Just to throw my two cents in here, I would personally never politically forgive someone who had EVER had ties to the KKK or any other extremist group of its ilk. Therefore, Byrd would never get my vote.
Bush did NOT go AWOL, this is a rumor, even the New York Times (bastion of liberalism) has proved this rumor to be false.
Of course, the NYT (as well as CNN and Washington Post) have had some serious problems with reporting the truth lately, though usually it’s not stories that helped any conservative.
But then again, Clinton ran away too. Clinton and Albright got us in more conflicts than the 4 presidents before him combined. (According to the book “Deliver us from Evil” about the UN in the 90s, which is a great book esp if you’re interested in what really happened in Somalia, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda. Also good if you think France and the UN liked Clinton more than Bush, they hated us then too.)
I’d say it is serious, but since Bush Sr. we haven’t had a president that served …and most of Congress did not go to Nam either so…
Chris, you're right.
I SHOULD have done my own research. Instead I fell in the trap of believing what one of the liberals/democrats said in the forum regarding Bush.
Very dumb mistake.
Anyone can twist the truth. Few can twist it like some liberals/democrats.
It did make for a good debate and an interesting topic though.
chris,
Thanks for the post. I’ve been saying all along that the idiots who take the boston globe’s report should remember their political agenda. But, that’s lumpy “the dink with no link” to reality, credible sources, etc…
You guys are really going to have to work overtime, if you want to rewrite history. Again, Bush could clear the air by releasing his records, but will not. Why not?
Mage said “Now answer the question you avoided, why are we not supposed to forgive Bush but we are supposed to forgive Byrd for being in the KKK?”
I don’t give a crap about Robt. Byrd and am not interested in changing the subject. Why do you want to change the subject? What the heck does Byrd have to do with Bush not fulfilling his sworn duty during a time of war?
AWOL or not, he dodged the draft. That has been my only issue. Well, if the AWOL thing is true I would find that rather disturbing too, but I have mainly been focused on the fact that he joined the Guard in the first place to avoid combat.
As I mentioned in my last post though, even under those circumstances, after talking to that SWAT captain I got a better understanding of why, despite that, he would get a lot more support from the military than other presidents.
I just personally have no respect for it. I probably wouldn’t care if he wasn’t president. Just so happens that he is though, and I have some family over in Iraq right now, which bothers me because they could die over there, sent by a man who wouldn’t have done it himself.
Lumpy, this is for you.
Believe it or not, if you hold certain positions within the Army National Guard, or the Air National Guard, you do have a better chance of being deployed than certain active duty positions. One of these being if you're a military Police Officer (MP). Our National guard MPs were deployed in droves in Iraq. Every single MP in Connecticut was activated, with the anticipation of the thousands of Iraqui POWs.
Another one of those positions is that of a pilot. The Air Force or the National guard can't afford to waste their money on training a pilot they dont need. In war times, most pilots on reserve will be activated. If you're a cargo pilot you'll be making flights between Germany Kuwaiit, the US, and Italy mostly. If you're a fighter pilot, you'll overfly enemy territory and maintain control of their airspace. If the enemy has a powerful Air Force, count on seeing plenty of combat. George Bush was a fighter Pilot.
It seems the mentality here is that just because it's called the National Guard, all they do is 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks a year.
That's only on paper. The reality is, these guys are often activated for long periods of time. This month I spoke to a few guys who told me they've been activated all year round.
A few friends of mine who were activated for a full year guarding the Airports, were activated before the start of the war and sent over to Iraq.
There's a reason those in the National Guar who are College students are frustrated and complaining about their deployments. While I dont like to see someone in the Military complaining about serving their country, I understand they do so because they simply cannot finish a goddamn semester in College.
Air Force reservists have been serving in overseas deployments as often as the active duty guys.
It's worthwhile pointing out this was a very fast war. Imagine Vietnam, where regardless of what branch you choose, and what position, you will most likely be deployed - and if you're a fighter pilot, you can count on serving overseas for a long while (in times of National crisis, the government has the right to keep you deployed for as much as 2 years straight in the National Guard.)
Lumpy, you stated:
“I don’t give a crap about Robt. Byrd and am not interested in changing the subject. Why do you want to change the subject? What the heck does Byrd have to do with Bush not fulfilling his sworn duty during a time of war?”
You had a whole thread dedicated to the words of Robert Byrd, and when I pointed out that he was in the KKK you said it was ok because he “regretted” belonging to such a group. Now suddenly you don’t care, and it doesn’t have any meaning to this discussion, even though what you posted was his complaint about Bush flying a jet, which is the basis of this whole discussion. It led here. It is the reason Bush’s record is even brought up.
Also why do you constantly twist my words, or put words into my mouth that I never said. Bringing up the whatreallyhappened.com website. (Sorry everyone.) You have never answered my question using the same excuse over and over, which was a complete twisting of my meaning.
I am not sure what reality you live in, but it is very distorted. Your interpretations of everything seem to be twisted through some weird filter in your brain. Unless this is a unique form of debate where you win all the time if you twist reality to suit your argument.
Now you will say “This is an attack?”, or “I don’t like the secret meaning I attached to your statement?”, or “When did I ever discuss aliens?”
My responses of course would be, this is not an attack, and I truly believe this about you. I have no secret meanings attached to anything, I make my statements straight forward and boldly. And the third statement is that (enter your favorite artificial statement here) is a complete twisting of my words.