troops who've died in Iraq opted to be buried at Arlington? I find that hard to believe. That would be a very significant indication of our military's spirit if that was true. "
I never suggested or said any such thing.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
What ever source you're qouting QUIT cause their ducks are NOT in a row!
Hadji... me thinks, you're turbon is wrapped too tight.
Pssst... look at the quote... I was poking fun!
-
Kieran: I never suggested or said any such thing.
Exactly. So we both believe that some soldiers were buried at Arlington and according to your statement "if someone is buried in a national cemetary such as Arlington, yes by all means the president should be there".
Should be but he was not - not yet in any case.
He missed the best time to show up at the funerals right after the war was won, when there was quick victory, no WMD controvercy and he could have been guaranteed no ill political effects.
Now there are funerals of the soldiers that have died "waging peace" and looking for non-existing WMDs. It will be harder and harder for him to visit one without a lot of negative spin.
miko
-
It's just a non-starter to me, I guess.
-
is a valid if redundant observation. But then you completely ignored a point about Bush and instead made an unwarranted accusation about strk's character - "this is nothing more than a political jab. He's no more concerned about those servicemen".
I have worn my country's uniform, during wartime. I know what it is like to be in the service and I care about those people. But that is beside the point. Bush doesnt care. He used the military when he had to avoid being sent into combat.
How many of you here would waste a slot as a fighter pilot and go awol for a year to work on some knucklehead's election campaign? Not me. I would fly every hour I could.
Lets not forget that he never flew again. He didnt want to be a pilot, he just used the golden opportunity when it was handed to him.
strk, do you have any original thoughts? You seem to have hopped onto the liberal bandwagon
- slimm50
Yeah I do, I posted about half a page of them above. Did you read that? I didnt notice any "original" thought from you - just quotes from others. So I could ask you the same question - any original thoughts? It appears as though you have swallowed the RigtWinger(TM) propaganda hook line and sinker . . .