 Re: Bush was right
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,026
Learned Hand
|
Learned Hand
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,026 |
Interesting how those of you who believe the terrorists cant be beat ( defeatists sounds like a fair label ) seem to ignore that they are state sponsored, so to defeat them is onot only to beat them down where you see them, but to also confront their sponsors, who it coincidentally seems, want confrontation.
Bayern, my comment was to that you said we are creating new terrorists, and that I find that a defeatist view. We are not at fault. Islam has been at war with the non Muslim world since its inception. It conquered Christian lands throughout the Middle East, across North Africa, up the Iberian Peninsula and on to Tours where they were defeated in 732AD by forces led by Charles Martel (Charlemagne's grandfather ). They also moved across to Europe through Greece and up the Balkans and a couple of times to Vienna ( one time the defeat of the Muslim forces and end of siege was commemorated by a special pastry, the croussaint ). They also moved to east through Persia and on to the Indian subcontinent.They also moved south into Africa. The Muslims did, for centuries, continue to sail around the the various lands, raid the towns and cities, rob, plunder and captured locals to make slaves. This war is their fault and has been a continuous act of Islamic aggression against the world. For example, they still lay claim to Spain ( they were kicked out in 1492, does that year spark anything, it isnt coincidence ), and have said so recently in their rhetoric in regards to the attacks there. As a culture, they are backward and have not advanced, the West has greatly advanced and we have reaped the benefits of that progress ( just look at how at one time, the Inquisition took place, the burnings of witches, mistakes and now recognized as such and wont occur again. Islam doesnt have that self examination, it wont allow for it, and that is really too bad, as they can tprogress with out it ).
Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and will never be.----Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
Re: Bush was right
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,821
Bar Shake
|
|
Bar Shake
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,821 |
Quote:
Quote:
The problem I have with the lack of military service of some on the right wing is only that they decried Bill Clinton's lack of service. Like Dwight said, it's a goose, gander kind of thing
Also they need to disparage the service of those who are combat veterans who oppose their agenda in order to reduce the negative effect to their own campaigns.
The problem with Clinton was not that he had never been in the military. The problem was that he was on record saying he despised the military. That he lied his way out of military service. That he was on record saying the only reason he didn’t run to Canada to avoid the draft was to “Preserve his political viability.†That he had protested against the US military while in Europe. High ranking military officers were routinely shunned or insulted by his staffers. The military attaché who carries the nuclear codes was required to wear civilian clothes so as not to upset their staffers and political supporters. The list goes on and on.
Gore was a senators son who was purposely kept far from combat and had a bodyguard assigned to him to keep him safe. Once he had his Viet Nam service ribbon he left.
Kerry was only there to get his political ticket punched. He admitted that he panicked when he was reassigned from a very safe area to a zone where he might actually see combat. He wrote his own commendation recommendations because his superior officers knew he didn’t deserve them. He got out of there far short of a normal tour of duty and when he returned he acted as a propaganda agent of the enemy. He went before congress and told complete lies, accusing our troops of atrocities that never happened as if he had seen them. To top it off, he then tried to portray himself as a hero and a patriot.
The Democrats have lots of potential candidates who served honorably and a few who really were what John Kerry pretended to be. But they could never be nominated by their activist base. Bob Kerrey comes to mind.
As for the “Goose and Gander Thing.†When the Republicans nominate someone whose military career is as sordid as Kerry’s I’ll be glad to attack him too.
Quote:
Ian Williams – Asia Times August 7, 2004
This week Republican Senator John McCain showed an unusual nuance in United States politics. He supported his party's president, sort of, even as he dealt him one of the deadliest subtle put-downs in recent US history.
He called on the George W Bush campaign to condemn the recent anti-Kerry TV ads questioning the Democratic contender's Vietnam War record, saying, "I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War."
The contrast is killing. The advertisement, paid for by "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", alleges to be from a group of veterans who seem to have some form of recovered-memory syndrome, since they have only chosen to speak out some 35 years late. They have ties to the Republican Party going back as far as Richard Nixon. But as McCain so subtly implies, they all inadvertently confirm one thing. Kerry was in Vietnam, in combat.
In contrast, not even the best investigator's dirty-tricks department can find a single veteran who saw Bush in any military capacity whatsoever in Vietnam. Nor during his National Guard service in Alabama for 12 months from May 1972.
Indeed, there are no veterans to dispute the merit of First Lieutenant George W Bush's combat medals or the quality and depth of the wounds that he suffered for his Purple Hearts. Because he was never in combat.
Of course, that is the whole barb of Vietnam veteran McCain's nuanced knockout. Bush "honorably" chose the height of the Tet Offensive to engage in aggressive maneuvers - using his family influence to get into the Texas Air National Guard specifically to avoid being drafted to go to Vietnam.
To do so, he overcame a 25% score on his pilot aptitude test - and a series of driving convictions that should have required a special waiver. He was commissioned an officer despite having no pilot experience, no time in the Reserve Officer Training Corp, and without attending Officer Training School. He ticked the box saying "no" to overseas service.
It was not that he disagreed with the war. Not at all. He kept taking time off to go to campaign for Republican pro-war candidates around the US South.
It was in the course of one of these campaigns, in Alabama, that he secured a transfer to the local Air National Guard - and never turned up. He "failed to accomplish" his flight medical there, and then did not turn up to the inquiry that should have been called about his failure, which in effect deprived the US Air Force of several years' expensive training as a jet pilot.
I guess it just depends on whether or not you accept anything negative about your heroes, Larry.
The VietNam war was fought (mostly) by those who had no connections or deferments to keep them out of it. Those who had the means to avoid service, yet chose to serve are far better men than those who used privilege to avoid the war.
You won't convince me that the swift boat liars were anything other than a political tactic to negate the advantage held by Kerry in the military service department. That is, sadly the way politics have become in this country, real issues and honest debate have gone by the wayside in favor of sound bites and marketing. And the really sad part is that so many Americans are buying it. I think that has something to do with the apathy of many eligible voters these days. They see no real choice between the two (and only two) candidates for President. As a result, the extremists are now disproportionately represented in our government.
Contra todo mal, mezcal; contra todo bien, también
|
|
|
Re: Bush was right
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7
Monkey Butt
|
|
Monkey Butt
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Swift Boat Liars
? Funny how that group included almost everyone from Kerry's old unit. Not a single officer could be found to support him. I met people like him in the Navy. They only joined so they could have "US Navy Veteran" on their resume'. Kerry obtained orders to an area where there was little or no combat. When he arrived in Viet Nam he was reassigned to an area where they actually needed swift boats because they were being shot at. Kerry responded by getting the he!! out of there as fast as he could without actually deserting. Funny how you call the vast majority of those in his unit liars, but don't question the veracity of the two or three who support his tales of personal heroism.
Quote:
In contrast, not even the best investigator's dirty-tricks department can find a single veteran who saw Bush in any military capacity whatsoever in Vietnam. Nor during his National Guard service in Alabama for 12 months from May 1972.
Indeed, there are no veterans to dispute the merit of First Lieutenant George W Bush's combat medals or the quality and depth of the wounds that he suffered for his Purple Hearts. Because he was never in combat.
When did GW Bush claim he was in combat? Talk about put up straw men just so you can knock them down. KERRY was the one, who after bugging out of Viet Nam as fast as he could, returning home and committing a blood libel against our troops there, had the audacity to proclaim himself a WAR HERO in 2004! The members of his unit left him alone until his lies became so grotesque as to require a response. Were some of them activist Republicans? Yes, so what? Most were not! Kerry could clear his name of this supposed slander by releasing his military record, an action he still refuses to take. If George W Bush was claiming to be a "War Hero," all that might have some weight. But, it was KERRY trying to make that mainfestly false claim.
The really sad part here is that a hard core lefty like Kerry, or Tom Harkin for that matter, was able to turn on his comrades, further the cause of Communist victory in Viet Nam, and still be elected as a US Senator.
By the way, quoting an obvious hit piece to back up your comments does little to support your position.
We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists. But when push comes to shove most of us are sheep who do what we are told. Worst of all, a lot of us become unpaid agents of whoever is controlling the agenda by enforcing the current dogma on the few rugged individualists who actually exist.
|
|
|
Re: Bush was right
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 119
Adjunct
|
|
Adjunct
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 119 |
Personally I prefer black Speedmasters. I think they're faster than the other colours. Ooh sorry, is this the wrong thread..? 
The westernmost Triumph in Europe
|
|
|
Re: Bush was right
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,821
Bar Shake
|
|
Bar Shake
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,821 |
Quote:
When did GW Bush claim he was in combat?
No one claimed he did. You have apparently missed the point.
Quote:
By the way, quoting an obvious hit piece to back up your comments does little to support your position
Now coming from you Larry, that's funny.
Contra todo mal, mezcal; contra todo bien, también
|
|
|
Re: Bush was right
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 9,223
Big Bore
|
|
Big Bore
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 9,223 |
Good one Rich!
OK folks, move along now please. Nothing to see here.
Excuse me, ma'am?
Yes ma'am, we call this a train wreck now please move along.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" - Robert Heinlein
|
|
|
|
|
