Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
>>>Perjury is acceptable, yet you try to castigate the right for anything at all you can dream up<<<
I never said perjury is acceptable. I said I would rather have a president lie about a mistress than lie about reasons for going to war if I had to choose. Where is your sense of perspective? If GW Bush lied under oath about his golf handicap or a history of venereal diseases, would you consider those impeachable offenses? I would not and I detest the man and most of what he stands for.
>>>The weapons were not found, nor any record of their destruction. I'm sure General Franks is doing all he can to locate them.<<<
You were saying?
"The group of scientists, computer experts and special forces troops leading the search for proof of outlawed weapons is preparing to go home empty handed, the Washington Post reported today."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/11/iraq/main553347.shtml
>>>The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable.<<<
Some would say it now appears Iraq was in compliance with the UN resolution or at least in compliance to the extent that it did not constitute an imminent threat. If the US were to invade and dismantle every nation that constitutes a threat equal to that of Iraq, we better call home most of our diplomats around the world, reinstate the draft right away, build up our military at least threefold from present and raise taxes drastically to finance our occupation of earth.
>>>If there is one thing the international community agrees on is that there were/are WMD in Iraq and that terrorists should not have access to them.<<<
I don't think that's the big issue in terms of agreeing/disagreeing. What most were and still are asking is whether the threat from Iraq was so grave and so imminent that a massive war was the only solution. If Bush's and Rumsfeld's pre-war bluster would have been believed, Iraq was a formidable military force ripe with WMD charged missiles ready to launch at a moment's notice, weapon producing nuclear facilities and warehouses and tanker trucks filled with enough anthrax and smallpox germs to end life on earth as we know it. Instead, we ended up fighting men in sandals firing russian rifles, and to date, I'm not aware of one single WMD related discovery in Iraq. So the question is not whether Iraq ever had WMD's, but whether our own government grossly exaggerated the threat to justify a war they obviously wanted to fight in a bad way.
>>>can you spell p-e-r-j-u-r-y? How about i-m-p-e-a-c-h-m-e-n-t?<<<
I take a lie about a mistress any day over lies to justify a war if I have to choose. And you?
>>>Jeb's was one of the most illogical political snippets I have ever heard! Talking about Florida providing for the most vulnerable while making no mention of the rape victim with the mental capacity of an infant. It was ridiculous. The heck with the profoundly handicapped. The heck with the system. We advocate for the unborn product of a violent crime that occurred within our system??.. This fetus needs an advocate! Sick!<<<
Check out the credentials of the Jeb Bush appointed head of Florida's DCF (Department of Children and Families) and Jeb's statement may not seem so off the cuff anymore:
"Jerry Regier, the new chief of the Department of Children & Families, has come under fire for conservative writings from the late 1980s that carry his name. The articles encouraged corporal punishment for children, asserted that mothers should not work outside the home and said wives should be submissive to their husbands."
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/3927110.htm
>>>"This president has forgotten ordinary people," said Dean.<<<
Bush and the republican party have forgotten ordinary people, but ordinary people still vote republican in large numbers. The democrats really need to wise up on how to connect with the common man and they could start by borrowing from Bush's coloring book and Karl Rove's propaganda collection. These snakes have convinced $20,000/year wage earners that giving Bill Gates a $200,000/year tax break will help them. And they do it by talking small, by addressing adults as 4th graders and by using slogans and platitudes in lieu of facts. Can't argue with the results so why aren't the democrats learning? An aversion to treating fellow Americans like idiots is my guess.
>>>As it relates to the US and Bush:
I think Bush confused the issue, Islamism's threat, by focusing on Iraq and blaming Saddam.<<<
I'm not convinced that either Bush or the actual policy makers below him are confused about the real threat. Rather, I think they simply get sidetracked by their relentless quest for political victories that overshadows everything else in terms of importance. Iraq, contrary to what Bush told the nation, was pursued not because it was the greatest threat but because it was deemed the easiest victory. It worked. The lies leading up to the war are already forgotten, the nation is punchdrunk on patriotism and Bush, now a "successful war president" sports a 70% approval rating.
>>>If tonight's CBS movie taught anything, it was -- do not follow blindly...Altho Hitler remains an enigma to humanity, there were some early on who knew, who had questions, yet Hitler rose because no one questioned... Questioning is not "un-patriotic"! Silence IS.....<<<
Sarai, I watched "The Grey Zone" last night. It never got much attention but it's a powerful movie about an armed uprising at Auschwitz and I almost echoed your words to my wife when it was over. Unconditional support of any leader, political or otherwise is dangerous as has been proven throughout history time and again.
>>>You are obsessed with badmouthing the Right, rather than doing anything positive for your country - a disease that has consumed a large part of the democratic party.<<<
So let me understand now;...using your own logic, the republican's obsession with badmouthing the democrats and the Clinton family in particular between 1992 and 2000 without doing anything positive for our country was a disease that consumed a large part of the republican party? And you are hopeful that others can learn from the republican's poor taste and warped priorities and act in the best interest of our country? Correct?
>>>I love trying to carry on a cyber-conversation with some nut who can't manage to carry a thought beyond one single post<<<
Sorry if I overloaded you with that simple question requiring a simple answer. Remember: No man is entirely useless. He can always serve as a bad example.
>>>If you truly believe that, then the only one flim-flamed is you!<<<
If I truly believe what?
Bush lied about reasons for our first ever preemptive war. No big deal says 79% of America by declaring that finding WMD's is not important. Well of course not since 75% of Americans were flimflammed into thinking Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and all they want is revenge.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1155-2003May16.html
>>>Doesn't it occur to you that the 'AWOL fiasco' is entirely in the minds of the bush haters. Do you have a reference to any direct questions to GWB or his staff about the matter.<<<
So it's all a left-wing conspiracy? What occurs to me is that you at any cost, using any rationale you see fit will defend any and all alleged wrongdoing on part of Bush. Does the reference below sound like the response of a presidential candidate accused of military AWOL, eager to set the record straight with evidence of legitimate absence?
"Bush, who declined to be interviewed on the issue, said through a spokesman that he has ''some recollection'' of attending drills that year, but maybe not consistently."
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/One_year_gap_in_Bush_s_Guard_duty+.shtml
>>>Unless GWB resigned his commission, he was automatically place in the inactive reserves<<<
I'm repeating the same question one last time: If some sort of inactivity status had been granted Bush which would explain his AWOL fiasco, then why do we just now learn about this explanation from hap0206 on an ihub message board? And why didn't Bush himself offer this explanation instead of refusing interviews on the subject?
>>>Problem is: Conservatives loath PBS<<<
I'm guessing it's nothing personal against PBS. They just loath everything and anything that might lead to a better informed public. That's why public schools and public libraries are always on the conservative chopping block and that's why they would just as soon do away with presidential debates prior to elections. Not being able to control the message drives them absolutely plain crackers.
It has started. The case against war with Iran is now being built with more "evidence" of evil.
"U.S. officials say they have evidence the bombings in Saudi Arabia and other attacks still in the works were planned and directed by senior al Qaeda operatives who have found safe haven in Iran"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/12/world/main553538.shtml
>>>The paperwork is around somewhere<<<
Interesting. Bush's AWOL situation has been debated for over two years now and to the best of my recollection, nobody except for you has ever suggested this was easily explained by a forgotten request for inactive status "that's around somewhere". Not even Bush himself has used that excuse but you're still convinced that's what happened?
>>>Inactive status is available to all guard personnel leaving their respective states.<<<
I don't doubt that at all, but isn't that subject to approval after it has been requested? You got anything to post here that indicates GW Bush requested inactive status?
So what was the Iraq war all about anyway? Listening to post-war comments from the White House, it was all about liberation and not about WMD's anymore. But what does it matter? Nobody cares - in America that is.
"And of course the capacity to be outraged and appalled has been entirely drained out of you, out of this nation, replaced by raging ennui and sad resentment and the new fall season on NBC. This is what they're counting on. Your short attention span. WMDs? That's so, like, last February. Hey look, the swimsuit model won "Survivor"!"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fgate%2Farchive%2F2003%2F05%2F14%2Fnotes051403.DTL
Hap, you are completely missing the point with all your rebuttals. My initial post on this was NOT on whether Graham's claim had merit or not but on how difficult it is for ANYONE critical of Bush to get major media attention, regardless of merit it seems. In this case (incredibly), Graham has support of a "staunch Republican" and still only gets scant mention by mainly obscure news sources.
>>>But he has found a strong ally in House Intelligence Committee Chairman Goss, a staunch Republican (and former CIA officer) who in the past has consistently defended the administration’s handling of 9-11 issues and is considered especially close to Cheney.
“I find this process horrendously frustrating,” Goss said in an interview. He was particularly piqued that the administration was refusing to declassify material that top intelligence officials had already testified about.<<<
http://www.topdog04.com/000134.html
>>>its likely due to this on the masthead of your reference:
'A Chill Wind is Blowing in This Nation...' Tim Robbins<<<
As usual, you are reaching for reasons to discredit legitimate dissent. Don't like the reference - there are plenty of others:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/05/1610361.php
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-graham-terrorism,0,1377923.story?coll=sns-ap-politi...
http://www.topdog04.com/000134.html
http://www.etherzone.com/2002/raim122102.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/11/205318.shtml
>>>I don't get why someone doesn't just take off on these issues... they're big!<<<
Actually, I see a lot of attempts to take off on these issues but it seems near impossible to get any media traction with anything that's even remotely critical of the Bush administration. Case in point: Bob Graham's allegation of a White House coverup of 9/11. Explosive stuff coming from the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee who's credibility is at stake as a presidential candidate, but shunned by all major media sources nonetheless.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0512-04.htm
Bush wants a 9/11 investigation like he wants a hole in the head. And it sure has been quiet from the investigation team since White House lackey Henry Kissinger was kicked off the commission before he even got on it. Maybe because the team is being starved to death. Can't have an investigation if we can't control it, can we now?
"That the Bush White House never wanted a serious investigation into how such a heinous act could have occurred on their watch was obvious when Henry Kissinger was picked to head the probe. After a contentious meeting with the families of the 3,000 who died that day at the hands of the 19 terrorists, Kissinger bailed out and that "independent" panel has since been effectively silenced by simply letting it wither on the paltry funds allotted for it to do its job (little over $1 million, though Starr spent over $40 million to trace semen stains on blouses)."
http://hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:16313
>>>It's our own fault because we've become way to complacent as a society.<<<
Complacent, lazy or willfully ignorant? America has the worst voter turnout of any industrialized nation on earth - by far. What was it in 2000......48%? Most of western Europe get 80-90% by comparison. Tough to make the case for democratically elected politicians when less than half of eligible voters participate in the process.
>>>I don't even know how to react to that one. The state obviously failed in its care of this woman. That is where I would start. Why is this woman seemingly lost in the system?<<<
What they fail to mention which will explain much of this is who was recently appointed head of Florida's DCF (Department of Children and Family). Jeb Bush, not to be outdone by brother George drew from the nation's pool of extreme conservative Christian crackpots and decided on Jerry Reiger from the backwoods of Oklahoma. Here are some of Mr. Reiger's credentials that impressed Jeb Bush:
"Reiger rails against gay people, as founder of the Family Research Council. He declares that "man's authority over his wife is delegated to him by God," and states that spanking children to the point of causing "bruises or welts" is Biblically sanctioned. Child advocates point out that such actions would constitute child abuse under current Florida statutes."
http://www.eqfl.org/Reiger/reiger.html
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/3927110.htm
>>>You must mean the small percentage of Americans from the far left wing fringe who not only dislike having Bush as president but pathologically loathe the man, being more than willing to tell lies, half truths, and anything else in a continuing smear campaign.<<<
First off, I don't reside on the far left fringe. Second, where is the lie or even the half truth in the following:
"What's worse - dodging the draft altogether or have dad feather a comfortable non-combat nest at home and then lacking the backbone to even fulfill that?"
>>>seabass -- what you see is a picture of a fighter pilot with several hundred hours of time in a super-sonic fighter<<<
That's what YOU see but it's not what I see. I see a mental midget masquerading as a war hero he never was. I also see a commander in chief who's motives for the war in Iraq are now being questioned and called everything from deception to outright lies.
>>>your guy needs to get his sholders back & maybe work on a more positive/confident attitude<<<
That picture of Bush is pretty nauseating to look at for those of us who put it in perspective. What's worse - dodging the draft altogether or have dad feather a comfortable non-combat nest at home and then lacking the backbone to even fulfill that? The guy I'm quoting below said it better than I could:
"Here is a man so steeped in self-denial that he can shunt aside his own shameful history in order to pretend he is on the same moral level as the soldiers he abandoned when his time of service came due."
http://villagenews.weblogger.com/discuss/msgReader$8085?mode=topic&y=2003&m=5&d=12
>>>"In Bush We Trust"...
"One Nation Under Bush"....
Imagine the possibilities, or Constitutional issues?.. :)<<<<
I'm sure it's just me but I wouldn't feel like it was such a big leap from where we are now if it happened. Bush is beyond reproach by most of the media, unconditionally worshipped by millions of citizens (including some regulars here) and he has majority control of every single branch of the government including the courts. And since Ashcroft is already streamlining the constitution for a better fit with the new faith-based era we have entered - no big shock there either. So our money would look different, but other than that....`~`
>>>yes, and since WWII three times. 49,74 and 82. Fell to P/Es between 5-1 and 7-1.<<<
Sorry, I meant to say "did valuations in any average ever dip below 15 in this bear market"?
>>>The bear market lows will see the big averages selling at 5 to 8 times earnings, not the 25 to 30 times earnings which we see today.<<<
Not a lot of believers in that theory right now, never was actually throughout this whole bear. Did valuations in any average ever dip below 15?
Bush = Jesus? There are signs he may think so himself.
"For Christians, the Messiah is Jesus, and so this passage refers specifically to Him and His coming. The fact that Jesus Himself used this passage to announce His presence further confirms this. Bush's reading of this passage suggests the possibility that he believes this coming, for the second time, has arrived."
George W. Christ? By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t / Perspective
Monday 05 May 2003
In the 835 days Americans have passed since the inauguration of George W. Bush, we have come to know him as a man who wears many masks to suit a variety of political purposes. Even before he won the lawsuit that put him in his lofty position, we saw a man who cloaked his vision in terms that smacked of humility. "Ours will be a humble nation," Bush said during the Presidential debates. There are a number of words which can be applied to the actions of this administration, but "humble" is not one of them. At the time, however, it suited his purposes to make Americans believe he saw himself as unassuming, perhaps even small.
This was the same man, however, who mocked Texas death row inmate Karla Faye Tucker so viciously before she rode the lightning to whatever awaits us on the Other Side. He was asked, in an interview for Talk Magazine during the campaign, what Tucker might say to him if she were given the chance to plead for her life. "Please," said Bush with pinched face and lips drawn down in a quivering bow as he imitated the woman about to die, "don't kill me." Then he laughed.
You would think we'd have known better 835 days ago. We didn't, mostly because the news media decided such stories were without merit. Now we are a humble nation that brazenly disregards the entire planet as we seek military solutions to diplomatic problems. Now we are a humble nation that breaks treaties by the boatload and 'punishes' nations that foolishly believe they can make decisions for themselves. One is forced to wonder if Bush sat in front of a television as the 'Shock and Awe' firebombing/cluster-bombing of Baghdad began, face pinched and mouth drawn down, saying "Please, don't kill me" in the voice of an Iraqi civilian. One is forced to wonder if he laughed afterwards.
We have come to see a new mask in the aftermath of the attacks on September 11. In the 18 months that have passed since that dark day, we have been introduced to Bush the Soldier. Draped in flags and the veneer of patriotism, Bush has spent a great deal of time and energy identifying himself with the very military he described as unfit for service during the 2000 campaign. The metastasizing of Bush into some sort of military hero reached a crescendo during this past week when he landed on the deck of the carrier Abraham Lincoln in the co-pilot's seat of a Navy S-3B Viking combat aircraft. According to the lore that has been rapturously reported on every hour by cable television news services, Bush took the stick "momentarily" to pilot the craft. He hopped out, garbed in the flight suit of a Navy pilot, and flashed a thumbs-up sign across the deck. This, we were told by the media, harkens back wonderfully to Bush's service piloting F-102 fighters for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.
The problem, as with any mask, is that whatever is underneath bears little comparison to the mask itself. According to the reports, it was appropriate for Bush to don the gear of an actual military pilot, because it mirrors the reality of his experience back in the Texas Guard. In reality, Bush may as well have put on the standard attire of a Mongolian yak herder from the Asian continental steppe. That would have been fitting, too, because neither the Navy suit nor the yak gear have anything at all to do with Bush the Actual Person. Neither has anything to do with history, or with fact.
An article by David Corn entitled "Bush's Top Gun Photo-Op," which appeared in The Nation magazine's online publication this past week, described the disturbingly under-reported facts behind Bush's dalliance with the Texas Air National Guard:
Enlisting in the Guard was one way to beat the draft and avoid being sent to Vietnam. Is this why Bush signed up? During the campaign, Bush said no. Yet in 1994, he had remarked, "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Not was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." That sure sounds like someone who was looking to avoid the draft and pick up a skill. Obtaining a slot in the Guard at that time was not usually easy--for the obvious reason: lots of young men were responding to the call of self-preservation. (Think Dan Quayle.) Bush, whose father was then a congressman from the Houston area, has said no strings were pulled on his behalf. Yet in 1999, the former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives told The New York Times that a Houston oilman who was a friend of Bush's father had asked him to grease the skids for W. and he obliged.
What Bush did in the Guard. In Bush's campaign autobiography, A Charge To Keep, he wrote that he completed pilot training in 1970 and "continued flying with my unit for the next several years." But in 2000, The Boston Globe obtained copies of Bush's military records and discovered that he had stopped flying during his final 18 months of service in 1972 and 1973. More curious, the records showed Bush had not reported for Guard duty during a long stretch of that period. Had the future commander-in-chief been AWOL?
In May 1972, with two years to go on his six-year commitment to the Guard, Bush moved to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. He asked if he could do his Guard duty there. This son-of-a-congressman and fighter pilot won permission to do "equivalent training" at a unit that had no aircraft and no pilots. The national Air Reserve office then disallowed this transfer. For months, Bush did nothing for the Guard. In September 1972, he won permission to train with a unit in Montgomery. But the commander of the unit and his administrative officer told the Boston Globe that they had no recollection of Bush ever reporting for duty. And when Bush returned to Texas after the November election, he did not return to his unit for months, according to his military records. His annual performance report, dated May 2, 1973, noted he had "not been observed at this unit" for the past year. In May, June and July of that year, he did pull 36 days of duty.. And then, as he was on his way to Harvard Business School, he received permission to end his Guard service early.
The records suggest Bush skipped out on the Guard for about a year. (And during that time he had failed to submit to an annual physical and lost his flight status.) A campaign spokesperson said Bush recalled doing duty in Alabama and "coming back to Houston and doing duty." But Bush never provided any real proof he had. Asked by a reporter if he remembered what work he had done in Alabama, he said, "No, I really don't." A fair assumption was that he had gamed the system and avoided a year of service, before wiggling out of the Guard nearly a year before his time was up. It looked as if he had served four, not six years.
When he enlisted in the Texas Air Guard, Bush had signed a pledge stating he would complete his pilot training and then "return to my unit and fulfill my obligation to the utmost of my ability." Instead, he received flight training--at the government's expense -- and then cut out on his unit. He had not been faithful to the Guard. He had not kept this particular charge.
The problem with masks is that, after wearing one for a very long time, a person might reach a level of self-delusion that tells them their reality is the mask itself, and not what lies underneath. Bush has been skittering around the fact that he went AWOL during his term of military service for over three years now. The spectacle on the Abraham Lincoln suggests he has finally managed to convince himself that he did, in fact, serve the military of his country with honor and in accordance with the oath he took. Either that, or he is so utterly without shame as to be beyond the scope of normal human understanding.
Neither choice is particularly palatable, and never mind the inherent danger in a civilian commander so energetically equating himself with the military. Americans don't have a war leader anymore. They have a leader who is war personified. The fact that this personification comes at the expense of fact and truth is merely an accent in the symphony.
Another mask was donned by Bush on the deck of that aircraft carrier, one whose implications are far more dire and disturbing. Bush was there to tell the world that combat operations in Iraq had ceased. He did not go so far as to declare victory, as such a declaration would have required, under the Geneva Convention, the release of POWs and the withdrawal of American forces. The banner hanging across the control tower -- "Mission Accomplished" -- said all that needed to be said.
In his remarks, Bush closed with a paraphrasing of the Book of Isaiah: "In the words of the prophet Isaiah, 'To the captives, 'come out,' and to those in darkness, 'be free,''"
This was a quotation from Chapter 61 of Isaiah, the very book Jesus Christ used when proclaiming that Isaiah's prophesies of the Messiah had come true. Using this passage from Isaiah, Jesus presented himself as the Son of God in Nazareth. Thus it is told in Luke, Chapter 4, Verses 16-22:
"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.""
Under normal circumstances, we could write this off as a President reaching for hopeful Biblical language to frame a particular argument. This has been done before, by many American leaders in many situations. In this case, taken on the political surface, we could see a President using the Bible to define the latest reason for war in Iraq -- the 'liberation' of the people -- in the conspicuous absence of the oft-repeated reason that started the war -- the presence of mass destruction weapons. A further analysis of George W. Bush himself, however, leads to some serious questions.
The passage of Isaiah referenced by Jesus at Nazareth, and by Bush on the Abraham Lincoln, is part of a larger collection of verses known as the "Servant Songs." The specific verse used by Bush, out of Isaiah 61, is most important; it is widely accepted by both Christian and Jewish scholars as announcing the Messiah. For Christians, the Messiah is Jesus, and so this passage refers specifically to Him and His coming. The fact that Jesus Himself used this passage to announce His presence further confirms this. Bush's reading of this passage suggests the possibility that he believes this coming, for the second time, has arrived.
It has been oft-reported that Bush witnessed the attacks of 9/11 and came to believe that God Himself, and not Scalia and the rest, put him into the Presidency for the sole purpose of pursuing this war against terrorism. It has likewise been oft-reported that Bush is an evangelical Christian of the vigorous Billy Graham stripe. We have witnessed the failure of every rationalization for making war on Iraq -- the WMDs, the terrorist connections -- and are left now with the rhetorical argument that we did the whole thing to 'save' the Iraqi people. Ergo, Bush positioned himself on the deck of that aircraft carrier as a savior.
We are talking about a man who wears masks for the sake of political opportunism, and to survive moments when he has to address himself in the bathroom mirror. Does this newest mask have George W. Bush taking on the mantle of Jesus Christ, Savior and Redeemer?
Here is a man so steeped in self-denial that he can shunt aside his own shameful history in order to pretend he is on the same moral level as the soldiers he abandoned when his time of service came due. Here is a man intent upon making war on as much of the Muslim world as he can put his hands around, while wrapping around himself the image and prophesies of Jesus Christ. What is next? Will we see George W. Bush standing before the American people saying "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing"?
George W. Bush, master of denial. George W. Bush, wearer of masks. George W. Bush, soldier for Christ.
George W. Bush, Christ Himself?
Oh dear God, let there be light.
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times best-selling author of two books - "War On Iraq" available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," now available at http://www.silenceissedition.com from Pluto Press. Scott Lowery contributed research to this report.
http://villagenews.weblogger.com/discuss/msgReader$8085?mode=topic&y=2003&m=5&d=12
>>>[1] -- Not "one thing" but also they are attempting to smear GWB<<<
Isn't anyone who doesn't buy wholesale the honor and dignity of GW Bush trying smear him in the eyes of most republicans? Never mind those who have the poor taste of reporting the facts.
>>>[2] -- Whereabouts of GWB from spring of 1972 to spring of 1973 from public records : May 24, 1972: Bush, who has moved to Alabama to work on a US Senate race, gets permission to serve with a reserve unit in Alabama. Sept. 5, 1972: Bush is granted permission to do his Guard duty at the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery. November 1972 to April 30, 1973: Bush returns to Houston.<<<
You're not stating his whereabouts but rather where he was supposed to be. We already know where he was supposed to be and we know he didn't show up as required:
"From May to November 1972, Bush was in Alabama working in a US Senate campaign, and was REQUIRED to attend drills at an Air National Guard unit in Montgomery. But there is no evidence in his record that he did so. And William Turnipseed, the retired general who commanded the Alabama unit back then, said in an interview last week that Bush never appeared for duty there."
http://awol.gq.nu/AWOL_Globe%20series.htm
>>>[3] Drills may not be required for officers not on active flying status -- The National Guard allows officers to elect to accept 'inactive' status where they do not drill, get paid, or receive retirement points.<<<
"For a full year, there is no record that he showed up for the periodic drills REQUIRED of part-time guardsmen."
http://awol.gq.nu/AWOL_Globe%20series.htm
>>>[4] Only a problem for the Bush Haters -- not a problem for the Texas National Guard<<<
Not a problem for the Texas National Guard which is why they removed Bush from flight status?
"Bush was removed from flight status in August 1972 for failing to take his annual flight physical. Bush's campaign aides have said he did not take the physical because he was in Alabama and his personal physician was in Houston. But flight physicals can be administered only by certified Air Force flight surgeons, and some were assigned at the time to Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, where Bush was living."
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Republican_ticket_lets_a_military_connection_s...
>>>Thanks for making it so easy.<<<
I'm glad you feel that way, but you sure don't make it look easy. One blustery tirade after another with obscure references unrelated to what we're trying to solve mixed with frequent insults and name calling. That's easy? Again, most reporters doing stories on the Bush AWOL theme seem to have one thing in common: They are unable to account for his whereabouts between spring of 1972 and spring of 1973. Since he was required to attend drills during that period, this military absence becomes a problem although you seem to think it's a non-issue. I can post hundreds of links on this subject with extremely detailed analysis. Can you post ONE link referring to a credible source that legitimately dismisses the entire affair as "liberal hot air" or just plain false?
>>>thanks for the reference -- from the obvious hostile article, I have the following excerpts (perhaps why he was so welcomed on the carrier<<<
Not sure what your point is. We were discussing Bush's AWOL record that mlsoft calls "liberal hot air" and you point to kind words for Bush from his peers....? Some think Bush hung out in a Mexican crack house for a year when he should have been on military duty, so why can't anyone prove the liberal hot-air-blowers wrong? I would personally like to find out what the truth is so we can close that chapter and move on.
"Officially, the period between May 1972 and May 1973 remains unaccounted for. In November 1973, responding to a request from the headquarters of the Air National Guard for Bush's annual evaluation for that year, Martin, the Ellington administrative officer, wrote, ''Report for this period not available for administrative reasons."
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/One_year_gap_in_Bush_s_Guard_duty+.shtml
>>>Perhaps it is because there is nothing but liberal hot air behind the accusations you and other lefties believe as gospel while espousing "innocent until proven guilty" for all terrorists and criminals. Don't you think that after a campaign for governor of Texas and a campaign for the president of the US, if there was any provable misdeeds there the dems would have gone hyperbolic in getting it out????<<<
Bush has had ample time to defend himself and shed daylight on the questions about his military record but has chosen not to. Accounts of him being AWOL during much of 1972 and 1973 are plentiful and consistent while little or no reporting has been done to dispute those charges. Rather than using the standard GOP Clinton/Gore rebuttal, why not prove that the AWOL accusations against Bush are false? If this amounts to nothing but "liberal hot air", then certainly a simple Google search should make your case for you. As for Bill Clinton, he's in good company with droves of draft dodging, high ranking republicans, and how does Al Gore's service record even merit comparison with charges of desertion?
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/One_year_gap_in_Bush_s_Guard_duty+.shtml
>>>My guess is the left's attempts will not be nearly so publicized, or scrutinized, as was GW's carrier landing.<<<
And my guess is that GW's carrier landing would not have been scrutinized at all had he not chosen to masquerade as a warrior. His past records reflect his lack of interest in wearing a uniform when it really counts so I hope you can see how it rubs a lot of folks the wrong way when a confirmed deserter dons a uniform for political gains. Frankly, I can't understand why it doesn't bother an old military man like yourself.
http://www.awolbush.com/
>>>I get a kick out of watching Fox. Let's see what happens when people start talking money. The states are bleeding red and when property taxes go up Bush's poll #s will drop.<<<
Won't change a thing I'm afraid. Anything discussed on Fox that affects the average American negatively is simply Clinton's or Tom Dashle's fault and that's the way they will present it for the next 20 years. And their viewers believe every word of it of course. The democrats have to learn the art of tabloid politics that has served the GOP so well or they will keep losing support.