BS: Bush and Meet the Press????

Subject: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Deckman
Date: 08 Feb 04 - 02:57 PM

What did you think of President bush's interview on "Meet The Press?" I thought he looked very weak on the questions regarding his National Guard service. CHEERS, Bob(deckman)Nelson

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 04 - 03:06 PM

I think he looked like a fading Paul Newman playing the part of an inept politician/.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Feb 04 - 03:15 PM

I don't like Bush, but I think he did a good job of deflecting the awkward questions so that people who aren't paying close attention won't notice his non-answers. Honestly, I think he will convince many many ordinary Americans with that performance.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Deckman
Date: 08 Feb 04 - 03:50 PM

Nerd ... I completly agree with you, and it's a scary thought. I also do not like him. What's even worse than "liking" him, is the thought that he's a really loose cannon.

And Amos, I wish I could agree with you, as I do NOT want him re-elected.CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Feb 04 - 04:55 PM

The reason he looked weak is because he is trying to defend failed policies. But this was the best he could do given that he knew every question that he was going to be asked. Heck, word on the street is that Carl Rove wrote 'um all......

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Feb 04 - 06:52 PM

I just visited the Google.news page, and this gem is up at the top:

Crowds Loot Haiti Port; Uprising Spreads
Crowds Loot Port As Uprising Spreads in Haiti After Bloody Battles Between Police, Gunmen

The Associated Press

ST. MARC, Haiti Feb. 8 — Hundreds of Haitians looted TV sets, mattresses and sacks of flour from shipping containers Sunday in this port town, one of several communities seized by rebels in a bloody uprising against President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Using felled trees, flaming tires and car chassis, residents blocked streets throughout St. Marc a day after militants drove out police in gunbattles that killed two people. Many residents have formed neighborhood groups to back insurgents in their push to expel the president.

Now THIS, being in this hemisphere, and being a country where we have interfered and helped at varying times, THIS is a place that Dubya should pay some attention to. Lots of Haitian nationals living here in the U.S. Want to bet he doesn't do anything helpful? Maybe make a speech?

They don't have any oil, and they won't help get him elected. Unless he has rich republican friends with interests there, perhaps taking advantage of the cheap (non-existent) wages?

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Deckman
Date: 08 Feb 04 - 07:35 PM

I thought that President bush (I refuse to capitlize his name) made one perfect point. In answer to his personal views on the VietNam war, he made the point that where it went wrong was that it became a "political" war. He went on to explain that ...   the President sets the policy (meaning war) and he should let the military do it's job (meaning winning the war). But when the politicians get into the act, they start making military decisions that fail. I agree with him.

I feel the problem with the Iraq war is that President bush failed to do ONE more thing: in addition to making policy, he'd better make damned sure that he's got the citizens support before he decides to make war.

Just my opinion! Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 04 - 07:41 PM

Bob:

There's a prerequisite -- make sure you are making such a decision as a right action.

I don't think war is very likely to be a right action under any but the most extreme conditions. I do not think Bush was actually facing such an extreme.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,WildBilly
Date: 08 Feb 04 - 08:05 PM

George W. Bush refused to take a flight physical in 1972 because he was using cocaine. According to the author of Fortunate Son Bush was arrested in Texas but his arrest and conviction was quickly expunged and covered up. The author of the book was quickly arrested and sent to prison for two years for "lying on a home loan application". Bush's Texas driver's license from this period has totally disappeared from the face of the earth. Bush did sis weeks "community service" in Houston playing basketball in an inner-city gym. This is during the same time period Bush was allegedly in Alabama in the National Guard.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,Don Hakman
Date: 08 Feb 04 - 08:09 PM

Meet on Bush the Press...

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/meetpressW.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Peter T.
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 08:10 AM

The idea that politicians should lay off while soldiers fight the war makes no sense in democracies. War is not in some separate category of purity, it depends on public support before and during -- Abraham Lincoln knew that.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 09:06 AM

I think the photo-op from this interview was:

Bush: "I'm a war president... <*smirk*>"


George Bush stated in his "Meet The Press" interview:
"Again, I repeat to you, the capacity to have good intelligence
means that a president can make good calls about fighting this
war on terror."

Given the facts, which were apparent to many people over a year
ago, but now have sinply been confirmed in spades, it seems to
me that Bush is -- in a moment of unwitting candor -- admitting
that, at the very least, he really fouled things up.

And now Bush is claiming that his National Guard records
really exist, but just haven't been found. . . .

Might I suggest to the Bush campaign that they should
go look for these records over there ... right next to all the
WMD.

                            -- Arne Langsetmo

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 12:02 PM

As he fights against the freedom's calm
Our president's psychic napalm
Infects a nation with dead end ways
His warring station an unholy maze

And like a kid, detention sent
Who's lost his id, and must repent
See him squirm there all alone
With "just one term", he can't attone...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: DougR
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 01:23 PM

Sigh. Oh well, one should not expect more I guess.

One does not get an Honorable Discharge unless one earns it. One is not rewarded with one if one deserts or is AWOL. That's a simple fact that will still evade most critics.

Bush is not a great communicator. I wish he was. Great oration, however, does not necessarily make for a good president. Look, for example, at Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter. Both were good communicators but lousy presidents.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 01:54 PM

wrong on all counts, DougR

Bush may not have earned an Honorable discharge, and it looks more and more convincing that he did not. bureaucracies and paperwork are fungible. and both Clinton and Carter were great Presidents as well as great communicators, Carter more so for his integrity.

Reagan on the other hand was a lousy communicator (he was never a very good actor, and most people could tell he was lying every time he opened his mouth) and a lousy President. as are both Bushes, but Junior more so.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Peter T.
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 02:27 PM

Bill Clinton a great president????????????????????????

Jimmy Carter a great communicator??????????????????????

Ronald Reagan was a terrible president, but you only have to watch the Challenger speech to know that he could be a great communicator. Also a hideous befuddled liar, but let us give credit where credit is due.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,Don Hakman
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 02:36 PM

the above http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/meetpressW.jpg was published and is getting a million viewings a day on Rense.com

I'm expecting a Purlitzer for my '1000 points of lies' illustration :D

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Alaska Mike
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 03:59 PM

If things in this country are to change, not only does the Shrub need to be voted out, but as many Republican congresspersons and senators as possible must be ousted as well. It will do no good to replace the Shrub with a Democrat if both houses of Congress are still pushing his Corporate give-away agenda. I urge all of you to work for changing the House and Senate as well as the White House.

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Kim C
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 04:32 PM

I didn't see Meet the Press this week, but I will say, I think Tim Russert rocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 06:02 PM

Even George Will today was critical of Bush's performance, although he's not looking for Democrats to salvage the Administration's excesses.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: TIA
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 06:37 PM

Bush (and DougR, and Rush, and Sean, and...) - "I (Bush) was honorably discharged, therefore I can't possibly have been AWOL"

OJ - "I never went to jail, therefore, I can't possibly have killed them"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Deckman
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 07:05 PM

I still suspect that bush's National Guard record will eventually turn out to be the smoking gun. When Sen. Kerry's record gets compared to President bush's record, honesty and intergrity will rise to the top. CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,Cluin
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 07:49 PM

I think President Bush would probably also agree that he isn't a very good communicationist.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 08:56 PM

Well, folks, hang on! This Tim Russert thing was nuthin' more than a piece of Bush PR re-selection stategy. What his handlers have cleverly done is go into a think tank mode and asked "What are our liabilities?". And there are quite a few. When is the best time to get them out in the open? Now, or in the heat of the campiagn?

Ahhhh, like now... Gte 'um out. Defuse 'um and then when the Dems hit Bush on his failings during the campaign he will just yawn and say "That's old business, lets talk about where American needs to go from here..."

Hey, if I were running Bush's campaign, I'd be doing ther same thing.

And my hats off to Tim Russert, a dyed in the wool Republican, fir his Academy Award level performance in trying to look like he was really asking the tough questions. Had Russert been as intense as he was on Howard Dean, Bush would have called the entire thing off and had Russert sent to Guantanamo....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: DougR
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 09:27 PM

I guess a good communicator is in the eye of the beholder, eh, as is a good president?

TIA: no point in replying to your post. The reply would make about as much sense as your post.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: michaelr
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 11:50 PM

Good on ya, Dougie, keep that head buried... can't breathe??... doesn't matter... long as you wheeze the party line...

Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: LadyJean
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 01:03 AM

Some people have poor verbal skills. One of them is George w. Bush. He is also a lying rat bastard, and you may tell him I said so. If Boss Tweed were running against George W. I would vote for Tweed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 02:53 AM

"One does not get an Honorable Discharge unless one earns it. One is not rewarded with one if one deserts or is AWOL. That's a simple fact that will still evade most critics."

Not exactly. One *is not supposed to* get an Honorable Discharge unless one earns it.

In the real world sometimes what is supposed to happen does not., and the unworthy are sometimes rewarded and the worthy are sometimes not. That's a simple fact.

An important man or his son is occasionally treated better than the common man.

I recall "the Colonel" telling me that what I was complaining about could not have happened because it would be contrary to regulations. Can you see the flaw in his logic?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 08:39 AM

Deckman feels that a comparison of records (G W Bush to John Kerry) would be of significant interest.

Now exactly what would those records show? Maybe this article from today's Telegraph puts into perspective:-

Kerry won't scare any of the big beasts

By Mark Steyn(Filed: 10/02/2004)

Among my Christmas presents was a copy of Survive, a recent collection by Sports Afield magazine of helpful tips for the great outdoors. Most of the stuff was familiar - rub a raw potato on poison ivy, roast a wood bug before you eat it - but on page 70 I was surprised by this novel approach to mountain lions: "Do not approach one, especially if it is feeding or with its young. Most will avoid confrontation, so provide an escape. Do all you can to appear larger. Raise your anus, and open your jacket if you have one on." I can't say I did that the last time I saw a mountain lion, but maybe I had a lucky escape. And then I realised it's meant to be "raise your arms" and that the item is a cautionary tale in the pitfalls of computer "scanning".

One hopes the misprint doesn't lead the less seasoned hiker into an awkward situation, and that any mountain lion confronted by city folks dutifully adopting the prescribed position will think "What the hell do they mean by that?" and wander off shaking his head rather than flying into a carnivorous rage.

I thought of the advice when I caught Presidential candidate John Kerry, the Default Democrat, at one of his final campaign stops in New Hampshire. Unlike the noisily anti-war Howard Dean, Kerry has taken a different tack. The thinking seems to be that, on the war, George W Bush is the mountain lion and the Dems need to "do all you can to appear larger". When I first encountered him on the hustings last summer, Kerry was austere and patrician and all too obviously found electioneering a distasteful chore. He mentioned his service in Vietnam a lot, but only as biography. Now he implicitly contrasts his military record with George W Bush's, and thereby to the war on terror. Mostly he does this through meaningless slogans. Everywhere he goes he intones portentously: "I know something about aircraft carriers for real." What does this mean? Does he own one? He's certainly rich enough to afford one and, unlike the French, one that works.

But, of course, it doesn't have to mean anything. It's like the other catchphrases in his stump speech: "We band of brothers," he says, indicating his fellow veterans. "We're a little older, we're a little greyer, but we still know how to fight for this country." These lines are the equivalent of the guy in the woods raising his arms and opening his jacket: it's a way of making a dull politician with no legislative accomplishments and two decades of shifty, flip-flop weathervane votes appear larger than he is. The Dems reckon that Bush is a single-issue candidate - he's the war guy - and that, if Kerry can make himself appear larger on the national-security front, Bush's single issue will cease to be an issue and the election will be fought on Democratic turf - healthcare, education, and so forth.

So far the strategy's working. Kerry won three purple hearts in Vietnam, while Bush was either in the National Guard or, according to Michael Moore, a "deserter". This charge is easily rebutted, but once you start having to explain things the other guy's won. What counts is not the fine print but the meta-narrative: Kerry was in South-East Asia, Bush was in the South-West United States. That makes Kerry seem "larger", which may be why the Bushies are waddling away from a fight on the issue.

But the idea that this puffs up Kerry to be the President's equal on the new war is a more tortuous stretch. The only relevant lesson from Vietnam is this: then, as now, it was not possible for the enemy to achieve military victory over the US; their only hope was that America would, in effect, defeat itself. And few men can claim as large a role in the loss of national will that led to that defeat as John Kerry. A brave man in Vietnam, he returned home to appear before Congress and not merely denounce the war but damn his "band of brothers" as a gang of rapists, torturers and murderers led by officers happy to license them to commit war crimes with impunity. He spent the Seventies playing Jane Fonda and he now wants to run as John Wayne.

Vietnam was a "war of choice". But, once you chose to go in, there was no choice but to win. America's failure of will had terrible consequences. The Seventies - the Kerry decade - was the only point in the Cold War in which the eventual result seemed in doubt. The Communists seized real estate all over the globe, in part because they calculated that the post-Vietnam, Kerrified America would never respond. In the final indignity, when the proto-Islamist regime in Teheran seized the embassy hostages, they too shrewdly understood how thoroughly Kerrified America was. It took Mrs Thatcher's Falklands war and Reagan's liberation of Grenada to reverse the demoralisation of the West that Kerry did so much to advance.

Senator Kerry has done a good job of enlarging himself but the reality is simple: George W Bush's America has won two swift wars and overthrown two enemy regimes; John Kerry was heroic in a war that America lost and whose loss he celebrated. Since then he's been a model lack-of-conviction politician. The question for anyone who thinks Kerry has "credibility" on national security is a simple one: who do you think Iran, North Korea, Syria, al-Qa'eda's Saudi paymasters and the rogue elements in Pakistan's ISI would prefer to see elected this November?
Those guys are the real dangerous beasts and you can bet that, unlike Democratic primary voters, they don't think Kerry looms so large, with his endless deference to the UN and the French, and his view that the war on terror should be more a matter of "law enforcement" - subpoenas, the Hague, plea bargains. That's as profound a mis-understanding as the fellow on page 70 of my book, raising his butt to the mountain lion. And that's not a position most Americans will want to take.

Yes, Cheers Bob, the other thing, not mentioned in the above article, is the fact that subsequent to the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon in 2001, your current President provided resolved, effective and determined leadership at a time when it was required.

Those attacks had tremendous impact on world trade and a slump already being felt was made worse. Take a look at the economic forecasts, particularly for the USA, they are all looking very healthy with regard to an upturn across the board. The Democrats know that and employment figures in the US are steadily improving. Predicted growth in the US economy is four times that predicted for Europe. By all means focus in on irrelevancies, by doing so all you suceed in doing is strengthening the Republican vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 08:39 AM

The punditocracy reaction has been extremely muted, despite the right wing of the puniditocracy negative reactions to the shrub speechifying interview. One of their own said they were at least relieved to know that no one watches Sunday morning tv...

So, considering that Russert is supposed to be the pit bull of political journalists covering Washington, how come none of the punditocracy has commented upon his demure pussy cat with kid gloves act in the interview of shrub II? Answer: this administration has journalists very scared. Even Russert, obviously, who decided keeping his job was much more important to him than doing the right, honorable thing for a journalist to do, which was ask the questions that truly needed asking.

Like "What is your administration trying to hide by refusing to allow the 9/11 Commission access to the Daily Briefings?"

Or maybe some follow-ups like he does with every other interviewee--I'd like to see the tape of his interview with President Clinton, alongside the tape of this one...

Russert, whom I used to admire tremendously for his interviewing chutzpah prior to this interview, is persona non gratis in my book now.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 11:35 AM

Doug, TIA's post might not have made sense literally, because it left the reader to read between the lines. Let me, if I may, reiterate it in a way that you may understand better.

A legal finding in your favor does not necessarily mean that you are not guilty of the wrongdoing with which you are charged. Plenty of innocent people have been railroaded, and plenty of guilty people have gotten away with their crimes. In the US, if you are white, male, and your father is a congressman, or if you are a famous celebrity with millions of dollars, you are more likely to get away with your crimes. Many people believe that OJ Simpson was guilty despite having gotten a Not Guilty verdict. In the same way, Bush could be guilty and never even charged with wrongdoing.

The point is, the fact that Bush was never disciplined is not proof that he never did the crime.

Clint's point above is also important. In military organizations in particular, where strict adherence to regulations can make or break a career, and where a chain of command is expected to enforce discipline, there is strong pressure, and a documented tendency, for those in authority to "look the other way" when crimes occur. They cannot have occurred, the argument goes, because if they had it would mean that regulations were violated, and that the entire chain of command was guilty of poor discipline. Thus, if a CO charged Bush with going AWOL he would also be charging himself with allowing it to happen. When ordinary soldiers or airmen go AWOL, this is no big deal because nobody pays attention. The CO can charge them and no one asks questions about the chain of command. But charging a congressman's son ensures a certain degree of publicity that can only reflect badly on the CO. It also ensures the enmity of of a Congressman, who may ultimately pull strings and use the bad publicity against the CO. It would be easy in this case to let Bush slide.

One final point. You can indeed go AWOL and still get an honorable discharge. One of my friends went AWOL from the Navy and was given the option of an "other than honorable" or of making up extra time in the service and getting the "honorable." Since there are no records of Bush in Alabama at all, he could have been kept on the books an extra year after going AWOL.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Peter T.
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 12:23 PM

It is funny that no one seems to be able to clear this up. Are there not people who served in the National Guard who can testify as to George W.'s whereabouts?

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 01:13 PM

About fifty percent of the population wouldn't believe the outcome of an investigation, the slant of the outcome determining which 50% chose not to believe.

Here's a reprint from an article trying to follow up Bush's military career

Ignore the rest on this website and read the article. Does anyone know how reliable the magazine in which the article originally was published is?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 01:32 PM

one of the reasons Kerry brings up the war record, is because the Republicans made it an issue with the midterm elections (even running an ad with the picture of a democrat war veteran who lost an and a leg in Vietnam, side by side with Osama bin Laden.

even listening to the state of the nation speech bush made - one wonders whether one heard things correctly 'No one will again doubt America's word?' of course he meant America's willingness to go to war, since Americas word has been deeply cast in doubt, and in fact it will be much harder to raise support from allies when it really is needed.

Kerrys comment on the supposed 2.5 million jobs the Republicans say will be created, wondering if its written by the same people that provided wmd intelligence. is bang on - and that issue will make the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: DougR
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 01:50 PM

Wolfgang: I don't know how reliable George Magazine is, but I would tend to doubt that the publication is a strong supporter of George W. Bush. The magazine was founded, and headed by John Kennedy, Jr., who was the son of John F. Kennedy. I am under the impression that when John Kennedy, Jr., his wife, and her sister were killed in a airplane crash a few years ago, George Magazine ceased publication shortly after. I could be wrong though.

The Cable News shows have been chewing on the topic of GWB's military service a good bit today. It seems that the missing military records have turned up in the offices of Democrat.com, who obtained them during the 2000 election, via the Freedom of Information Act. From what I have heard reported today, it would seem that the article you posted factually reports the facts of the President's military service.

He was not AWOl. He was not a deserter.

Having said that, of course you are right, 50% won't believe it and wouldn't believe it were they, themselves, able to view the military records.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 02:06 PM

There are some good points being made in this thread, along with a lot of overstatement and questionable logic. I watched GWB on Meet The Press, and thought he did a lousy job. However, I agree with Doug that a good communicator and a good President aren't necessarily the same thing.

I was in favor of going to war in Iraq, and still think that it was the right decision, even if I might have preferred that some aspects be handled differently. I hoped that Bush would advance a more compelling rationale in response to Russert's questions than he did. I think he failed this test, and resorted to repeated catch-phrases as if they were sufficient to answer the very real questions that were being put to him. His repeated assertions that "I'm a war President" were pretty galling; it sounded as if he was saying that he should be held to a lesser standard because we live in difficult times. I don't buy that.

However, I think the communications aspects of this are interesting. Most people probably did not watch Meet The Press, but rather learned about the interview by watching highlights on the evening news or reading short snippets of answers in the newspaper. When one only hears the catch-phrases once, they sound more compelling; they don't ring as hollow as they did when repeated over and over during an hour-long interview, in lieu of more detailed and thoughtful answers. Good politicians know this; George Bush knows it, and so does John Kerry. They live and die by five-second sound bites, which can either work for the candidate (Kerry's empty catch phrases about veterans), or against him (Dean's "I have a scream" speech). It's not a very good basis for choosing our leaders, but that's how it works these days.

A couple other points. I was appalled that the only lesson Bush seems to have taken away from our Vietnam War nightmare was that the politicians need to get out of the way of the soldiers fighting the war. Yes, Johnson's politicization of tactics in Vietnam was a bad move; but Lincoln's close management of the Civil War was a good move, and probably essential to victory. I would hope that Bush would consider some of the other lessons of that war.

As for the flap over Bush's National Guard service, in my opinion this is much ado about nothing. Some served in that war, some did not, and many people took advantage of whatever means they had at their disposal -- family connections or otherwise -- to avoid being sent overseas. There are lots of people who performed admirably in Vietnam who would not make good Presidents, and some who avoided the war who would serve us well in the Oval Office. I admire Kerry's bravery, but if I vote for him that will not be the reason why. I would prefer that we focus on real issues in this contest; there are certainly enough of them that we needn't go looking at 30-year-old service records to judge someone's fitness for office today.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Deckman
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 04:08 PM

"Whistle Stop" ... very well said. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 04:12 PM

Whistle Stop, I agree with some of what you have said, particularly in regards to whether or not a politician running for public office served in Vietnam or not.

However, I must disagree that the questions surrounding Bush's service in the National Guard ARE an issue to me. Not because he did joined the Guard to stay out of Vietnam, but because of the ways he has obfuscated and possibly lied about his service and his service records over the years. Even in today's White House briefing, Bush's press secretary admitted that no one who served with Bush in Alabama or Texas National Guards, has been found that will come forward to say they served with him. The only officials who were able to answer the question definitively of whether Bush showed up for active duty(versus inactive duty, which is also a legitimate and legal form of duty) when he was required to do so, were the commanders of the two bases to which Bush was assigned. They have both said that they never saw him.

That is pretty damning for Bush, IMO, and does support the claims that Bush received special treatment while in the Guard. There are also no official records of why Bush was grounded.

The two commanders who said they never saw Bush on active duty on their watch during the time he was required to be there, are now both deceased.

I feel Bush has plenty to answer for regarding this matter.

I also feel Bush has plenty to answer for regarding his justifications for pre-emptively attacking Iraq. Considering that the UN has been working for the last 50 years to broker non-aggression treaties to prevent just such military actions between nations, and the extent to which he has now debilitated us internationally, I feel Bush hasn't even begun to answer for his decisions.

And don't get me going on the Bush administration's obstruction of the work of the 9/11 committee.

Or the exposing of a CIA agent by his White House enforcers to silence his critics.

This administration is simply the most destructive one I've witnessed in all my 65 years--and that is truly saying something, considering I lived through the McCarthy era and Nixon/Watergate era.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,Butch
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 04:42 PM

The real problem is that all of the National Guard crap came up 4 years ago and got no traction then. People will vote for or against this man based not on 1972 but 2000-2004. If you want to shoot him down, pick a new topic, this one will not hold water.

I for one will vote for him because as much as you all seem to hate him, I have a great deal of respect for many of his policies. I am not rich by any means, but I feel that I have more freedom and personal liberty with him in the White House than I could have under almost any Democrat.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 05:07 PM

There is much better reason now to be scrutinizing those National Guard records than there was in 2000. The reason is because it is now documented (with more and more evidence damning the administration coming out weekly) that this president has also been less than truthful with the American people with the most serious issues a president ever deals with: going to war.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Bush administration played loose with the intelligence facts about the Hussein regime. It is certain that his administration dangerously and recklessly exposed the identity of an active CIA agent to silence their most formidable war critic, the former ambassador to Iraq who is married to that agent.

Those sorts of craven political acts are indefensible, and the Bush administration knows it, because they have been forced to accept that as more and more of their antics becomes public knowledge, the lower Bush's ratings go in the polls, which is the only thing this White House cares about.

As an American voter though, I'm not just angry at the Bush adminsitration. I'm angry at the Americans like Whistle Stop and Butch, who keep trying to justify and defend the depraved actions of the worst president in US history.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 05:31 PM

DougR, the records you refer are not nearly as definitive as you make them sound. They show Bush was PAID, not that he SERVED. From the CNN.com story on the records:

But under questioning from reporters, McClellan said the records do not specifically show that Bush reported for Guard duty in Alabama, where he spent much of 1972 working on a Senate campaign. And he said the White House has been unable to locate anyone who remembers serving with Bush during that period.

So, if he got paid but did not report, that's no more definitive than a claim that he got an honorable discharge and therefore was not AWOL. He may have been AWOL without being charged (or having his pay docked).

I think it's funny, BTW, that conservatives who want to defend Bush end up arguing that the children of the privileged couldn't POSSIBLY have gotten special treatment, but then level the exact same charge against Democratic politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 05:31 PM

"The Cable News shows have been chewing on the topic of GWB's military service a good bit today. It seems that the missing military records have turned up in the offices of Democrat.com, who obtained them during the 2000 election, via the Freedom of Information Act. From what I have heard reported today, it would seem that the article you posted factually reports the facts of the President's military service."

the records are not "missing". the documents obtained by the website are COPIES of the records held by the military.

one of the common defenses that right-wingers toss out to justify things like the patriot act is "if you don't have anything to hide then what's the problem?" the problem here seems to be that the prez has something he'd like hidden judging by his dissembling on these records. he said on sunday they would be released with no qualification. why are we looking at documents obtained from a website? we want to see the documents from the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT that are held on all military personnel.

as a person who served in the military somehow i think if someone wanted my records it wouldn't take years ("people have been looking for these records since 1994-quote from GWB's interview") to find them. in fact, how did a website get them in 2000 if nobody in the government was able to find them? if you go to the website and read the stuff that the newsmedia is leaving out you'll see that the writer has made a convincing case that the documents may indicate that W. was under disciplinary action for failing to show for a a physical exam.

the main reason anyone cares about these records is that it illustrates another level of dishonesty from the most dishonest prez we've ever had the misfortune to have. if GWB wants the records released he has only to waive his privacy rights and the military can release them. not just the ones available under the FOIA because those have blacked out portions. but ALL the records as he stated he would. it's not hard to do. we'll see if he does but he HASN'T done that that by virtue of the stuff released today.

in the past, all other presidents that have military records have released them. what is he worried about if he has nothing to hide? this same rationale applies to the 9/11 coverup.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Deckman
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 05:32 PM

When I look at where we are now, these truths are clearly evident to me:

We ARE involved in a very messy war with no clear way out;

The economy that affects me is in the toilet;

The Federal spending is out of sight and out of controll;

I have NO confidence that this President will make wise, reasoned and calm decisions. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 05:33 PM

that last post was me. i hit the button too soon

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 05:55 PM

One other thing is clear to me: this administration lies all the time about everything.

Take the economy and jobs for instance. Either the Bush administration budget projections, or the jobs projections made in the past three years.

They always predict that things are hunky dory. Teenie deficits. Budget projections that don't include all the spending they know they are going to do. Lying about job creation "we'll see 2 million new jobs created from the tax cuts in 2003". Truth: we lost around 50,000.

Now, the Bush economy mantra of the week is that we must support job creation by making the tax cuts permanent, and passing the Bush administration's energy bill.

Yah, THAT will certainly create jobs. NOT!

It is all about what it has always been about for this administration. Crony capitalism and war profiteering.

They had to go to Afghanistan politically. But Iraq? That debacle was for their cronies pockets, and developing jobs for out of work CEOs, maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 01:26 AM

The documents that could clear this mess up for Bush are the sheets that a reservist signs when he reports for drills. You're supposed to put your name, service number, etc. on the sheet, and four copies are retained by various offices of the service (payroll, archives, etc). Not one copy of one of these sheets from the drills Bush claims to have attended in Alabama can be found.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 02:43 AM

Here's some stuff on Bush's records.

Some more on Bush's service

One thing that these latest "records" do nothing to dispute:
Bush was missing for the better part of a year, at least.
Hardly the sign of a consciencious serviceman.

Cheers,
                           -- Arne Langsetmo

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 07:43 AM

A "non political war"???
Sorry- ALL wars are inherently political.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 08:38 AM

Thanks, Deckman.

I'm sorry our unnamed Guest is angry at Americans like me "who keep trying to justify and defend the depraved actions of the worst president in US history." I don't think that really applies to me, though. I didn't vote for Bush last time; in fact, I have voted in every Presidential election since 1976, and have never voted for a Republican for President. There is a lot about Bush and his "power base" that I don't like -- their arch-conservative social agenda, their mismanagement of the economy. But I am honestly trying to evaluate which of the candidates is going to be best on the national and international security issues facing us. When it comes to Iraq, I need more than complaints from the opposition; I need a credible alternative plan. So far, I haven't heard one.

It is not unusual for Presidents to be less than candid with the American people about a whole host of issues, including our willingness and rationale for going to war (remember FDR, anyone?). Moreover, in today's world, with the joint problems of rising terrorism, unstable governments, and the continued proliferation of nuclear technology, it would not be wise for a President to be completely candid about our intelligence gathering. However much we might wish that it were otherwise, effective intelligence (spying) and transparency in government are not fully compatible. The fact is, we need to be prepared to trust the guy at the top to do the right thing, without necessarily knowing all the details. This makes the issue of trust supremely important. If the guy at the top proves himself to be less than credible -- not about smokescreen issues like sex with an intern or thirty-year-old reserve drill records, but about the critical choices that we elected the guy for -- then he needs to be voted out. But we need to stay focused on the big picture, and recognize that we might have some reservations about the abilities and trustworthiness of all the available candidates; including Kerry, who has tap-danced around the issue of his support for the war so much that it is very difficult, even now, to figure out where he stood on it then, and where he stands on it now. In fact, the only Democratic candidates who can legitimately claim to have been honest about their position on Iraq are Dean and Kucinich (against it from the start) and Lieberman (for it all the way). And none of them are going to win this race.

Again, I am not a Bush apologist, but I do think that he correctly identified a serious problem in the world, and took some very necessary actions to deal with it. I realize that puts me in the minority on this forum, but so be it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 08:46 AM

Yeah, it was so damn tough to "correctly identify a serious problem in the world" after a couple of fundie Muslims blasted into a couple buildings with airplanes.

The problem I'm having with your take on this Whistle Stop is that you aren't looking realistically at where we are at in the process. Kerry and Edwards are hedging on the war because it is the primary season, not the general election season.

Once the general election season is upon them, you will be able to see much more clearly where they stand on the war. Although the ways that Cheney/Bush have fucked things up have now become the much larger problem.

Kerry has been pretty clear on his position so far, IMO. He has said repeatedly that he wouldn't have dissed the international community, that he would have listened to the intelligence coming from our other allies (France and Germany), which turned out to be right and ours wrong, and that if he had been in charge, he likely would have stuck with the UN weapons inspectors and containment, not a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.

That doesn't seem to difficult to understand, in my book.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 09:50 AM

Well, it's pretty hard to square with his vote in favor of the war, for starters. He now claims that his vote was in favor of threatening or pretending we were ready to go to war. Tell me, if Bush were saying something as screwy as that, would you believe him?

It's easy to say vague stuff like "I would have listened to the international community, and made this an international effort, rather than a unilateral one" (that's not a direct quote, but is a substantively accurate paraphrase of past comments by Kerry and others). The problem is, the international community in general, and the UN in particular, was not really prepared to do much to deal with this situation; most of the rest of the world has come to rely on the American military to do the heavy lifting in these types of situations. And some of our principal adversaries in the court of world opinion were somewhat less than candid about the real reasons for their opposition to the US. No, they let us handle this one, while they kept their hands clean; how nice for them.

As for the "primary season vs. general election" thing, keep in mind that the usual approach is for Democrats to run to the left during the primaries, and run to the center in the general election. It's counterintuitive to expect Kerry (or whoever the nominee is) to suddenly start speaking clearly on his opposition to the war after the Democratic convention; I predict a good deal more hedging of bets, not less. I guess we'll see who's right?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Kim C
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 09:54 AM

I have two questions.

1. Is prior military service required for a person to hold the Office of the President?

2. How many of you are the same person you were 30 years ago?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 10:10 AM

Now he has blurry microfiche records showing that he got paid anyway but they are not signed or anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 10:37 AM

"Vietnam was a "war of choice". But, once you chose to go in, there was no choice but to win.

A pretty shaky moral stance that. Just try to apply it to Germany in 1939, or Italy in Abyssania in 1935. Or any wife-beater.

If you are doing something wrong, you stop doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,guest mick
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 10:59 AM

I only saw a bit of the interview on British TV . I thought he looked terrible .If I didn't know that Bush was on the wagon I would have said he looked like he was suffering from a huge hangover

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 11:26 AM

McGrath of Harlow - 11 Feb 04 - 10:37 AM

"Vietnam was a "war of choice". But, once you chose to go in, there was no choice but to win." (Mark Steyn)

I can think of two "wars of choice" that the UK could quite happily have stayed out of, and would have done very nicely by doing so - World War One, and World War Two.

Both could have been viewed by some as having nothing whatsoever to do with the UK. The UK, however, chose to go to war, both were won, but at horrendous cost to the UK. That doesn't mean that having got into those wars we could have stopped at anything short of winning.

Your comparison as usual is ridiculous in the context of what the article you quoted above was referring to.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 11:51 AM

the uk could have happily stayed out of wwII ? sure if they took the Nazi side.
thats gotta be the dumbest thing Ive read here.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 01:44 PM

WhistleStop:

Yes, the U.N. was less than eager to go into Iraq militarily.
In fact, that's part of the problem. They didn't want to
go in because there was no urgent _need_ to go in, as they
saw it, and in retrospect (and consistent with what I was
yellling as loud as I could at the time), they were right.

Dubya was planning on going in, though, regardless. In fact,
the records shows that Dubya was planning to go into Iraq
almost from the moment of inauguration.

So who was "less than candid"?   The stories of the nay-sayers
checks out (despite your unsupported allegation), and the Dubya
story is shown to be less than honest at best, and outright
_lies_ in certain instances (for instance, his _twice_ repeated
assertion [read "outright bald-faced lie"] that Saddam wouldn't
let the inspectors in, and refused to co-operate). How can
you trust such a person to "do the right thing"???

                           -- Arne Langsetmo

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 02:13 PM

petr - 11 Feb 04 - 11:51 AM

"the uk could have happily stayed out of wwII ? sure if they took the Nazi side. thats gotta be the dumbest thing Ive read here."

Not really Petr, what was Poland to the United Kingdom? Particularly a United Kingdom that had signed Czechoslovakia away just over twelve months prior. I am pretty sure with the help of advisors typical of the anti-war crowd you here on this forum, Chamberlain could have found some way of finnessing us out of having to go to war. Even Hitler never thought we'd stand by Poland - so not so dumb after all.

Just given me the idea that maybe it would be interesting to hear from those who have been so against the war in Iraq, what their take would have been based on the information available to France and the UK in 1939. Might be quite funny, you would have to base your arguements on the same view point as before - remember all that stuff about acting unilaterally without the consent of the international community (League of Nations in this case) being illegal.

By the bye, the German bride to Britain to stay out of the First World War was that Britain could take over all of France's colonies. The Foreign Secretary at the time Sir Edward Gray refused the offer immediately and point blank.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Deckman
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 07:59 PM

Kim C ... You ask a very good question: "How many of you are the same person you were thirty years ago?" I think I can honestly say that I am the same person I was thirty years ago, ignoring the obvious physical changes. But politically and socially, I think that I am the same. The things that I admired in people and societies, I still admire. The actions of peoples and groups of people that offended me then, still offend me.

This is NOT to say that I haven't grown or evolved into something that is more than I was then. I certainly have. And here is why I think your question is so well put. I do have friends and aquaintences that I almost can't recognize or relate to today. And I find that so sad. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 09:33 PM

sure the uk could have stayed out of wwII until it came to them.
Being Czech Im fully aware that Britain (and France) sold them out in Munich, they didnt care much about Poland for that matter but Hitler
would not have stopped at the Channel, they knew they had to do it.

-as for myself I wasnt against the war in Iraq, although more from the humanitarian standpoint of what is better for the Iraqi people, than the evershifting White House reasons of wmd's to Iraqi freedom, etc etc.
it has become obvious now that everyone was duped into suporting the war. 75% of Americans still think theres a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein although none was ever proven, (although for that matter the nations that really foment terrorism such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were left alone and are in fact allies) and neither are the Pakistans (now freely admitted sharing of nuclear technology with North Korea)
(why not go after North Korea? they said they have nuclear weapons,
and had no problems suporting terrorist activity in the past)

sure theres an analogy with the past- my father who lived through the
war - saw it clearly, the only nation acting like Nazi Germany in 39 was America in 02.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Deckman
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 10:29 PM

Guest petr ... Thank you for your posting. This is exactly what I, as an American, have been concerned about. For President bush to start a pre-emtive (sp?) war, without crystal clear justification, has probably ruined forever our credibility. You mention that you think that "75% of Americans think there is a link with Hussein and 911." I do not agree. I think that this Summer, being the time of a presidential election, will show that many more Americans than 25% do NOT see that connection. I can only hope that I am right.

By the way, I agree with your analysis of Europe in the 1930's. I have a question for you, sir: Because you live in closer proximity to Iraq than we do here in America, do you think Europeans are generally pleased that Hussein is now out of power? Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 06:00 AM

Deckman, I think a lot of people in Europe are still holding their breaths on this one. If the mullahs were to organize to become the ruling power (HAH, fat chance with the Americans still there) I really do wonder if it would be considered a step up in their evolution...this is definitely still a "wait and see" prospect for most of us...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,Different one, this time
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 06:19 AM

"By the bye, the German bribe to Britain to stay out of the First World War was that Britain could take over all of France's colonies. The Foreign Secretary at the time Sir Edward Gray refused the offer immediately and point blank."

That is a very interesting point you make, Teribus.

Given the back-hand deals, and underhand tactics that have determined the course of history since WW II, I think a present day Sir Edward Gray would think twice about such a proposal, if a present day Alistair Campbell could manage to sell the idea to the Nation.
Although knowing present day political morals, I would imagine they'd hold out for more..

After all they all knew what Stalin was up to, too, and that didn't stop them all sitting down drinking tea together at Yalta, while they split Germany up.

Don't know if there was anything about Unilateralism covered in the League of Nations' Charter, but I'm sure you'll tell us if there was.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 06:22 AM

"the only nation acting like Nazi Germany in 39 was America in 02."

Or Israel in 04

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 11:45 AM

Petr,

Had it been handled differently, I don't believe there would have been a war in the west at all. The Germans definitely did not want a war on two fronts, their planners certainly looked at the prospect, and concluded, that should this happen, they had to have their war in the west no later than 1938, and their attack on Soviet Russia no later than 1944. Ideally the German attack on Russia should have been staged in 1939, with the Red Army still disorganised as a result of Stalin's purge of 1938.

To equate the current actions of the United States of America to those of Nazi Germany in 1939 is utterly ridiculous.

With regard to the war on Iraq, the perception of, "the evershifting White House reasons" is both misleading and incorrect, Clinton's "Iraq Liberation Act" of 31st October, 1998, clearly put down the marker that, in the long term, the US desired regime change in Iraq as being preferable to attempted containment. The situation and circumstances that caused the Clinton administration to launch the series of attacks on Iraq in December 1998, known as "Desert Fox" were no different to those that were being demonstrated in March 2003. I do not believe that anyone was duped into supporting the war, Bill Clinton's actions in 1998 were both right and justified, as were George W Bush's in 2003.

Post-9/11, the US had to evaluate potential threats. Why Iraq as opposed to North Korea, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? There are a number of countries that feature. Saddam Hussein was the only national leader to publically applaud the attacks. At that time he had successfully rid his country of the UN weapons inspectors and the UN sanctions prohibiting imports/exports were being circumvented. The questions left hanging regarding Iraqi WMD and WMD programmes had to be cleared up. I still maintain that had the original draft of what became 1441, with its specific threat of immediate military action should Iraq fail to comply, been adopted, there would have been no war. In its watered down form Saddam saw room to manouevre, which he took advantage of - only this time (because of 9/11) the US were not going to let him give the UN the run around for the second time.

Also post-9/11, the US clearly stated their view with regard to the war on terror - "You are either with us or against us." - that was an important and essential stance to take. Of the countries the US were concerned about, it should be appreciated that the potential threat was not necessarily from the governments of those countries but from elements within those countries. Review how some of those countries reacted:

Afghanistan
Taleban "government" only recognised by three other nations, not recognised by the UN. When asked to surrender Osama bin Laden and eject members of his Al-Qaeda organisation, they refuse repeatedly. US provides assistance to those fighting the Taleban in Afghanistan and the Taleban are removed from power. Al-Qaeda forced to flee.

Pakistan
President condemns Al-Qaeda attacks and offers assistance in terms of intelligence and over-fly rights to ensure that the US support for the Northen Alliance forces is effective. Pakistani government cracks down of extremist groups within Pakistan. Relations with India improve. Steps are taken to stop proliferation of nuclear technology and know how. Pakistan continues to support and co-operate with the US.

Iraq
President publically applauds the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon and continues to defy the UN.

Iran
Condemns the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. Declares its nuclear programme and admits IAEA inspectors on the premise of unrestricted access. While probably the greatest supporter of foreign terrorist groups Iran is currently undergoing radical internal political change.

Libya
Condemns Al-Qaeda attacks, reaches a settlement with regard to the Lockerbie bombing. Subsequent to the fall of Iraq and capture of Saddam Hussein renounces pursuit of nuclear status and other WMD. Invites UN to supervise and verify the dismantling of those programmes.

Saudi Arabia
Condemns Al-Qaeda attacks, removes hardline fundamentalist clerics, cracks down on internal fundamentalist groups and those financing them.

Syria
Condemns Al-Qaeda attacks, reduces support for terrorist groups, extradites Turkish terrorists and co-operates with the US with respect to Iraqi fugitives.

North Korea
Publically admits to pursuing a programme to attain nuclear power status. Not considered a serious threat due to the state of the country and the fact that it can be contained politically by its neighbours in the region, principally by China. Should North Korea attempt anything it will not be a case of the US having to do something about it, the Chinese will ensure North Korea's good behaviour. US refuses bi-lateral talks and all party talks are initiated.

Indonesia
Al-Qaeda attacks condemned, government crack down on internal fundamentalist groups. Indonesian government continue to assist US with intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 12:24 PM

I find it amusing that those who accused Clinton of "Wagging the Dog" are now saying, in light of their prez's predicament, that Clinton was justified. Funny that listening to the "pathological liar" as they dubbed him didn't extend to his warnings about Bin Laden and Co.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 12:32 PM

Also,

If his behavior thirty years ago doesn't matter then why are his loyalists now trying to make a connection between Kerry and Jane Fonda? He was at an anti-war rally and was seated behind her (he was an anti-war activist with other vietnam vets, after he served.) Never mind that the rally was two years before the infamous Hanoi Jane photos. In this they are trying to make Kerry out as a traitor to the servicemen in Vietnam when he should be regarded as a significant voice in getting us the hell out of the war!

They are also lampooning him for being a democrat questioning Bush's service when Bill Clinton dodged the draft. At least Clinton stood up for what he believed in! Unfortunately the same can't be said for the prez. If he was for the war he should have joined the army or marines or the airforce if he wanted to continue flying.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: Deckman
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 01:46 PM

Well, it appears that the Republican led mudslinging has started! And it ain't even Easter yet! SHHHHEEEEUUUUUUHHHHH! Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 02:27 PM

"Wake me, shake me, tell me it's a dream
I've got a B52 on my TV screen.
A man in a tie
pointing to the sky
Where you gonna run to now"

© Red Gum 1989

(just to introduce a bit of music to this thread, you understand)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 12:16 PM

Teribus,
you can talk till youre blue in the face, but Hitler wasnt about to stop at continental Europe, he and his gang of thugs were bent on world domination - His fatal mistake was going into Russia and not allowing the 6th army to break out of Stalingrad. (its a pointless debate anyway )

on the evershifting White House reasons for going into war with Iraq -
funny that you say that its 'misleading and incorrect' because thats precisely what the White House was doing. as the ousted O'Neill mentioned Bush was bent of getting rid of Saddam from day 1 - which really shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone since the US had decided to get rid of him years before - after Dad blew it in 91.

Misleading and incorrect? - anyone whos followed the news over the last year knows what the White House was saying -
initially it was wmds and the threat to the world - the 45 min launch, when the wapons werent found,the emphasis shifted to Iraqi freedom and bringing democracy to the Iraqis, but thats not it anymore either as they are pulling out before elections can be held (and mainly because its an election year in the US)
which really is inexcusable because they own Iraq now and have a responsibility to the Iraqis and are in a position to do it.
(but then of course Bush did say before he was elected (er, appointed
by the Supreme Court Jesters) he didnt want to get into nation building.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush and Meet the Press????
From: GUEST,09086532
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 06:41 PM

And I hear the Afghanistan campaign is running out of steam these days as well, although we're not seeing too much coverage of it.

I'd say if everybody got round the table and sorted the Israeli - Palestinian question out; AND THEY CAN, then our World leaders would have less reason to continue instilling this culture of fear and mistrust in us, and we can get back to worrying about the other really important things in life, like getting by, for instance.

Many of these terrorist organisations point to Palestine as the inspiration for their actions, and if some enlightened presidential hopeful could ignore one large lobby in Congress, and tackle the problem head-on, well then America will have done more than most to remove the causes of it.

And if that President could be the benevolent tyrant, instead of autocratic judge, jury, and executioner, then the World might eventually become a better place.