Scrat wrote:I respect Kerry for his service to his country, and respect his right to come back and speak against the war afterwards.
HOWEVER, I look at his voting record during his political career and I see a man who never saw a weapons system he didn't try to kill, who would have had us lose the cold war if he had his way, and who worked to gut (if not kill) our intelligence agencies. With all due respect for his honorable, but distant, military service, it is his voting record that I believe indicates his woeful shortcomings as a potential war-time president (or any-time president, for that matter).
But the war is over....bush landed on a boat with a potato in his rented flight suit and said we'd won!!!!!!
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Scrat wrote:I respect Kerry for his service to his country, and respect his right to come back and speak against the war afterwards.
HOWEVER, I look at his voting record during his political career and I see a man who never saw a weapons system he didn't try to kill, who would have had us lose the cold war if he had his way, and who worked to gut (if not kill) our intelligence agencies. With all due respect for his honorable, but distant, military service, it is his voting record that I believe indicates his woeful shortcomings as a potential war-time president (or any-time president, for that matter).
But the war is over....bush landed on a boat with a potato in his rented flight suit and said we'd won!!!!!!
He actually said no such thing, and I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary! (Loser buys the winner a drink Friday night. Oh, and my band can kick your band's ass! :wink: )
Timber wrote:
Quote:If folks wanna make a point of Kerry's wartime exploits, then a point should be made of them. Somebody who racked up combat citations at a faster clip than George Custer, Alvin York, Audie Murphy, or Chesty Puller must have a fascinating story.
I think PD has made the point very well that no one is questioning Kerry's war record, so why would we need to see proof? In Bush's case, they've had a very hard time finding anyone who can confirm his claim that he attended. I notice, when he weakly pronounced, "I was there," he doesn't say how often or on which dates. He was paid to be there and he even got dental care, but, it appears, he wasn't there to do the work. What work it may have been. Nothing, I'm sure compared to the work Kerry and others had to do. And more to the point, nothing like the National Guard soldiers in Iraq are having to do to support Bush's delusions of grandeur.
No, on another thread someone produced a stirring tribute to Bush's guard service from a right wing news source. How can anyone doubt him now?
Lola wrote:Timber wrote:
Quote:If folks wanna make a point of Kerry's wartime exploits, then a point should be made of them. Somebody who racked up combat citations at a faster clip than George Custer, Alvin York, Audie Murphy, or Chesty Puller must have a fascinating story.
I think PD has made the point very well that no one is questioning Kerry's war record, so why would we need to see proof? In Bush's case, they've had a very hard time finding anyone who can confirm his claim that he attended.
USATODAY.com - Former Guardsman: Bush served with me in Alabama
There you go. (Don't worry, I won't be shocked when you find reason to call this man a liar.) :wink:
(And yes, that's the well-known "right-wing" news source, USAToday.
)
And here's
ten more people who vouch for his service in Alabama:
Defusing AWOL-Gate
Now let's drop all this nasty talk of Our Glorious War President who bravely fought tooth decay on the Shoals of Muscle.
It's just a non-issue, really.
Kerry's Partisan Partners
in Smearing Bush
When a liberal Democrat faces a personal charge, the national media find ways to avoid discussing it in public. Is there proof of wrongdoing, or merely suspicion? Is it relevant to their public role? Does everybody do it? Do voters even care? When they want to, the media can usually find an excuse to spike an uncomfortable story before the feeding frenzy ever begins.
Reporters could not justify pursuing the Bush "AWOL" story by citing any actual proof of wrongdoing, any relevance to Bush's role as President, any sign that his conduct in 1972-73 was especially uncommon, or any clamoring from voters to get to the bottom of the story. The only impetus was DNC boss Terry McAuliffe's wish to contrast "John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals" with "George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard."
The networks followed McAuliffe's agenda. From Feb. 1-16, ABC, CBS and NBC aired 63 National Guard stories or interview segments on their morning and evening news programs. That's far more coverage than Bill Clinton's draft-dodging scandal received in 1992. Back then, the three evening newscasts offered 10 stories on Clinton's complete evasion of service; this year, those same broadcasts pumped out 25 stories on whether Bush's acknowledged service was fully documented.
Despite the fact that no Democrat had substantiated their AWOL claims, the networks put the burden on Bush to prove his innocence. After the White House released documents on February 10 showing Bush had satisfied the Guard's requirements and received an honorable discharge, reporters wanted more evidence (see box). The records showed Bush was never "AWOL," exposing the baselessness of the Democrats' original charge, yet none of the networks framed their stories around questionable Democratic tactics. Instead, they kept the onus on Bush: "The issue is not going to go away," ABC's Terry Moran promised. Other lowlights:
On February 12, the CBS Evening News promoted a conspiracy theory floated by retired National Guard officer Bill Burkett, who claimed he overheard a 1997 order to purge Bush's records. The Boston Globe reported the next day that Burkett's back-up, George Conn, totally disagreed with his friend's version of what happened, but the Evening News never told viewers about that crucial detail.
Early on, John Kerry tried to egg on the media. "Was he present and active, on duty in Alabama, at the times he was supposed to be?" he challenged on February 8. "Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question." Given Kerry's defense of the draft-dodging Clinton twelve years ago ("We do not need now to divide America over who served and how"), unbiased reporters would have pounded the candidate for his hypocrisy in at least not repudiating the other Democratic "dividers," but ABC, CBS and NBC concealed the Kerry flip-flop and kept him above the fray.
Last Thursday, Peter Jennings refused to report the finding of ABC's polling unit that two-thirds of the public, including 58 percent of Democrats, thought the Bush story was "not a legitimate issue." Instead, Jennings highlighted how Bush's "rating for honesty and trustworthiness is at a new low" ?- as if the networks' biased promotion of phony charges had nothing to do with that.
Federal
Quote:Instead, Jennings highlighted how Bush’s “rating for honesty and trustworthiness is at a new low” — as if the networks’ biased promotion of phony charges had nothing to do with that.
I suppose the lies and fabrications regarding Iraq had nothing to do with it. The polish is off the apple the American people are beginning to come to grips with just what Mr. Bush [The Texas Souffle] is
I should note that the latest poll shows Bush being beaten by Kerry or Edwards by at least 10 or 12 percentage points.
Scrat wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Scrat wrote:I respect Kerry for his service to his country, and respect his right to come back and speak against the war afterwards.
HOWEVER, I look at his voting record during his political career and I see a man who never saw a weapons system he didn't try to kill, who would have had us lose the cold war if he had his way, and who worked to gut (if not kill) our intelligence agencies. With all due respect for his honorable, but distant, military service, it is his voting record that I believe indicates his woeful shortcomings as a potential war-time president (or any-time president, for that matter).
But the war is over....bush landed on a boat with a potato in his rented flight suit and said we'd won!!!!!!
He actually said no such thing, and I challenge you to provide evidence to
the contrary! (Loser buys the winner a drink Friday night. Oh, and my band can kick your band's ass! :wink: )
Excuse the semantics "Mission Accomplished"I believe he said....and as far as your band whipping my bands ass I suspect you better carb up...although fromn the looks of a couple of the boys maybe better advice would be to lay off the carbs...... :wink:
From Scrat's link:
Quote:"He [Bush] sat in my office most of the time ?- he would read," Calhoun said. "He had your training manuals from your aircraft he was flying. He'd study those some. He'd read safety magazines, which is a common thing for pilots."
There you go, this is an excellent witness for Bush. Just read about the hard labor the boy had to endure. I don't know, Scrat if Calhoun is a liar, but he certainly seems to be the only person with a good enough memory. I wonder where the others are...........
It would be interesting to see what it is exactly about Bush stint in the Guard that bothers so many people.
Is it that he didn't get shot at?
Is it that he didn't have to go to Vietnam?
Is it that he is seen as privileged?
I don't recall extensive military experience being a neccessity to be president. It sure as hell wasn't Clinton, or Carter's forte, that's for damn sure.
Carter? A graduate of the US Naval Academy and served I believe his entire 7 yr obligation as an officer in the Navy.
People always potshot Carter without first learning about him.
It is clear to me that Senator Kerry was a hero. He fought in VietNam, earned decorations and was wounded. Bush dodged the draft by going into the Guard.
When the American people are asked who they want to guide them through the difficult years ahead when we are likely to be attacked again, they will choose a person who knows what horror is involved in killing and how wars turn men into animals.
Kerry simply has the background we need to lead our country against those who would seek to destroy us.
Bush cares for nothing but Oil and Contracts in Iraq.
Who is making money on the Iraqi Oil now that Oil is up to over $33.00 a barrel?
It isn't the Iraqi people.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Scrat wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Scrat wrote:I respect Kerry for his service to his country, and respect his right to come back and speak against the war afterwards.
HOWEVER, I look at his voting record during his political career and I see a man who never saw a weapons system he didn't try to kill, who would have had us lose the cold war if he had his way, and who worked to gut (if not kill) our intelligence agencies. With all due respect for his honorable, but distant, military service, it is his voting record that I believe indicates his woeful shortcomings as a potential war-time president (or any-time president, for that matter).
But the war is over....bush landed on a boat with a potato in his rented flight suit and said we'd won!!!!!!
He actually said no such thing, and I challenge you to provide evidence to
the contrary!
Excuse the semantics "Mission Accomplished"I believe he said...
There was a banner on the carrier that read "Mission Accomplished". It referred to the carrier's specific mission, recently accomplished. It did not refer to the war being over, though frankly the war
is over. We met our primary objectives and are now in the next phase, working to get he Iraqis ready to govern themselves. That some are trying to kill us and the Iraqis to stop this does not mean the war didn't come to an end.
As to our bands... let's both just kick ass! See you tomorrow night!
Lola wrote:From Scrat's link:
Quote:"He [Bush] sat in my office most of the time ?- he would read," Calhoun said. "He had your training manuals from your aircraft he was flying. He'd study those some. He'd read safety magazines, which is a common thing for pilots."
There you go, this is an excellent witness for Bush. Just read about the hard labor the boy had to endure. I don't know, Scrat if Calhoun is a liar, but he certainly seems to be the only person with a good enough memory. I wonder where the others are...........
Lola - I don't expect you to accept the account; I'm fairly certain you've already made up your mind about the "facts" and will find reason to question any "facts" that don't mesh well with the "facts" as you choose to see them. As to how hard Bush was working at the time... I did my time in the military, and I can tell you that training is a very important part of military readiness, and that sometimes we just had to kill time until the next thing needed to be done.
But again, I'm not arguing for how "good" a witness this guy is, simply proving wrong the statement that there are none.
Scrat is from Raleigh and we are having his band open for us tomorrow night as a token of bi-partisan goodwill, that and they're good.
So you see, liberal or conservative, all quarrels are set aside when self interest is served. Scrat gets a chance to break a new room, and we get a good opener.
Too bad the government can't see things that way.
