Bush AWOL documents fake?

A piece of paper never gave you anything. Men and women fight and die to make that paper true.

0 Replies

It is why there are Constitutions guaranteeing human rights, Walter,your nation's included.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

0 Replies

Well, it's certainly clear that one can gossip about Bush's Guard record. Anyone who has real evidence should work to initiate an offical inquiry with the goal of revoking his honorable discharge. If no one has the evidence to get anything official done, e.g. a hearing, an inquiry, etc., then he's innocent. All the rest is just fluff.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

It is why there are Constitutions guaranteeing human rights, Walter,your nation's included.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

I'm curious, Timber -- what are your thoughts on Costa Rica, a country which doesn't have an army, but does provide freedom of speech, freedom of press, and the right to a fair trial?

0 Replies

Lash,

To say that those who hold different political views than you do not have the ability to judge military matters accurately is a very stupid thing to say, and frankly beneath you.

Not that I desire to get into a pissing contest with you but I would wager that I know more about general world Military history, strategies, tactics, logistics, and practical experience with a wide variety of killing devices than you ever will. I'd wager a lot. Becuase I've spent my entire life studying exactly that, being something of a military buff.

It is precisely that knowledge that leads me to believe that we must use careful judgement before committing our forces to fight.

Your views about the opposition to your party non-withstanding, please avoid making sweeping statements such as the one you did when you have nothing other than opinion to back them up.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Lash writes:

Quote:

A piece of paper never gave you anything.

I disagree. A good piece of paper should be able to give you the truth. Imagine that; the freedom to know and tell the truth. That's what freedom of the press is mainly about. But not according to this current administration.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

McGentrix:

Quote:
Now, I have nothing to back this up, but I would like to point out that it is the same nothing anyone has that demonstrates he was AWOL at the time.

What does any of that have to do with the fact that George W. Bush cannot explain his time away from the National Guard? Do you think Colonel Bobby W. Hodges and Richard Via are also fifteen minute "whores" for the Democratic Party?

Just curious...

Did you read the sentence preceeding the one you quoted? If so, it answered your question. If not, please go back and read it.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
It is why there are Constitutions guaranteeing human rights, Walter,your nation's included.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

I'm curious, Timber -- what are your thoughts on Costa Rica, a country which doesn't have an army, but does provide freedom of speech, freedom of press, and the right to a fair trial?

"...Civil war, however, did raise its ugly head in the 1940s when ex-president Calderón and his successor, Picado, lined up against the recent ballot-winner Ulate (whose election win was not recognized by Picado's government) and José Figueres. After several weeks of warfare Figueres emerged victorious, formed an interim government and handed the presidency to Ulate. "

From: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/central_america/costa_rica/history.htm

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

... I couldn't agree more. The problem is, you have to look outside of this country to read about what is truly going on here in America. Not a lot of freedom in objectivity, if you ask me.

Precisely, and another point of essential agreement. It is however my opinion that the Mainstream Media, foriegn and domestic, press agenda over objective reportage. There, I'm sure, we differ in opinion.

Quote:

And I vociferously agree that it is the soldier whose coffin is draped by the flag. So why won't Bush let America honor those soldiers in a due fashion?

Again a split finding ... I vociferously disagree with your contention regarding the honoring of those bravely fallen in the prosecution of The War On Terror. They are exemplified by and are accorded the patriotism, passion for freedom, sense of duty, honor and heroism they so dearly have purchased for themselves and for the rest of humanity and posterity.

Quote:

What a crock.

Indeed ... but from a somewhat different perspective and, I imagine, a somewhat different experiential reference.

0 Replies

McGentrix:

Quote:

Did you read the sentence preceeding the one you quoted? If so, it answered your question. If not, please go back and read it.

Of course I did. I've heard it before. It's hysterical. It was written in a purely sarcastic tone (from a liberal perspective, in case you didn't get it) to make the obvious point that Bush cannot explain his absence from the Guard. Perhaps YOU should go back and read it again. I've read the entire thing. Have you?

But thanx for posting it again. Unfortunately, it has NOTHING to do with your next statement, which seems to indicate that the other stories are just as ludicrous as the one you presented.

The problem for you is that there ARE no other stories, for George W. Bush hasn't TOLD us any to put this issue to rest.

Get it?

I doubt it...

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Your views about the opposition to your party non-withstanding, please avoid making sweeping statements such as the one you did when you have nothing other than opinion to back them up.

Cycloptichorn

Hey Cy, I know I am about to get into trouble for commenting on this, but I just cannot let this pass without making a point.

Why are you getting on Lash for making a sweeping statement such as he did with nothing but opinion to back it up? Have you also been quick to tell everyone the same thing, whether the statements made are about republicans or democrats? I bet I could pull dozens of comments where people from both sides have made sweeping statements about the other and something tells me I will not find you berating any democrats for their sweeping statements.

Now this may just be an oversight on your part. If so, I can understand since there are many posts which have done so. And of course you cannot be expected to correct everyone. It would just be oh so nice to see you correct a liberal every now and then if you are going to correct a conservative.

I know, I am being oh so picky. But I do so enjoy it. Razz

0 Replies

timberlandko:

Boy, can't you drop the RNC talking points and convoludidness for just a second in addressing these issues? I doubt YOU read the opposing sides screeds, whereas I read just about everything out there, both foreign and domestic. It's how one can be well informed on what is true and what isn't.

As this administration lies daily, I do not believe a word anybody says from Bush's cabal anymore. They are truly corrupt, and they WILL be gone this November, memos or not.

0 Replies

Along with the observation posed by Brandon, Thomas, I would opine a good deal of Costa Rica's contemporary freedoms are butressed by The Monroe Doctrine.

0 Replies

CR,

Probably. Though I don't intend to be hypocritical I am only human, and therefore imperfect and I have said things on this board that upon later review didn't bear up.

In a lot of those cases my fault/error was pointed out to me by someone else, just as I have done here. I can remember a few times when I have caught liberals doing the same thing, though I will admit that I am not as vigilant in pursuing those mistakes. Luckily I have you guys on the other side of the fence to do it for me. Smile

p.s. Lash is a she - it's Sofia

p.p.s. I didn't mean to give her a hard time; but to say that you can't understand the military unless you are conservative is ridiculous in the extreme.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

McGentrix:

Quote:
Did you read the sentence preceeding the one you quoted? If so, it answered your question. If not, please go back and read it.

Of course I did. I've heard it before. It's hysterical. It was written in a purely sarcastic tone (from a liberal perspective, in case you didn't get it) to make the obvious point that Bush cannot explain his absence from the Guard. Perhaps YOU should go back and read it again. I've read the entire thing. Have you?

But thanx for posting it again. Unfortunately, it has NOTHING to do with your next statement, which seems to indicate that the other stories are just as ludicrous as the one you presented.

The problem for you is that there ARE no other stories, for George W. Bush hasn't TOLD us any to put this issue to rest.

Get it?

I doubt it...

Hmmm... I thought I was being clever and made that up. Sad

Though it was meant as sarcasm. The point of it is that it doesn't matter What Bush was doing in 1968, but some people can't get past that. The ANG considered Bush's service complate, gave him a discharge and a kick in the can and sent him on his way. Now he is the Commander-in0Chief of ALL the armed forces and all some people can do is dwell in the past. It's a shame really.

0 Replies

Doubt, and choose to believe, what and whom you wish, Dookie. That's your prerogative, bought and paid for with the blood of soldiers.

I would submit, however, that to presume what I may or may not have read, or in what detail, or that I might resort to rote talking points as opposed to personally-derived opinions and conclusions, is at best disingenuous.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Lash,

To say that those who hold different political views than you do not have the ability to judge military matters accurately is a very stupid thing to say, and frankly beneath you.
Nah. Listen, I know plenty of the members here could have been political junkies, and news hounds as I have for the past thirty years. I know I'm not the only one--but I have been an interested student for quite a while. I didn't start off a Republican. I watched, I learned, and I switched parties. And one thing I have learned is that the Democrat party is hopelessly incompetant in military, and national security matters. I don't expect you to take my word for it--but paying JUST A LITTLE attention to the news, the campaigns, the facts--from an objective standpoint--will show you the same thing. Why did Dean not make it to the nomination? Why did Kerry's convention look like a Vietnam commercial? Why did the anti-war Dems clap and scream for a war they want to abandon asap? The truth is never beneath me. It is a well-known fact. Not too popular to you, I understand, but still a fact.
Not that I desire to get into a pissing contest with you
I'm sure you wouldn't. Why don't we just enumerate evidence to support our opinions? No one has to pee.
but I would wager that I know more about general world Military history, strategies, tactics, logistics, and practical experience with a wide variety of killing devices than you ever will.
Well, if you run for President, that may be applicable to the conversation,--but hey, go for it. I'm more interested in politics than machines to kill people. .
I'd wager a lot. Becuase I've spent my entire life studying exactly that, being something of a military buff.
Wonderful. Really! You're a anomoly in the Dem party. But, why do the Dems make such miserable choices and suffer such horrible failures when they are running military ops? That's the heart of the problem.

It is precisely that knowledge that leads me to believe that we must use careful judgement before committing our forces to fight.
I'm not against careful judgement. Would this fall in the realm of twelve years of sanctions and waiting and resolutions...My careful judgement doesn't take nearly that long.
Your views about the opposition to your party non-withstanding, please avoid making sweeping statements such as the one you did when you have nothing other than opinion to back them up.
Nah. There's lots of sweeping generalizations going around. I think I'll add in occasionally. You can, too, if you get the urge.

But, the past failures of the Dems aren't my opinion. There is plenty of fact to back up their miserable military foibles and failures. This is why poor Dem military has become a stereotype--and widely discussed.Cycloptichorn

I just want to say one more thing.

Convoluted.
And, I love that Coastal Rat, even though she called me a he.

(I may as well just get a man avatar...) Smile

0 Replies

Cyc, the contention one must be right wing to understand the military is not, I believe, the contention being made in this discussion. I believe the operative contention is that the chief proponents of the here-at-discussion criticisms of matters military - to whit, the leadership of The Democratic Party - don't know what the hell they're talking about. Of course, thats just my opinion.

Bush AWOL documents fake?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know