Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: greentail on February 25, 2005, 05:55:58 PM
-
n Zulu7's deleted thread about censorship, there was a discussion going on about Congressional and Executive branch leadership.
I had posted that the present Republican leadership had not served in the military, while the Democratic congressional leadership had, as a whole, served.
A opposing post was made wih a link to a website listing the military records of the members of congress. It showed that many Republicans had served. True. Republicans love their country, too.
Which is fine, but that did not address the issue of Republican leadership. The link below helps to show my point.
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
Now you "conservatives" can commence your predictable attacks on Democratic veterans.
-
are you new here or do you like beating your skull against hard surfaces?
-
this thread is so 2004
LOL LOL LOL
-
I served. Not on Swift Boats though.
-
I Served. Nuff Said.
Question is..to me anyway...DID YOU and or are you going to?
If not...why Not?
-
Originally posted by greentail
n Zulu7's deleted thread about censorship
Get a clue.
-
I served... was an Oh Four Whiskey... memo writer.
-
Yeager that hard surface you are on about.....
Is it your thick as poop skull???
:rofl
-
There's really not much ya can say, apearently...
Well, besides some combination of "get a clue, this thread is so 2004, are you new here, LOL."
Those lists just kinda speak for themselves. Have they been debunked, and/or is there some kind of republican site that counters this?
-
Originally posted by greentail
n Zulu7's deleted thread about censorship, there was a discussion going on about Congressional and Executive branch leadership.
I had posted that the present Republican leadership had not served in the military, while the Democratic congressional leadership had, as a whole, served.
A opposing post was made wih a link to a website listing the military records of the members of congress. It showed that many Republicans had served. True. Republicans love their country, too.
Which is fine, but that did not address the issue of Republican leadership. The link below helps to show my point.
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
Now you "conservatives" can commence your predictable attacks on Democratic veterans.
So greentail make a "point"??????? What exactly about the "Republican Leadership"? This is extreamly vauge. What is your investment in posting this???
-
I don't care if they "served" or not. just like I don't care who politicians shag, have affairs with, what they eat and all the other cr*p the media focuses on in order to mask us from the real issue, are they doing a good job?
If anything the UK is worse for this. Scandal has replaced real argument. As far as I'm concerned the guy could be a animal sh*gger who ran away from a war and hid in a cave for all I care if the country is doing ok and the economy is good and the policies suit me I'll vote I don't care what happens in the guys private life or what he did before politics. CAN HE DO THE JOB? is all that matters.
For once I have to say the French have the right attitude.
( I got a post deleted? Vive le Liberte )
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
For once I have to say the French have the right attitude.
( I got a post deleted? Vive le Liberte )
For once? That's SOP for moonbats.
Me, I'd prefer to have a person, represent my country, not just run it.
-
SOP for moonbats????
Translate this arkon ratburger slibbedy slab please!
:confused:
-
What exactly is the point here? Why should I give a rats bellybutton about whether or not my government representatives served in the military?
-
Sorry, I didn't have anything to go on for understanding this.:)
-
SOP is an acronym for Standard Operating Procedure, ya stinkin' moonbat.
-
Originally posted by bustr
So greentail make a "point"??????? What exactly about the "Republican Leadership"? This is extreamly vauge. What is your investment in posting this???
In the deleted thread someone called the Democrats the anti-war party. I just thought that it was interesting that the anti-war party was made up of Viet-nam vets, while the leadership of the supposed pro-war party was made up of draft dodgers.
Cudos to all who served. The only lottery I ever won was the Vietnam draft lottery. Fortunately, it was the last one that got cancelled.
As for those who's only reply was insults, why not address the issue? Is the truth uncomfortable?
-
You didn't bring up any point to address. You brought up a website, listing who did and didn't serve. Frankly, I would prefer having all of my representatives being "anti-war", regardless of their military history.
-
Zulu,
Though I doubt we will agree on most things...I would like to ask you justt a few questions in regards to this post you made...if you don't mind:)
"I don't care if they "served" or not."
Isn't this important to you when making decisions that could effect a loved one of yours?
"just like I don't care who politicians shag, have affairs with, what they eat and all the other cr*p the media focuses on in order to mask us from the real issue, are they doing a good job?"
Aren't some things that politicians do important in making a decision on their a) moral standings in areas b) could such things affect their ability to do that"Good Job"
If anything the UK is worse for this. Scandal has replaced real argument.
" As far as I'm concerned the guy could be a animal sh*gger who ran away from a war and hid in a cave for all I care if the country is doing ok and the economy is good and the policies suit me I'll vote I don't care what happens in the guys private life or what he did before politics. CAN HE DO THE JOB? is all that matters."
Doesn't this statement sort of say a lot about the attitude of so many these days. That moral standards and things mean nothing. It sounds to me as if you are saying , and I could be wrong , that as long as it doesn't affect you that you don't care. IF that is so , then why bother to voice an opinion for others if you are really only interested in yourself. JUST MY OPINION.
-
I served but I didn't inhale....
-
Red top.
First off maybe the language was a tad strong. Apologies there.
All I'm saying is that in my opinion, these days the media focuses not on the politics but on the politician.
I'm sick to death of reading scandal about someones alleged private life and absolutely nothing about the real policies. If you've ever seen the majority of the UK newspapers you will understand.
We are fed an endless diet of people's sex lives, relationship breakups, meaningless drivel about minor stars personal goings on. We had one member of the Royal family hounded to death and it still continues.
What does it realy matter ifsomeone has served in the military or not? That is not an automatic qualification to be a good foreign policy maker, defence minister etc.
I just think people have a right to some kind of private life whoever they are.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Red top.
First off maybe the language was a tad strong. Apologies there.
All I'm saying is that in my opinion, these days the media focuses not on the politics but on the politician.
I'm sick to death of reading scandal about someones alleged private life and absolutely nothing about the real policies. If you've ever seen the majority of the UK newspapers you will understand.
We are fed an endless diet of people's sex lives, relationship breakups, meaningless drivel about minor stars personal goings on. We had one member of the Royal family hounded to death and it still continues.
What does it realy matter ifsomeone has served in the military or not? That is not an automatic qualification to be a good foreign policy maker, defence minister etc.
I just think people have a right to some kind of private life whoever they are.
Agree 100 percent. Thanks
-
Originally posted by Eagler
this thread is so 2004
LOL LOL LOL
Truth is eternal, Eagler.
-
No probs sorry if I caused too much offense.
-
Rather than look at greenhead's propaganda page, let's take a look at government's own demographics page for the 108th Congress, even BEFORE it was updated.
Looks a little difference than greenie's brainwash soup. (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS21379.pdf)
-
So how about them Eagles.
-
Originally posted by greentail
n Zulu7's deleted thread about censorship, there was a discussion going on about Congressional and Executive branch leadership.
I had posted that the present Republican leadership had not served in the military, while the Democratic congressional leadership had, as a whole, served.
A opposing post was made wih a link to a website listing the military records of the members of congress. It showed that many Republicans had served. True. Republicans love their country, too.
Which is fine, but that did not address the issue of Republican leadership. The link below helps to show my point.
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
Now you "conservatives" can commence your predictable attacks on Democratic veterans.
Why does it matter if the 'Republican leaders' haven't served as much as the 'Democratic congressional leadership'?
What is your point and why should I concern myself with your point?
I can name several Democratic 'leaders', not congressional leaders, that didn't serve in the armed forces but were COIC during wartime.
-
Abe Lincoln never "served", damm rightwing neo-con war monger, he invaded the Confederate States of America.
me? i was in the Marines.
44MAG
-
No offense at all.
Private lives should be exactly that. However , when it DOES become public , then at that time , it should be dealt with.
I'll use this example.....
Clinton is found out to be getting "Favors" from an intern in the Oval Office. Now.....My problem with that is it is not becoming the President of the US for that to be happening in the Oval Office and he is married to boot. That I have a problem with. I'll just leave the rest of the stuff out.
Now he should have just fessed up and said yeah to all of it. Instead IMO he just made a fool of himself and runined his work in the White House over a "Favor"
So ...I agree with them having a private life. I agree the Media takes Cheap Shots , but , when you live that life you will have to face certain things if they ever find out some "Dirt" on ya.
-
They shouldn't be digging for dirt. They should be focusing on the question is this guy running the country well. That is the issue full stop for me. If he isn't then he should go. If he is then stay.
If the media weren't so obsessed with the dirt then we would never have been any wiser and the family could have dealt with it in their own way in their own time without all the nasty voyeristic rubbish that ensued. President or pauper these are still people.
The French laugh at the US and UK. I saw a guy from the French press being interviewed on our news the other day and he was saying that he thinks that our press act like young teenagers who've discovered sex for the first time and are obsessed by it. In France they accept it as part of life. Fun yes beautiful yes but not that important compared to other things.
I think the French have a better attitude.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
I think the French have a better attitude.
Of course you do.
Again, that's SOP for moonbats.
-
Martlet any chance of a considered response. A coherent argument for your case? Or Do I just get the usual poop from your keyboard? I'm losing respect for you fast here.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Martlet any chance of a considered response. A coherent argument for your case? Or Do I just get the usual poop from your keyboard? I'm losing respect for you fast here.
When you get to "no respect", then our feelings will be mutual.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Rather than look at greenhead's propaganda page, let's take a look at government's own demographics page for the 108th Congress, even BEFORE it was updated.
Looks a little difference than greenie's brainwash soup. (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS21379.pdf)
Martlet,
You miss the point.
What does this page say about the Republican leadership ? My post was concerning the Republican Party leadership.
Shall we run it down, Martlet? Please feel free to refute this.
Present day or recent Republican leadership:
George W. Bush -- deserter, AWOL, whatever, he didn't fnish his service
Dick Cheney -- no service
Karl Rove -- no service
Dennis Hastert -- no service
Dick Armey -- no service
Tom Delay -- no service
Bill Frist -- no service
Trent Lott -- no service
John Ashcroft -- no service
Newt Gingrich -- no service
Phil Gramm -- no service
Mitch McConnell -- no service
Roy Blunt -- no service
Paul Wolfowitz -- no service
Richard Perle -- no service
Jeff Gannon -- serviced W.ho?
It's not all bad, of course:
Donald Rumsfeld -- US Navy
Duke Cunningham -- Navy Cross!
John McCain -- served, captured, tortured, then smeared by W.
Bob Dole -- US Army, Purple Heart
George H.W. Bush -- US Navy
Here's my favorite:
Ronald Reagan -- made movies in Hollywood during WWII.
George S. McGovern -- Distinguished Flying Cross, Silver Star, Purple Heart, wounded in action over occupied Europe flying B-24s.
Come on Martlet, refute that.
-
Originally posted by greentail
Martlet,
You miss the point.
What does this page say about the Republican leadership ? My post was concerning the Republican Party leadership.
Shall we run it down, Martlet? Please feel free to refute this.
Present day or recent Republican leadership:
George W. Bush -- deserter, AWOL, whatever, he didn't fnish his service
Dick Cheney -- no service
Karl Rove -- no service
Dennis Hastert -- no service
Dick Armey -- no service
Tom Delay -- no service
Bill Frist -- no service
Trent Lott -- no service
John Ashcroft -- no service
Newt Gingrich -- no service
Phil Gramm -- no service
Mitch McConnell -- no service
Roy Blunt -- no service
Paul Wolfowitz -- no service
Richard Perle -- no service
Jeff Gannon -- serviced W.ho?
It's not all bad, of course:
Donald Rumsfeld -- US Navy
Duke Cunningham -- Navy Cross!
John McCain -- served, captured, tortured, then smeared by W.
Bob Dole -- US Army, Purple Heart
George H.W. Bush -- US Navy
Here's my favorite:
Ronald Reagan -- made movies in Hollywood during WWII.
George S. McGovern -- Distinguished Flying Cross, Silver Star, Purple Heart, wounded in action over occupied Europe flying B-24s.
Come on Martlet, refute that.
Here's a better idea.
You establish it's relevance, and I'll bother refuting it.
While you're at it, make it accurate.
-
So explain yourself Mr martlet why no respect?
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
They shouldn't be digging for dirt. They should be focusing on the question is this guy running the country well. That is the issue full stop for me. If he isn't then he should go. If he is then stay.
If the media weren't so obsessed with the dirt then we would never have been any wiser and the family could have dealt with it in their own way in their own time without all the nasty voyeristic rubbish that ensued. President or pauper these are still people.
The French laugh at the US and UK. I saw a guy from the French press being interviewed on our news the other day and he was saying that he thinks that our press act like young teenagers who've discovered sex for the first time and are obsessed by it. In France they accept it as part of life. Fun yes beautiful yes but not that important compared to other things.
I think the French have a better attitude.
Coming from a guy who thinks the US president needs to
answer to a non-citizen concerning his policies, I'm not surprised
you appreciate the French view.
They accept alot of things in France, doesn't mean they're
correct.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
They shouldn't be digging for dirt. They should be focusing on the question is this guy running the country well. That is the issue full stop for me. If he isn't then he should go. If he is then stay.
If the media weren't so obsessed with the dirt then we would never have been any wiser and the family could have dealt with it in their own way in their own time without all the nasty voyeristic rubbish that ensued. President or pauper these are still people.
The French laugh at the US and UK. I saw a guy from the French press being interviewed on our news the other day and he was saying that he thinks that our press act like young teenagers who've discovered sex for the first time and are obsessed by it. In France they accept it as part of life. Fun yes beautiful yes but not that important compared to other things.
I think the French have a better attitude.
Well it would be nice if records of politicians were what was the most important things. However , being realistic , they aren't.
As soon as a politician opens his/her mouth and states their personal beleifs , then all bets are off. At that point it gives the media a starting point to start looking for that dirt that can make them look 2 faced and a hypocrit. It is a visious cycle.
We as people , either take it as fact , or with a grain of salt. I tend to take most with a grain. Not all but most. I have my belief system and tend to vote and lean towards those that share it. Or , at least close to it.
Thanks for the responses.
-
Pleasure Red top. respect is due.
Now Rino
A president who uses his military to enforce his view of the world on others is answerable or should be to us all. Particularly my nation as our troops are fighting alongside said presidents troops. And the people of our nation would genuinely quite like to know why they are there and many of us are not at all sure they should be there.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Here's a better idea.
You establish it's relevance, and I'll bother refuting it.
While you're at it, make it accurate.
I'm very open minded. Please feel free to point out any inaccuracies.
-
Originally posted by greentail
I'm very open minded. Please feel free to point out any inaccuracies.
Rather than run through all of them, let's just start with the first name on the list.
In the list cited, Bush is put in the "bad service/didn't serve column for leaving the service early. Kerry isn't.
Now, let's get back to you establishing the relevance.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Rather than run through all of them, let's just start with the first name on the list.
In the list cited, Bush is put in the "bad service/didn't serve column for leaving the service early. Kerry isn't.
Now, let's get back to you establishing the relevance.
Man has a point there Green:lol
BTW Green...have you served in the Military?
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Pleasure Red top. respect is due.
Now Rino
A president who uses his military to enforce his view of the world on others is answerable or should be to us all. Particularly my nation as our troops are fighting alongside said presidents troops. And the people of our nation would genuinely quite like to know why they are there and many of us are not at all sure they should be there.
zulu do you discount the theory that democracy is needed in the middle east and that Iraq could be the regional "spark" that makes it happen?
I'm assuming here that you are not American....that said wouldn't you hold YOUR leaders accountable because it is THEM that sent your country's troops there and not ours?
PS I am a conservative leaning libertarian and yes I served and still do to this day 9 years active duty so far.
-
Maybe Kerry isn't there because it's a list of Republicans. Nice tap dance to avoid the issue. Answer the question and quit dancing.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Maybe Kerry isn't there because it's a list of Republicans. Nice tap dance to avoid the issue. Answer the question and quit dancing.
Maybe you should actually read the link that he ripped that from, before you make yourself look any dumber.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Maybe Kerry isn't there because it's a list of Republicans. Nice tap dance to avoid the issue. Answer the question and quit dancing.
DANGIT...another good point.
Think I'll just sit here and drink my Dr.Pepper and BE quiet...Maybe:lol
-
Originally posted by RedTop
DANGIT...another good point.
Think I'll just sit here and drink my Dr.Pepper and BE quiet...Maybe:lol
You spoke too soon with that one.
-
C'mon Martlet. It's common knowledge Dubya blew off the military when it wasn't "convienient". Admit it.
-
Originally posted by rpm
C'mon Martlet. It's common knowledge Dubya blew off the military when it wasn't "convienient". Admit it.
What a compelling argument.
:rolleyes:
-
Facts usually are.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You spoke too soon with that one.
Yep :lol
Like I said...This may get good so I will drink my Dr.Pepper and watch a bit
-
Originally posted by rpm
Facts usually are.
Facts? I didn't see any facts. I saw a "c'mon, believe me".
-
I don't see any rebuttal, only more dancing.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I don't see any rebuttal, only more dancing.
Rebuttal? You haven't given anything to rebut. Heck, you haven't even addressed my original statement. You just made a fool of yourself and started parroting.
-
Bush left the service when it was no longer convienient for him. Working a political campaign was more important. Got a straight up answer or just dance some more?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Bush left the service when it was no longer convienient for him. Working a political campaign was more important. Got a straight up answer or just dance some more?
Some more? I haven't danced at all.
Kerry left the service when it was no longer convenient for him. That isn't on the list. Why? It's a bogus biased list.
My list, on the other hand, is accurate.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
And the people of our nation would genuinely quite like to know why they are there and many of us are not at all sure they should be there.
Well, until the President of the US gets direct control over your armed forces, I'd guess you better ask your own politicians.
I'm suprised you hadn't figured that out.
-
As I suspected, no defense...only dance.
-
Originally posted by rpm
As I suspected, no defense...only dance.
No defence? What am I supposed to be defending? If you'd like to start a completely independent discussion, be my guest. You've already shown yourself to be a fool in this one.
If you'd like to jump into the middle of this discussion, which you obviously do, then I suggest you go back and start at the beginning to get caught up.
You aren't even on topic.
Or don't, I don't care. I'm just trying to save you further embarrassment.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Rather than run through all of them,
yeah, let's not run through that list :-)
let's just start with the first name on the list.
In the list cited, Bush is put in the "bad service/didn't serve column for leaving the service early. Kerry isn't.
Maybe because Kerry served more than a full tour in Vietnam? Is that what you consider leaving the service early?
Now, let's get back to you establishing the relevance. [/B]
The relevance is in Zulu7's thread about censorship that was deleted. Please read the original post in this thread.
You alluded to inaccuracies in that list earlier. What are they? Or is it accurate?
-
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzz
-
No point in continuing if you won't answer a direct point put before you. Probably because you can't and are embarrased. That's fine, we understand.
-
Would it be a safe assumption that ALOT of our currnet leaders did alot of the same things? I'm just asking.
on a side note......Zulu and I are oppisetts on just about every issue I would bet , and yet we ain't arguing. Just thought that interesting.
-
Originally posted by greentail
yeah, let's not run through that list :-)
Maybe because Kerry served more than a full tour in Vietnam? Is that what you consider leaving the service early?
The relevance is in Zulu7's thread about censorship that was deleted. Please read the original post in this thread.
You alluded to inaccuracies in that list earlier. What are they? Or is it accurate?
Actually, Kerry never completed a tour of duty in Vietnam, either. Not only did he bail out of the service early, he abandoned his boat crew less than 4 months into a 12 month tour. Prior to that he spent 5 months in California and 5 months in the South Pacific.
But I digress.
Your list isn't relevant. First, what's the point? They are elected officials. Second, your list, (as I pointed out previously) is inaccurate. Heck, some of the people on your list aren't even serving anymore.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Bush left the service when it was no longer convienient for him. Working a political campaign was more important. Got a straight up answer or just dance some more?
RPM being completly serious.........isn't that basically what kerry did as well?
The only reason I bring him up is because he has been his major political oponent leading up to the last election.
on the subject of elected officials I have to agree that they are in fact elected.
in addition I dont feel military service is relevent for everyone. I dont want anyone on my crew who doesnt want to be there! I think it is a good thing that not all of our political leaders are military types.
-
Originally posted by rpm
No point in continuing if you won't answer a direct point put before you. Probably because you can't and are embarrased. That's fine, we understand.
Heck, I'm still waiting for you to make ANY point, let alone one relevant to the discussion.
As I stated before, feel free. If you have a "direct point to put before me", I'l be more than happy to answer it. As it stands now, you can't even follow the conversation.
-
A opposing post was made wih a link to a website listing the military records of the members of congress. It showed that many Republicans had served. True. Republicans love their country, too.
Which is fine, but that did not address the issue of Republican leadership.
Guns, being completely serious, this thread was about Republican service. Instead of giving a straight answer all that was done was point fingers and say "Look at Kerry". That's not answering the point on the table, it's skirting the issue. It was a nice try at diverting attention.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Some more? I haven't danced at all.
Kerry left the service when it was no longer convenient for him. That isn't on the list. Why? It's a bogus biased list.
My list, on the other hand, is accurate.
Correct me if I'm wrong. John Kerry was in his second combat tour in Vietnam when he was shipped out. Seems he had his quota of Purple Hearts.
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/service.html
The relevant part is in the second paragraph or so, about starting his second tour.
Feel free to refute that. And explain how that is leaving early, and equivalant to W. blowing off his TAG commitment.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Heck, I'm still waiting for you to make ANY point, let alone one relevant to the discussion.
As I stated before, feel free. If you have a "direct point to put before me", I'l be more than happy to answer it. As it stands now, you can't even follow the conversation.
Originally posted by rpm
Bush left the service when it was no longer convienient for him. Working a political campaign was more important.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Guns, being completely serious, this thread was about Republican service. Instead of giving a straight answer all that was done was point fingers and say "Look at Kerry". That's not answering the point on the table, it's skirting the issue. It was a nice try at diverting attention.
It would be a great discussion to have, however the catalyst of the post was a list that was inaccurate. When that was pointed out, you jumped in and started crying foul.
Sorry, if you're going to have a discussion based on information, don't cry when it's proven false.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Bush left the service when it was no longer convienient for him. Working a political campaign was more important.
-
(http://www.digis.net/webnews/xwd/ak/photo-cn30526.jpg)
He's serving again
-
Originally posted by rpm
Correct. It was also convenient for the military to release him.
Now that we've established that, let's move to the corresponding name on the Dem's side of the list.
John Kerry abandoned his boat crew in combat when it was convenient for him. He then bailed from the service early when it was no longer convenient for him to be in.
Now that we've gotten that little tidbit out of the way, let's get back to the discussion.
What's the relevance?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
It would be a great discussion to have, however the catalyst of the post was a list that was inaccurate. When that was pointed out, you jumped in and started crying foul.
Sorry, if you're going to have a discussion based on information, don't cry when it's proven false.
The only false information posted here so far has come from you.
Please show where the false information in the list of Republican leaders lack of military service is.
You said Kerry did not serve a full tour in Vietnam. That is false. Back up your claim if you can.
-
Yep, Kerry left early with a batch of Purple Hearts. No arguement.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Yep, Kerry left early with a batch of Purple Hearts. No arguement.
Kerry did not leave early.
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/service.html
-
Originally posted by greentail
The only false information posted here so far has come from you.
Please show where the false information in the list of Republican leaders lack of military service is.
You said Kerry did not serve a full tour in Vietnam. That is false. Back up your claim if you can.
Sure.
Here's a run down of Kerry's service. (http://www.paulcrespo.com/showArticle.php?id=68)
You must get pretty tired of looking stupid.
-
Originally posted by greentail
Kerry did not leave early.
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/service.html
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
What dates did he serve, again?
-
Stop argueing with him Martlet, RPM is right, Bush did leave under questionable circumstances. I saw it on 60 minutes.
Here is the quote I posted in the deleted thread:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS21379.pdf
There are 153 Members of the 108th Congress who have had some form of military service, some 14 fewer than in the 107th Congress. The House has 117 veterans: 69 Republicans and 48 Democrats, including one woman, who is a Republican. In the Senate, 35 Members are veterans: 19 Republicans and 16 Democrats. They have served in World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and Kosovo, and during times of peace, as well as in the Reserves and the National Guard. One Senator is a former Secretary of the Navy. There has been a steady decline in the number of Members who have served in the military, which may be attributed in part to the end of the Selective Service System draft in 1973.
You will note that more Republicans (88) than Democrats (64) serving in Congress.
The Democratic Leadership in the House is leader Nancy Pelosi (California)
The House Minority Whip is Steny H. Hoyer (Maryland)
The Senate Minority Leader is Harry Reid, (Nevada)
The Senate Minority Whip is Dick Durban (Illinios)
These 4 highest ranking Democartic members of Congress did not serve in the military.
And Greentail, Congress is our leadership. We elect them for that purpose.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Sure.
Here's a run down of Kerry's service. (http://www.paulcrespo.com/showArticle.php?id=68)
You must get pretty tired of looking stupid.
From the cited website:
"His first Navy tour of duty... "
Let's look at that one more time:
"His first Navy tour of duty..."
OK. Seems to say he served more than one tour now, doesn't it?
Now, who's stupid?
-
Originally posted by greentail
From the cited website:
"His first Navy tour of duty... "
Let's look at that one more time:
"His first Navy tour of duty..."
OK. Seems to say he served more than one tour now, doesn't it?
Now, who's stupid?
Um, you, unless the Navy is now Vietnam and I didn't know it.
Originally posted by greentail
Maybe because Kerry served more than a full tour in Vietnam?
Here's another quote from that site:
He requested and gained this early transfer back home and left his boat crew behind eight months before the end of his Vietnam tour of duty.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Stop argueing with him Martlet, RPM is right, Bush did leave under questionable circumstances. I saw it on 60 minutes.
Here is the quote I posted in the deleted thread:
You will note that more Republicans (88) than Democrats (64) serving in Congress.
The Democratic Leadership in the House is leader Nancy Pelosi (California)
The House Minority Whip is Steny H. Hoyer (Maryland)
The Senate Minority Leader is Harry Reid, (Nevada)
The Senate Minority Whip is Dick Durban (Illinios)
These 4 highest ranking Democartic members of Congress did not serve in the military.
And Greentail, Congress is our leadership. We elect them for that purpose.
There was never a question of Republican patriotism. In the deleted thread the Democrats were called the anti-war party. I just though it interesting that more of their leadership had served in the armed forces than had Republican leadership.
-
Originally posted by greentail
I just though it interesting that more of their leadership had served in the armed forces than had Republican leadership.
As Holden pointed out, that isn't, in fact, the case.
-
88 > 64
0 for 4 in the top Demo Congressional leadership positions.
Howard Dean, new Democratic Party Chairman, no military service.
0 for 5 in top Demo positions.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Um, you, unless the Navy is now Vietnam and I didn't know it.
Here's another quote from that site:
Martlet,
Nice spin, but it doesn't work, my friend. You claimed he left early. I showed he did more than one tour. The very website you posted backed me up.
Spin away, amigo.
-
Originally posted by greentail
In the deleted thread someone called the Democrats the anti-war party.
I got news for ya Braincloud- Kerry, Feinstein, Boxer and 98 out of 100 of the US Senate voted to invade Iraq.
It crossed party lines, Bubba. It had overwhelmong support. Don't try to reinvent the past, especially the most recent past.
-
Originally posted by greentail
Martlet,
Nice spin, but it doesn't work, my friend. You claimed he left early. I showed he did more than one tour. The very website you posted backed me up.
Spin away, amigo.
Um, you've shown nothing. Saying you are right doesn't make it so.
You said he did more than one tour in Vietnam. I said he didn't.
He did numerous tours in the Navy at various duty stations. However, he only completed less than 4 months of a 12 month tour in Vietnam.
The website I linked to shows I'm right. Unless, of course, you can show me where it says otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
As Holden pointed out, that isn't, in fact, the case.
Recent Democratic congressional leadership:
Dick Gephardt -- Air National guard
David Bonior -- USAF
Tom Daschle -- USAF
Al Gore -- US Army
Bob kerrey -- USN
John Kerry -- USN
Tom Harkin -- USN
Jack Reed -- Ranger
Gray Davis -- US Army
Wesley Clark
Max Clelland -- left two legs and an arm in Vietnam
Holden is correct, as now presently constituted the Dems and Repubs are tied 0 to 0.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
I got news for ya Braincloud- Kerry, Feinstein, Boxer and 98 out of 100 of the US Senate voted to invade Iraq.
It crossed party lines, Bubba. It had overwhelmong support. Don't try to reinvent the past, especially the most recent past.
Well, that is sort of my point! Why call them the anti-war party, when they not only vote for war, but unlike the Republicans, they go and fight!
-
Originally posted by greentail
Well, that is sort of my point! Why call them the anti-war party, when they not only vote for war, but unlike the Republicans, they go and fight!
Um, as Holden pointed out, there are more Republican Veteran's than Democrat.
-
Originally posted by greentail
Recent Democratic congressional leadership:
Dick Gephardt -- Air National guard
David Bonior -- USAF
Tom Daschle -- USAF
Al Gore -- US Army
Bob kerrey -- USN
John Kerry -- USN
Tom Harkin -- USN
Jack Reed -- Ranger
Gray Davis -- US Army
Wesley Clark
Max Clelland -- left two legs and an arm in Vietnam
Holden is correct, as now presently constituted the Dems and Repubs are tied 0 to 0.
When were Gray Davis and Wesley Clark in congress?
-
Greentail...I'll ask 1 more time....
Since the title was "Who Served"
Have you?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Um, as Holden pointed out, there are more Republican Veteran's than Democrat.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
In the deleted thread, it was stated that the Democrats were the anti-war party. I thought it was curious that the leadership of the anti-war party had a more extensive military record than the supposed party of patriotism.
In the last congress, which was the one that debated this war, the Democratic leadership had more veterans than the Republican leadership. True or false?
-
:D Weazel.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Greentail...I'll ask 1 more time....
Since the title was "Who Served"
Have you?
That was answered earlier, Red Top. Please try to keep up. :-)
The "who served" was related to a post in the deleted thread. I wish I could quote it for you, but I can't. It was deleted!
Poor title for the thread. it wasn't meant to be a poll.
-
88 > 64
-
Originally posted by greentail
Well, that is sort of my point! Why call them the anti-war party, when they not only vote for war, but unlike the Republicans, they go and fight!
If this was your point why didn't you empatically and implicitely state that in your original post?
It appears that you simply want to stir up meatball and between you, zulu, rpm, and martlet you have muddied the water quite a bit while never really addressing your point.
Jebus.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
88 > 64
-
Originally posted by greentail
Well, that is sort of my point! Why call them the anti-war party, when they not only vote for war, but unlike the Republicans, they go and fight!
So what's your point? The President is also in charge of federal prisons, too- does that mean he isn't qualified as a leader because he was never a prisoner?
Being a Vet doesn't give one some sort of "special insight" into leadership anyway- hell, I'm a Vet, and I drink too much, I fart in public, I never tip, I beat my dog, and I cheat on my taxes....And I'd do the same thing if I hadn't been a Vet.
If you're implying that Vets have more of an aversion to war than non-vets then I suggest you rent Rambo from NetFlix and watch it over and over again...after about the fiftieth viewing you'll be able to cry right along with Sylvester Stallone when he has his final emotional breakdown at the end of the movie, and you may finally- understand- our-pain.
Do you know how many Viet Vets it takes to change a lightbulb?
Of COURSE you don't, dude, because YOU WEREN'T THERE!!! :mad:
LOL Too funny...
-
Originally posted by Drunky
If this was your point why didn't you empatically and implicitely state that in your original post?
It appears that you simply want to stir up meatball and between you, zulu, rpm, and martlet you have muddied the water quite a bit while never really addressing your point.
Jebus.
True, this spiraled out of control quite awhile ago, didn't it? My fault that.
It is just that the idea of so many gung-ho military supporters bad mouthing veterans and cheering on draft dodgers tickles my funny bone.
It's a strange world.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Being a Vet doesn't give one some sort of "special insight" into leadership anyway- hell, I'm a Vet, and I drink too much, I fart in public, I never tip, I beat my dog, and I cheat on my taxes....And I'd do the same thing if I hadn't been a Vet.
I'm an auditor for the IRS. An internet trace is in progress.
-
Originally posted by greentail
True, this spiraled out of control quite awhile ago, didn't it? My fault that.
It is just that the idea of so many gung-ho military supporters bad mouthing veterans and cheering on draft dodgers tickles my funny bone.
It's a strange world.
You'll never catch me cheering on a draft dodger. I hated Clinton.
-
greentail , 2 points
bush got a honorable discharge.
kerry did not serve two tours, he was on a offshore ship and transfered to swift boats, that sent him back to the states for training, he then went back to nam.
kerry joined the navy because it was better than getting drafted into the army and fighting in rice paddys, when he asked for transfer to swift boats they were only opperating on the coast and he wanted to be like his hero JFK, when he got back to nam he found out the swift boats were going up river and he found a quick way back to the states, two band-aids and a gause dressing. "war hero"
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/481_1109397402_monica.jpg)
-
Pretty sure Arthur Ashe used to serve pretty well.. the Williams sisters are serving pretty well.
Guess lots of folks serve. More than you think.
-
BTW, somebody told me that picture just showed that dog biscuits are cheaper than cigars and that Labs are more eager than interns.
-
Saw a guy at work get served today.
Hope he finds employment soon.
-
(http://www.impawards.com/2004/posters/you_got_served.jpg)
-
(http://www.kazoobie.com/dpk/Kazoobie/Graphics/Kazoo%20CD%20Front.jpg)
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1109403715_nuyck.gif)
-
Ya know, some might say this thread is deterorating, but I think it's getting better.
Maybe it's the kazooos, maybe it's Nash checking in, maybe it's the Vodka- But this thread is really, really starting to get cool.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
88 > 64
Actually that # matters little what does matter is percentage.
229 republicans in the 108th 69 served = 30%
204 dems in the 108th 48 served = 24%
Senate
51 republicans in the 108th 19 served 37%
48 Dems in the 108th 16 served 33%
Think these are correct its late though so excuse me if they are not.
More republicans served than democrats overall.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
More republicans served than democrats overall.
-
There are many urban legends regarding the parties that continue to thrive despite the facts.
For instance, the Republicans have consistantly supported major civil rights legislation more strongly than have the Democrats.
While the "conscience of the Senate", Robert Byrd*, (D WV) filibustered against the landmark 1964 civil rights bill the House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 126, a vote in which 79% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted yes.
After breaking the filibuster the Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting no.
And yet the Republicans are viewed as more racially motivated than the Democratic party.
edit> *Byrd (D-WV) Senior Democrat Senator, Senator since 1958, ranking Democrat on the armed services committee, 24 years old in 1941, did not serve in the military but did serve as a recruiter in the Klan.
-
Heh I didn't bother reading the whole post as it's your domestic issues, but the first phrase was hilarious:
'Zulus deleted thread about censorship'
A classic. :rofl
-
February 18, 2004, 8:40 a.m.
Bush and the National Guard: Case Closed
byork@nationalreview.com
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article appears in the March 8, 2004, issue of National Review.
Ask retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed whether the press has accurately reported what he said about George W. Bush, and you'll get an earful. "No, I don't think they have," he begins. Turnipseed, the former head of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group of the Alabama Air National Guard, was widely quoted as saying he never saw Bush in Alabama in 1972, and if the future president had been there, he would remember. In fact, Turnipseed says, he doesn't recall whether Bush was there or not; the young flier, then a complete unknown in Alabama, was never part of the 900-man 187th, so Turnipseed wouldn't have had much reason to notice him. But most reporters haven't been interested in Turnipseed's best recollection. "They don't understand the Guard, they don't want to understand the Guard, and they hate Bush," he says. "So when I say, ‘There's a good possibility that Bush showed up,' why would they put that in their articles?"
In recent weeks, Turnipseed has found himself in the middle of a battle in which Democrats have called the president a "deserter" who went "AWOL" for an entire year during his time in the Air National Guard. When Democrats made those accusations — amplified by extensive press coverage — the White House was slow to fight back, insisting that the issue, which came up in the 2000 campaign, was closed and did not merit a response. It was only after NBC's Tim Russert brought the story up during a one-hour interview with the president on February 8 that the White House changed course and released records of the president's Guard service.
Those records have not quieted the most determined of the president's enemies — no one who watches the Democratic opposition really believed they would — but they do make a strong case that Bush fulfilled his duties and met the requirements for Air National Guard officers during his service from 1968 to 1973. A look at those records, along with interviews with people who knew Bush at the time, suggests that after all the shouting is over, and some of the basic facts become known, this latest line of attack on the president will come to nothing.
-
contd.
FOUR YEARS OF FLYING
The controversy over Bush's service centers on what his critics call "the period in question," that is, the time from May 1972 until May 1973. What is not mentioned as often is that that period was in fact Bush's fifth year in the Guard, one that followed four years of often intense service.
Bush joined in May 1968. He went through six weeks of basic training — a full-time job — at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Then he underwent 53 weeks of flight training — again, full time — at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Ga. Then he underwent 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training — full time — at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Counting other, shorter, postings in between, by the end of his training period Bush had served two years on active duty.
Certified to fly the F-102 fighter plane, Bush then began a period of frequent — usually weekly — flying. The F-102 was designed to shoot down other fighter planes, and the missions Bush flew were training flights, mostly over the Gulf of Mexico and often at night, in which pilots took turns being the predator and the prey."If you're going to practice how to shoot down another airplane, then you have to have another airplane up there to work on," recalls retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. "He'd be the target for the first half of the mission, and then we'd switch."
During that period Bush's superiors gave him consistently high ratings as a pilot. "Lt. Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer," wrote one in a 1972 evaluation. Another evaluation, in 1971, called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." And a third rating, in 1970, said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was also "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership."
All that flying involved quite a bit of work. "Being a pilot is more than just a monthly appearance," says Bob Harmon, a former Guard pilot who was a member of Bush's group in 1971 and 1972. "You cannot maintain your currency by doing just one drill a month. He was flying once or twice a week during that time, from May of 1971 until May of 1972." While the work was certainly not as dangerous as fighting in the jungles of Vietnam, it wasn't exactly safe, either. Harmon remembers a half-dozen Texas Air National Guard fliers who died in accidents over the years, in cluding one during the time Bush was flying. "This was not an endeavor without risk," Harmon notes.
THE MOVE TO ALABAMA
The records show that Bush kept up his rigorous schedule of flying through the spring of 1972: He was credited for duty on ten days in March of that year, and seven days in April. Then, as Bush began his fifth year of service in the Guard, he appears to have stepped back dramatically. The records indicate that he received no credit in May, June, July, August, and September 1972. In October, he was credited with two days, and in November he was credited with four. There were no days in December, and then six in January 1973. Then there were no days in February and March.
The change was the result of Bush's decision to go to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount. With an obligation to the Guard, Bush asked to perform equivalent service in Alabama. That was not an unusual request, given that members of the Guard, like everyone else, often moved around the country. "It was a common thing," recalls Brigadier General Turnipseed. "If we had had a guy in Houston, he could have made equivalent training with Bush's unit. It was so common that the guy who wrote the letter telling Bush to come didn't even tell me about it."
The president's critics have charged that he did not show up for service — was "AWOL" — in Alabama. Bush says he did serve, and his case is supported by records showing that he was paid and given retirement credit for days of service while he was known to be in Alabama. The records also show that Bush received a dental examination on January 6, 1973, at Dannelly Air National Guard base, home of the 187th (January 6 was one of the days that pay records show Bush receiving credit for service). And while a number of Guard members at the base say they do not remember seeing Bush among the roughly 900 men who served there during that time, another member, a retired lieutenant named John Calhoun, says he remembers seeing Bush at the base several times.
What seems most likely is that Bush was indeed at Dannelly, but there was not very much for a non-flying pilot to do. Flying fighter jets involves constant practice and training; Bush had to know when he left Texas that he would no longer be able to engage in either one very often, which meant that he would essentially leave flying, at least for some substantial period of time. In addition, the 187th could not accommodate another pilot, at least regularly. "He was not going to fly," says Turnipseed. "We didn't have enough airplanes or sorties to handle our own pilots, so we wouldn't have done it for some guy passing through."
On the other hand, showing up for drills was still meeting one's responsibility to the Guard. And, as 1973 went along, the evidence suggests that Bush stepped up his work to make up for the time he had missed earlier. In April of that year, he received credit for two days; in May, he received credit for 14 days; in June, five days; and in July, 19 days. That was the last service Bush performed in the Guard. Later that year, he asked for and received permission to leave the Guard early so he could attend Harvard Business School. He was given an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months, and five days of his original six-year commitment.
The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968).
Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.
All in all, the documents show that Bush served intensively for four years and then let up in his fifth and sixth years, although he still did enough to meet Guard requirements. The records also suggest that Bush's superiors were not only happy with his performance from 1968 to 1972, but also happy with his decision to go to Alabama. Indeed, Bush's evaluating officer wrote in May 1972 that "Lt. Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interest in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for United States Senate. He is a good representative of the military and Air National Guard in the business world."
Beyond their apparent hope that Bush would be a good ambassador for the Guard, Bush's superiors might have been happy with his decision to go into politics for another reason: They simply had more people than they needed. "In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," says Campenni. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."
-
contd.
THE UNENDING ATTACK
Despite the evidence, Democrats have continued to accuse the president of shirking his duty during his Guard career. "He went to Alabama for one year," Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe said on ABC on February 1. "He didn't show up. Call it whatever you want, AWOL, it doesn't matter." After Bush made his Guard records public, McAuliffe released a statement saying the documents "create more questions than answers." Other Democrats, as well as an energetic team of liberal columnists and bloggers, echoed McAuliffe's comments.
Perhaps the most impressive accomplishment of Bush's detractors is that they managed to sell the idea — mostly unchallenged in the press — that Bush's Air National Guard service consisted of one year during which he didn't show up for duty. Far fewer people asked the question: Just how did Bush become a fighter pilot in the first place? Didn't that involve, say, years of work? Bush's four years of service prior to May 1972 were simply airbrushed out of the picture because many reporters did not believe they were part of the story.
It also seems likely that some of Bush's adversaries used the Guard issue as a way to get at other questions about the president. The Guard record was said to have a bearing on Bush's credibility, on the war in Iraq, on his fitness to lead. In addition, some journalists were nearly obsessed with forcing the president to release medical records from his time in the Guard because they hoped those records might reveal some evidence of drug use. The White House did not release the full set of medical records but did allow reporters to view them; the documents were entirely unexcep tional and contained nothing about drug use.
While all that was going on, both the White House and the Bush reelection campaign seemed consistently to underestimate the ferocity and resolve of the president's adversaries. For weeks, as the controversy grew, the president did nothing to defend himself. Those who wanted to speak up in his defense, like William Campenni and Bob Harmon, were not contacted by the White House; instead, they decided to go public on their own. Even when John Calhoun, the man who remembers Bush in Alabama, sent the White House an e-mail saying he had useful information, he received a stock response, without any indication the White House was interested in what he had to say.
Now the evidence is public; anyone who is interested in learning about Bush's service can do so. In the end, the president had the facts on his side. But he also had the good fortune to have the allegiance of men who feel so intensely about the Guard and their service that they wanted to speak out even if the White House didn't seem to care. Men like Campenni and Harmon were deeply offended when Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry equated Guard service during the Vietnam War with fleeing the country or going to jail. That was simply too much. "I'm not a Bushie," says Harmon. "The thing that got a few of us crawling out from under a rock, at no instigation from the White House, was that Guard service was being portrayed as being like a draft dodger."
.
-
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0002234RC.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)
-
MT thinks it's OK for women to serve. How sick is THAT???
-
Only scotch, and only scotch that is old enough to vote.
-
Who got served?
EDIT: DAMMIT MT!!
(http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/yougotserved/site/downloads/ygs_wp3_1024.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Do you know how many Viet Vets it takes to change a lightbulb?
Of COURSE you don't, dude, because YOU WEREN'T THERE!!! :mad:
Yes, that is true, I wasn't there. And neither was George W.Bush, Dick Cheney, Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle.
There is one difference between myself and those gentlemen, however:
I DON'T ATTACK THE REPUTATIONS OF THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED! ESPECIALLY, THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN COMBAT FOR OUR COUNTRY!
Do you perhaps remember Bush's smear campaign against McCain?
Shelby Chambliss stayed out of Vietnam, and still had the gall to attack Max Clelland's dedication to America. Max Clelland, who left two legs and an arm in Vietnam.
Do you support those who denigrate the service of Vietnam veterns? Do you?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You'll never catch me cheering on a draft dodger. I hated Clinton.
That's funny. There is a picture of a draft dodger under your name.
His vice-president is a draft dodger. Do you hate him? The Speaker of the House is a draft dodger, do you hate him? Trent Lott, Tom Delay? Do you hate them? The Republican Senate leader is a draft dodger. Do you hate him?
Or do you only hate those who served in Vietnam?
This works for both sides. Did you pay attention during the 1988 presidential campaign? Some folks from The Nation magazine were writing articles about Bush I. They were calling him a coward for bailing out of that TBM. They seemed to think it was his fault that the other members of the crew did not make it.
I thought tht was BS then, just as I think your attacks on Kerry are BS. Just like those Republicans that called McCain a traitor are despicable.
-
Originally posted by greentail
I DON'T ATTACK THE REPUTATIONS OF THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED!
Originally posted by greentail
That's funny. There is a picture of a draft dodger under your name.
I suppose the "wisdom" of making these two statements in consecutive posts escapes you totally, doesn't it?
Yes, I thought so.
Unless, of course, you are saying that all Air National Guardsmen that graduated from UPT, served two years on active duty and 3+ more on Guard duty, fulfilled all their Guard requirements and were awarded an Honorable Discharge are Draft Dodgers?
But you wouldn't say that would you? Because, after all, you
Originally posted by greentail
DON'T ATTACK THE REPUTATIONS OF THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED!
Is "putz" considered an insult? Because I don't insult people and I certainly wouldn't say you are a "putz" if that was an insult.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I suppose the "wisdom" of making these two statements in consecutive posts escapes you totally, doesn't it?
Yes, I thought so.
Unless, of course, you are saying that all Air National Guardsmen that graduated from UPT, served two years on active duty and 3+ more on Guard duty, fulfilled all their Guard requirements and were awarded an Honorable Discharge are Draft Dodgers?
But you wouldn't say that would you? Because, after all, you
Is "putz" considered an insult? Because I don't insult people and I certainly wouldn't say you are a "putz" if that was an insult.
Feel free to insult whoever you wish.
W. left the National Guard when it became convenient for him to do so. Somehing about taking a physical. It was required. He didn't take that physical. Seems there was a drug test involved.
Call it what you want.
Call whoever you want a putz. Here are some suggestions for you:
John Kerry volunteered for hazardous duty in Vietnam. Go ahead. Insult him however you want. McCain was tortured by the North Vietnamese. Call him a traitor. Go ahead. Republicans did. Max Clelland served in combat. Insult him by calling him unpatriotic. Shelby Chambliss did. Al Gore was in Vietnam. Call him a putz for being there. Republicans did. Gray Davis was a combat infrantyman in Vietnam. Call him a wimp. Republicans did. The Birchers called Ike a commie agent. Join in.
Anyone whoever received a Purple Heart? Call them wussies. The whole 2004 Republican Convention revolved around that. You think when our guys come back from Iraq, the Republicans send them those cute little band-aids with the Purple heart on them?
Does that make you feel better? Good. I'm happy for you.
Here's one more for you. John Wayne never came close to a uniform, except in movies. Gus Hall served in the navy for four years fighting the Japanese in the South Pacific. Strange world, ain't it.
Oh, and don't forget to insult Gus while you're at it.
-
when I was going through elementary/middle school it was said that draft dodgers were those that went to canada, those that joined the national guard, those who conveinently had a child, and those that went to college. All avoided the draft in their own little way. It was also said that vietnam was an unjust war and we shouldnt have been there.
Not sure if I believe all the crap above but to say Bush is better than kerry because he served in the national guard is simply stupid. Bush saw NO COMBAT. Kerry got wounded several times. You can say he chumped out or whatever but he did kill the enemy, did bush?
-
Greentail, you really need to get your information from more sources and not just from an obviuosly biased website.
The who served website says of George W. Bush,
GW Bush - decided that a six-year Nat'l Guard commitment really means four years. Still says that he's "been to war." Huh?
A powerful father eases military service for a son... Where have I heard of that before?
It says of Ronald Reagan
Former President Ronald Reagan - due to poor eyesight, served in a noncombat role making movies for the Army in southern California during WWII. He later seems to have confused his role as an actor playing a tail gunner with the real thing.
It says of Ted Kennedy,
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953.
When Ted Kennedy enlisted in the Army in '51, he signed up for four years after being expelled from Harvard for cheating. His father, Ambassador to the UK, pulled strings to get his four year stint shortened to two, and had him serve in Europe rather than combat service in Korea. The future Senator never rose above the rank of Private, and returned to school at Harvard, where he was a "c" Student.
But your source just says:
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953.
Makes Reagan's service seem comparatively heroic doesn't it?
Think for yourself.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
His father, Ambassador to the UK, pulled strings to get his four year stint shortened to two, and had him serve in Europe rather than combat service in Korea. The future Senator never rose above the rank of Private, and returned to school at Harvard, where he was a "c" Student.
Hmmm reminds me of someone lol
-
Yeah, notice how Ted was pretty quiet about that issue?
-
yeah but Ted is POS. No one here has defended him that I have seen. Nor was he a president.
-
He lost to carter? lol
that right there should have got him out of politics.
-
No, he wasn't president, but he ran for the nomination against Carter. If it weren't for Chappaquidic, he may have been successful.
He still is an extremely powerful Senator, and being from Boston, Martlet is required to vote for him. Just before each election day, Boston put something in the water that puts conservatives in a left leaning haze. Something about flouridation and bodily fluids.
-
Yeah I would like to hear why they support him... Must be the generation.
-
It doesn't matter if your politicians served( in the millitary I assume not Micky Ds), had an affair, enjoy a bit of recreational oral sex whatever. Are they doing your country a service. Hows your economy? Hows your nation doing compared to the rest? Are your Govts policies ones you agree with? how is the rest of the world viewing your Govt etc etc etc. That is what is important not some dirt dragged up by journalists trying to distract you for the wrong reasons.
People are people and have a private life. In my Job I expect to be judged by how I do the job. Not who I choose to sleep with, or what I did ten years ago.
So who bloody cares if they served?
As I said before in France they have privacy laws which seems to focuss people on the reality of what are their politicians actualy doing rather than who are they doing it with?
(On a side note I notice some realy idiotic responses here. As soon as I mentioned france a few rightwing bigots with little conception of reality started to jump up and down and throw insults around. Very entertaining but not realy much of a contribution to the debate.)
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
On a side note I notice some realy idiotic responses here.
So you read your own posts, do you? ;)
-
Bingo another one! No actualy I refering to some of Martlets moobat stuff whatever that means and Toads "your a Chode!" But there you go no offense taken have a good Sunday.
-
I'm glad you took no offence you chode, the winkie emoticon was intended to show jest. ;)
-
:rofl
I know :aok
-
Gotta love the democrats new fangled love for military serive..
Those websites are hillaripous though. They find all the congressiuonal democrats who served and then contrast the list to a whole bunch of republicand and supposed conservatives from all over the place who did not - and also add insulting remarks to their names. A biased retard would certainly think thats clever and informative. And you guys do...
How bout you kiddies do a compasion of the whole senate and house to see who served or did not serve.
-
Your problem Greentail is simply your inability to read and process the information.
Your little crybaby whine amounts to "Bush didn't serve the way I think he should have served!"
Awww... too bad, honey.
Try it again:
1. By the end of his training period Bush had served two years on active duty.
2. Certified to fly the F-102 fighter plane, Bush then began a period of frequent — usually weekly — flying
3. He was given an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months, and five days of his original six-year commitment.
4. All in all, the documents show that Bush served intensively for four years and then let up in his fifth and sixth years, although he still did enough to meet Guard requirements.
I know it brings tears of frustration to your eyes but read that last underlined bit.
See, met USAF/Guard obligations and got an Honorable Discharge.
Now that may not meet Greentail's new, improved, special "Bush had to do this to make me happy" requirements but any normal person can just close the book on it.
Once again Mr. I DON'T ATTACK THE REPUTATIONS OF THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED, he served. The evidence is quite clear.
Except to the cognitively dysfunctional, obviously.
As for Kerry and the rest, spend you're life searching for a post of mine where I denigrated his service. You'll never find one.
You won't find me denigrating anyone's service for one simple reason. You see, I'm not like you.
-
WHY DO YOU GUYS CARE ?
:rolleyes:
Its pointless bickering. Its what he's doing now that counts.
Increasing your national debt, killing the dollar, getting entangled in wars, making the US and allies more of a tgt for terrorists, aluienating former allies.
He's great aint he ? Who cares what he did or didn't do before.
:rolleyes: :lol
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
WHY DO YOU GUYS CARE ?
:rolleyes:
Its pointless bickering. Its what he's doing now that counts.
Increasing your national debt, killing the dollar, getting entangled in wars, making the US and allies more of a tgt for terrorists, aluienating former allies.
He's great aint he ? Who cares what he did or didn't do before.
:rolleyes: :lol
Killing terrorists, keeping my money in my pocket, protecting my retirement....
Glad Hanoi John didn't win.
-
Good now we've moved the debate on from silly arguments about what he did or didn't do in the millitary. Sorry Greentail I expect we'd agree on lots of things but I'm not with you on this one.
Martlet is that a good reflection of your society? Killing and looking after number 1? I prefer to live in a world with less killing and where people give a stuff about each other rather than worrying about their own little self all the time. Therefore its seems I wouldn't vote for Bush just like I wouldn't vote conservative over here.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Good now we've moved the debate on from silly arguments about what he did or didn't do in the millitary. Sorry Greentail I expect we'd agree on lots of things but I'm not with you on this one.
Martlet is that a good reflection of your society? Killing and looking after number 1? I prefer to live in a world with less killing and where people give a stuff about each other rather than worrying about their own little self all the time. Therefore its seems I wouldn't vote for Bush just like I wouldn't vote conservative over here.
I could care less what "reflection" the rest of the world receives. I didn't vote for W as a projection to Eurotards.
-
Maybe, nevertheless you don't seem to give a damn about your fellow man. If that is what your president appeals to then Maybe its not just me who might think him an a*se.
You are somewhat of a bigot it seems.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Maybe, nevertheless you don't seem to give a damn about your fellow man. If that is what your president appeals to then Maybe its not just me who might think him an a*se.
You are somewhat of a bigot it seems.
My fellow man? You mean the fellow man that flies planes into our buildings? Or maybe the fellow man that supports those people? The fellow man that blows up supermarkets for no reason other than to kill civilians?
Yeah, I don't care about that fellow man. I'm not surprised you do, though.
-
No the fellow man who is homeless, out of a job, who has lost his her / partner in a war, has no health ins because the big fat boss thinks profit is more important than people's wages, who encourages you and others to think firstly that we'll be all right as long as we look after ourselves alone, and that if someone is poor its their own fault.
Your fellow man is all around you in this country and in yours. So next time you put a hex in the box think about him/ her for a minute!?
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
No the fellow man who is homeless, out of a job, who has lost his her / partner in a war, has no health ins because the big fat boss thinks profit is more important than people's wages, who encourages you and others to think firstly that we'll be all right as long as we look after ourselves alone, and that if someone is poor its their own fault.
Your fellow man is all around you in this country and in yours. So next time you put a hex in the box think about him/ her for a minute!?
I did. You mean you disagree with the President's 200 million for down payment assistance for needy families? The 1.5 billion for NCLB? The 51% increase in K-12 funding? The 28 billion increase in student aid programs, and increasing Pell Grants? The 2 billion for health centers in low income areas? the 1 billion to enroll poverty level kids in state health care? The 3.2 billion in AIDS relief? The 385 million for community initiative programs (5 in all)?
Why don't you care about your fellow man, Zulu?
-
Here's my opinion, short and sweet and i don't give a flying sh*t what anyone thinks, here goes.
Nice Job on starting a thread and flaming lame bellybutton arguement about who served and about Bush so called "AWOL" bullsh*t. green your a friggin moron. There that's that. I have to give you a total 100% Awesome Way to start a flaming thread about Bush. True ******* statements you make!:aok
My point is that, whatever you think about Bush or the people that served, keep tat in your own little world of yours. yes you have your rights but if you don't want to get bashed and see people like me that will flame you for something like this, then you should know not to post something about it.
-
Hows he paying for that?
And what did the other guy promise.
Don't get all technical now I'm a Brit so i don't have a detailed knowledge. What is K-12?
On a side note. You may notice that we in Europe and particularly the UK have some all be it limited knowledge of your politics. Do you guys even know we have an election coming up here? Do you know anything about it? Or is the USA a metaphor for the whole world to you yanks. Just wondering?
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Hows he paying for that?
And what did the other guy promise.
Don't get all technical now I'm a Brit so i don't have a detailed knowledge. What is K-12?
On a side note. You may notice that we in Europe and particularly the UK have some all be it limited knowledge of your politics. Do you guys even know we have an election coming up here? Do you know anything about it? Or is the USA a metaphor for the whole world to you yanks. Just wondering?
You bring up domestic policy to bolster your argument and you don't even know anything about it?
:lol :lol :lol
At least you've shown your true colors. You'll cry about anything. Here's a suggestion: Get informed, then come back and try again. If you're going to accuse someone about not caring about his fellow man, you should at least have a little info about the policies he's supported in that area.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
LOL KERRY VOLUNTEERED FOR DUTY IN NAM!!!!! HAHAHHA!!!
What they do? shove him in? because he sure as hell would'nt have volunteered. Kerry's a scum bag plain and simple. He worries about Bush's personal affairs for no damn reason. He's just a coward who wants to start some BS about someone else's life. Oh and those purple hearts Kerry got? I did'nt no you could be proud of getting them if you did the injury to yourself to get OUT OF COMBAT. green I can see you get fed like a baby anything bad about Bush and right away assume to believe.
Oh and you keep stating "Bush being AWOL" and etc... umm.. are you really looking to get bashed some more?
-
What about my second point. You suggest I should be an expert in US domestic politics. Do you have same expertise concerning British domestic policy? Have you ever heard the saying " Whats good for the Goose is good for the gander"
By the way I refering to your statements
"My fellow man? You mean the fellow man that flies planes into our buildings? Or maybe the fellow man that supports those people? The fellow man that blows up supermarkets for no reason other than to kill civilians?"
"Killing terrorists, keeping my money in my pocket, protecting my retirement.... "
Not a detailed account of Bush domestic policy. You chose to play the I know more than you about politics game! I merely question why you chose to use these examples of why you support the man. They came to your typing finger way before the more detailed account of domestic policy. That tells me something.
-
Originally posted by AirWölf
Oh and those purple hearts Kerry got? I did'nt no you could be proud of getting them if you did the injury to yourself to get OUT OF COMBAT.
Actually even the swift boat vets only seem to dispute only his first purple heart. They also don't say anything about his siver or bronze stars.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
What about my second point. You suggest I should be an expert in US domestic politics. Do you have same expertise concerning British domestic policy? Have you ever heard the saying " Whats good for the Goose is good for the gander"
By the way I refering to your statements
"My fellow man? You mean the fellow man that flies planes into our buildings? Or maybe the fellow man that supports those people? The fellow man that blows up supermarkets for no reason other than to kill civilians?"
"Killing terrorists, keeping my money in my pocket, protecting my retirement.... "
Not a detailed account of Bush domestic policy. You chose to play the I know more than you about politics game! I merely question why you chose to use these examples of why you support the man. They came to your typing finger way before the more detailed account of domestic policy. That tells me something.
I know little of UK politics. That's why you don't find me discussing them. Unlike you, who knows little of US politics, but can't shut up, even when he says things that are blatantly untrue.
YOU chose to play the "Bush hates the poor" game, and I schooled you. Keep dancing, though. You're only proving my point.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Actually even the swift boat vets only seem to dispute only his first purple heart. They also don't say anything about his siver or bronze stars.
Actually, that's not true either. World Net (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40149)
-
I went to swift boat website and couldnt find anything disputed but the first purple, I will go look again.
ok looks like the dispute the 1st, the 3rd and the bronze.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I went to swift boat website and couldnt find anything disputed but the first purple, I will go look again.
ok looks like the dispute the 1st, the 3rd and the bronze.
Doesn't matter. Not to me, anyway. I think we can both agree that most of Kerry's service was questioned at some point, just as Bush's was.
The truth of the accusations against either of them really doesn't matter to me. I don't have a problem with the service of either man.
-
Agreed.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
WHY DO YOU GUYS CARE ?
Why do YOU care enough to ask?
-
Originally posted by greentail
Martlet,
You miss the point.
What does this page say about the Republican leadership ? My post was concerning the Republican Party leadership.
Shall we run it down, Martlet? Please feel free to refute this.
Present day or recent Republican leadership:
George W. Bush -- deserter, AWOL, whatever, he didn't fnish his service
Dick Cheney -- no service
Karl Rove -- no service
Dennis Hastert -- no service
Dick Armey -- no service
Tom Delay -- no service
Bill Frist -- no service
Trent Lott -- no service
John Ashcroft -- no service
Newt Gingrich -- no service
Phil Gramm -- no service
Mitch McConnell -- no service
Roy Blunt -- no service
Paul Wolfowitz -- no service
Richard Perle -- no service
Jeff Gannon -- serviced W.ho?
It's not all bad, of course:
Donald Rumsfeld -- US Navy
Duke Cunningham -- Navy Cross!
John McCain -- served, captured, tortured, then smeared by W.
Bob Dole -- US Army, Purple Heart
George H.W. Bush -- US Navy
Here's my favorite:
Ronald Reagan -- made movies in Hollywood during WWII.
George S. McGovern -- Distinguished Flying Cross, Silver Star, Purple Heart, wounded in action over occupied Europe flying B-24s.
Come on Martlet, refute that.
You've made one big assumption....you have to have served in order to be qualified to lead?
If you have a bone to pick, then speak clearly and say what you mean....don't give us hollow stats in an effort to make a point which you feel is valid.
Was Bill Clintons service to our country invalid due to his non-service? Was he unable to lead?
Try and do better.....don't like war? Neither do I.....but to lead a NAtion and send it's young men and women to war does not require nor necessarily qualify a veteran to do a better job.
Working on Humvee's, cooking in the mess hall or pulling a trigger doth not a leader make.
-
Well Rude.... Fair enough.
The Democrats are the party of warriors and the Republicans are the party of sissies. Yet, it has no bearing on leadership. That's fine, I can live with that.
-
Originally posted by Rude
You've made one big assumption....you have to have served in order to be qualified to lead?
Rude,
I did not make that assumption. In a deleted thread a post was made attacking the patriotism of Democrats. In a poorly worded attempt to point out the irony of that statement I started this thread.
I find it ironic that people consider the Republican Party the backbone of Amercanism when the present day leaders of that party are mainly draft dodgers. I find it fascinating that so many of the "consevatives" on this BB assault John Kerry for cowardice, and extol Bush's service protecting Texas from...something.
The party of the super patriots held a convention in which mocking winners of the Purple Heart played a prominent role. And they are the "true Americans".
Fascinating.
-
Martlett
"I know little of UK politics. That's why you don't find me discussing them."
Exactly my point. How come the rest of the world has some knowledge all be it limited of your nation and politics, and yet people in your country have no knowledge ofanything much outside of their own borders or unless your govt is at war with them. either its ignorance or arrogance.
Jees even your President could barely find the country he waged war on, on the map.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Martlett
"I know little of UK politics. That's why you don't find me discussing them."
Exactly my point. How come the rest of the world has some knowledge all be it limited of your nation and politics, and yet people in your country have no knowledge ofanything much outside of their own borders or unless your govt is at war with them. either its ignorance or arrogance.
Jees even your President could barely find the country he waged war on, on the map.
I don't suppose you could explain to me what this has to do with the topic, could you?
Never mind, I get it. You're trying to draw attention from the fact that I just made a complete arse of you.
Carry on.
-
How about you respond to the post rather than scoring petty points and feeling all clever?
You never know we might both learn something. Oh I forgot I'm supposed to learn you are supposed to tell me what I should know because of course you know it all already! lol
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
How about you respond to the post rather than scoring petty points and feeling all clever?
You never know we might both learn something. Oh I forgot I'm supposed to learn you are supposed to tell me what I should know because of course you know it all already! lol
:rofl
Hey, if you can't win the argument, change it!
Nothing like Eurotard logic.
:aok
-
Man you never answer the point do you?
-
Greentail your list is wrong. Reagon severd in the Army during WWII. Granted he made propaganda films for them but he served none the less.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/handout/Rrmil.htm
Either way military service is not a requirment for public office. Never has been....never will be...wich is the way it should be IMHO.
PS As far as the guard is concerned GWB completed his obligated service. You are probably completly ignorant as far as the way the guard works but that's ok most of the media is as well.
-
SO WHAT?
Is Bush doing a good job now? Thats the issue.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Man you never answer the point do you?
Answer what point?
This is a discussion of US politicians who served and their military service. Is there something I'm failing to address that you'd like me too? If you're just spewing to draw attention from the fact that I made you look like an idiot earlier, that's fine. I just don't want to waste time trying to understand what you're getting at, when in fact you aren't "getting at" anything.
Originally posted by Zulu7
SO WHAT?
Is Bush doing a good job now? Thats the issue.
That's the issue now? Cripes, you change them so rapidly it's hard to keep up.
-
I give up!!!!!
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
SO WHAT?
Is Bush doing a good job now? Thats the issue.
COOL! drop the past and talk about the present.
My answer is yes. Building democracys in the middle east changes the face of global politics. Terrorists are no longer fighting the "infidel" in Iraq but bombing their own. The public (there and here) sees this and they are no longer the "freedom fighters" that the liberal media would love to paint them as.
hopflully:
Freedom or thaughts of it will seep out of Iraqs borders into syria and Iran and the "people" will want free elections there as well.
On the home front:
No major terrorist attacks in a good while and many have been thwarted here and abroad in Europe.
The economy is on the up and up. First it gets fixed....then you get the jobs....then you start paying down the debt. Sounds like all is in order to me.
I have never been a huge fan of GWB but he's what we have. I think he's a strong leader who get's beat up in the press every chance they get. Nov elections proved his legitimacy and hopfully he can continue alot of the work he's done and fufill some of the promises he's made.
Fair enough answer?
-
Yes. Fair enough. I don't like him but thats me.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
SO WHAT?
Is Bush doing a good job now? Thats the issue.
Actually he is because he isn't going to cave to public pressure and leave the Iraqi people high and dry.
FWIW I was adamently opposed to the Iraq war, even IF what had been told us were true- I felt like he was a regional problem, not a global one.
However, a far greater travesty would be if we (as some are now suggesting) just up and left Iraq in total chaos.
What do YOU think, Zulu? Do you think we should just abandon the Iraquis?
-
No. Now we are in we are going to have to stay and attempt to sort out the mess. However that doesn't alter the fact that its a bloody shame we created such a mess. And it bothers me that both Britain and USA are now more at risk from terrorism because of Bush's meddling and obsession with what I believe he sees as his old dad's unfinished work. I realy think that guy is bad for the US and very bad for the rest of us.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
And it bothers me that both Britain and USA are now more at risk from terrorism because of Bush's meddling and obsession with what I believe he sees as his old dad's unfinished work.
People keep saying that. So far, the reverse has proven true.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
it bothers me that both Britain and USA are now more at risk from terrorism.
I fail to see how the US/UK is/are at MORE risk BECAUSE of Iraq. The last major terrorist attack in Europe or the US was the Madrid train bombing (and they were pulling out of Iraq right?) I don't see how this makes anywere BUT Iraq more dangerous and most of them are foreign fighters from Syria and Iran (who have resorted to attacking Iraqis Vrs. coalition forces.
I love that quote "Yes the berlin wall has fallen, we can see it"
I believe he sees as his old dad's unfinished work.
Correct me if I'm wrong (wich does happen from time to time) but wasnt that a UN mission?
Because I'm pretty sure I'm correct I'm gonna move on to question 2: "wasn't the UN mission to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, NOT remove Sadam from power?"
PS in addition it has been US policy for regime change in Iraq since 1998
-
What gives the US the right to decide who's regime needs changing. Can't you see that is a very slippery slope. You are basicaly saying that the US has the right to tell other people how they should be governed and if they choose not to comply to force the change using military action. What in the hell gives your Govt the right to do that.
Our Govt was equaly at fault but rthey at least didn't have the arrogance to use Regime Change as policy. Mind you they lied to us about WMD instead.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
. Mind you they lied to us about WMD instead.
Really? When?
-
That was the whole reason Blair gave us for getting involved.
And I quote (Its a long one)
29 August 2002
MI6 receives the 45-minute intelligence report - Lord Butler says it came "third hand" through a main well-established source via a second link in the reporting chain and originally an Iraqi military source - the middle link had since proved unreliable.
5 September 2002
The 45-minute claim first appears in a Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) assessment, with a request for comments.
The draft says: "Iraq has probably dispersed its special weapons, including its CBW [chemical and biological warfare] weapons. Intelligence also indicates that from forward-deployed storage sites, chemical and biological munitions could be with military units and ready for firing within 45 minutes."
6 September 2002
The biological weapons branch in the Defence Intelligence Service (DIS) sends an e-mail to the JIC assessment staff saying: "The intelligence refers to a maximum time of 45 minutes, the average was 20 minutes. This could have important implications in the event of a conflict."
9 September 2002
New draft of assessment reads: "Iraq has probably dispersed its special weapons, including its CBW weapons. Intelligence also indicates that chemical and biological munitions could be with military units and ready for firing within 20-45 minutes."
10/11 September 2002
The claim appears in a dossier draft for the first time as it says Iraq: "Envisages the use of WMD in its current military planning and could deploy such weapons within 45 minutes of the order being given.
"Within the last month intelligence has suggested that the Iraqi military would be able to use their chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of being ordered to do so."
16 September 2002
New draft dossier's executive summary says intelligence allows the government to judge Iraq "has military plans for the use of chemical and biological, some of which could be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them".
The main text adds: "The Iraqi military may be able to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so."
Concerns about the claim are discussed by the JIC assessment staff and the following day at a DIS meeting called by Tony Cragg, the deputy chief of defence intelligence, which decided the worries had been dealt with satisfactorily.
17 September 2002
A member of the Defence Intelligence Staff says in an email to the JIC assessment team that the wording of the 45-minute claim is "rather strong since it is based on a single source. 'Could say intelligence suggests...'"
Downing Street media chief Alastair Campbell tells JIC chairman John Scarlett that the "may" in the main text wording of the claim is "weaker than the summary".
18 September 2002
Mr Scarlett tells Mr Campbell the language on the claim in the main text has been "tightened".
19 September 2002
Defence Intelligence Staff experts discuss the dossier, with questions raised about the 45-minute claim - Mr A told the Hutton inquiry they had not seen the intelligence on which the claim was based.
Brian Jones, a top DIS official in the Defence Intelligence Staff, writes to his managers relaying the concerns. He is later only thanked for his input.
24 September 2003
The dossier is published with a foreword from Tony Blair, which says: "The document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."
The prime minister tells MPs the intelligence concludes that Saddam Hussein "has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population".
London's Evening Standard carries the headline: "45 minutes from attack".
24 September 2002 to 29 May 2003
During this period between the dossier's publication and Andrew Gilligan's reports, the Commons library has told Labour MP Peter Bradley, the 45-minute claim was mentioned only once in passing in the Commons and twice in more than 38,000 written questions.
25 September 2002
The Sun newspaper, Britain's biggest selling daily, has the headline: "Brits 45 mins from doom" about the threat to troops in Cyprus.
The Star newspaper has the headline "Mad Saddam ready to attack: 45 minutes from a chemical war".
Other newspapers include the claim in their coverage of the dossier.
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon was abroad and says he never saw the newspapers and only became aware of the reports later.
5 March 2003
Then Commons leader Robin Cook's diary entry says he told Mr Blair: "It's clear from the private briefing that I have had that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction in a sense of weapons that could strike at strategic cities.
"But he probably does have several thousand battlefield chemical munitions. Do you never worry that he might use them against British troops?"
Mr Cook says the prime minister replied: "Yes, but all the effort he has had to put into concealment makes it difficult for him to assemble them quickly for use."
18 March 2003
Tony Blair makes his eve-of-war speech to MPs, without mentioning the 45-minute claim.
29 May 2003
BBC Today programme defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan says his source, now known to be Dr David Kelly, had said the 45-minute claim was the "classic example" of how the dossier was "sexed up". No 10 especially objected when Mr Gilligan said Downing Street "probably knew" the claim was wrong when it was put in the dossier.
26 August 2003
Mr Scarlett defends the 45-minute claim at the inquiry, calling it "well-sourced intelligence" and says it concerned munitions, mortar shells or similar weapons, not missile warheads.
28 August 2003
Mr Blair tells the Hutton inquiry it is "absolutely wrong" to suggest he had not mentioned the claim after the dossier's publication because the government had doubts about it.
The JIC had been "perfectly happy" with the document, he said.
22 September 2003
Mr Hoon tells the inquiry it was suggested to him that the claim only referred to battlefield arms, not strategic weapons.
Asked about why he had not corrected newspapers' interpretation of the claim, Mr Hoon said it was hard to get the press to make corrections.
MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove says he was confident the intelligence was accurate but in hindsight, and given the way it was "misinterpreted", he acknowledges the 45-minute claim might have been given "undue prominence".
"It did come from an established and reliable source equating a senior Iraqi military officer who was certainly in a position to know this information," he adds.
3 September 2003
Dr Brian Jones, a senior DIS official, tells the inquiry: "We at no stage argued that this intelligence should not be included in the dossier. We thought it was important intelligence."
But he said he had thought the language used about the claim in the dossier's executive summary and foreword had been "too strong".
11 September 2003
The Commons intelligence and security committee (ISC) says about the 45-minute claim: "The omission of the context and assessment allowed speculation as to its exact meeting. This was unhelpful to an understanding of this issue."
28 January 2004
Lord Hutton says the claim that the government probably knew the 45-minute intelligence was wrong before putting it into the dossier is "unfounded".
The JIC had approved the way the claim was worded in the dossier, he says.
3 February 2004
Downing Street, in its response to MPs' reports, says it understands concerns the wording of the claim could have led to speculation.
But it stresses the dossier never suggested it referred to ballistic missiles and denies suggestions it was given undue prominence.
4 February 2004
Tony Blair in the Commons debate on the Hutton report says he did not know before the war that the 45-minute claim only referred to battlefield munitions.
Mr Hoon says he found out the distinction when he asked his officials out of "curiosity" - but later explains this was after the dossier was published.
5 February 2004
Conservative leader Michael Howard says Mr Blair should resign after failing to ask "basic questions" before sending troops to war.
Downing Street accuses the media of "rewriting history" by over-egging the importance of the 45-minute claim at the time the dossier was published.
14 July 2004
Lord Butler's inquiry concludes that the 45 minute claim should not have been included in the dossier without explanations of what it referred to.
The report also reveals MI6 now says the intelligence report on the claim "has come into question", with doubts cast about one of the links in the reporting chain.
12 October 2004
UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw tells the House of Commons that the head of MI6 has withdrawn the claim.
Ergo it was Bullsh*t and we were lied to.
-
You realize that all of your copy 'n paste says "probably", "may have", "intelligence says", etc etc.
You do understand what a lie is, as opposed to just being wrong, don't you?
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
What gives the US the right to decide who's regime needs changing. Can't you see that is a very slippery slope. You are basicaly saying that the US has the right to tell other people how they should be governed and if they choose not to comply to force the change using military action. What in the hell gives your Govt the right to do that.
Our Govt was equaly at fault but rthey at least didn't have the arrogance to use Regime Change as policy. Mind you they lied to us about WMD instead.
AGAIN Zulu you wont stick to a subject....you make comments with reckless abandon and refuse to account for them or back them up.
THIS IS WHY WE THINK YOU ARE A TROLL.
I will post this one last time for you.
YOU:
it bothers me that both Britain and USA are now more at risk from terrorism.
My Response:
I fail to see how the US/UK is/are at MORE risk BECAUSE of Iraq. The last major terrorist attack in Europe or the US was the Madrid train bombing (and they were pulling out of Iraq right?) I don't see how this makes anywere BUT Iraq more dangerous and most of them are foreign fighters from Syria and Iran (who have resorted to attacking Iraqis Vrs. coalition forces.
I love that quote "Yes the berlin wall has fallen, we can see it"
you:
I believe he sees as his old dad's unfinished work.
My Response:
Correct me if I'm wrong (wich does happen from time to time) but wasnt that a UN mission?
Because I'm pretty sure I'm correct I'm gonna move on to question 2: "wasn't the UN mission to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, NOT remove Sadam from power?"
PS in addition it has been US policy for regime change in Iraq since 1998
You want to ask what gives us the right??????? Well my answer would be National Security. We are a Global world nowadays and one does not have to present a traditional threat on ones borders to actually be a threat.
There's my answer. I admit I was sold on the WMD thing, but I see the whole picture now. This is changeing the face of the globe for the better so our Kids wont be fighting the same nonesensical war that we we are fighting now.
-
Yes I realise that the Govt claimed that Saddam may have had the capability. I also know that there never was such a capability. That the threat of WMD was used by our Govt to justify going to war. That the senior Scientist responsible for the Dossier "commited suicide " yeah right! after admitting that the whole thing was "sexed up" Ie exaggerated in order to get us to go.
Where are the waepons of Mass destruction? As I understand it the US and Britain still have them! But Iraq doesn't.
Basicaly the British people were sold a crock to try and get us to support the war. We shouldn't have gone.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Yes I realise that the Govt claimed that Saddam may have had the capability. I also know that there never was such a capability. That the threat of WMD was used by our Govt to justify going to war. That the senior Scientist responsible for the Dossier "commited suicide " yeah right! after admitting that the whole thing was "sexed up" Ie exaggerated in order to get us to go.
Where are the waepons of Mass destruction? As I understand it the US and Britain still have them! But Iraq doesn't.
Basicaly the British people were sold a crock to try and get us to support the war. We shouldn't have gone.
Do you have evidence to support that claim, or are you merely stating "your suspicions"?
-
Gunslinger
"You want to ask what gives us the right??????? Well my answer would be National Security. We are a Global world nowadays and one does not have to present a traditional threat on ones borders to actually be a threat. "
Justification for the US doing exactly what it thinks is right or wants then regardless of any one else rights.
And you don't see whats wrong with that? Ask any German Born before 1945!
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Gunslinger
"You want to ask what gives us the right??????? Well my answer would be National Security. We are a Global world nowadays and one does not have to present a traditional threat on ones borders to actually be a threat. "
Justification for the US doing exactly what it thinks is right or wants then regardless of any one else rights.
And you don't see whats wrong with that? Ask any German Born before 1945!
considering the Govts that were most vocally apposed to this happening had their hand in the cookie jar and didn't want to get caught......
BTW keep up the Nazi comparisons....they'll get you far.
last question euro-troll.......for the grand prize....name one country the Nazis invaded then held national elections in????????
tic toc tic toc tic toc tic toc
-
OK forget the Nazis Use us as an example. The British empire. we spent a long time imposing our Govt system on African countries. What happened after we left? Chaos.
It realy works doesn't it? And I ask again what gives the US the right to make these decisions for us.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
OK forget the Nazis Use us as an example. The British empire. we spent a long time imposing our Govt system on African countries. What happened after we left? Chaos.
It realy works doesn't it? And I ask again what gives the US the right to make these decisions for us.
Heh. Comparing 21st century free elections with 17th century colonization. Nice.
The US didn't make the decisions. The UN passed numerous resolutions, then a coalition of countries acted on them.
-
The Coalition:rofl
You mean The US and our misguided PM.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
The Coalition:rofl
You mean The US and our misguided PM.
No, I'm talking about the 30+ nations that supported the enforcement of UN resolutions with either troops, materials, or money.
-
Supported em because they were too spineless to stand up tio the US or had too much to lose by not doing so, you mean.
Now read my lips. Through all this debate remember, I do not hate americans. I don't agree with US foreign policy. These two things are different. OK? Comprenez vous?
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Supported em because they were too spineless to stand up tio the US or had too much to lose by not doing so, you mean.
No, I mean joined the coalition because they realized the UN was too corrupt to act any further than resolutions and it was the right thing to do.
-
:rolleyes: :rofl :rofl :rofl
We aint never going to agree!
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Through all this debate remember, I do not hate americans. I don't agree with US foreign policy. These two things are different. OK? Comprenez vous?
It seems to me that you are too conflicted and would not support ANY foreign policy.
When asked what solutions you had to problems, you stated that you were not a world leader????
Which countries foreing policy do you support?
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
:rolleyes: :rofl :rofl :rofl
We aint never going to agree!
Agree? You're posting blatant fallacy and I'm calling you out. It's pretty simple, really.
-
But If I am typing fallacy Why then do you not respond by answering my specific points? all you do is refute them without any supporting evidence. Or evade them by changing the subject.
If I was to cease and desist how then would you be able to make yourself feel all self important and clever?
Perhaps I should just massage your ego and tell you how right you are all the time and about everything.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
But If I am typing fallacy Why then do you not respond by answering my specific points? all you do is refute them without any supporting evidence. Or evade them by changing the subject.
If I was to cease and desist how then would you be able to make yourself feel all self important and clever?
Perhaps I should just massage your ego and tell you how right you are all the time and about everything.
There you go with your "specific points" again. The last time you accused me of not answering your "specific points" I asked what you wanted answered. You couldn't come up with anything.
Let's try again: What specific points would you like answered?
-
Zulu, you state in your profile that your interests are aircraft and motorcycles.
Seems like you are far more interested in America and Americans. People like you have come and gone here.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Zulu, you state in your profile that your interests are aircraft and motorcycles.
Seems like you are far more interested in America and Americans. Peope like you have come and gone here.
See, I don't agree. I think people like him just change their name and stick around.
:aok
-
Maybe.
Maybe not.
Think I'll let you guys get on with the "we're so clever Bush appreciation society".
Thanks for the Non debate.
Oh you might want to check out the post for Bikers
;)
Anyhow cheerio from the now early morning UK. Off you go and feel all Clever now won't you.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Think I'll let you guys get on with the "we're so clever Bush appreciation society".
I was mistaken....
Your interests are America, Amcericans and GW Bush.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Maybe.
Maybe not.
Think I'll let you guys get on with the "we're so clever Bush appreciation society".
Thanks for the Non debate.
Oh you might want to check out the post for Bikers
;)
Anyhow cheerio from the now early morning UK. Off you go and feel all Clever now won't you.
:aok
Just as I thought. You did it again.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
But If I am typing fallacy Why then do you not respond by answering my specific points? all you do is refute them without any supporting evidence. Or evade them by changing the subject.
If I was to cease and desist how then would you be able to make yourself feel all self important and clever?
Perhaps I should just massage your ego and tell you how right you are all the time and about everything.
but you specifically ignore somone who is specifically responding to and refuting your claims with further questions.
Zulu I don't care if you don't agree with me but I think your statements are flat out wrong.
OK forget the Nazis Use us as an example. The British empire. we spent a long time imposing our Govt system on African countries. What happened after we left? Chaos.
It realy works doesn't it? And I ask again what gives the US the right to make these decisions for us.
now you are comparing apples to oranges. The US doesnt want to stay in Iraq any more than Iraqis want us to occupy them.
Forget the Nazis I'll give you a different task. Name one country that the British empire occupied were it offered free elections?
I cant recall in any of my studies of history ONE example were you, AGAIN talking bout colonization, offered any country free elections.
You are asking us what gives our govt the right and I'm telling you global security. If the US had the ability to take out hitlers regime in 1938 or 39 would you call it justified then?
-
Originally posted by greentail
Martlet,
You miss the point.
What does this page say about the Republican leadership ? My post was concerning the Republican Party leadership.
Shall we run it down, Martlet? Please feel free to refute this.
Present day or recent Republican leadership:
George W. Bush -- deserter, AWOL, whatever, he didn't fnish his service
Dick Cheney -- no service
Karl Rove -- no service
Dennis Hastert -- no service
Dick Armey -- no service
Tom Delay -- no service
Bill Frist -- no service
Trent Lott -- no service
John Ashcroft -- no service
Newt Gingrich -- no service
Phil Gramm -- no service
Mitch McConnell -- no service
Roy Blunt -- no service
Paul Wolfowitz -- no service
Richard Perle -- no service
Jeff Gannon -- serviced W.ho?
It's not all bad, of course:
Donald Rumsfeld -- US Navy
Duke Cunningham -- Navy Cross!
John McCain -- served, captured, tortured, then smeared by W.
Bob Dole -- US Army, Purple Heart
George H.W. Bush -- US Navy
Here's my favorite:
Ronald Reagan -- made movies in Hollywood during WWII.
George S. McGovern -- Distinguished Flying Cross, Silver Star, Purple Heart, wounded in action over occupied Europe flying B-24s.
Come on Martlet, refute that.
The relevance of this list is prooved by the NSOP (Non-Standard Operation Prcedure) of the USA forces in Iraq : a brilliantly executed assault with limited number of ground troops and the near fiasco in securing the area (because of the limited number of ground troops). :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by genozaur
The relevance of this list is prooved by the NSOP (Non-Standard Operation Prcedure) of the USA forces in Iraq : a brilliantly executed assault with limited number of ground troops and the near fiasco in securing the area (because of the limited number of ground troops). :rolleyes:
even though the list is inaccurate at best I will agree with you. The post invasion was planned poorly. The invasion was a smashing success and a great example of Manuver Warfare at its finest example of perfection.
-
um. where is that list innacurate?
-
The list deosn't actually come out and lie, it only tells half truths.
-
besides the obvious digs at bush and gannon...how so?
curious.
:)
-
As previously pointed out a few pages ago, it says:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it were honest, it would say of GW Bush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President GW Bush, TXANG, 1968-1973
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but instead it says,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GW Bush - decided that a six-year Nat'l Guard commitment really means four years. Still says that he's "been to war." Huh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Ted Kennedy enlisted in the Army in '51, he signed up for four years after being expelled from Harvard for cheating. His father, Ambassador to the UK, pulled strings to get his four year stint shortened to two, and had him serve in Europe rather than combat service in Korea. The future Senator never rose above the rank of Private, and returned to school at Harvard, where he was a "c" Student.
So in order to be intellectually honest, those who hate GW for a connected slide thru a military service term should attack Kennedy as voraciously.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
even though the list is inaccurate at best I will agree with you. The post invasion was planned poorly. The invasion was a smashing success and a great example of Manuver Warfare at its finest example of perfection.
Guns
I dunno about that... I was over at CDHQ during that time frame. I struck me to be far more a problem of poor training and poor leadership CFLCC than poor planning.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
As previously pointed out a few pages ago, it says:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it were honest, it would say of GW Bush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President GW Bush, TXANG, 1968-1973
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but instead it says,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GW Bush - decided that a six-year Nat'l Guard commitment really means four years. Still says that he's "been to war." Huh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Ted Kennedy enlisted in the Army in '51, he signed up for four years after being expelled from Harvard for cheating. His father, Ambassador to the UK, pulled strings to get his four year stint shortened to two, and had him serve in Europe rather than combat service in Korea. The future Senator never rose above the rank of Private, and returned to school at Harvard, where he was a "c" Student.
So in order to be intellectually honest, those who hate GW for a connected slide thru a military service term should attack Kennedy as voraciously.
muchos gracias for the enlightenment.
now,. if only we could turn them all into candy bearing pinatas.
:)
-
Morning!
While I wait for the shop to open, Its MOT time on my girlfreinds bike.
I was reading this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4303629.stm
Seems Things are going swimmingly in the New democracy as usual.
I have to ask what have our nations done realy apart from add more instability to an already unstable region?
Bring on the Paranoia...................
-
You seem to be taking some measure of pleasure from this news. I hope this is not the case.
-
Of course he does. He could care less about the terrorists killing civilians. He gets an erection every time the terrorists kill someone.
-
No pleasure at all Holden. It saddens me what a mess our govts are creating.
Martlet you are bang out of order mate.
:mad:
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
No pleasure at all Holden. It saddens me what a mess our govts are creating.
Martlet you are bang out of order mate.
:mad:
Nope. You can say what you'd like, but your posts tell the story. You aren't fooling anyone.
My observation was dead on.
-
Most people in here argue discuss and present their view. sometimes forcefully sometimes close to the mark. But usualy with a degree of respect.
You on the other hand!
That remark was way out of line and causes considerable offense. Take a long hard look in the mirror.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Most people in here argue discuss and present their view. sometimes forcefully sometimes close to the mark. But usualy with a degree of respect.
You on the other hand!
That remark was way out of line and causes considerable offense. Take a long hard look in the mirror.
That remark was dead on. It bothers you so much because you know it's true.
You should go back and read half the crap you post. THEN take a long hard look in the mirror.
-
You crossed the line of personal insult. Learn to read properly not selectively.
Nothing more to add as far as you are concerned you can go and swim in it pal.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
You crossed the line of personal insult. Learn to read properly not selectively.
Nothing more to add as far as you are concerned you can go and swim in it pal.
Of course you don't have anything more to add.
You've been exposed. Pick up your toys and spread your hatred in another thread.
-
:rolleyes: Pillok:rolleyes: