President Bush criticized Democratic lawmakers Thursday for not sufficiently denouncing the “General Betray Us” advertisement. “That leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org — are more afraid of irritating them than they are of irritating the United States military,” Bush said.
But Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post noted that Bush has admitted using the general to get out a message. So Froomkin proposed these two follow-up questions for Bush: “If you make a general your political standard-bearer, don’t your political enemies get to take aim? And is it possible Democrats were reserving their outrage for issues other than a political ad?”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- LonnythePlumber on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- LonnythePlumber on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- XXX on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- DavidB on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Monkeyhawk on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Monkeyhawk on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- Monkeyhawk on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- DorisKing on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Jed on Let immigrants run
280 Comments
The Democrats started accusing the General of being a liar before he even gave his testimony. It showed that they had made up their minds long before the hearing.
You are correct when you say they are scared of MoveOn.org. George Solis (billionaire) will not give the Democrats millions of dollars for their campaigns if they complain about him and his organization.
I wish the Eagle staff would find out exactly why Patreaus was sent from Iraq back to Ft. Leavenworth in the middle of the war back in 2005.
We already knew what he was going to say days before he gave testimony…everyone else was already reporting it.
Geez, get over yourself. I’m part of the Move-on crowd, and I’m not afraid of anything except continuing to be weakened by the actions of a needless war. AND WE ARE WEAKER…and the other more dangerous countries are sure taking advantage of it.
I said it should have been Secretary of Defense Gates that address Congress and not the General. In the grand scheme of things there were two higher up with the responsibility above General Petraeus. Yes Bush used the General as a buffer because basically the disbelieve factor if it had even been Gates.
Move-on’s ad was so misplaced, but that too was Bush’s faulty as has been pointed out. Bush was using Petraeus as a human shield. Though I have to admit, the righteous indignation by the right is almost laughable and sad. Like pointing out misspelling instead of countering with a sound argument. It just show a defending of a weak position.
“We already knew what he was going to say days before he gave testimony…everyone else was already reporting it.”Posted by: political_mom
Gee, we have moved from innocent until proven guilty to guilty before the act.
Why does that feel so wrong?
Of course bush made him a target. He put him out there to sink or swim just as he did Powell. Anything to take the hits off himself is his modus operandi.
Move on is not a liberal outfit; it is a far left outfit. I know the neo-cons wont recognize the difference, but then, most things are over their heads anyway, so who cares.
Is a military officer beyond being questioned?? Are we supposed to automatically defer to him because he is a General? I think it was a good ad myself. No reason to denounce the ad.
I do not support the war. But I also think it was wrong to accuse this General of treason, which is the clear implication of saying that Petraus had betrayed us. We liberals have been accused of treason time and time again by this Admin. for criticizing the war. The recent hearings over reauthorization of FISA heard that accusation again from the Admin. I understand how many people feel that we must fight fire with fire. But I still felt dirty and ashamed by that ad.
It’s politics and politics is a dirty game. One thing I really liked about the ad is how it made the republicans crank up their phony outrage.They’re good at that.
I gather that you subscribe to the theory that, if what we are doing makes the other side scream louder, we must be doing something right.
Again, I understand that, where we are talking about a trillion dollars and 30,000 U.S. casualties, the idea that harsh words can be too harsh is difficult to conceive. But exacting revenge by using the “traitor” argument against Gen. Petraus I still feel was way over the line.
“I gather that you subscribe to the theory that, if what we are doing makes the other side scream louder, we must be doing something right.”
Indeed I do.
My my my. Looking for some obscure angle, any little way to justify the moveon.org crap. The ad sucked, and moveon.org showed their leftist contempt for the military.
The cat’s out of the bag. And it’s real hard to put the cat back in.
For years good loyal Americans have been called “traitors” and “seditionists” for opposing the war. Petraeus and republicans don’t like the Move On add?
Get over it.
Yesterday, an organization so small its 17 employees don’t even have a central office, found itself under attack by not only President Bush, who said the ad was “disgusting,” but also by the Democratic-controlled Senate, which passed a resolution 72 to 25 expressing its own outrage. Many Democrats blamed the group for giving moderate Republicans a ready excuse for staying with Bush and for giving Bush and his supporters a way to divert attention away from the war.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/20/AR2007092001005.html?hpid=topnews
Looks like about half of Democrats in the Senate got in a circle and shot each other.
If we could just get Democrats to grow a spine.
So true XXX; what goes around comes around. The BushBots have spent six years name-valling; they have to right to complain when it is turned back on them. Especially when they have had the unmitigated gall to call wounded veterans who have come out against their war traitors.
Seems to me that a part of what MoveOn’s ad said, was inspired by the Whithouse… They announced well before the General’s appearance that the Whitehouse was preparing the report… and had originally asked that the report be given ‘behind closed doors’ — AND, they had originally said that it would NOT be available in printed format…
Given those items, is it any wonder that a group such as MoveOn would run with that?? A GENERAL only moving his lips, while the Whitehouse was pulling his strings??
One could legitimately see such a ventriloquest act as a betrayal…
Ahh yes… XXX… but the Democrats want to get re-elected and keep the majority that they gained in November… And to them, it seemed as if the whole country was against the MoveOn ad… I’m not all that sure that the 65% of the people opposed to the war, were all that effected by the MoveOn ad… mostly I heard complaints from the Talk Radio moguls… starting with the Drudge Report, and filtering on out… like most of the RW talk radio talking points do…
True, Chas.
Once again I have to ask, If Petraeus and military leadership in general are so great, why is the most powerful military force on the planet bogged down in a sorry little hell hole like Iraq? I think that’s the issue Democrats should be hammering republicans with.
Righteous indignation; a Republican hallmark.
Whatsa matter XXX jealous because these young troops might actually do what the plan was to do in Iraq?
Kind of hard to compare XXX, when all you have is the Vietnam failure.
Remember all the military complaining about how they are not going to let Politicians run the war again especially from protesting mouthy leftist wimps?
Guess you want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again eh XXX. Just like those good old Vietnam days where you took a political butt kicking and liked it.
The right websites were already out in full “I told you so” mode before Patreaus gave his speech. Everyone knew what he was going to say.
Oh yes, the indignation….like when the right hasn’t nor continued to trash Kerry and Murtha’s service to this nation.
Winning elections is how power shifts from the right towards the left. We started that process in 2006, but the job is incomplete. With 65% of the country thinking about the war and the Bushies the same way we do, why is it necessary to raise the pitch of our voice another octave, or to get more strident? When we lose the moral high ground, public opinion will start to shift back towards the right. Winning elections is not just a game of “gotcha” or “oneupsmanship”. If the voters are going to trust us to lead the country in a new direction after the 2008 elections, then we can’t lose our credibility just at the very precipice of winning the White House next year.
Do you remember in 1968 when the “Get Clean For Gene” slogan ran through the anti-war movement in this country? The same idea applies here – clean up your language, keep the moral high ground, don’t be suckered into alley fights with Bushie gangsters, and win the White House and 60 votes in the Senate next year. That is the recipe for restoring good government and sound public policy to the United States.
The Iraq War should not be a contest between the Democrats and the Republicans as to how ‘righteous’ either of the parties are.
George W. Bush has ‘fired’ how many other generals? George W. Bush has questioned others’ patriotism but that is okay?
George W. Bush professes to be a uniter and not a divider. If so, then why has the last 6 years been even more polarized than ever before?
George W. Bush always finds some military base to get his photo ops taken to make him look like a man? He really enjoys it when he gets to dress up in a flight suit, huh?
War is not a game. It’s about time George W. Bush stands up to what HE has done and take whatever consequences that goes with it.
George W. Bush uses the military for his cover each and every time. Isn’t this considered just a little bit hypocritical considering George W. Bush’s own military record?
Yet another bright and shiney object to distract us from the real issue. Bushco and the republicans botched this war, and the democrats in the House and Senate are content to do NOTHING until the 08 election.
I hate to admit it, but the folks who said the democrats had nothing but “blame the republicans” were right.
How is it that the republicans maintain control when they are in the majority AND the minority?
Complicit and cowardly democrats. They cant run the show when THEY are in the majority. The minority republicans seem to have all the power.
Meet the new boss same as the old boss. They all answer to the same boss, the military industrial complex.
“If the voters are going to trust us to lead the country in a new direction after the 2008 elections, then we can’t lose our credibility just at the very precipice of winning the White House next year.”
Kelly, real slow for ya now.
The democrats are losing credibility because they are doing NOTHING to stop bushco, just like they did when they were in the minority.
The democrats are losing credibility because they lied to the voters who elected them. They ALL ran on “change” in iraq.
And after those promises? There has been no change. They have given bushco everything they want. And the dems think that will fly with the voters in 08?
Hehehehheheheheheheeheheheheheh….
NOW who thinks the voters are stupid?
But kelly, you do get style points for so CONSISTANTLY repeating the DLC party line…
Meet the new boss same as the old boss. They all answer to the same boss, the military industrial complex.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl
ksfarmgrrl good to see you agree with a growing movement in this country. I do not remember if it is you or someone else who calls Americans sheeple. The movement is slow, but more and more sheeple are waking up to the facts you pointed out. It make take years or even decades, but a new dawn is coming and nothing the democrats or republicans can do will stop it. It is more likely what they do or do not do hastens the moment.
From your lips to god’s ears, anon.
Just a side note… The Democrats cant do much in the Senate, because they dont have the votes to over-ride a Veto… And yet, now its the fault of the Democrats that they cant do anything??? They made a good start in November… but now they need to win more Senate seats in 2008 to get the job done…
And of course, the Republicans keep hammering away, poking fun at Pelosi and Reed, for not doing any of what they said they wanted to do… Because they think it will work… And apparently it has worked to some extent…
NOW is the time for the Democrats to fire back with statements to the effect that they WOULD do something, if the Republicans didnt keep blocking their votes!!
The Democrats also need to hammer away at the idea that 65% of the public wants what they want… Bring the troops home… Instead they are allowing the Republicans, and their spin-bots to flood the media with some half-witted idea that the 35% behind them are the majority…. Democrats, unite, and do the MATH!!! YOU are in the majority with the People!! NOT the other way around!!
Here ya go Chas, from another blog, just for you. It says it SO MUCH better than I could. Sorry for the length.
“Webb Amendment Failure:
Instead, the reason the Webb amendment failed even though it got 56 votes was that Senators agreed by unanimous consent that the amendment should have to get 60 votes to pass, even without a filibuster.
But why would anyone agree to allow Republicans, who are already on pace to shatter all previous filibuster records, to stop an amendment this important and this sensible without even lifting a finger? And the question here is not just why anyone would allow it, but why everyone did. A single Senator could have put a stop to this simply by saying, “I object” when the unanimous consent request was made. Just one Senator.
Yet none did.
Not Harry Reid. Not Russ Feingold. Not Bernie Sanders.
Nobody.
-snip-
And so the Webb amendment died quietly yesterday, allowing Republicans to enjoy all the obstructionist benefits of a filibuster, without having to stand up and tell Americans and their fighting men and women in the military exactly what they were doing. And not a moment was “wasted” on the “extended debate” that’s supposed to make up a filibuster.
Everyone just politely agreed that 56-44 would be a losing vote for America’s sons and daughters wearing the uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they did it on national television. And America yawned, hit the snooze button, and slept in.
In the coming days, the Congress will be dealing with the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008. President Bush has threatened to veto almost every single one of them, which would leave the United States without any spending authority come October 1. That’s ten days from now. The president says he’s going to veto everything, and we have ten days to see if he’s serious, decide what to do in case he is, and then figure out a way to get funding passed.
But hey, since those veto threats are pending, why not just agree to unanimous consent requests in both the House and the Senate that the appropriations bills will require a 2/3 vote to pass? Since they’re going to be vetoed, why not just spare poor President Bush the trouble and the wear and tear on his veto crayon, and agree up front that if a bill doesn’t pass with a veto-proof majority, it shouldn’t be considered passed at all?
Because that’s the logical extension of what happened yesterday. And the truth is, it makes no less sense. We don’t know that Bush has the will to veto these bills any more than we knew that Republicans had the will to filibuster the Webb amendment. And I mean really filibuster. Not wait out a one-day cloture petition, beat it, and then break for lunch. But really stand on their feet day in and day out, live on C-SPAN2, and tell America they think our troops should spend more time in combat, and their families should just shut up about it.
Until recently, cloture votes were the easy way out of a filibuster. Forty-one Senators had only to make their protest last long enough to make it to the cloture vote, beat it, and then bask in their victory as the majority pulled the “defeated” legislation from the floor and slunk away. But believe it or not, Senate Democrats have found an easier way to do this, and begin slinking even earlier.
Bravo.
What the so-called “liberal” media has failed to report is that the sobriquet “General Betray Us” came up from the rank and file of soldiers serving in Iraq.
Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Fallon, thinks Petreaus is “an ass-kissing chicken-shit.”
Okay, I keep looking for exactly why or how the vote needs to be 60, and all I can find is something about Senate rules being used by McConnell of Kentucky, but can’t figure out how he could insist it needed a supermajority. Very frustrating.
Yeah TD. “McConnell of Kentucky” is the REPUKE minority leader and he is STILL controlling the senate AND apparantly has reid’s balls in a vice.
Too bad OUR team couldnt have done that when THEY were in the minority.
But then, apparantly the balls were not in a vice. They were just missing in action…
It is either a filibuster, or a cloture vote. Again, I prefer a cloture vote to a filibuster, because we then have the Congress ON RECORD voting one way or another. I really had my doubts about Congress being able to get us out of Iraq while Bush is in office, but I personally wanted the republicans to have to go on record voting to keep our troops over there longer, and voting to not allow them longer rests between deployments, etc.
Okay, I keep looking for exactly why or how the vote needs to be 60, and all I can find is something about Senate rules being used by McConnell of Kentucky, but can’t figure out how he could insist it needed a supermajority. Very frustrating.
Posted by: TDT
I think you need 60 to end a filibuster or the threat of a filibuster. In the past, Senators would filibuster and kill a bill. It reached a point where threatening to filibuster or the prospect of an expected filibuster became equally effective. I am with the person who said force the filibuster.
And once again, alternet GETS IT!
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/63160 /
But it’s far more serious than that. The fact that 25 Democratic Senators voted for the resolution is an indication of how deeply disconnected they are from the values that most Americans share.
After all, polls taken after General Petraeus’ testimony revealed that his show had barely changed public opinion on Iraq. Before he testified, a majority expected him to paint a rosier picture than reality — to lie before Congress about the effectiveness of the surge, just as the MoveOn ad accused him of doing.
With such a boneheaded move, Senate Democrats showed again that there is no limit to their Pavlovian responses to military issues. They stand petrified that they’ll be called dirty, America-hating hippies who “oppose the troops” by Republicans, that they’ll invite a conservative back-lash if they show spine on ending the open-ended occupation of Iraq or that they’ll appear “soft on terror” or anti-military.
It is the same unique paranoia about military issues that will likely keep a U.S. occupation force in Iraq until the Iraqis force our hand. The legislative process will remain hopeless as long as there is a group of Democrats who embrace every narrative that the hawks in Congress put out there.
That they didn’t doesn’t just reflect on their political tone-deafness; something more frightening is going on. By capitulating to the GOP’s spinmeisters, they became complicit in putting the military on a pedestal, tacitly endorsing the idea that you can go after politicians who lie, but not generals, even generals who are rumored to have political aspirations.
I won’t mince words: glorifying the military — placing it above reproach, suggesting that it is inappropriate to question its officers on the same terms as we question civilian leaders — is a giant step towards fascism. In condemning the anti-MoveOn resolution, Barbara Boxer said: “”This is the United States of America. We don’t condemn single ads or organizations. We condemn every attack on the glory of our military.” I don’t hold members of the military responsible for the decision to invade Iraq, but when we forget that they’re serving in an illegal, immoral and unpopular war, and talk about how we have to condemn any attack on the military’s “glory,” we’re getting into serious Kim Jong Il territory.
Keith Olberman was BRILLIANT last night. For those of you with the stomach to watch the truth….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcMsvr342oc
…and for those of you without video patience, here is the complete transcript of Keith’s special comment.
OUTTA THE PARK!
http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/20/372...
Eagle Editorial writers:
Read Podhoretz new book.
I don’t expect that you will change your minds, but you might quit saying stupid things that can be proven wrong.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2007/09/21/the_podhoretz_cavalry
There was no real alternative to removing Saddam.
Sure, it is hard work.
It would have been a bigger mess to leave Saddam in power.
…and we all know how “fair and balanced” town hall is….
How could it have possibly been a bigger mess to have left Saddam in power? It might have been a different kind of mess, but it sure couldn’t have been a bigger one. Especially if, instead, we would have finished the job in Afghanistan.
It showed that they had made up their minds long before the hearing.
You are correct when you say they are scared of MoveOn.org. George Solis (billionaire) will not give the Democrats millions of dollars for their campaigns if they complain about him and his organization.
Posted by: sotheysaid
You’re not really this dumb in real life.Are you??
kelly
PROVE that Iraq lessened or reduced our mission in Afganistan, would you?
This is a red herring.
Dick Cheney on why removing Saddam would be bad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEgDIylwPlM
Gee, we have moved from innocent until proven guilty to guilty before the act.
Why does that feel so wrong?
Posted by: Hud
from one drama queen (rush) to another (you) it’s fun to read how you feel so bad.
yawn.
oh, sorry i was dozing off reading your lame comments.
what will it take for you people to admit bush has wasted almost 4000 american kids in the wrong country.wounded for life 2800 american kids.wasted billions of taxpayer money for… ?????
until you do face the truth i get to tell you what a kid killer you and george are.
kelly
PROVE that Iraq lessened or reduced our mission in Afganistan, would you?
This is a red herring.
Posted by: Econ101
wow”prove”gee, i guess you got us on that one.i love a middle class retiree who thinks she is above reality when she claims to be a repuke.
you may be too easily led to be a voter in a democracy.
There was no real alternative to removing Saddam.
Sure, it is hard work.
It would have been a bigger mess to leave Saddam in power.
Posted by: Econ101
heyit’s that bushism…
“this is hard work.”
hard work… that’s like saying bush knows military service.
hard work is standing up for the truth when your ideas have failed.being a man isn’t standing in front of cameras and casually saying… i got an a in lowering taxes and showing fiscal responsibility.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
oh, he wasn’t kidding around??the sad part is 10% of the country still believe bush.
you’re part of that 10%that means you are stupid.
Olberman laid it on the line in that segment.
Guess you want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again eh XXX. Just like those good old Vietnam days where you took a political butt kicking and liked it.Posted by: Kansas | September 21, 2007 at 08:26 AM
Kansas, Vietnam was so long ago that I hardly remember it. If you think you can get under my skin with Vietnam, you’re kidding yourself.
One of the big differences between you and me…you were in a war, I fought in one.
Thanks once again for demonstrating what level you operate on.
Econ – You still haven’t told us how Iraq could be a bigger mess than it is right now. Invade Iran? Use nukes? Gosh it seems like the Bush Admin is getting damn close to both of those possibilities.
I don’t know if we could have “finished the job” properly in Afghanistan or not, but the Bush Admin gave us no chance by invading Iraq on a nation-building fantasy, and without an end game plan.
We had Afghanistan nearly stable, and with a little added protection instead of spreading our troops so thin, we could have kept it that way instead of the mess we’ve got going on over there right now.
It’s pretty much a no-brainer. The taliban and Al Qaida would have kept there, where at least many more of the country is willing to stand up against them.
One of the biggest up Bush’s butt Iraq soldiers I know, has been to both Iraq and Afghanistan…and HE even says the difference between the attitudes of helping Americans fight is amazing. HE says that’s the way it’s supposed to be when we fight a war.
Ever since he came back from Afghanistan…he doesn’t remark as often about how Iraq is such a worthy war…gee…I wonder why.
I want to know, if we really do need to do something in Iran and Syria…how many Reicht Wingers really believe we can fight four war fronts at the same time?
We can’t even get Iraq under control. You are just begging to lose all these wars and badly…especially the one that really matters. Flippin idiots.
My my my. Looking for some obscure angle, any little way to justify the moveon.org crap. The ad sucked, and moveon.org showed their leftist contempt for the military.
The cat’s out of the bag. And it’s real hard to put the cat back in.
Posted by: outlander
wowi’m happy we got a cat out of a bag…now if we could get us out of a bag-dhad
what is the difference between moveon.org and what that super rich texan did when he gave $28,000,000.00 to fund the swift boat ads which disrespected a volunteer for vietnam to try to make a proven drug addict drunk draft dodger look like he deserved to be elected and “lead” our military.
i’m sure you will make something up to justufy your position.the truth isn’t something the repukes or tony snow care about.
the funny part is if snow was a democrat, rush limbaugh would not have a problem saying snow doesn’t have cancer and is faking that for politicl gain.
you suck too.
if snow was a democrat,
rush limbaugh would not have a problem saying snow doesn’t have cancer and is faking that for politicl gain.
Oh noooo Sock puppets, and its barely Noon!!!
Did Bush make Petraeus a target?
Yes, and Olberman was absolutely correct when he accused bush of “pimping Petraeus.”
We know what that makes both bush and Petraeus.
Home for a quick lunch, I don’t have time to write much of a post. So here are a couple quick points:
1) Petraeus is not exempt from the public debate simply because he’s a military person. That said, the MoveOn team would have been wise to construct a different ad. As the debate unfolds, some of the stronger points that might have been won were obscured by this ridiculous discussion.
2) The U.S. Government should be making a genuine effort to work with other nations and (plug your ears, neocons!) the U.N. to find a solution on Iran. The Bush administration and its diplomats should avoid using words and making statements that inflame the situation. If Cheney can’t contain himself, then he should request for breakfast, lunch and dinner to be sent to his bunker.
That’s it. Back to work.
you’re
George W. Bush served.
He flew anti-bomber missions.
It was his job to shoot down Soviet bombers if they ever attacked.
Your attacks against him win you the Dan Rather award.
(Are you going to sue me now? LOL)
Saddam trained terrorists.
Saddam financed terrorists.
Saddam shared intelligence with terrorists.
Saddam celebrated 9-11.
Saddam gave sanctuary to the original WTC bombers.
We had been in a legal state of war with Iraq under the terms of 3 different Presidents.
No leader would ever respect the UN or the US if we had not enforced the sanctions against Iraq and Saddam.
If force is NEVER an option, peace will never happen.
Setting aside for the moment this opportunity to get side-tracked, how does any of this answer the question, “How could Iraq possibly be a bigger mess than it is right now?
No leader would ever respect the UN or the US if we had not enforced the sanctions against Iraq and Saddam.Posted by: Econ101 | September 21, 2007 at 12:24 PM
LOL
I guess you’ll now have a helluva time explaining why respect for the USA today is in the toilet, then.
Oh, by the way: only Augustus Stupidus was stupid enough to actually invade Iraq. And only packin’ insane (at best) plans for rebuilding the nation.
LOL. You guys crack me up. It’s like we’ve given over US foreign policy to Buck Turgidson, and yer gonna defend it.
You and the Coalition Provisional Authority. Hilarious.
Yes, President Bush and his crew were so dedicated to winning in Iraq, they decided to invade and conquer it with a force not even one third the size of the force deployed in the first Gulf War. One of the main reasons why we didn’t march to Bagdad and remove Saddam back in 1991: It was determined that it would take more than the 500,000 troops that were in theater at that time to subdue the expected insurgency.
Pedant
There was no alternative to removal of Saddam.
Therefore we must now pay the price for that action.
Every life is precious, but we could very well have lost more lives, leaving Saddam in power.
Historically speaking, Iraq is one of the easiest wars we have ever fought, as far as casualties go.
repukes takin care of our military…
OVERLAND PARK, Kansas (Reuters) – A Kansas military cemetery has run out of space after the burial of another casualty of the Iraq war, officials said on Thursday.
“We are full,” said Alison Kohler, spokeswoman for the Fort Riley U.S. Army post, home of the 1st Infantry Division.
U.S. Sens. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts, both Kansas Republicans, on Thursday sent a letter to William Tuerk, the under secretary for memorial affairs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, urging for full funding for a new cemetery for Fort Riley.
“While a new cemetery would not be completed in time to alleviate this situation immediately, it is vitally important,” Roberts and Brownback, a Republican presidential candidate, said in their letter.
“We truly owe our military members a debt of gratitude and the least we can do is provide them with an honorable burial ground,” the senators wrote.
Since the 2003 beginning of the war in Iraq, Fort Riley has lost 133 soldiers and airmen, though not all are buried in the Fort Riley cemetery. Sgt Joel Murray, who died September 4 in Iraq, took the last available plot, said Kohler.
Fort Riley can bury bodies on top of other bodies if family members want to share a plot, said Kohler.
Please explain this catastrophic threat that Saddam posed to the US? No doubt he was planning to lob a few of those deteriorating chemical tipped howitzer shells across the Atlantic.
Petraeus was privately laughing his tail off as he watched the Clowns (who call themselves Democrats)interrogate him.
He’s been under real fire before. Words are nothing.
George W. Bush served.
DRINKS IN A BAR IN ALABAMA. PRETTY CLOSE TO BEING AWOL. DADDY SAVED LITTLE GEORGE.
He flew anti-bomber missions.
IN YOUR DREAMS.
It was his job to shoot down Soviet bombers if they ever attacked.
IN HIS DREAMS.
Saddam trained terrorists.
NO HE DIDN’T
Saddam financed terrorists.
NOPE.
Saddam shared intelligence with terrorists.
WHO SAID HE WAS INTELLIGENCE.SADDAM WAS A LITTLE GUY IN AN OIL RICH COUNTRY.
Saddam celebrated 9-11.
AND…??
Saddam gave sanctuary to the original WTC bombers.
TOTAL B.S.
No leader would ever respect the UN or the US if we had not enforced the sanctions against Iraq and Saddam.
WELL, BUSH HAS NOT ELEVATED US IN THE EYES OF THE WORLD.
Posted by: Econ101
you’re the course george said he got a “B” in but he actually got a “C-” in econ101.
he’s a fool like you. actually he controlls the us. you believe him. udfoolthen.
Posted by: Dems Blow Ask Barney and Monica
lolvery creative for a rePuke.
Texans turn against Bush’s war
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/20/texas_iraq/index.html
“The truth is, folks in Texas are hurting,” says Big Bo Kern, standing behind the counter at the Luckenbach General Store.
“They probably won’t tell you that, because we supported Bush and stood up for him.
Back in the day you couldn’t swing a dead cat around here without hitting one of those ‘W’ stickers.
But feelings around here started to change about a year ago, when guys started going back to Iraq for their third deployment.”
“We also get soldiers from Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio.
The hospital takes them out on trips sometimes.
They come in and most of them are horribly burned, some missing arms or legs.
I give them a T-shirt or a hat,” Kern says. “It breaks your heart to see them.”
WAR IS SO MUCH FUN, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CAN GET OTHER PEOPLE TO DO THE DIRTY WORK FOR YOU.
ASK GEORGE ABOUT NAM.
Posted by: but larry craig swallows | September 21, 2007 at 01:05 PM
You would know.
George W. Bush served.
He flew anti-bomber missions.
It was his job to shoot down Soviet bombers if they ever attacked.
Yeah, and it was my job to catch little green men when they attacked from Mars.
One of the big differences between you and me…you were in a war, I fought in one.
Posted by: XXX | September 21, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Not really.
I fought in different ways with high tech.
Besides, we won our war, you lost yours or should I say your politicians and whiny protesters help lose it for you.
Which is why the whiners and deniers are costing us dearly in Iraq. They are proliferating the misery of defeat and discounting the peak of victory.
If you want to be a loser aka Liberal, that’s fine with me.
However, I like winning.
If it was Bush’s job to shoot down Soviet bombers then we were all in danger. Bush was often drunk and high so he couldn’t fly. Besides, who would actually think Soviet bombers would fly through Texas? Their first targets would be in places like Alaska but I doubt geography is Paul’s best subjects.
Somehow I think the Soviets were never threatened by the Champagne Brigade.
“He flew anti-bomber missions.”
In trainer jets? Is that how he crashed that one trainer? On a mission? And when did they start using non-certified pilots?
The only thing GW flew was himself. Cocaine, anyone?
Why read the comic strip in the Eagle? Y’all are much, much funnier.
Let’s see some certified references that Bush used cocaine before, during or after flying jets.
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
More of DU and Moveon dot porn spew.
Oh noooo Sock puppets, and its barely Noon!!!
Posted by: Chas.
The Sock Puppy Union part of the Intl Union asks all union sock puppies to stop posting. Our sister agency, the Sock Puppet Union part of the Intl Union is striking this website for bringing in nonunion sock puppets in direct violation of Article 3, Section 6, Paragraph 2 of the Sock Puppet Contract signed last year which forbids the use of nonunion sock puppets on this website. All union sock puppets are honoring the picket line and the Sock Puppy Union encourages its members to honor the picket.
There was no real alternative to removing Saddam.
Sure, it is hard work.
It would have been a bigger mess to leave Saddam in power.
Posted by: Econ101
PROVE IT PAUL!
““If you make a general your political standard-bearer, don’t your political enemies get to take aim?”
Would somebody remind us of why Gen. Petraeus was testifying at all? Shouldn’t he have been with his troops? Who was it that required him to be there?
However, I like winning.
Posted by: Kansas | September 21, 2007 at 01:59 PM
Well, if you call a job that wasn’t finished winning….
Would somebody remind us of why Gen. Petraeus was testifying at all? Shouldn’t he have been with his troops? Who was it that required him to be there?
Posted by: fleettwood
let’s see…ummmBUSH.
he was there to cover for george.did you expect bush to go and defend his failed policies??
now bush can say, hey it was that general guy who was there, that is what he said not me.
Posted by: but larry craig swallows | September 21, 2007 at 01:05 PM
You would know.
i’m just repeating what your dad told me.
Question:”Would somebody remind us of why Gen. Petraeus was testifying at all?”
Answer:”Let’s see…ummmBUSH”
Wrong answer. Try again. This time with some truth.
why dont you PROVE that thing would be better if Saddam was STILL in power?
You libs are so sure of yourselves, why can’t you prove that Saddam would never be a threat?
Especially — since almost all of the Democrat leaders said Saddam WAS a threat!
Your hatred of Bush does not change the facts:
Bush served in an ARMED plane, he was trained to shoot down SOVIET nuclear bombers.
http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/york200408261025.asp
By the way, Bush also volunteered for Vietnam but they did not want his plane in Vietnam.
RoxYOU are lyingYou should stick to the facts.
We KNOW you hate Bush.
But making stuff up only makes YOU look wrong.
George W. Bush served honorably. He flew combat air patrol missions in an armed plane, ready to shoot down Soviet NUCLEAR bombers.
YOU are an ASS!
http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/york200408261025.asp
Bush served in an ARMED plane, he was trained to shoot down SOVIET nuclear bombers.Posted by: Econ101 | September 21, 2007 at 05:44 PM
A weekend warrior was going to shoot down a Soviet bomber? I guess that would have been when Bush showed up for duty.
Shooting down Soviet bombers must have kept George pretty busy.
How many times were we attacked by Soviet bombers?
3,500 American men and women would still be alive. 20,000 American men and women would still have their arms or legs or minds intact.
Sadam Hussein would be hiding out in a hole.
The military did what it was supposed to do in 2003. But Shrub/Cheney/Rumsfeld disbanded the Iraqi army and stuck around in hopes to comandeer Iraq’s oil.
How’s that working out?
How many times were we attacked by Soviet bombers?
Posted by: XXX | September 21, 2007 at 06:09 PM
So the Strategic Air Command was just made up right XXX?
All those Airmen were tricked into manning SAC bases and missile silos.
But Shrub/Cheney/Rumsfeld disbanded the Iraqi army and stuck around in hopes to comandeer Iraq’s oil. Posted by: Long Time Poster, First Time Lurker | September 21, 2007 at 06:12 PM
False.
The Iraqi Army chucked its uniforms and were no where to be found after the U.S. rolled into Baghdad.
The Iraqi Army dissolved itself.
Another false rumor continually spread by the lying part of Crats
“The quickest way home runs through Baghdad”, the liars should have told them,” The quickest way to building bases is in baghdad. You’ll go home when bush is good and ready”.
P.S. Who was it that required the good General to testify?
““If you make a general your political standard-bearer, don’t your political enemies get to take aim?”"
“How many times were we attacked by Soviet bombers?
Posted by: XXX | September 21, 2007 at 06:09 PM”
Which house in the neighborhood is robbed the most?It’s not the one with the big fence.
I was wondering why no mention yet of the fact the Hillary and Obama (Oh and Chris Dodd) support the irresponsible, anti-military moveon.org ad. Hillary by her no vote and Obama by abstaining.
Why, you ask. Money of course. Most likely because they are afraid ofmoveon.org and founder George Soros. Soros is an ultra-lib billionaire.
Are they in Soros’ back pocket? I can’t say. So let’s just say they fear him and his organization. He is truly the king maker for the Dems. Read about him. If you like George Soros, you will love a Democrat administration.
“The Iraqi Army chucked its uniforms and were no where to be found after the U.S. rolled into Baghdad.
The Iraqi Army dissolved itself.
Another false rumor continually spread by the lying part of Crats”
Posted by: Kansas | September 21, 2007 at 06:17 PM
No, another false post by the ZERO credibility Kansas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Paul_Bremer#Disbanding_of_the_Iraqi_Army
“On May 23, 2003 Bremer issued Order Number 2,[25] in effect dissolving the entire former Iraqi army and putting 400,000 former Iraqi soldiers out of work.[26].”
Outlander, you’re so full of shit I can smell you clear up here.
Their vote had nothing to do with the move-on org (which is supported by millions of liberals who are going to vote for these people by the way). Should they ignore Americans?
I noticed Rudy is pulling out all the BS for the NRA lobby. Are you going to come down on them for the same thing?
“Their vote had nothing to do with the move-on org (which is supported by millions of liberals who are going to vote for these people by the way). Should they ignore Americans?” – pmom
No Mom, they should continue to kowtow to the “millions of liberals” who hate the military and support the vile Petraeus smear ad. Just pointing it out.
Moveon.org received thousands of e-mails from people serving in the Middle East thanking them for their stand. As a result Moveon.org has received a huge number of donations. That sort of thing happens when you share the views of the majority.
The only people who seem to be supporting this illegal occupation are those comfortably at home playing armchair commander.
cosmos
The Iraqi Army did “disband” itself.Still, official recognition of the fact that those former officers had no power, after the fall of Saddam, was appropriate.
I dont think anyone “quit” the army due to Bremmer’s decree.
They were already gone.
Doug
Move ON Dot Org would take money from Osamba Bin Laden!
MoveOn is an anti-American propaganda front for our enemies.
Econ101 is an anti-American propaganda front for our enemies. That is why he wants to see our military bogged down in raq and why he celebrates opening up Iraq to al-Quada.
Doug
Move ON Dot Org would take money from Osamba Bin Laden!
MoveOn is an anti-American propaganda front for our enemies.
Posted by: Econ101
Econ101 both parties would take money from Bin Laden in a heartbeat. No doubt they would give it up if caught, but if not caught, who is the wiser? I used to trust both parties but after many scandals by both parties I no longer trust them. I say take all the polis out try out and hang em. Let them serve as a warning to the next group what happens when you betray our trust.
The Repukes are funded by OBL. That is why we are waging war against an ENEMY of alQuada. Bush is doing their dirty work for them hoping they will like us for doing it.
What the lying cosmos left out the link to Wikipedia.
“Bremer called this argument of disbanding the Iraqi army a cat-like issue with nine lives. In his Fox news interview on July 31, 2006 he repeated again what he said before “…And no matter how many times I answer with the facts, it still comes back. But let’s look at the facts. Let’s take a minute. There was no Iraqi army to disband. The Iraqi army basically self-demobilized, as the Pentagon said. There wasn’t a single unit standing anywhere in the country. So the question was should we recall the army.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Paul_Bremer#Disbanding_of_the_Iraqi_Army
Let’s repeat that key phrase.
“There was no Iraqi army to disband.”
“There was no Iraqi army to disband.”
“There was no Iraqi army to disband.”
cosmos also omits with great frequency facts about Global Warming so he can promote his politically driven schemes of Global Scaring.
cosmos yet again exposed for the lier he is.
P.S. Who was it that required the good General to testify?
““If you make a general your political standard-bearer, don’t your political enemies get to take aim?”"
Posted by: fleettwood | September 21, 2007 at 06:23 PM
What is the Democrat Congress when they passed the funding bill and inserted reporting requirements from the General?
The 60 day reporting requirement on Iraq as passed by Congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_ResolutionThe resolution also requires Mr Bush to report to congress every 60 days on developments regarding Iraq.
“The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114 (Public Law 107–243), it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
Senator Clinton speech as Delivered
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
# ^ Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton 10/10/2002. Retrieved 9/1/2007. “Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. Now this much is undisputed.”
So Senator Clinton voted for the 60 day reporting requirement in the resolution as she voted for the war resolution.
Convenient memories these Democraps have.
OK Repuke – you know that the vote was to force saddam to allow inspectors in. It worked. The vote was not for war.
Bush went to war against saddam in an attempt to placate alQuada. He has sucked up to them for decades.
The Resolution required President Bush’s diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to “obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.”
Inspectors then went into Iraq and confirmed NO WMDS!
The question is how much of the army demobilized due to leaflets the CIA had dropped prior to the invasion, and thought that they were assisting the U.S.?
Regardless, the “official” disbanding, and pay issues, helped escalate the violence.
‘Iraqi soldiers march on US base to demand back pay’http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/12/1052591733712.html
‘Iraqi troops say U.S. owes them back payBitter soldiers threaten attacks on American forces, sabotage’http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/16/MN205161.DTL
“cosmos also omits with great frequency facts about Global Warming so he can promote his politically driven schemes of Global Scaring.
Posted by: Kansas | September 21, 2007 at 07:48 PM
The denier Kansas does NOT have the credible science needed to,1) Refute the “consensus” climate science.and2) Explain the recent observed warming, without including the anthropogenic factors.
So Kansas instead uses false personal attacks, and insults highly qualified scientists worldwide by calling them “politically driven”.
If anyone cares to see what was actually said, here’s transcripts of Petraeus testimony before the House Armed Services Committee last week.
Text of Petraeus’ Prepared Testimonyhttp://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/Petraeus-Testimony20070910.pdfhttp://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2007/September/Petraeus%2009-11-07.pdf
Transcript of Congressional Clowns Questioning Petraeushttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Troop_surge_in_Iraq:_The_Petraeus_Report:_Testimony
9/10http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/ranking_committee_members_grill_petraeus_crocker_10.html
Missed the link for the 2nd Day of Petraeus testimony:
9/11http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/transcript_senate_hearing_on_iraq_091107.html
We all know GW is a hoax spread by bloggers with nothing else to do.
Keep up the fight Mr./Ms. Kansas. We will have victory when the enemy admits the truth. Viva la revolution!!!
Blogging causes global warming.
So the Strategic Air Command was just made up right XXX?
All those Airmen were tricked into manning SAC bases and missile silos.
Posted by: Kansas | September 21, 2007 at 06:13 PM
As I’ve always suspected, Kansas. You’re too stupid to answer a simple question.
It’s an easy one. Care to try again?
How many times were we attacked by Soviet bombers?
I hope they dont fnd me before i can reveal the real proof of GW. i have it right here. i am typing at home because they saw me at the lab and were acting funny.
here is the proof, go to this link www.
Arrgghhhhh…………..
The last poster was a mental patient and he escaped restraints. We have him back on the ward. He always carries on about GW and how real it is. Claims to have proof too.
Blogging causes global warming.
Posted by: Professor
Professor you know you are not supposed to be on the computer after lights out. Now take your meds and go back to bed.
Only Paul would criticize the majority of Americans as aiding terrorists. The majority of Americans believed Petraeus was going to fudge the facts and that was proven correct. It’s true that Paul needs lies to justify his war for profit in Iraq.
Paul will continue to be all smiles as more graveyards are filled to capacity with dead soldiers. He’ll laugh as trillions are spent for the mere purpose of lining pockets of corporations that build buildings where shit literally falls from the ceiling. He’ll cream his pants as America rolls to another recession and the dollar becomes practically worthless. It’s people like Paul who are destroying this nation, not some Iraqi civilian who happened to be born in the wrong country.
So Senator Clinton voted for the 60 day reporting requirement in the resolution as she voted for the war resolution.
Convenient memories these Democraps have.
Posted by: Kansas | September 21, 2007 at 08:26 PM
========================
Proof that Kansas believes Hillary tells the truth… When it suits HIS position… too funny!!!
Blogging causes global warming.
Posted by: Professor
Professor you know you are not supposed to be on the computer after lights out. Now take your meds and go back to bed.
Posted by: Please ignore last poster
Strange crowd tonight.
If the Democrats will get off their asses and stop giving Bushco any money, then all this shit will stop.
George W. Bush served.
He flew anti-bomber missions.
It was his job to shoot down Soviet bombers if they ever attacked.
Your attacks against him win you the Dan Rather award.
(Are you going to sue me now? LOL)
Posted by: Econ101
How did George W. Bush find time to do all this when he was partying? Was Bush trying to get those pesky Soviet bombers before he was grounded by the National Guard for not showing up for his physical?
The Democrats are afraid of MoveOn.org the same way the Republicans are afraid of the Religious Right nutjobs.
In the case of the Pedraeus advertisement – I think the ad went too far and made the MoveOn.org look bad. This was a terrible PR move and has backfired.
That being said, just because the messenger used the wrong words does not make the message any less truthful.
Did Petraeus simply echo what the Bush White House wanted him to say? If not, then why did Bush and Company have the time before the Petreaus report came out to work on the report themselves?
Finally, Petraeus is the current general in Iraq only after Bush fired the other generals he did not like.
This smells like another one of Bush’s set-up deals that simply smells of suspect motive. When will Bush learn to simply tell the American people the truth? Or does Bush not even know the truth anymore?
So much for Bush promising to restore honesty and integrity to the White House.
The entities (the “Dissolved Entities”) listed in the attached Annex are hereby dissolved. Additional entities may be added to this list in the future.
Institutions dissolved by the Order referenced (the “Dissolved Entities”) are:
The Ministry of DefenceThe Ministry of InformationThe Ministry of State for Military AffairsThe Iraqi Intelligence ServiceThe National Security BureauThe Directorate of National Security (Amn al-’Am)The Special Security OrganizationAll entities affiliated with or comprising Saddam Hussein’s bodyguards to include:-Murafaqin (Companions)-Himaya al Khasa (Special Guard)The following military organizations:-The Army, Air Force, Navy, the Air Defence Force, and other regularmilitary services-The Republican Guard-The Special Republican Guard-The Directorate of Military Intelligence-The Al Quds Force-Emergency Forces (Quwat al Tawari)The following paramilitaries:-Saddam Fedayeen-Ba`ath Party Militia-Friends of Saddam-Saddam’s Lion Cubs (Ashbal Saddam)
Sure looks to me like Bremer dissolved anything at all to do with the Iraqi military, in just about every conceivable way….
Guess Kansas didnt read the entire article…
Good Grief… There never WERE any Soviet Bombers!!! I cant believe this almost felonius attempt at propaganda!!!
Soviet Bombers… Balderdash!!!
“Inspectors then went into Iraq and confirmed NO WMDS!” – Patriot
Hell, why bother with facts when you can just make sh*t up!
How many times were we attacked by Soviet bombers?
Posted by: XXX | September 21, 2007 at 09:10 PM
So lack of attacks is your proof that SAC didn’t have a job in protecting the USA from attacks from the Soviet Union?
Your arguments and questions get sillier every day. Perhaps you need to go back to the docs and get a brain scan. I think there is an embolism blocking oxygen to your brain.
“Good Grief… There never WERE any Soviet Bombers!!! I cant believe this almost felonius attempt at propaganda!!!”
Soviet Bombers… Balderdash!!!
Posted by: Chas. | September 21, 2007 at 09:57 PM
Soviet BombersDesignation Western DesignationNATOTu- 4 BULLIl-28 BEAGLETu-16 BADGERTu-95 BEARM-4 Molot BISONM-50 BOUNDERT-4 / S-100 Sotka —T-60S —Tu-22 BLINDERTu-22M BACKFIRETu-160 BLACKJACK
Yeah, all those radar blips we saw were faked as well as the satellite/spy photos.
So lack of attacks is your proof that SAC didn’t have a job in protecting the USA from attacks from the Soviet Union?Posted by: Kansas | September 21, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Kansas, show me where I said anything about SAC. I just asked a simple question, one that you don’t seem to have the wits to answer.
You can name all of the Soviet bombers, but you can’t tell us how many times we were attacked by Soviet bombers. And everybody on the blog except you knows the answer.
I guess you really are as stupid as everybody says you are.
ChaseThe Soviets had a “Black Bear Bomber” I believe, that had nuclear weapons capacity.
Yes, they had missles too, just like us.
However, the bombers could be called back, and sending bombers in the air was always a better strategy then pushing the button to launch a missle.
You can name all of the Soviet bombers, but you can’t tell us how many times we were attacked by Soviet bombers. And everybody on the blog except you knows the answer.
I guess you really are as stupid as everybody says you are.
Posted by: XXX | September 21, 2007 at 11:06 PM
That XXX has to be the dumbest question I’ve seen in a long time.
Of course I know the answer, we were not attacked by any Soviet Bombers in the Continental U.S.
Why even ask a stupid question like that?
It’s like me asking you that you never really shot a blond-haired North Vietnamese, therefore you were never in Vietnam.
Amazingly impotent question you asked.
Kansas is an idiot… He names a list of Soviet Bombers, cause he can google it… But he misses the point that not ONE of those airplanes was ever in flight over THIS nation… SAC or not… Could have been the TAC base that stopped them… Sure wasnt Geo. WMD Bush!! LOL
http://www.fas.org/irp/dia/product/smp_86_ch2.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/bomber-intro.htm
Learn something, would you?
The Soviets had nuclear bombers. George W Bush was trained to shoot those bombers out of the sky.
On the weird postings of Kansas, it is time for me to leave…. Cant take the comedy anymore!!!
Good Night; Good Luck; and God Bless, whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings all!!
ChasNot one Soviet nuclear missle was ever launched over this nation either
— What the hell is your point dumb ass?
They didnt attack BECAUSE people like George W. Bush, and thousands of others, made their success unpredictable and their destruction inevitable.
Econ101, I think all the Libs are smoking dope today, they are making no sense at all on any of the issues.
“George W. Bush served.
He flew anti-bomber missions.
It was his job to shoot down Soviet bombers if they ever attacked.”…”The Soviets had a “Black Bear Bomber” I believe, ”
Posted by Econ101
Econ101, WHY would Soviet bombers fly north across the Texas coastline, to attack the U.S.??
btw: Bush checked the box on form saying that he did NOT volunteer to serve overseas.
Why even ask a stupid question like that?
Amazingly impotent question you asked.Posted by: Kansas | September 21, 2007 at 11:13 PM
I did indeed FORCE you to answer a stupid question, didn’t I? Just wanted to demonstrate who pushes who’s buttons. Impotent question? it served it’s purpose.
But I suspect you’re an expert on “Impotent”.
;0)
Okay XXX, whatever.
You want to game play, I got a whole sack of toys I can use.
More than likely, you’ll just get ignored because you were being dishonest and I actually gave you some credibility which turns out to be a large mistake.
“You want to game play, I got a whole sack of toys I can use.”
I’d be worried except that you’re so easy because you let your massive ego get in your way. Bring on your “sack of toys”.
“More than likely, you’ll just get ignored because you were being dishonest and I actually gave you some credibility which turns out to be a large mistake.”
You would know all about being ignored. You’re just an irritant on this blog and nobody takes you seriously. You’re just background noise.
1. explain how I’ve been “dishonest”.
2. You don’t give me credibility since you have none to give.
Kansas does NOT have the credible science needed to,1) Refute the huge “consensus” re climate science.and2) Explain the recent observed warming, without including the anthropogenic factors.
Bedtime.
Kansas, you and your ego can rail at me for the rest of the night. I have much better things to do than listen to you rant. Unlike you, I have a life outside of the blog.
CosmosYou are WRONG again.
Do you have ANY idea how many times you can sign forms, in the military?
Bush DID volunteer to serve in Vietnam, but his airplane was not needed there.
Also, The Soviets could fly bombers in from any direction, just like we can.
If the Soviets KNEW we had no Southern defense, that is where they would attack.
By the way, refueling tankers, out of Wichita McConnell AFB, have flown all over the world and then back to Wichita.
The fact that Bush was BASED in Texas, during his flying career, has little to do with his CLASSIFIED flight times and flight plans.The first American jet fighters to be deployed to Vietnam were F-102s of the 509th Fighter Interceptor Squadron. When Lt. Bush signed up for fighters and joined the 111th FIS, he stood ready to deploy to Vietnam, as did every other Air National Guard pilot. In fact, he tried to volunteer for Vietnam.
Of the four pilots I spoke to who flew with Bush in the Texas days, Fred Bradley knew him best. They had met before going off to the year-long ordeal of pilot school, and entered the 111th at about the same time. Both were junior lieutenants without a lot of flying experience. But the inexperience didn’t prevent Bush — along with Bradley — from going to their squadron leaders to see if they could get into a program called “Palace Alert.” “There were four of us lieutenants at the time, and we were all fairly close. Two of them had more flight time than the president and me, said Bradley.” All four volunteered for Vietnam (Bradley doesn’t remember whether he and Bush actually signed paperwork, but he specifically remembers both Bush and himself trying to get into the Palace Alert Vietnam program.) Bush and Bradley were turned away, and the two more senior pilots went to Vietnam.”
You libs on this Blog are hateful liars.
Bush did a very dangerous job, in an ARMED aircraft, ready to shoot down our enemy.
That Bush NEVER got the chance to shoot down a Soviet Bomber is a testament to all of our military.
It is called “Deterrent” effect.
http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200402190855.asp
“In fact, he tried to volunteer for Vietnam”
PROVE IT!
BenRead my post, all of it, then ponder the fact that NOONE has challenged the article that I posted.
George W. Bush volunteered for Vietnam.
Even without his positive request, He could have been sent to Vietnam at any time.
Regardless of the Vietnam issue, Bush flew Combat Air Patrol to protect the United States.
He served.
Besides, Bill Clinton, who “loathed” the military, is supported by most of the same people who attack Bush.
Hypocrites!
Actually, my grammer was less than clear.
President George W. Bush did, in fact VOLUNTEER for service in Vietnam.
Again, read the entire post, then come up with ANYONE who can claim that those veterans, who flew with Bush, are not telling the truth:
http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200402190855.asp
All you did was report a claim made by a neo-con opinion writer. That is not proof.
Bush could have enlisted in the regular army instead of the Guard which was the preferred means to avoid combat back in the 60s-70s.
Econ 101, You are blowing propaganda smoke!!! And it isnt terribly flattering for you… Try getting some REAL PROOF that Bush did anything but go AWOL!
Econ101,
Are you calling Bush a liar?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/“Russert: But you didn’t volunteer or enlist to go.
President Bush: No, I didn’t. You’re right. I served. I flew fighters and enjoyed it, and provided a service to our country. In those days we had what was called “air defense command,” and it was a part of the air defense command system. ”
He “enjoyed it” so much he QUIT flying.
And he DID check the do NOT volunteer box. Do you have a later form that reversed that?
I read every word of your link. I see no proof that even one word of it is true. And it doesn’t help make your case. Don’t you know that anything anyone wants to find on any topic and any position can be found in writing? But that doesn’t make it true, just written down. People write fiction and pass it off as being truth everyday. No proof in anything you posted.
bush has been such an abysmal disappointment and I’ve heard directly from his mouth so many words that aren’t true he has ruined his reputation in my opinion. He has no credibility.
We’re back to square one where you believe something most others do not. That’s fine. No one needs to change their opinion.
Our country and its people, in fact, the world and its population only have to put up with him for about 16 more months. I often wonder what further horrors he can bring to our country and the world in those closing months of his presidency.
There you go — words right out of bush’s mouth which are different than your “proof,” econ.
National Review? Now there’s an uncolored, bipartisan rag. Interesting how the author “swift boats” Kerry, and uses it as a handle to put bush in a better light. I suppose bush would appear intelligent, if you compared him to rush limbough or ann coulter, but that would still be a stretch.
“Even without his positive request, He could have been sent to Vietnam at any time.”
Posted by: Econ101 | September 22, 2007 at 01:29 PM
Not as a pilot, after he failed to take his medical exam, the year they started drug testing.
Chas
Prove that Bush went AWOL, would you?
You cant.
Because it did not happen!
Econ
Prove that Bush volunteered for Nam, would you?
You cant.
Because it did not happen!
what proof?
Bush tried to sign up for a program that WOULD have put him in Vietnam. That was AFTER he joined the ANG.
When he joined the Air National Guard, he did not specifically ask for overseas duty.
There is no conflict.
You prove nothing.
I went to Oklahoma last week. I went to Pennsylvania last month.
That I went to either place does not prove that I did not go anywhere else!
By the way, W had FOUR full years of service in the Texas Air Guard before he transfered to a different unit.
That is MORE than enough time to meet the normal obligation.
There is NO proof, anywhere, that Bush was ever AWOL.
Bush has been humble about his service, but he DID serve, in a Combat Air Patrol mission. And, he could have been called to Vietnam at ANY time, many Air Guard units were. AND He DID volunteer, specifically, for Vietnam AFTER he was already in the Guard.
This is the law on AWOL, for those of you ignorant on the subject:”A couple of other points: One cannot be AWOL while a reserve or Guardsman in a drill status. One is meeting the required number of drills (one weekend per month and two weeks active duty training some time during the year) or he is not. If one is in an unsatisfactory drilling status, the commanding officer of the drilling reservist or Guardsman can notify the individual that he will be separated from the service after 12 unexcused drills. Once notified, the individual can make up the unexcused drills and return to a satisfactory drilling status. (Thanks to Major Michael C. Griffin USMCR, of Charlotte, N.C., for reminding me of this.)”
http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200402120830.asp
The larger question is why bush himself didn’t have the balls to stand in front of Congress.
Typical Libs, make things up without a shred of evidence.
And they wonder why no one thinks they are credible.
(insert cosmos’s usual response on GW below my post)
THE OVAL OFFICE, FEBRUARY 7, 2004
Re Vietnam,http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/“Russert: But you didn’t volunteer or enlist to go.
President Bush: No, I didn’t.”
You libs are idiots on military proceedure:
“5. Following basic training, Bush was open to overseas service but was not yet fully trained or permitted to go overseas.Bush has been accused of trying to avoid Vietnam service when he indicated on a form, “Does not volunteer for overseas service,” prior to reporting to undergraduate pilot training. Col. Bill Campenni explains that such an answer was required: “A non-issue. The form that this canard references is AF Form 125, Application for Extended Active Duty (EAD). It is a required form for every Air Force officer’s personnel folder. However, it does not apply to reservists and guardsman unless and until ordered to extended active duty. Most guardsmen, like Lt. Bush and me, were told by personnel clerks to check off the “not volunteer” block because it was meaningless. We had to fill out the form to go to pilot training because that year was EAD (Extended Active Duty). But all the training bases were in the United States, so the election had no effect. In the Guard, you are the property of that unit and that state. You aren’t going anywhere except where your unit goes.” Those who served with Bush attest to the fact that he was ready and willing to serve overseas, in fact, he was eager to test his skills as a fighter pilot.”
http://www.valorstudios.com/wingmen/thetruth.htm
Regulations REQUIRED Bush to fill out the form the way he did, until he was fully qualified to go overseas, he was ORDERED to check the box “NO”.
Ben
BUSH VOLUNTEERED FOR VIETNAM:
“7. George W. Bush volunteered to serve in Vietnam following his flight training.After his training at Moody AFB and Ellington ANG Base, George W. Bush and his fellow aviator Fred Bradley, sought service in Vietnam. In an article for the National Review, author Jed Babbin wrote that Bush and Bradley, “Both were junior lieutenants without a lot of flying experience. But the inexperience didn’t prevent Bush — along with Bradley — from going to their squadron leaders to see if they could get into a program called ‘Palace Alert.’ ‘There were four of us lieutenants at the time, and we were all fairly close. Two of them had more flight time than the president and me, said Bradley.’ All four volunteered for Vietnam (Bradley doesn’t remember whether he and Bush actually signed paperwork, but he specifically remembers both Bush and himself trying to get into the Palace Alert Vietnam program.) Bush and Bradley were turned away, and the two more senior pilots went to Vietnam.”
http://www.valorstudios.com/wingmen/thetruth.htm
The only thing I regret about that ad is that the ‘pukes have made it the issue and buried the real issue.
bush has admitted finally for the first time his intention for a long term US garrison in Iraq. THAT is not what he sold the American people on and they aint about to buy it now.
And Petraeus? I’m waiting for the report of his superior who apparently says Petraeus is a “syncophant” and “an ass kissing chickenshit”.
Long story short? This is a short story. Move on will soon be vindicated.
And the troops die on….
We called them “Dream Sheets” in the Air Force (form for volunteering for overseas and CONUS assignments.)
Because most of the time it was merely a dream that you would get your choice of assignment. About the only way you could get a guaranteed assignment was a special duty assignment, which had to be approved at the Command level.
On my last assignment, I put all CONUS assignments – of course, the Air Force thought I needed to see the Middle East and sent me to Turkey. :)
Econ101,
Give us proof, a link to form showing that Bush checked the box to serve overseas.
THE OVAL OFFICE, FEBRUARY 7, 2004
Re Vietnam,http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/“Russert: But you didn’t volunteer or enlist to go.
President Bush: No, I didn’t.”
No = NO.
George Bush did a very dangerous job for his country.
Many air guardsman DIED doing the same job:
“8. George W. Bush risked his life flying dangerous Cold War Air Defense Alert missions.In joining the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, Bush flew with an elite unit that had been recognized in 1966 as, “The most combat ready of all Air Guard units,” through an Air Force Outstanding Unit award. Bush’s squadron mate, Lt. Col Campenni described their unit’s role, “In the Cold War, the air defense of the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in crashes flying air-defense missions. While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over the Canadian sub arctic, the cold North Atlantic, and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
http://www.valorstudios.com/wingmen/thetruth.htm
“9. George W. Bush decided to forgo a flight physical; he did not “miss” one.George W. Bush did not casually neglect his scheduled May 1972 flight physical. Simply put, with the end of his flying days in sight, he chose not to take it. This flight physical was necessary for him to retain his flying status with the Air National Guard. At that time, Bush’s unit was scheduled to transition to a different, sophisticated aircraft, the McDonnell F-101F Voodoo, which had first arrived at Ellington in May 1971. To fly that aircraft, Bush would have needed to undergo months of additional training. With his National Guard commitment approaching completion, Bush intended to further his education at graduate school. There was little sense for him to learn to fly the F-101F when he would be discharged before putting such training to use. In January 1973, Bush received a routine physical at Dannelly ANG base in Alabama.”
http://www.valorstudios.com/wingmen/thetruth.htm
George Bush was recognized as one of the best in the country, at his ANG job:
“10. George W. Bush earned his honorable discharge and the respect of his squadronmates.George W. Bush never abandoned his commitment to his country and the Texas Air National Guard. While his enlistment agreement specified that he had to earn at least 50 points per year during his 6 years of service, upon his honorable discharge in 1973, Bush had recorded 954 points. His initial two years of service were on a full time basis.
Of his performance, Bush’s leaders gave him high marks. Here’s a sample: His commander wrote that Bush was “a dynamic outstanding young officer” and “a top-notch fighter interceptor pilot.” “Lt. Bush’s skills far exceed his contemporaries,” “He is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing.”
http://www.valorstudios.com/wingmen/thetruth.htm
CosmosNO Bush did not “enlist” to go to Vietnam.
Neither did John Kerry, dumb ass, they were BOTH officers, not “enlisted men”.
Bush did not volunteer to go to Vietnam directly, he wanted to go to flight school first, by the time he had enough hours to be sent to Vietnam, the Airforce did not want his airplane anymore.
But he DID volunteer to go to Vietnam as an officer.
Besides, you libs all make fun of the way Bush talks. He does not answer questions well.
I think Bush feels regret at not going to Vietnam.
I do not think that Bush avoided going to Vietnam, In fact, the evidence is that he tried HARD to go to Vietnam!
Cosmos
I have proven that you are a horses ass.
That is a good days work, for a Saturday anyway.
(Not really that hard to do.)
Aww leave off lil’ george.
SOMEBODY had to occasionally defend the dangerous skies over Texas and Alabama! And he’s failed so many times so many ways since then.
JR
Bush flew from TEXAS all the way to the ARCTIC Circle!
What the hell did YOU do during those years?
Econ101, you’ve proven that you lie.
‘Fear of Flying ‘http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041011/baker
Not a lot Paulie. I was a preschooler.
Would I have gone? Nope. I’d have left the country or gone to prison first.
But see? I would not follow myself up by sending other folks to do what I myself wouldn’t.
“I do not think that Bush avoided going to Vietnam, In fact, the evidence is that he tried HARD to go to Vietnam!”
WHAT A JOKE! If he had wanted to go to VietNam all he had to do was enlist. Back in the 60s and 70s ordinary people like me could not get into the Guard; they had a waiting list. Those with connections got in. The reason: back then THEY did not send the Guard to Nam.
ANYONE WHO LIVED BACK THEN KNOWS THAT!
“Bush flew from TEXAS all the way to the ARCTIC Circle!”
BIG DEAL! I WOULD HAPPILY HAVE DONE THE SAME IF ALLOWED TO.
BenBull!
The Air guard DID serve in Vietnam.
Many Airguardsmen DIED in Vietnam!
Not only was George W. Bush fully available to be sent to Vietnam, George W. Bush VOLUNTEERED to go to Vietnam, but the Airforce no longer wanted his plane.
BenYOUR bias is skewing the data in your mind, something a scientist should avoid:
“2. Bush did not need, nor did he receive family intervention to gain admission to the ANG. An athlete with a degree from Yale, Bush was physically and intellectually qualified for ANG pilot duty. In enlistment tests he scored 95% in “officer quality,” 50% in “navigator” aptitude and 25% in “pilot” aptitude. ANG Commander Col. Walter B. Staudt also interviewed Bush in person. Bush’s critics have accused him of having “jumped ahead” of 150 applicants on a “waiting list” to join the ANG. Such an accusation is incorrect. In any ANG group, maintenance and administrative personnel made up the bulk of the unit and, as applicants, made up the bulk of any “waiting list.” According to Lt. Col. Campenni, “There may have been 150 or more applicants for all positions in Lt. Bush’s unit. For pilot slots, however, the pool was much smaller, probably never more than 10, because of the stringent physical and educational criteria.” In his autobiography, Bush cited another unique requirement of the pilot slots, “There were several openings, I was told, because many people who wanted to go into the Guard were unwilling to spend the almost two years of full-time duty required for pilot training.”
The ANG and Vietnam:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Air_National_Guard_and_the_Vietnam_War
BenAgainBush was an officer, he wanted to fly combat missions.His airplane was not needed towards the end of the Vietnam war, it was being phased out.
Officers DONT enlist!
Huh
Kerry made it there. Gore too. Cleland also found his way.
lol cheerleading as athletics!
JRGeorge W could kick your ass, even at your prime.
JRfor you and the slow people here
OFFICERS DO NOT ENLIST, they are COMMISSIONED —
And, speaking of Kerry, he went with a movie camera because he thought Vietnam would help his political career!
F-102 as an Interceptor was getting a bit outdated for duty in Vietnam. The F-4 Phantoms replaced most of the duties in that era.
F-102 is what Bush flew and was used as an interceptor of enemy aircraft in the U.S. afterwards.
To become a jet fighter pilot takes a lot of training, skill and dedication. One doesn’t just step into a cockpit like they would a “Swift Boat” and cruise around. :)
lol
bush could not find his own ass with both hands. Let alone “kicking the ass” of someone more than 10 years younger than he.
You REALLY love this guy dontcha Paulie?
Hey maybe Laura will find a real man and you and lil george can take a house by the sea together.
What a simp.
JRI just know your type.All bark, no bite.All hat, no cattle.
You hate those who do better than you in life.
That means you hate nearly everyone.
I know your type.
W got over any substance abuse problem that he had.
How are those “12 steps” going for you?
lol – Paul, I know very well what it took to get into the Guard. Even with an MIT degree in a science it could not be done without pull in 1969.
Under your skin again Paulie?
Get used to it.
Oh and the hate bit? Yup buddy. Ya got that one right. I do indeed hate you. I hate your rotten pResident who is very much of the same stuff as you. Come to a meetup sometime. We’ll see who has teeth, a hat or cattle pal.
i am betting that W had a bit more in the physical apptitude portion of the tests than the average MIT grad.
LOLJRI hear you dont even have your own computer—And you cant provide for your kid.And you have some huge substance issues.
Nope, I don’t get into kicking a man, litterally, when he is down.
I DO feel it my duty to tell those who are in the pitiful state you are in to look in the mirror.
You HATE yourself JR.
That is the root of your problem.
Fix that, and everything else will fall into place.
“F-102 as an Interceptor was getting a bit outdated for duty in Vietnam.”
Posted by Kansas.
If Bush wanted to serve in Vietnam, then why did he learn to fly F102’s?
“To become a jet fighter pilot takes a lot of training,…”
It cost about a million dollars of U.S. taxpayer funds to train Bush. Why did he throw that away, by not taking his required medical?
He proudly served his country as a jet fighter pilot, by being GROUNDED.
It is truly PATHETIC the lengths the bush apologists wil go to to defend their god, W. Face it, history will remember bush as the worst president, ever.
Ya know Paulie? You’re reputation here is pretty set. I don’t THINK it can drop any lower.
Someone else accused me of substance abuse once. (A lie) He was a better person than you but it took others awhile to pay him much regard for awhile. Just FYI.
Thing is Paulie? What YOU consider good or worthy…well it’s just at odds with most people.
Go write bush a love letter. I got better things to do than trade shots with you. And I always win anyway.
Scab.
cosmos
You are still being an ass
Bush flew for the entire time that his country wanted him to fly.
His country delegated those decisions to his commanding officers, who were very happy with the Service of George Bush.
W.’s jet WAS in service, in Vietnam, at the beginning of the war.
Bush wanted to fly.
His guard unit flew only one kind of plane, when he joined.
Bush followed the orders and advice of his Commanders, at every step.
If they thought it was a waste of taxpayer money for him to go through a physical and flight school, to qualify for a plane he would never fly, due to his 6 years being about up, that was up to them.
Rosell
You are one pathetic bush-apologist!
Paul and bushie sittin in a tree…
“i am betting that W had a bit more in the physical apptitude portion of the tests than the average MIT grad.”
Like the ones on our nationally-ranked crew team? Or our water polo, swimming, basketball teams?
I doubt it.
Apophis
I am winning
Your side is whining
You are all about as low as Dan Rather. You have NO proof at all for the crap you post about George Bush.
I said average, Ben.
How many on your crew team signed up for the ANG Flight training in Texas?
Bush was in better shape than most college grads, in that most college grads are not in ANY sport.
Rather basic logic, right?
And again, how many MIT grads applied for the TEXAS ANG?
BE the SCIENTIST you claim to be Ben.
All I see today is pure emotion.
NO facts!
Hey Ben?
I’ll bet george can wave a penant better than you.
Paul? If bush gets removed? Or even if he just leaves office as scheduled? You gonna like….hurt yourself or anything?
Can I watch?
How many on your crew team signed up for the ANG Flight training in Texas?
I knew several who applied for the Guard. They were wait-listed. Including one Texas native who applied back home in spring 1969.
As for ‘claim’ I can verify it if you like. Go the the State of Kansas web site and check my license as a geologist.
Everybody except Econ knows that Bush didn’t “sign up for the TANG,” he got pushed ahead of hundreds of applicants so he wouldn’t have to fight in ‘Nam.
Coward.
J R – I think after his heroine Bonnie got thoroughly thrashed he had a spectacular meltdown. I’d love to see Hillary become president if for no other reason than seeing Paul freak out!
JR– LOL. I wanna watch too.
In fact, I’ll help if he wants . . .
Bull Capn
You cant prove that.None of you can.
Bush was HIGHLY qualified, his tests and his grades got him in.
Tell me how his fellow pilots got in? What “PULL” did they have? They all seem like average guys to me, and Bush was one of the TOP ANG pilots in the Country.
Therefore, it was based on MERIT, nothing less.
I won this one.
Primarily due to you libs biggest weakness:
Your pathological hatred of Bush.
Paul – how many MIT grads do you know at all?
Observe once again the pack behavior of the liberal bloggers. Unable to handle a conservative one on one, they circle like jackals shouting and supporting one another to bolster their flagging courage.
Econ101,
There are logs re Bush’s landing problems in early 1972, and his being put back in two pilot training planes.
They brought in Jan Peter Linke to replace Bush.
Bush quit flying TWO years before his commitment was over.
‘Fear of Flying ‘http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041011/baker
Yeah, you won this one like Bush won Iraq, dumbarse . . .
I’ve met about half a dozen MIT graduates. Most of them at research facilities in New Mexico (contractors for something or other.) They were all pocket protector wearing certified geeks. :D
Rosell the Nazi……….the only place you are winning is in your own MIND!
Nothing any lower than a sniveling, bush-apologist…….
Oh brother cosmos, your source is the widow of an officer who was a commander over Bush.
Officer’s wives claim to know a lot about what happens, but generally are greatly misinformed about what actually happened.
cosmos source information is non-credible as is he.
“Oh brother cosmos, your source is the widow of an officer who was a commander over Bush.”
Posted by Kansas.
Thank you once again Kansas, for proving that you have major reading problems.
She’s the widow of the AF pilot who replaced Bush when Bush quit flying.
And TANG logs released later appear to corroborate her points.
CosmosBush released ALL of his records, unlike John Kerry, the ONLY Presidential candidate in history who did not release his records.
There is NO negative material in the Bush records.
None!
He flew dangerous missions. He did a great job at what he was trained to do.
In this thread, I first had to prove that Bush flew Combat Air Patrol in defense of the United States.
Many of you said that was false.
Now, we are down to picking nits about the quality of the service that Bush performed.
Those who served WITH Bush, liked and admired him.
The widow of the officer who replaced Bush? Well now, you come on board after someone leaves and you think you can count on the “scuttle but” rumors and such?
The Widows deceased husband NEVER met Bush, did he? And THIS is all the PROOF you libs have?
Call DAN RATHER, QUICK!
And TANG logs released later appear to corroborate her points.
Apophis calls ME a Nazi?
Well now, your credibility, what little you had, just tanked.
I am the strongest defender of Israel on this Blog. I have frequently pointed out the links between historical Nazism and radical Islam, even the fact that Hitler and the “Palestinians” were allies.
I have a better record on race relations than ANYONE here, in that I have actually had Black and Hispanic room mates and I have physically defended my Fraternities’ right to have them as members.
Apophis can’t stand it that a respectable person can argue with him and do rather well. So he has to attack me personally, not even knowing me.
Its ok, it is the same thing all of you ignorant, hateful liberals do to Bush.
cosmosBull!
The plane Bush was trained to fly was being phased out of service.
Bush and his Commanders agreed on his service requirements, and Bush met those expectations.
Not a single Commander, in Bush’s chain of command, is on record for any discipline or court martial or reprimand.
Bush was honorably discharged.
BenI was challenging you to use the same “scientific method” here as you claim to use in your job.
You have no facts at all, just hatred for Bush.
You just KNOW he did something wrong, you just KNOW he got special treatment —
Very scientific Ben!
Face it, there are lots of EASY ways to avoid service in any war.
Bush took a very tough road, because it was not his intent to avoid the war, at all!
No one has proven anything in this thread. Anyone who thinks they may have is irrational. Everyone has expressed their opinions and some have found something written down by someone who shares their opinion. Again, if it is written down that doesn’t make it the truth or proof, only written down.
Here is another GREAT MIT grad, who went to Boston Airport with a fake bomb and called it “art” lol(Sorry Ben, I could not resist):http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070922/D8RQFVF81.html
“The plane Bush was trained to fly was being phased out of service.”
Posted by Econ101.
More lies from Econ101.Bush’s last recorded flight there = April 16, 1972
They had to bring in a pilot to replace Bush.
The base did not retire the F-102’s until August 1974.
Fact:Bush scored in the lower 25 percentile on the test for TANG.
What a dope.
By the way, Paul,JR does have a computer. I’m working on some programing on it right now.
Did I hurt your fascist feelings Rosell? That’s too bad if I did.
Admitting that you have a problem (the fact you ARE a Nazi) is the first step Paulie.
You just keep apologizing and apologizing for bush……..and your credibility gets weaker and weaker and weaker………..
cosmos, you IDIOT
The plane Bush was trained to fly was PHASED OUT of Vietnam service. It WAS still being used for SAC anti nuclear bomber or Combat Air Patrol missions, based out of the United States.
Good reasons for that: In Vietnam, they were more likely to encounter other fighter jets. Nuclear bombers dont usually fly with fighter escorts. Too long a trip, too many blips on the radar screen, etc.
So, when Bush joined the ANG, his plane WAS in service in Vietnam. When Bush volunteered for service in Vietnam, his plane was being phased out.
Cosmos, you have to quit jumping on these little, irrelevant “facts” with such ignorant joy.
You just dont want to understand, and it is obvious.
ApophisYou are just a mental weakling who has to call me names since you can not win, intellectually.
To you a “Nazi” is simply someone who respects American military service and supports his country.
Your definition is very twisted.
As are you.
Good reasons for that: In Vietnam, they were more likely to encounter other fighter jets.
Paul, how many jets do you think the North Vietnamese flew?
xxx
Bush scored in the 25% range for ANG PILOTS prior to training. This means that in a class of 100 pilots, he would NOT be at the bottom of the list.
The predictive powers of that test are suspect, however:
Bush was judged one of the BEST pilots in the ANG, during his service!
Bush scored very high for Officer skills.
Crats so worried about Bush and he can’t run for President anymore. :)
Vietnam marked the end of the legend of the ace. There were only five aces in Vietnam. This was a result of the North Vietnamese pilots avoiding situations that might involve dogfighting. The rules of engagement also demanded that U.S. pilots have visual confirmation of any enemy aircraft before engaging, which was too close for air-to-air missiles to be effective, and until late in the war the fighters were not armed with guns. And both the U.S. Air Force and the navy found their training programs were not good enough for jet-age fighting. After the war this was remedied with the creation of the Navy Top Gun and the U.S. Air Force Red Flag programs.http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Air_Power/vietnam/AP40.htm
Wrong again Paul.
Next!
The North Vietnamese flew MIGs
“The North Vietnamese flew MIGs”
Just not much around us.
xxxWhat did you prove?
I stated the reasons, or a few of the reasons, why the plane Bush was trained to fly was being phased out in Vietnam. The plane was slow and not as manueverable as the newer model.
However, against a nuclear bomber, Bush’s plane would still be very effective.
Again, you are rediculously posting irrelevant “facts” that dont prove a darn thing.
Regardless of the frequency of dogfights in Vietnam (They DID happen) —, it was smart military planning to give the military an airplane that could do well in dogfights.
xxxWhat did you prove?
I stated the reasons, or a few of the reasons, why the plane Bush was trained to fly was being phased out in Vietnam. The plane was slow and not as manueverable as the newer model.
However, against a nuclear bomber, Bush’s plane would still be very effective.
Again, you are rediculously posting irrelevant “facts” that dont prove a darn thing.
Regardless of the frequency of dogfights in Vietnam (They DID happen) —, it was smart military planning to give the military an airplane that could do well in dogfights.
And we DID have aces in Vietnam:
http://www.stripesonline.com/article.asp?section=104&article=17136&archive=true
Paul, you’re repeating what I posted. I SAID there were 5 aces. There just weren’t many dogfights.
The reason Bush didn’t go to Vietnam was because he was a little yellow coward…and still is.
Econ101,
You’re the IDIOT. You’re claiming that Bush quit flying F-102’s at Ellington BEFORE they were phased out, because they were phased out in ‘Nam.
Paul – I have no facts? I personally knew people (MIT grads and others) who attempted to get into the Guard, including the texas Guard in 1969, and they were wait-listed because they couldn’t get ‘bumped’ to the top. THOSE ARE FACTS PAUL! And the reason they sought the Guard was to avoid combat. I also knew Harvies who DID get in; none ever saw combat.
Kansas – I have never owned a pocket protector.
Oh yea – I DO still own a bamboo slide rule.
Things sure changed since the early 1970’s — slide rules, punch cards to program, etc, compared to now.
Pickett had a pretty good aluminum slide rule, eye saver yellow, and also came in a 5 inch pocket size.
ApophisYou are just a mental weakling who has to call me names since you can not win, intellectually.
To you a “Nazi” is simply someone who respects American military service and supports his country.
Your definition is very twisted.
As are you.
Posted by: Econ101 | September 22, 2007 at 08:59 PM
Sorry Rosell, referring to you as a Nazi isn’t name calling, it is a FACT. Calling you a scum sucking a##hole would be “name calling”.
I have, to my knowledge, never posted anything against the military on this blog. Most posts you decry aren’t anti-military, they are anti-war and anti-bush. Only a totalitarian mindset like yours would see it other ways. Add in your love of the military-industrial complex (Haliburton, and other mega-corps.) and you show yourself as a dyed in wool NAZI. Live with it Paulie Rosell.
When I was stationed at Danang in ‘65 and ‘66, we had 102s, 104s, F5s, B47s, and the usual assortment of combat support planes. During that first buildup, we lost too many planes to ground fire and enemy planes. That is when top-gun took over training and produced pilots capable of handling the combat situations they were flying into.
The loss of our planes dropped dramatically, and the kill ratio climbed to over ten enemy planes down to one of ours. One of our best fighting planes was the F5 freedom fighter. Very fast, very maneuverable, very dangerous.
So, you both have points.
Thanks JM
Cosmos
Bush’s plane WAS being phased out.
Bush was being transfered to a NEW unit that did NOT fly his plane.
(This was AFTER Bush had volunteered for Vietnam, for the Palace program)
It would have made NO sense for Bush to go through the expense of training in a new plane, since his obligation, in the ANG, was just about up.
You might not LIKE the way it was handled, but tough!
Everyone in GWB’s chain of command respected the service that Bush performed.
Period!
—-xxx
Many ANG members DIED in training.
Many ANG members died flying their missions defending this country.
—-
Ben
GWB scored VERY high in officer aptitude.
GWB was rated as one of the BEST ANG pilots in the country.
Therefore, scientifically speaking:
GEORGE BUSH WAS MORE QUALIFIED THAN ANY OF YOUR POCKET PROTECTOR WEARING GEEKS AT MIT
LOL(Even if YOU dont own a PP)
“It would have made NO sense for Bush to go through the expense of training in a new plane, since his obligation, in the ANG, was just about up.”
Posted by Econ101
Perhaps someday Econ101 will figure out that the TANG is in Texas, not Vietnam. And that TWO years does not = “just about up”.
Ellington Field, in Texas, continued to fly F-102s thru 1973.
Bush was having problems landing his old plane, the F-102, in Texas, in early 1972.
He was required to serve as an F-102 pilot in the TANG for TWO more years.
Bush instead requested the transfer to a unit that he was not eligible to join, the 9921st in Alabama, and left Ellington.
The TANG had to bring in a REPLACEMENT pilot, to fly Bush’s plane.
Paul – your inferiority complex is showing with your “pocket protector geeks’ comment – especially since none of them wore pocket protectors. Of course, that comes as no surprise coming from you. Whats the matter – you couldn’t pass the admissions requirements and now must lash out?
“GWB was rated as one of the BEST ANG pilots in the country”
PROVE IT! And not just his claim or some other neo-con opinion writer.
Speaking of planes – anyone here ever fly a Citabria? A great plane for stunt flying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citabria
“I have a better record on race relations than ANYONE here, in that I have actually had Black and Hispanic room mates and I have physically defended my Fraternities’ right to have them as members.”
So have I. Big deal.
“Face it, there are lots of EASY ways to avoid service in any war.” Not in the 60s-early 70s
cosmos – aluminum slide rules suck.
BenThere was College Defferement.Also, only about 12 % of eligible men were actually drafted.He could have done nothing.
Intead, he picked a dangerous job and he did it well, by all accounts from everyone other than Dan Rather who had any authority over him.
CosmosWho says that GWB was not eligible to transfer?
Where is that document?
Where is the document denying the transfer?
You do NOT understand guard duty.
George Bush was NEVER AWOL.
That is a matter of law.
You do not know what you are talking about.
And again, when I first posted, on this thread, that GWB flew air defense missions, defending the US from Nuclear Bombers, and that he flew armed airplanes ready to shoot down the Soviets, I was called a liar.
I think I proved my case on that one, huh?
How about some embarrasment, from you liberals, for your fellow liberals who said I was “lying” about that?
You are a pack of dogs.
You only care about destroying those you don’t agree with.
The truth means nothing to you.
Paul – the college deferment ran out after 4 years. They quit extending them for grad school about 1968.
Econ101,
Don’t you know ANYTHING about your hero???
The Air Force REJECTED Bush’s request to transfer to the 9921st, and Rufus T. Martin has said that he knew that Bush was inelegible for that unit.
Bush’s F-102 squadron CONTINUED to fly at Ellington, and Bush was REPLACED by a more competent pilot. But poor Paul is unable to accept facts, and reality.
And it’s one, two, three, what are we fighting for? Don’t ask me, I don’t give a dang, my next stop is the TANG!
And, speaking of Kerry, he went with a movie camera because he thought Vietnam would help his political career!
Posted by: Econ101 | September 22, 2007 at 05:48 PM
=========================
And just what credentials did Bush have that got him commissioned without being in ROTC, or attending OCS in the USAF???
Include in my previous post >>>
OFFICERS DO NOT ENLIST, they are COMMISSIONED — (Econ101)
CosmosWhere is the negative paperwork?
You have your beliefs.
You have fellow liberals who agree with you making negative comments.
In truth, you have NO proof.
None!
Bushmust have enlisted as SOMETHING in order to get commissioned as an officer…. or maybe Daddy Bush was able to pull some strings???
Bush fulfilled his duty in Alabama, after transfering from TANG.Nobody has come forward to refute the following:http://www.valorstudios.com/wingmen/thetruth3.htm
CosmosAgain, that one transfer was rejected does NOT prove that another was not accepted.Large organizations do that.Multiple applications are common.Again, you do NOT understand the military or paperwork.http://www.valorstudios.com/wingmen/thetruth3.htm
Bush had MORE credits than he needed for the years in question.
It is common to quit “booking” credits after enough have been earned for a year.
The Bush pay statements, by themselves, prove YOU are a liar Cosmos.http://www.valorstudios.com/wingmen/thetruth3.htm
ChasIt is common practice, in fact it is SOP, for those admitted to flight school in the ANG to get an automatic commission, but they are bumped back to enlisted status if they dont make it through flight training.
Bush WAS accepted into the 187th Tactical Recon Group, in Alabama.
So, what point does your “rejection” make?
NONE!
Those in the military get their requests denied all the time.
Again Cosmos, you dont understand anything about the military and you don’t know what you are talking about.
Ben
Well, Bush was unique in being one of a very few guard members in the country to serve, directly, with the Air Force and train with the Air Force.
Does that not make him one of the TOP ANG pilots in the country, during his years of service?—–6. George W. Bush served for almost two years on active duty.Bush was no “weekend warrior” by any means. His first two years of enlistment in the Air National Guard involved full-time, active duty service. This included basic training (6 weeks), USAF flight training (1 year), survival training (2 weeks), combat crew training (6+ months) and local checkout (3 months).
For 53 weeks during his 1968-1969 Undergraduate Pilot Training, Bush served in the same schools and under the same demanding instructors as regular Air Force officers. As a member of Class 70-04, he endured a grueling combination of academics, officer training (leadership), and flight training. He was the only Air National Guard pilot in a class of Air Force high achievers. He earned his pilot rating, his wings, and his commission. Bush next performed additional active duty training to become qualified in the F-102 weapons system, which was at a joint USAF/ANG training school at Ellington AFB, Texas. He also performed additional active duty by sitting runway alert under North American Air Defense (NORAD) command. This service was no different than the fighters flying over our cities since 9/11.
—-Pay special attention to this line:He was the only Air National Guard pilot in a class of Air Force high achievers. He earned his pilot rating,
—-
Now Cosmos, I know you have Dan Rather on your side.
You also have the wife of a dead man who never met Bush.
Wow!
Glad you werent on the BTK case, old Rader would still be catching dogs in Park City.
“Again, that one transfer was rejected does NOT prove that another was not accepted.Large organizations do that.”
Posted by the totally clueless Econ101, aka Paul
He personally, NOT a “large organization”, made his INELIGIBLE request to the 9921st.
“The Bush pay statements, by themselves, prove YOU are a liar Cosmos.”
The pay statements PROVE that his 9921st transfer was REJECTED — that unit is a NO PAY, no TRAINING unit.
There’s a December 1972 group photo of Bush’s F-102 squadron — he’s NOT in it, but his replacement pilot is.
I guess that’s because Bush was “one of the TOP ANG [F-102] pilots in the country”, but they “phased out” those planes at Ellington when he left in May 1972. /sarcasm OFF
Clinton’s Heath Care Plan Now Gaining Favor by Auto Industry
WoW Go Figure!
The Government Would Step in And Save GM and the Union $50 BILLION!
TAXPAYERS PAY! YEAH!)
* GM and the UAW have been discussing a historic deal that would shift the automaker’s obligation for more than $50 billion of retiree health care to a trust fund aligned with the union. The UAW has also asked for assurances that GM will not shift more production outside the United States to lower-cost economies such as Mexico.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2323804420070923
She (Hillary) continued for several more minutes, saying, among other things, that a consensus had developed, that the automobile industry is now in favor of a health-care overhaul and that her plan “builds on what works in America, but takes aim at what doesn’t and comes up with some very common-sense ways of trying to fix our problems.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092301099.html
CosmosBush does not claim he served in the unit that declined to admit him.You are caught in your run up a blind alley.
Nothing is there Cosmos!
Bush served LEGALLY.
The AIRFORCE and the ANG determined his service requirements.
NOT YOU, NOT DAN RATHER!
Bush earned far more credits than needed, in EACH of his years of Guard service.
There is no record of ANYONE, in the chain of Command, who was not satisfied that Bush completed his tour admirably.
You are a hateful, bitter, ass Cosmos.
You hate Bush, therefore you feel free to lie.
Econ101,
Learn the facts.
Lt Col Bricken welcomed Bush to his 9921st unit.
The Air Reserve Personnel Center rejected Bush’s inaccurate and inelegible transfer request to the 9921st.
Ellington had to get another F-102 pilot to replace Bush.
Bush was grounded, for failure to take his medical.
Those are the facts, with no emotions involved.
I like to know where you got these so-called records cosmos. I would have a hard time retrieving my own military records without special permission.
Are you using the forged copies offered to Dan Rather?
You do know those are all false?
I don’t have to prove anything Kansas.
And there is not a thing you can do about it. :)
btw: Bush released some of his records during the 2000 and ‘04 campaigns.
Fake signatures on those documents cosmos?
Look at these links of Bush’s real signature and compare them to the signature on the supposed TANG documents. They are even close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GeorgeWBush_Signature.svg
George Walker Bush’s signature
http://www.glcq.com/docs/redacted_five_year.pdffake signature?
Also, being in the military, I know that correspondence had to put on letterhead stationery with the seal of the unit. I saw no letters at that Website that had even one letterhead stationery.
I don’t have to prove anything Kansas.
And there is not a thing you can do about it. :)
Cosmos
Without trying, you have proven yourself a hateful ass with no regard for the truth.
Bush, in his records of military service, does not include the unit you speak of.
Bush DID get the required number of credits in DIFFERENT units than the one you speak of.
You get caught up on stupid details that prove nothing. Much like Bush doing what ALL flight school aviators are told to do on the form that said he did not request foreign duty. That form was a request for training, which had not yet been completed.
Definitions are EVERYTHING. NOBODY who served with Bush thinks Bush did anything wrong.
You, with NO experience to back you up, no credible witnesses to back you up, no evidence to back you up, simply attack Bush with baseless charges.
By the way:
BUSH VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE IN THE “PALACE” PROGRAM, WHICH MEANS HE VOLUNTEERED FOR DUTY IN VIETNAM!
Econ101, aka Paul R.,
Lt. Col. Bricken SAID that Bush applied to his (inelegible) 9921st unit.
And it was impossible for Bush (who enlisted May 27, 1968) to get the 500 hours flying the (outdated) F-102 needed to get into “Palace Alert”.
He did not even have that many F-102 hours when he quit flying in 1972.
You need to do a reality check, Paul R.
Cosmos,
Your facts are wrong:
http://www.valorstudios.com/wingmen/thetruth.htm
Bush had LOTS of flight hours while with the TANG. He hardly had time for much of anything else, his work load was intense.
Bush applied for the Palace program, to serve in Vietnam, while he was still with the TANG.
The Air Force did not take him, but did take two other TANG members with even more flight time and experience. (This would indicate that Bush applied for duty in Vietnam early in his career, as Bush had plenty of flight time by the end of his 4th year.)
Where, Cosmos, does the Airforce or Military or Air Guard insist than any person who begins service as a pilot MUST remain a pilot, forever, while in uniform?
The military was phasing out the plane Bush flew, as far as Vietnam duty was concerned.
Bush would have had to train with a completely different aircraft, by the end of his 4th year, if he transferred to most other bases.
That he was denied one transfer is no big deal. It happens all the time.
Bush WAS granted another transfer request.
Some liberals like to say Bush was AWOL — That is not possible in the ANG. They use a much different approach than active duty. Bush DID have enough service credit, under ANG rules, for each year he served. The first couple of years Bush served, he was FULL TIME, please read ALL of my link:
http://www.valorstudios.com/wingmen/thetruth.htm
Also be sure to click the button for more detailed information, on each topic.
During the total 6 years that Bush served in the ANG, he actually spent far more time, ON DUTY, than the average reservist.
Again, your rants are nothing but ignorant attacks by someone who hates Bush.
Show me someone in the chain of command that says Bush did not serve honorably, would you please?
Show me someone who served WITH Bush who says Bush did not serve honorably, would you please?
I know that a dead guy who never met Bush has a widow who claims Bush left under bad circumstances. WOW, hot piece of “evidence” there, huh?
Somebody “replaced” Bush when he left?
Gosh, who replaced John Kerry when his (very short) photo op in Vietnam was over?
The military transfers and replaces people all the time.
By the way, there are FAR more records of Guard/Reserve duty where Bush is concerned than there are for John Kerry.
Look at Kerry’s DD-214. He was discharged under Jimmy Carter.
Any record AT ALL of Kerry attending even one Naval Reserve drill?
Kerry was discharged from active duty and sent to reserve duty.
Bush released all of his records.
Kerry never released all of his records.
Again, before you question another thing that Bush did, please tell us a SINGLE reserve drill that Kerry attended, and tell us why Kerry should have been discharged from Reserve duty under Gerald Ford, but there was no record of any Reserve drill attended!
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/jodhn.htm
http://www.militarycorruption.com/kerry3.htm
You liberals can’t stand it that the men who served with John Kerry by and large did not like him, or respect him.
You liberals can’t stand it that ALL the men who served with George W. Bush speak very higlyof him.
Excuse me, I meant to say Kerry Should have been discharged under Gerald Ford, according to the DD-214 Kerry posted on his website.
However, it appears that his final record might have been redone under Jimmy Carter.
Why, there is no such thing as a Combat V on a Silver Star.
Anyone who printed the DD-214 at the time of the Vietnam War would have known that and corrected the error.
That document might very well have been produced as part of the Jimmy Carter Amnesty program.
Kerry either missed is Naval Reserve Drills, or Kerry was seperated from service due to his anti-war activity with Jane Fonda, while still in the Reserves.
I have FAR more proof, for my theories, than you do Cosmos!
And Kerry could prove me wrong in a heart beat by showing his Reserve Unit records.
HE NEVER HAS!
http://www.bowlersresourcecenter.com/notkerry/whoa.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1262686/posts
http://www.pbase.com/bill_adams/swiftboats_and_nuclear_football
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/glandrith_20041118.html
One of the documents that IS public states the following:
“One of the released documents provides powerful evidence that John Kerry was not honorably discharged from the Navy in 1972 when his duty ended. A letter to Kerry from the Secretary of the Navy, dated February 16, 1978, states, “By direction of the President … you are hereby honorably discharged from the U.S. Naval Reserve effective [February 16, 1978]. Had Kerry been honorably discharged in 1972, there would have been no reason for this February 1978 letter.
The February 1978 letter goes on to state, “This action is taken in accordance with the approved recommendations of a board of officers convened under authority of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1163.” Had John Kerry been honorably discharged in 1972, there would have been no need to convene a board of officers and the President would not have needed to direct any review. The only reason to review Kerry’s discharge and the only reason to convene a board of officers was because Kerry was not honorably discharged in 1972. ”
This also from one of my above-posted links
Thanks for a lovely site, I am very impressed :-)