Hypocrisy maybe?

[plantsrevil]

Not to say that Bush is perfect I disagree with him on many policy points as well but should we not keep our hypocrisy at least to a ridiculous level? Since the vast majority of the democratic party is composed of 60's anti-war/socialist commies this begs the question. How could they possibly with a straight face or an ounce of integrity denigrate the Presidents military service? This is the same crowd that spit on and abused our soldiers as they returned home from Vietnam. Does not this crowd of luminaries include the Jane Fonda and John Kerry crowd that also claimed that all of our soldiers were war criminals(excepting any democrats of course!!!)?

[ProWriter]

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm talking about Bush. If GW simply applied to the National Guard like every other poor schmuck who was hoping not to get shipped to Vietnam and GW just happened to be "lucky" enough that he was one of the VERY few who was randomly selected :rolleyes: for NG service, then he's not necessarily a hypocrite. OTOH, if it wasn't a matter of his luck of the draw that landed him in the NG instead of SE Asia but his powerfully connected daddy pulled strings to get him the assignment, then it's pretty hypocritical for him to run as a "war time" president or to don a flight suit to land on a carrier for an announcement and so forth.

NG duty is perfectly "honorable service" when you get there through the normal channels; it's hardly "honorable" when you run there with daddy's help precisely to get OUT of the war where 99.9% of everybody else in your situation had to serve at the time.

I'm about as apolitical as a person can be and I don't identify one bit with any political party, but "war time" presidents would be a little more concerned at this particular time with things like the recently publicized CIA snafu and a lot less concerned with this gay marriage opposition nonsense.

Just don't forget to look for hypocrisy on both sides as long as you already have your mag light out over there.

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by ProWriter


NG duty is perfectly "honorable service" when you get there through the normal channels; it's hardly "honorable" when you run there with daddy's help precisely to get OUT of the war where 99.9% of everybody else in your situation had to serve at the time.



Actually, there is no evidence to prove that Sr. Bush got G.W. in the guard. It's been assumed that was the case, but probably just because the old man is who he was. If he was allowed in just because of the name, and Sr. didn't do anything to contribute, it's hard to blame G.W. A lot of people went into the guard to avoid the draft. A fairly large contingent from my dept. fit into that catagory.

And 99.9% didn't have to serve. I told you a million times, don't exaggerate!:D

[jarhead6073]

It was actually closer to 90% of eligable males who didn't serve at all.

[SomeGuy]

I don't really like your stereotyping of the democratic party. Saying that "the vast majority of the democratic party is composed of 60's anti-war/socialist commies" is like a democrat saying that "the vast majority of the republican party is composed of religious right nutjobs/facists". Neither statement is true, and both only serve to turn what should be a rational discussion into highly emotional name calling that doesn't accomplish anything.

The point remains that Bush's military record is questionable. His pay information indicates that he was not showing up for duty, and interviewed members of his unit say that they don't remember him. Now, this isn't exactly conclusive, but it does raise some questions, especially when Bush is all too willing to send American soldiers to war with somewhat questionable motives. After all, Bush, not the democrats, is the one who frames himself as a war president. I don't think there's anything wrong with his opponents criticizing him over his military record. Bush decided to make national security a central issue in the 2004 campaign, and by doing so opened himself up to criticism. Instead of attacking the democrats and calling them names, why not consider what they have to say about Bush?

[jarhead6073]

[B]I don't really like your stereotyping of the democratic party. Saying that "the vast majority of the democratic party is composed of 60's anti-war/socialist commies" is like a democrat saying that "the vast majority of the republican party is composed of religious right nutjobs/facists". Neither statement is true, and both only serve to turn what should be a rational discussion into highly emotional name calling that doesn't accomplish anything.

Of course not ALL democrats are 60's hippies. I would guess that most democrats aren't old enough to be 60's hippies. But most every democrat is a liberal and most every liberal is an anti-war socialist. Especially the modern democrat party. Look what happend to Joe Leiberman. Most modern democrats are not centrists. They are liberal anti-war types.

The point remains that Bush's military record is questionable.

No it isn't.

His pay information indicates that he was not showing up for duty

He had permission for this as has been covered many times.

and interviewed members of his unit say that they don't remember him

Guess you missed the Washington Post letter from a fellow pilot and at least two others who served with Bush. Not to mention that this story was based entirely on a retired general who never would have seen a random 1stLt who transited through his squadron. Not to mention that said retired general has since come out saying this.

Now, this isn't exactly conclusive, but it does raise some questions, especially when Bush is all too willing to send American soldiers to war with somewhat questionable motives.

Hmm, is it not the place of the Commander in Chief to send the military to war in defense of the country?

After all, Bush, not the democrats, is the one who frames himself as a war president.

Maybe because it's true? Maybe because 9/11 thrust this country into war? Or are you one of those people who think that we're not really at war.

I don't think there's anything wrong with his opponents criticizing him over his military record.

Do you agree with Kerry that his Vietnam era record is off limits?

Bush decided to make national security a central issue in the 2004 campaign, and by doing so opened himself up to criticism.

So I'm going to take that as a yes to the previous question.

[ProWriter]

RDS:

I'm not vilifying the guy for his NG service even if his dad DID get him in there. Anybody else in his position (except maybe John McCain) would probably do the exact same thing. I'm just saying that even if you genuinely lucked out and got into the NG without any help during a time when so many others are getting shipped out to do a tour in Vietnam, you should probably have the humility and common sense to avoid the phrase "war time president", and more so when your likely opponent is actually a decorated war hero from the same war you were fortunate enough to miss.

As far as the percentages thing, I was just talking about the percentage of those who did have to serve that managed to do so in the NG instead of going overseas, not the percentage of eligible candidates whose number never came up.

[SomeGuy]

<i>But most every democrat is a liberal and most every liberal is an anti-war socialist.</i>

Bust most every republican is a conservative, and most every conservative is a pro-war facist. That's clearly untrue, just as your statement that every liberal is a socialist is untrue.

<i>No it isn't.

He had permission for this as has been covered many times.

Guess you missed the Washington Post letter from a fellow pilot and at least two others who served with Bush. Not to mention that this story was based entirely on a retired general who never would have seen a random 1stLt who transited through his squadron. Not to mention that said retired general has since come out saying this.
</i>

Ok, you got me on those two. I'm not a conservative, and I don't read the Washington Post, so I obviously missed those letters, and none of the papers I read mentioned that he had permission for his leave. However, the point remains that he joined the national guard to avoid service in a foreign combat zone.

<i>Hmm, is it not the place of the Commander in Chief to send the military to war in defense of the country? </i>

Yes, it is. But the question is, was Iraq a threat? No WMDs were found in Iraq, and many reputable news sources are publishing information that suggests Bush knew none would be found before he declared war. In addition, Iraq had no Al-Quaida links.

<i>
Do you agree with Kerry that his Vietnam era record is off limits?

So I'm going to take that as a yes to the previous question.</i>

Please do not put words into my mouth. I think Kerry's an idiot, and a hypocrite, and I'd never vote for him (I'd never vote for Bush either). His records should be looked at, too.

[jarhead6073]

Maybe the Boston Globe is more up your alley...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/10/bush_credited_for_guard_drills/

And I was wrong, it wasn't the Washington Post, it was the Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm

Is it your contention that liberals do not promote the redistribution of wealth through a progressive tax code and transfer payments? Is that not the basis of socialism? And I didn't say every one, I said "most every one"

Yes, it is. But the question is, was Iraq a threat? No WMDs were found in Iraq, and many reputable news sources are publishing information that suggests Bush knew none would be found before he declared war. In addition, Iraq had no Al-Quaida links

hmmm... could go round and round on this one but I just don't have the inclination right now. Though I take it you have also missed the stories of Iraqi officials meeting with al queda operatives in Indonesia. And the letters exchanged between Saddam and al queda. That's ok. They didn't make it into the non-conservative papers that you apparently read. There's more but I don't feel like chasing down a bunch of links right now.

EDIT:
And you may want to take a look at David Kay's testimoy. Something besides the "we were all wrong" quote lauded by the media.

For example
We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.

KAY: I certainly -- Saddam being deceived was a common phenomena after 1998 and it crossed all areas, not just WMD, as it became a more corrupt society.

I don't see -- I remember the New York Times editorial, which sees an inconsistency between doing that. I actually don't see it. I think it's he knew he had the capability. He wanted to enjoy the benefits of others thinking he had it. The deception related to more advanced programs, and that's where it continued up until the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

[plantsrevil]

It was not my intent to get into a name calling, labeling dispute. The simple fact is that if the statement is true it does not amount to name calling but a summary of the facts. It would not be unfair in my opinion to characterize the majority of the republican party as right wing conservatives. What would be unfair is to equate conservatists with facists. It is however fair to equate communism/socialism as these are two sides of the same coin. My statement was intended as a general reference for the membership of the democratic party. I am well aware that this does not fit all democrats as there are moderates in that party however they are few and far between.

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by ProWriter
RDS:

I'm just saying that even if you genuinely lucked out and got into the NG without any help during a time when so many others are getting shipped out to do a tour in Vietnam, you should probably have the humility and common sense to avoid the phrase "war time president", and more so when your likely opponent is actually a decorated war hero from the same war you were fortunate enough to miss.


I guess I don't see the point. The Vietnam war was nearly 40 years ago. Why is it such a big deal now? Even Kerry said in a speech to the Senate in 1992 that military service had nothing to do with someone's ability to be President. Of course, he was speaking of Clinton then and now he's changed his tune. But what's changed since 1992?

Bush and other Republicans have been quite respectful of Kerry's record in Vietnam. However not so respectful of his record as soon as he returned and became an anti-war protesters, throwing medals, not his own, away.

Kerry comes up with some strange remarks. When Saxon (I think that was his name) in Georgia accused him of being anti defense based on his voting record in the Senate, Kerry went into a snit over his war service. The two aren't inclusive at all. I think Vietnam is going to backfire on Kerry pretty soon. You can only ride that horse so far and people are going to start getting tired of him hiding behind it every time he's criticized.

What Bush chooses to call himself, War President or not should have no reflection on any Democratic candidate.

[SomeGuy]

Originally posted by retdetsgt
I guess I don't see the point. The Vietnam war was nearly 40 years ago. Why is it such a big deal now? Even Kerry said in a speech to the Senate in 1992 that military service had nothing to do with someone's ability to be President. Of course, he was speaking of Clinton then and now he's changed his tune. But what's changed since 1992?

Bush and other Republicans have been quite respectful of Kerry's record in Vietnam. However not so respectful of his record as soon as he returned and became an anti-war protesters, throwing medals, not his own, away.

Kerry comes up with some strange remarks. When Saxon (I think that was his name) in Georgia accused him of being anti defense based on his voting record in the Senate, Kerry went into a snit over his war service. The two aren't inclusive at all. I think Vietnam is going to backfire on Kerry pretty soon. You can only ride that horse so far and people are going to start getting tired of him hiding behind it every time he's criticized.

What Bush chooses to call himself, War President or not should have no reflection on any Democratic candidate.

I agree, the Vietnam war was 40 years ago, and shouldn't be as important as much as the media is making it appear to be. I also agree that Kerry is playing the Vietnam service card too often. However, I think Bush's decision to call himself a war president invites criticism over his record, especially considering the rather questionable war he presided over.

Anyway, my only point is that Bush is making national defense and the war on terror huge campaign issues. I can't really blame the democrats for going after every piece of war related dirt they have on the guy-that's politics.

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by SomeGuy
However, I think Bush's decision to call himself a war president invites criticism over his record, especially considering the rather questionable war he presided over.

Anyway, my only point is that Bush is making national defense and the war on terror huge campaign issues. I can't really blame the democrats for going after every piece of war related dirt they have on the guy-that's politics.

Well, since they attacked us here on our homeland, I think we are more or less at war. I think his wartime president remark has a lot more to do with what's going on now than what happen a long time ago. He's not calling himself a wartime fighter pilot. His actions while in office are certainly fair game as is Kerry's record in the senate. I don't see as much hypocrisy in him calling himself a war president than Kerry calling himself strong on defense because he was in Vietnam for four months while he has a long senate record of voting against defense bills.

As a voter, I'm much more interested in today's issues. I tend to discount the messenger when they continually harp about irrelevant history. I'm not a dyed in the wool Bush fan, but I've yet to be impressed by any Democrats either. And the more people like Kerry try to distract from the issues of today, the less I tend to listen to him.