Johnny Punani2 Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Originally posted by Funkyalligator I'd never say that Dubya deserted that is just horrible...he might have fudged a few things here and there but its not a big deal....the only reason I see to attack Bush on this issue is to get revenge for the attacks other Republicans have made against democrats on similar stupid little things You guys seem to have different standards for your own. Clinton skipped out of the draft and then had the balls to go to another country and protest his own while living there. Bush missed some required training time(which everyone does in the guard) but made it up later on. The two are not equal.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Never thought the leader of a democracy needed to be a war hero to be qualified for the job, I thought he just had to be elected and supported by his staff. Call George a wimp if you like, it doesn't impact his ability to do his job, it didn't impact Bill's ability to be president. The only difference is that a war hero will KNOW the role of the military and will spend a lot of your money on it (for better or worse). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Originally posted by webnarc Never thought the leader of a democracy needed to be a war hero to be qualified for the job, I thought he just had to be elected and supported by his staff. Call George a wimp if you like, it doesn't impact his ability to do his job, it didn't impact Bill's ability to be president. The only difference is that a war hero will KNOW the role of the military and will spend a lot of your money on it (for better or worse). or not spend enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Funkyalligator The only people in the military who would ve liked clinton would be those born in a democrat voting family and still too young to know better. On a whole the answer is we preferred someone else. Why do you think the military absentee ballots were attacked by democrats and lawyers as invalid back in y2k? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 The fact is that with democrats in charge you might as well expect a meals on wheels type military under the UN. Which is better? A lamb in charge of lions or a lion leading sheep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Originally posted by Funkyalligator Lets see this turned from a questioning of Dubyas military service to a bashing of Clinton.....socker there.......by the way for those that are interested the military liked Clinton...because he was pretty hands off...were as the military doesn't like Bush as much because he put that a**hole Rumsfeld in charge who constantly pisses them off This statement should disqualify you from making any other posts in this thread and proves beyond all doubt you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 You guys????different standards...hmmmmmmm...I haven't been taking sides here just making comments...I frankly couldn't care less about what people did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
December90 Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 The saem idiots who said that Clinton's Draft Dodging was okay are now suddenly developing some convictions about military service when it serves their political purpose. I thank God every day that AlGore lost Arkansas, Tennessee (yes Florida) so that that tree hugging communist was not in charge when we were attacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Has a democrat praised any military successes yet? I'm not talking about just Iraq either? outside of an election year do you ever hear any atta boys for the military or CIA from democrats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROSTY28 Posted February 6, 2004 Author Share Posted February 6, 2004 I understand why those in the military love Bush: he's pouring tons of money into defense and comes across like somewhat of a cowboy who likes the US to kick ass and take names. But at the same time, he's cutting veteran programs and benefits left and right, making the lives of the brave men and women who fight for our country so much harder after they serve. It's... well, confusing to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Originally posted by December90 The saem idiots who said that Clinton's Draft Dodging was okay are now suddenly developing some convictions about military service when it serves their political purpose. And, as pointed out numerous times, the opposite is true too. The same people who railed on Clinton's draft dodging, have completely turned a blind eye to the current administration's gap in service time and statement that they had other things to do than serve. Lets just call a spade a spade and state that the current and previous administration had no qualms about avoiding military service and the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 As has also been explained. The "gaps" were made up as allowed by the Natl Guard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 I thought that the gaps had not been made up, but that the National Guard chose not to prosecute or charge him for the missed time? Am I misremembering this? I thought it was an issue of pulled strings to get him into this unit and pulled strings to make sure he faced no penalty or black marks for not completing his obligations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Originally posted by Burgold I thought that the gaps had not been made up, but that the National Guard chose not to prosecute or charge him for the missed time? Am I misremembering this? I thought it was an issue of pulled strings to get him into this unit and pulled strings to make sure he faced no penalty or black marks for not completing his obligations? No, it was Clinton's fault somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 I blame the liberal left wing media. Or is it the loss of morals that I should be blaming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 you should blame Gays, the Environment, a budget surplus and the judges who removed the 10 Commandments statue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 You'd be correct TEG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 As has also been explained. The "gaps" were made up as allowed by the Natl Guard. Kilmer, how do you know that? Where are the records? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 Originally posted by FROSTY28 I understand why those in the military love Bush: he's pouring tons of money into defense and comes across like somewhat of a cowboy who likes the US to kick ass and take names. But at the same time, he's cutting veteran programs and benefits left and right, making the lives of the brave men and women who fight for our country so much harder after they serve. It's... well, confusing to say the least. Let me say a word or two about this "cutting vet programs" stuff. The contraversy revolves around promises made to verterans over the years. Everyone in the old days was basically told that after retirement, the government will take care of them and their families forever, medically. I even remember being told this when I first enlisted. Guess what? During the 90's, vet claims for families started getting rejected. Then claims for vets themselves. And the government started renigging on the "take care of you for life" promise because it was made verbally with nothing in writing. Sh!tty, but it's been going on longer than Bush, because to fulfill the promise the military budget would be busted due to the rise in medical costs. To bring it up now and blame it on Bush is lame in the extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 Democrats. Wrong again Bush Guard Commander Recants AWOL Charge The ex-military man who first launched charges during the 2000 presidential campaign that President Bush had gone AWOL from the National Guard has recanted his story. The account from Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, who told the Boston Globe four years ago that Bush never showed up for Guard drills with his Alabama unit, had become the centerpiece of Democratic attacks on the White House in recent days. "Had [bush] reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not," Gen. Turnipseed told the Globe in May 2000. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered." But on Wednesday Gen. Turnipseed reversed course, telling NBC News: "I don't know if [bush] showed up, I don't know if he didn't. I don't remember how often I was even at the base." Still, the same day the retired general had withdrawn the allegation, Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe was citing Turnipseed's earlier, erroneous account in a bid to keep AWOL charges against Bush afloat. "The commander this week reiterated the entire time [bush] was supposed to show up in the Alabama National Guard he wasn't there," McAuliffe told CNN's "Inside Politics" on Wednesday. "He said he made it up later, but you don't have that option. When you're supposed to serve our country, you're supposed to be there." In fact, McAuliffe was wrong on the latter point as well, since Guard regulations expressly allow for make-up drills, according to no less an authority than Gen. Turnipseed himself. In July 2000, the New York Times reported, "Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter." Asked if McAuliffe was prepared to apologize to the White House for misstating Gen. Turnipseed's position on the Bush AWOL allegation, a spokesman for the DNC told NewsMax: "I don't know. We'll get back to you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 Sarge, which of your favorite unbiased sources did you get that from? Yes, the General has changed his story. At first, he was adamant that Bush had never shown up. Now he says he wouldn't have noticed anyway. The article implies that the General charged Bush with AWOL, which is false. And then it implies the General has exonerated Bush, which is again false. And it implied that "the Democrats" misstated the General's position, which is also false, he was quoted accurately. While it makes the Guard command look like hopeless boobs - heck, now the man can't remember if he was ever at his own base - it doesn't have anything to do with Democrats. And it still tells us nothing about whether Bush fulfilled his commitment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Sarge, Kilmer Who's service record would you say Dubya's service record most resembles: Kerry's or Clinton's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Neither. Kerry served his country on the front lines admirably, then came home and bashed his country and threw away his medals. Clinton fled to a foreign country and bashed his country and then gutted the military every chance he had. Bush served his country at home and has supported the military and his country ever since. Just because the lefties and the Lib media keep stating the same lies over and over again, doesnt make them any more true. If he HAD been AWOL, he would NOT have gotten an honorable discharge. He has admitted to missing time, and making that time up later as allowed by the guard. He has also admitted that he left early to attend Harvard Grad school. Also allowed by the service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.