Mr. Bush - Missing in Action? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-08-2004, 03:49 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth


I hope it won't turn up in the debates because I'm bored stiff with it already. And I hope no more People for Truth show up, we already know they are all affiliated with either the Republican or Democratic party anyway.
I agree. God forbid this showing up in the debates. I'm sick and tired of this . It's got nothing to do with what we've voting about.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-08-2004, 04:48 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


That's a sad and disturbing opinion, but it's funny that it doesn't apply to Democratic presidents and alleged affairs he had prior to his running for presidency.
A sad disturbing opinion? Gee, Is it really sad that whether we decide to re-elect a president or not should be based on what he has done the past four years? What is more relevant to whether or not a President should be re-elected; what he did the past four years as president, or the unknowns about what he did over 30 years ago?

I considered discussion of Clintons past prior to taking office to be irrelevant during the election campaign of 1996.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-08-2004, 04:53 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sharky


They still haven't been able to prove that he was there because he wasn't. There is no documentation that he ever showed up and all he has to do is release his records and he won't.

Slime tactics by the Democrats? what about those stupid Swift Boat ads? Bush never came out to flat out condemn those specific ads. He should have.
George Bush was honorably discharge and members of the National Guard and reserve can make up missed time in other ways, if in fact there was missed time.

Why should Bush condemn those adds when Kerry won't condemn all the liberal moveon.orgs and Michael Moors, that are throwing out plenty of BS. Bush has come out and said that all these adds should stop.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-08-2004, 05:01 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Judah
The veep was worse than the prez, as we know. At least the W. was close to military/air force hardware (and got to wear a uniform).

RS chronicles Dick's history this month:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...region=single7
Ah yes cronicled by a magazine that loaths the military. Dick Cheney as secretary defense proved he knows more about the issues of the military than John Kerry ever has regardless of his so called lack of service. John Kerry is the man that campaigned against the M1 Tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Apache Attack Helicopter and the Patriot Missile. He voted against removing Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991.

When it comes to national defense and the military, Dick Cheney has had far better policies and shown far greater vision and intelligence than John Kerry has. That is why most members of the military would rather have Bush or Cheney as comander and chief than Kerry, man that spent his Senate career tyring to take things from the military as well as prior to that, attacking its members and veterans and making gross and inaccurate accusations about a war that most served in honorably.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-08-2004, 08:19 PM   #20
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 02:29 AM
Dick Cheney was good as Defense Secretary? Hardly. Remember the Gulf War? The first one? We're now back in the same place because 12 years ago when Cheney was defense secretary, we didn't finish off Saddam. and why was that? Oh yeah, Bush Sr. said that would be a bad idea and would destabilize the region. Cheney should have learned from the first Bush instead of being puppetmaster to the second.

And while yes, that article is from Rolling Stone, the papers it based that story on are fact and have been reported about in several other -- and more legit -- news organizations.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 09-08-2004, 08:51 PM   #21
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 01:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


A sad disturbing opinion? Gee, Is it really sad that whether we decide to re-elect a president or not should be based on what he has done the past four years? What is more relevant to whether or not a President should be re-elected; what he did the past four years as president, or the unknowns about what he did over 30 years ago?

I considered discussion of Clintons past prior to taking office to be irrelevant during the election campaign of 1996.
Well I'm glad you're consistant with your thinking. I wish everyone else was.

But I do think it's sad and disturbing that one man is judged on 4 years and the other man on his whole life. I keep seeing Bush supporters speak only of the past 4 years and ignore the rest of his life. Yet they go on and on about how Kerry isn't fit for Commander-in-Chief. But if you compared the two men prior to anyone being elected president Kerry would win hands down. There was absolutely nothing in Bush's background that told the general public he was fit for Commander. Bush would have never in a million years been elected in a wartime election. He had never led anything successfully in his life. This is what I find very troublesome by the Bush camp. Yes he now has experience, but even the most diehard Bush supporter will admit he's made some mistakes and is far from the best Commander in Cheif. So I have a hard time with this argument and why I think the GOP still has to rely on scare tactics.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-08-2004, 09:58 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sharky
Dick Cheney was good as Defense Secretary? Hardly. Remember the Gulf War? The first one? We're now back in the same place because 12 years ago when Cheney was defense secretary, we didn't finish off Saddam. and why was that? Oh yeah, Bush Sr. said that would be a bad idea and would destabilize the region. Cheney should have learned from the first Bush instead of being puppetmaster to the second.

And while yes, that article is from Rolling Stone, the papers it based that story on are fact and have been reported about in several other -- and more legit -- news organizations.
The 1991 Gulf War defeated Saddam 1,000,000 man military at probably the lowest cost in terms of military causulties in history given the number of forces that both sides had. Cheney was key in helping form the Arab coalition that Bush Sr. had as well as the the large global coalition that Democrats like Howard Dean are so fond of. Cheney helped guide the military through its largest deployment of men and material, in such a short time, since World War II.

The mission of the 1991 Gulf War was remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait. JOHN KERRY OPPOSED DOING THIS! There was never any intention of going into Baghdad unless Saddam did not agree to the ceacefire terms.

Saddam's lost nearly 70% of his military force and agreed to huge reperations for Kuwait as well as to Verifiably disarm of all WMD. His position was severely weakened. The United States succeeded in doing this without having to pay a single dime for the entire war thinks in part from help from Cheney in securing funding from various states.

Also in the aftermath of the war, Saddam accepted the largest UN inspections team in history and was put under the largest sanctions and weapons embargo regimes in history.

It was felt that as long as Saddam cooperated there would not be a problem. Over time, Saddam's power would decrease. No one thought Saddam would mis-caculate again after such a huge defeat but he did. He again challenged the coalition on all levels gradually over the next few years. That is why war eventually became a necessity again.

Those that say Saddam should have been taking out in 1991 do not understand the political difficulties back in 1990/1991 with doing that. Bush Sr. barely got enough approval from Congress to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait. Declaring to go all the way to Baghdad back in 1990 prior to the start of the war was politically impossible. It also would have risked all the funding from other countries. In addition, it was unlikely that Saddam would survive in power much longer after such a heavy defeat and that if he did, he would not challenge the international community on anything in order to stay in power.

Unfortunately, Saddam is not a rational person in the same way most other people are. He was undetered by the defeat he suffered in the first Gulf War and was willing to risk everything in order to keep marching toward his crazy goals. That is why operation Iraqi Freedom became a necessity. These things were not so cyrstal clear back in 1990/1991. Based on what was known back in 1990/1991 and the political realities at home and abroad, Bush Sr and his team including Cheney made the right decision.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-08-2004, 10:13 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Well I'm glad you're consistant with your thinking. I wish everyone else was.

But I do think it's sad and disturbing that one man is judged on 4 years and the other man on his whole life. I keep seeing Bush supporters speak only of the past 4 years and ignore the rest of his life. Yet they go on and on about how Kerry isn't fit for Commander-in-Chief. But if you compared the two men prior to anyone being elected president Kerry would win hands down. There was absolutely nothing in Bush's background that told the general public he was fit for Commander. Bush would have never in a million years been elected in a wartime election. He had never led anything successfully in his life. This is what I find very troublesome by the Bush camp. Yes he now has experience, but even the most diehard Bush supporter will admit he's made some mistakes and is far from the best Commander in Cheif. So I have a hard time with this argument and why I think the GOP still has to rely on scare tactics.
Bush has proven himself as Commander in Chief in very difficult times and situations. That is what sets him apart from many other Presidents. Kerry has never held the position and responsiblity that Bush has. That is why examination of his background is important, although I agree that his record in the Senate is far more important than his record prior to that.

Prior to becoming President, Bush was just as prepared as Clinton was prior to him becoming president. It is totally false that there was nothing in Bush's background that told the public he was fit to be command in chief.

In addition, Kerry has a weak record in the Senate when it comes to supporting the military and national security efforts. That is something that can push voters to other candidates easily. Kerry's anti-war record in the early 1970s is also a negative, although I will agree it is much less relevant today given his age at the time, as well as the time that has passed and his Senate record today.

It is true things would be different if this was Bush's first time running and he had not been President. But Kerry would still have a difficult time because of his Senate record and anti-war record.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-09-2004, 03:12 AM   #24
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Bush has proven himself as Commander in Chief in very difficult times and situations.
I don't believe we can even judge whether his reaction was the right one for another 20 years

we could discuss his media appearance during those difficult times, but that would also be clouded by our own opinion



maybe it's because I've been working as an accountant for years but:
1. I spend most of my days providing info for other people to help them making decision and I honestly have problems seeing how most of the focus on either parties campaign could lead anyone to a sound decision on who would make a better president
2. there's hardly any focus on topics such as social security, healthcare and how much money is available for education and the environment while those are the topics I am interested in
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 09-09-2004, 06:26 AM   #25
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 01:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Bush has proven himself as Commander in Chief in very difficult times and situations. That is what sets him apart from many other Presidents. Kerry has never held the position and responsiblity that Bush has. That is why examination of his background is important, although I agree that his record in the Senate is far more important than his record prior to that.

Prior to becoming President, Bush was just as prepared as Clinton was prior to him becoming president. It is totally false that there was nothing in Bush's background that told the public he was fit to be command in chief.

In addition, Kerry has a weak record in the Senate when it comes to supporting the military and national security efforts. That is something that can push voters to other candidates easily. Kerry's anti-war record in the early 1970s is also a negative, although I will agree it is much less relevant today given his age at the time, as well as the time that has passed and his Senate record today.

It is true things would be different if this was Bush's first time running and he had not been President. But Kerry would still have a difficult time because of his Senate record and anti-war record.
Proven himself? Like Salome said, that's yet to be determined. But I still would like someone to point out one thing in Bush's record prior to his presidency that proved him worthy. Clinton showed leadership, he didn't leave his state in shambles and wasn't bailed out of every business venture made.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-09-2004, 06:40 AM   #26
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 02:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Prior to becoming President, Bush was just as prepared as Clinton was prior to him becoming president. It is totally false that there was nothing in Bush's background that told the public he was fit to be command in chief.
Are you kidding? Clinton was governor of a state for almost 15 years before he became president. Bush was a governor for almost four in a state whose legislature only meets once every two years. Hell, John Edwards has more experience in politics at this point than Bush did when he ran for office. Putting an oil company into bankruptcy in Texas and trading awat Sammy Sosa does not make a president. What was Bush even doing before his failed oil business in the '80s? what job did he have?

After Kerry's return from Vietnam, he reorganized a D.A. office in Mass. He spent 20 plus years in the Senate and was instrumental in the Iran Contra affair. You can attack his Senate record all you want but at least he has a Senate record. What can you attack Bush for during his time in office in Texas? He killed alot of people on death row. That's about it.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 09-09-2004, 11:12 AM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:29 PM
It would be nice if, when thinking about GWB's national guard duty, we had the context of his entire experience in the guard.

Quote:
The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

Not two years of weekends. Two years.

After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).

Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?

You need only 40 hours of flying time to get a basic pilots license (I know from experience). GWB had nearly 400 hours in the F105.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-09-2004, 11:55 AM   #28
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:29 AM
And then he took our investment in him and bailed.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 09-09-2004, 12:05 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:29 PM
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake

Quote:
Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program.
If you can blame Bush for the SBVT controversy, can you blame Kerry for this?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-09-2004, 12:07 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
And then he took our investment in him and bailed.



Good, we needed an arbiter of our "return on investment" for those serving in the National Guard.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com