Former Lt. Gov. of Texas helped Bush avoid Vietnam combat (aka Leave Kerry Alone)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
D

Danospano

Refugee
Joined
Jun 24, 2000
Messages
1,415
Location
Oklahoma
Considering all the bad-mouthing against John Kerry's wartime record, I thought this might be of interest to those potential voters...
****************************************************
Dumya apparently forgot to bury all of his skeletons. It seems that the former Lt. Governor of Texas Ben Barnes confessed to a few people that he helped our "Chickenhawk-in-Chief" leader into the National Guard to avoid service in Viet Nam Meanwhile Dumya's henchmen still were arguing whether John Kerry bled enough to get a purple heart.

Guess What? It got caught on tape. Ahhhh, confession is good for the soul. Your turn George.
****************************************************

Does anyone have access to this video, so we can place a link on this forum? I'm not sure how to go about it.

Anyway, I just watched the video and it's real. Too bad for HIMMMMMM
 
Bush's supporters will make some excuse about this, and contiinue to attack Kerry.
Is it me, or is this the most vindictive and
nasty campaign in memory?
I'm getting really tired of these attacks
on Kerry's Vietnam record. And I know full well it's GOP stragedy.
Uh oh...Bush's non-record of Nam service against Kerry is a problem.
I know! Let's attack Kerry and get the
pressure off.
 
Can anyone from either side please tell me, preferably in as few words as possible, why it matters & what either W's or Kerry's service history has to do with being a President in 2005?

Lets not get too pious here guys. This bullshit is being spouted from each side.
 
While Kerry earned a Silver Star and a Bronze Star after saving a crewmate's life under fire on the Mekong River in Vietnam, by contrast, the Georgie that Allison knew was a young man whose parents did not allow him to live with the consequences of his own mistakes. His powerful father -- whom the son seemed to both idolize and resent -- was a lifeline for Bush out of predicaments. After Bush graduated from Yale in 1968, his slot in the Texas Air National Guard allowed him to avoid active duty service in Vietnam. The former speaker of the Texas state House, Democrat Ben Barnes, now admits he pulled strings to get Bush his coveted guard slot, and says he's "ashamed" of the deed. "60 Minutes" will air an interview with Barnes next Wednesday, but George H.W. Bush denounced Barnes' claims in an interview aired on CBS. "They keep saying that and it's a lie, a total lie. Nobody's come up with any evidence, and yet it's repeated all the time," the former president said, in what could just as well describe the playbook for the Swift Boat Veterans ads.

Yet, after receiving unusual permission to transfer to the Alabama Guard from Texas, Bush has produced no evidence he showed up for service for anything other than a dental exam. Later, Bush would trade on his father's connections to enter the oil business, and when his ventures failed, trade on more connections to find investors to bail him out. Linda Allison's story fills in the details about a missing chapter in the story of how George Bush Sr.'s friends helped his wastrel son. The Bush campaign, decamped to New York for the convention, did not return a phone call by late Wednesday.
Click to expand...

From: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/02/allison/

Salon.com attempts to reconstruct W's missing year in Alabama.
 
If John Kerry wants to make his war record a huge part of his campaign, then he automaticly opens it up to debate. many vietnam vets put kerry in the same category as jane fonda... they feel betrayed by his comments after he returned to the states. and while i do not support any ads that are flat out lies, like the first swift boat ad... the newest ad, that features kerry's own voice slamming those still in vietnam, i can't really complain about these people anymore.

if kerry didn't want his vietnam record up for debate, he wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. maybe if he spent some more time telling the american people exactly what in the friggin hell he stands for NOW, this whole vietnam issue wouldn't even exist.
 
Although I'm happy that the guy is going public, I wish more people would listen to Ange--I'm more interested in what they're thinking and doing here and now than what they did in the 70s.
 
I think it all started with Republicans claiming you shouldn't change an experieced Commander-in-Cheif at this point in the war. Bush has and is still very foolishly questioning Kerry's ability to be Commander-in-Chief, so that's when Kerry started to display his military history. It's gone way overboard, an informed person would have made their mind up already if they thought either one was able. I think now they are campaigning to those who aren't informed and can easily be influenced. Unfortunately, I think this election will come down to them. May the best propaganda win.
 
Millitary History does not equal good presidential skills by default. Many a poor president fought bravely for their country and many a great president never fought at all. The president has to lead the nation, make the tough decisions and look out for the national interest all the while being a skileld politician, millitary service is not a prerequisite - something that the Democrats stood by during the Clinton years when Clinton defeated two genuine war hero's. I am getting pretty sick of people touting Kerrys 4 months in Vietnam as proof positive he is a great CiC, as if he is Eisenhower, The Iron Duke and Alexander the Great all rolled into one because he served 4 months in a conflict many of his supporters (and Kerry himself) protested against by attacking the veterans - but people ignore the little anti-war bit because its fun to play nice. Kerry made Vietnam a pillar of his campaign, his actions in relation to the war are totally up for scrutiny as they represent a pattern of his political career, not backing millitary spending, voting against the Gulf War etc. This is politics people, its dirty and decisive - get used to it.
 
Last edited:
Yes we've heard it all before, but take a look at both canidates before they were president and please tell me how in the hell Bush would make a greater Commander in Chief? There's nothing...
 
Angela, I agree with you. This :censored: has nothing to do with the substantive issues of the day like Iraq, the economy and health care. But, this is a heated, crazy presidential election and people are coming out of the woodworks all over with dirt on the candidates. I think this campaign will go down in history as "the Dirty Laundry Campaign From Hell". I've been through alot of campaigns, and there have been ridiculous, nasty things in all of them. I'm not unhappy that this guy is coming out with this stuff, but this whole campaign has been defined, in my opinion, as *the* post-9/11 campaign and this benefited Kerry in the primaries because he looked good on national security to Democratic voters.
 
Kerry has made is military career an issue in the campaign. It appears that at some level, Kerry may be misrepresenting his military career.

No one on the right is claiming Bush had a better military record than Kerry. The issue is Kerry's veracity in retelling his record.
 
Yes, yes...we all know that character SHOULDN'T determine who's president, but it DOES! That's the main reason Bush got election in the first place (albeit by screwing methods in the Supreme Court and the Florida Election Board).

The history of Kerry in Vietnam and the gut he had to stand up for what was right, while Bush was playing in the southern parts of Dixie, means that Kerry is lightyears ahead of Bush in intellect, experience, and wisdom. Remember all those Oliver Stone movies about Vietnam; Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, Heaven and Earth; and The Deer Hunter, COming Home, Full Metal Jacket..etc...remember how popular those movies are and how hated the Vietnam War was and IS? Why is Kerry being attacked for supporting the views that are synonimous with those films?

Why are we beginning to change history, by stating that Vietnam was a noble fight?

Yes, character shouldn't determine the president, but it does and always will. And Ralph Nader has the best character...that's why I'd vote for him...if I could...because I live in a backward state (Oklahoma)...where I can't vote for anyone but Bush/Kerry/or the Libertarian. :| Yeah...this sucks.
 
not backing millitary spending,

voting against the Gulf War etc.
Click to expand...


What is the context?

Is McCain soft on terror?

Would you be surprised if Kerry's defense votes were closer to McCains than Zell Miller or some nut job who votes FOR EVERY DEFENCE BILL.

If every defense bill passed we would be BANKRUPT like the USSR.

Most times there are more than one version of a bill. People with no backbone and are afraid of being called unpatriotic of anti-military will vote for every bill.

McCain has the guts to challenge wasteful spending and vote against wasteful bills.

Bottom line McCain has said more than once that Kerry is qualified to be Commander -in - Chief.

I trust his judgment more than the partisan attack dogs.
 
Flying FuManchu said:
If Kerry was light years ahead on intellect compared to Bush, then he would be running away with this election.
Click to expand...

Since when are elections decided on the basis of intellect?

If that were the case, the presidency, the Senate, the Congress would be a job characteristic of PhDs, academics and professors. Clearly, that is not the case.
 
I don't anyone would suggest that elections are usually won by the most intellegent or astute candidate, but it reflects the character of the candidate.

If a candidate fights for his country and runs the risk of dying for his country, then realizes how one person's decision (the president's) can affect so many lives, he'll be more likely to use war as a final resort. Families are torn apart...it's the stuff of "Sunday Bloody Sunday", and "Please". It wasn't necessary in Iraq, and I doubt it was absolutely necessary in Afganistan; but that's another debate.

I don't see Bush having the ability to make an intellegent, moral decision when dealing with the price of war. Nor do I see Cheney having that ability. Nor do I see Karl Rove having the history of sacrifice to make that decision. Kerry fought in a war...perhaps the grizzliest war of last 50 years, and he didn't like what he saw. He knew the policies and the agenda of that war, and spoke out against it...AFTER GETTING A UPCLOSE LOOK.

Bush did what anyone else would do. He let his father's friends give him a free-pass out of war. If I had that option, I might take it as well. That's not the issue here. The issue is, Kerry had powerful friends as well, but STILL WENT AND SACRIFICED FOR HIS COUNTRY.

It's an issue of character. Plain and simple.

That being said, I support Ralph Nader. :)
 
Danospano said:
Yes, yes...we all know that character SHOULDN'T determine who's president, but it DOES! That's the main reason Bush got election in the first place (albeit by screwing methods in the Supreme Court and the Florida Election Board).

The history of Kerry in Vietnam and the gut he had to stand up for what was right, while Bush was playing in the southern parts of Dixie, means that Kerry is lightyears ahead of Bush in intellect, experience, and wisdom. Remember all those Oliver Stone movies about Vietnam; Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, Heaven and Earth; and The Deer Hunter, COming Home, Full Metal Jacket..etc...remember how popular those movies are and how hated the Vietnam War was and IS? Why is Kerry being attacked for supporting the views that are synonimous with those films?

Why are we beginning to change history, by stating that Vietnam was a noble fight?

Yes, character shouldn't determine the president, but it does and always will. And Ralph Nader has the best character...that's why I'd vote for him...if I could...because I live in a backward state (Oklahoma)...where I can't vote for anyone but Bush/Kerry/or the Libertarian. :| Yeah...this sucks.
Click to expand...

Kerry attacked this country and its troops when he returned from Vietnam. Oliver Stone doesn't have a clue when it comes to Vietnam. My father and his friends served in Vietnam and saw those movies and in their opinion, Oliver Stone got it wrong.
 
deep said:



What is the context?

Is McCain soft on terror?

Would you be surprised if Kerry's defense votes were closer to McCains than Zell Miller or some nut job who votes FOR EVERY DEFENCE BILL.

If every defense bill passed we would be BANKRUPT like the USSR.

Most times there are more than one version of a bill. People with no backbone and are afraid of being called unpatriotic of anti-military will vote for every bill.

McCain has the guts to challenge wasteful spending and vote against wasteful bills.

Bottom line McCain has said more than once that Kerry is qualified to be Commander -in - Chief.

I trust his judgment more than the partisan attack dogs.
Click to expand...

McCain has a very different record from Kerry in terms of proposals for or aganist military spending as well as votes.

I'm sorry, but a person who has voted for every defense bill is NOT a nut job. Its frustrating when people fail to realize how important those defense bills are to military personal and their families. If every defense bill were passed, the United States military would have more money for training, development of new weapons, pay, and other money for helping military families.

Bankrupt like the USSR? Not even close and I could go into detail on that one if you'd like!

Bottom line, McCain has said more than once that George Bush is the person that should be president for the next four years. If you have an ounce of respect for McCain, at least take not of that fact, his speech, and his support for most of George Bush's policies.
 
Danospano said:
I don't anyone would suggest that elections are usually won by the most intellegent or astute candidate, but it reflects the character of the candidate.

If a candidate fights for his country and runs the risk of dying for his country, then realizes how one person's decision (the president's) can affect so many lives, he'll be more likely to use war as a final resort. Families are torn apart...it's the stuff of "Sunday Bloody Sunday", and "Please". It wasn't necessary in Iraq, and I doubt it was absolutely necessary in Afganistan; but that's another debate.

I don't see Bush having the ability to make an intellegent, moral decision when dealing with the price of war. Nor do I see Cheney having that ability. Nor do I see Karl Rove having the history of sacrifice to make that decision. Kerry fought in a war...perhaps the grizzliest war of last 50 years, and he didn't like what he saw. He knew the policies and the agenda of that war, and spoke out against it...AFTER GETTING A UPCLOSE LOOK.

Bush did what anyone else would do. He let his father's friends give him a free-pass out of war. If I had that option, I might take it as well. That's not the issue here. The issue is, Kerry had powerful friends as well, but STILL WENT AND SACRIFICED FOR HIS COUNTRY.

It's an issue of character. Plain and simple.

That being said, I support Ralph Nader. :)
Click to expand...

Colin Powell, John McCain, Zel Miller and other who have all either served or fought in war strongly support the Presidents policies. I remind you that over 75% of the United States congress supported the war in Iraq. More than 50% of democratic Senators voted for the war in IRAQ.

Have you ever thought about what the cost would be for the world and the Iraqi people if Saddam had remained in power?

Have you ever though about what the cost would be for the world if the Taliban had remained in power in Afghanistan?

I have friends on the ground in Iraq right now, and I can tell you that their daily efforts there are NOT "unnecessary"!

Even BONO supported the war in Afghanistan and thought Bush was doing a great job. Don't believe me, just pick up the 2001 year end issue of HOT PRESS!

I also disagree with the application of songs like Sunday Bloody Sunday and Please to political things they were never written for. These songs are about the conflict of Northern Ireland which I'm sure people there do not want lumped in with just any conflict.



Yes, Kerry served in Vietnam and everyone respects that fact. But I don't respect him calling my father and others "war criminals" and accusing them of other crimes.

Kerry served in Vietnam and then attacked this country and its veterans. He then led a Senate career in which in proposed and tried to take away vital weapon systems from our military which they are currently using in Iraq to help win the peace. He voted against removing Saddam from Kuwait. He voted against funding the development of Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the troops working to secure those countries futures.

Kerry is shining example that just because one has served in war does not mean they necessarily have better judgement on such issues than one that did not.

Here are some other great presidents who never served in a war but successfully won wars during their presidency.

Abraham Lincoln : Civil War
Woodrow Wilson : World War I
Franklin Roosevelt : World War II
 
anitram said:


Since when are elections decided on the basis of intellect?

If that were the case, the presidency, the Senate, the Congress would be a job characteristic of PhDs, academics and professors. Clearly, that is not the case.
Click to expand...

I'm not necessarily making the point that elections are decided on the basis of intellect, although there are many who continue to harp on Bush's intellect. I believe I was responding to someone comparing Kerry's intellect to Bush's intellect (obviously Bush was being made out ot be a dummy). I mentioned how poorly Kerry has been going about his campaign, talking about verbal gaffes that involve intellect as well as strategy/ methodology.

I'm making the point that Kerry has been a moron on how he's been running his campaign and one may think, "Gosh, darn it, there goes that idiot Bush making another Bushism. What an idiot!" But Kerry isn't endearing himself with his goofy statements to the media.
 
Last edited:
I'm watching the rerun of Bush's "acceptance speech"....he just said he's for activist judges. Isn't that in complete contraction of U.S. Constitution? Bullshit! That's all I can say.

God, he's pissing me off.

I can't believe he's getting away with this bullshit. That's all it is. Let's be honest: It's BULLSHIT.

I just had a conversation with fellow voters this evening....you know. If the majority of the nation wants this idiot to be our LEADER...then we deserve whatever we get.

That's all I'm going to say.
 
STING2 said:


Kerry attacked this country and its troops when he returned from Vietnam. Oliver Stone doesn't have a clue when it comes to Vietnam. My father and his friends served in Vietnam and saw those movies and in their opinion, Oliver Stone got it wrong.
Click to expand...

I have to say that is just BS in my sphere of knowledge. I have many older cousins and their friends that I'm close with and they talk quite openly of civiilan killoffs because the VC was always (supposedly) hiding in villages. It is the same since time eternal. Soldiers must armor their humanitarian feelings against the enemy by all means possible in order to do their duty. After a period of time (just like they say video games do to children) a lack of care for life develops and atrocities happen.

It is just that by the time the Vietnam war occurred the cause for civilian life became stronger than just he Quakers in the US.
 
Scarletwine said:


I have to say that is just BS in my sphere of knowledge. I have many older cousins and their friends that I'm close with and they talk quite openly of civiilan killoffs because the VC was always (supposedly) hiding in villages. It is the same since time eternal. Soldiers must armor their humanitarian feelings against the enemy by all means possible in order to do their duty. After a period of time (just like they say video games do to children) a lack of care for life develops and atrocities happen.

It is just that by the time the Vietnam war occurred the cause for civilian life became stronger than just he Quakers in the US.
Click to expand...

Well, I think that is complete BS. If you want to attack the US Vietnam veterans as being war criminals then present some tangible evidence to prove your or your cousins claims. The burden of proof in this case is on those that make the accusation. There is no other military in the world that has more respect for civilian life than the United States military. The United States military if it had wanted to could have killed virtually every single human being in Vietnam, so these accusations are just absurd. Israel also has to constantly deal with this nonsense.

Do civilians accidently get killed in the process of combat, yes. But Vietnam is no different in this respect than any other and the United States military goes to extremes to protect civilian life. I can name you countless battles in Vietnam where it would have been far easier and safer for the US military to simply use a B-52 airstrike, but they didn't.

By your logic, US military personal who are now serving their second tours in duty in Iraq, have "developed a lack of care for life". That is total BS and my friends in Iraq would throw up if they heard that!

It is a fact that Kerry attacked US veterans with his testimony as well as the United States. Oliver Stones movies are just that, movies, with little if any factual representation of what actually happened.
 
Public opinion in 1971 was turning against the Vietnam war, and some people wanted us out. They claimed that the government was screwing up, which basically was true. This feeling had reached fever pitch in some quarters. Keep in mind that the 1968 presidential election had been pretty damned heated, what with the candidates taking positions on the war, and the infamous confrontation in Chicago at the DNC happened that year. Three years later this had escalated, people were pissed off all over, massive demonstrations were taking place, and the government was under a ton of heat. This was the political environment of 1971. Context is important. Kerry has admitted that some of his remarks were over the top. It's easy to forget the emotions of 1971 in the middle of another tense moment in the history of our country.
 
STING2 said:
Well, I think that is complete BS. If you want to attack the US Vietnam veterans as being war criminals then present some tangible evidence to prove your or your cousins claims.
Click to expand...

So you're allowed to cite the experiences of your friends in Iraq and your father in Vietnam as evidence, but the minute someone else mentions their relatives experience you criticise them for not providing tangible evidence?
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


So you're allowed to cite the experiences of your friends in Iraq and your father in Vietnam as evidence, but the minute someone else mentions their relatives experience you criticise them for not providing tangible evidence?
Click to expand...

The difference here is, I'm not accusing someone of gross human rights abuses. I have mentioned friends and familly members experiences, but not as evidence to accuse someone of being a genocidal murderer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Outwardly a Good Soldier/Inside a Man Full of Doubts
Replies
5
Views
238
verte76
V
deep
President Bush's Executive Order 13223- Resist the DRAFT! It is WRONG!
Replies
11
Views
378
Dreadsox
D
kobayashi
agent orange and vietnam
Replies
28
Views
1K
anitram
anitram

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom