What a cool day for the Prez and his supporters! Landing on a carrier…either as a pilot or passenger requires BALLS! Something our ex-Commander in Cheat (Clinton) never had!
The Stupidcrats are in trouble in 04! Kind of like the words of the best bodybuilder in history AND one of Bush’s strongest supporters…none other than ARNOLD the great!
“He’ll be back!” in 2004!
PtrDr
Well I’ll be danged…
A Chickenhawk can FLY!!! LOL
What a load of crap!
Next we’ll see the Chickenhawk milking the 9-11 tragedy for all it’s worth, in the 2004 election.
Bush made the crew on that carrier stay on board one more night so he could have a pajama party and pretend he was Tom Cruise.
They were only 30 miles offshore.
Completely agree with you PTR.
Bush has my vote in '04.
Lumpy, they were 150 miles offshore. He stayed the night. Unless the seamen have a tradition of swimming 150 miles to the port off the coast of the United States, the boat is where they're staying one way or another.
You wanna know why I love Bush? Because of his involvement with our troops, and because he goes full throttle in his actions when he says he'll do something.
A leader is someone who in the face of strong opposition will do what is the best for the welfare of the nation. Bush did that. Clinton didnt, unless you count getting his dick sucked by an intern as looking out for the welfare of the nation in the face of strong opposition.
Watch out though. Word on the street is Hillary Clinton will run in '04. I honestly hope she loses. Nothing against female Presidents, but we need someone with balls to deal with the current situation of the country.
Lumpy, you’ve finally gone beyond idiocy.
It’s one thing to argue using facts to back up what you say. It’s quite another to simply bash the man because you don’t like him.
Do us all a favor and shut the fuck up.
Damn Doc relax bro. Wow I can feel the anger coming thru my monitor.
PTRDR I have to ask. Does ptrdr stand for PETER DOCTOR?
Am I a urologist?..nah…nice try though…
Doc T, Diesel23, PtrDr.,
Great posts!!! I appreciate your point of view. I would like to give you a little suggestion regarding lumpy and the rest of the democratic malcontents. First, of all, he has been neatly marginalized into the bad guy category for other less than insightful posts. Therefore, he wears the scarlet “B.” Here is the best revenge possible.
Imagine how upset lumpy and his little democratic friends are. We started off in an election where W. won the electoral college. He played by the rules. His party didn’t try to extend voting in St. Louis, his party didn’t enroll dead men in Minnesota. His party didn’t run a revolting post-election fiasco calling for revotes and “10,000 lawyers.” George Bush’s party followed the laws that were in place BEFORE THE ELECTION. If you can change the law after an election because you lose, then the laws lose any legitimacy. It must bother lumpy to no end that out of 10 different revote scenarios run by the liberal news media, gore only “won” one. The one he “won” was about as illegal an interpretation as you could possibly entertain. It must also rankle lumpy when George W. is asked about the popular vote. He said, “If the election turned on the popular vote, I would have run up the score in Texas.” He easily could have done that. Remember he was the only two-time elected governor in 150 years!!! Remember, he trounced his opponent by double digits in his re-election campaign.
Imagine how uncomfortable lumpy is when George W. (who his little democratic friends said had no coattails) GAINED SEATS IN BOTH HOUSES DURING A MID-TERM ELECTION. This is the first time this has happened since Theodore Roosevelt. Now imagine how awful lumpy feels when he looks at George’s poll numbers. How about when he sees his friend jim carville put a trash can on his head after the mid-term election? How about when he looks at the democratic challengers? There is no coherent message. The democrats are in total disarray. Now for the ultimate insult, how do you think lumpy feels when he sees dozens of standing ovations given by our men and women in the armed forces in favor of George W. Bush? How about the adjectives they use to describe him. My favortie was the Viking pilot who described George W. as a “stud.” Remember, that lumpy’s hero, billy-boy, received an unparalleled slap in the face. When billy-boy reviewed the fleet in the early 1990’s, the whole officer corp of the U.S.S. Stennis TURNED THEIR BACK ON HIM IN PUBLIC. Not to mention the ads that the military ran in 1993 stating their opposition to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” When has the military ever run ads against their Commander in Chief? I’ll tell you, it has only happened that one time. Now imagine how lumpy feels when he realizes that the Republicans control both Houses in Congress and the White House. I submit that lumpy is in far more discomfort every day than you guys could ever hope to make him.
lumpy, you used the word “chickenhawk.” This is as disingenuous as it is false. I just can’t believe that you would label everyone who serves in the National Guard as a “chicken.” By the way, George W. Bush was a fighter pilot. In case you don’t know, this is an extremely dangerous vocation. How about his other cabinet members. Heard anything about Colin Powell’s service record? How about the fact that Donald Rumsfeld flew over 1000 missions as a Naval Aviator. If these heroes are “chickens” then I am at a loss to describe you. I don’t think there is a sufficient adjective
Doc T, Diesel23, PtrDr.,
Great posts!!! I appreciate your point of view. I would like to give you a little suggestion regarding lumpy and the rest of the democratic malcontents. First, of all, he has been neatly marginalized into the bad guy category for other less than insightful posts. Therefore, he wears the scarlet “B.” Here is the best revenge possible.
Imagine how upset lumpy and his little democratic friends are. We started off in an election where W. won the electoral college. He played by the rules. His party didn’t try to extend voting in St. Louis, his party didn’t enroll dead men in Minnesota. His party didn’t run a revolting post-election fiasco calling for revotes and “10,000 lawyers.” George Bush’s party followed the laws that were in place BEFORE THE ELECTION. If you can change the law after an election because you lose, then the laws lose any legitimacy. It must bother lumpy to no end that out of 10 different revote scenarios run by the liberal news media, gore only “won” one. The one he “won” was about as illegal an interpretation as you could possibly entertain. It must also rankle lumpy when George W. is asked about the popular vote. He said, “If the election turned on the popular vote, I would have run up the score in Texas.” He easily could have done that. Remember he was the only two-time elected governor in 150 years!!! Remember, he trounced his opponent by double digits in his re-election campaign.
Imagine how uncomfortable lumpy is when George W. (who his little democratic friends said had no coattails) GAINED SEATS IN BOTH HOUSES DURING A MID-TERM ELECTION. This is the first time this has happened since Theodore Roosevelt. Now imagine how awful lumpy feels when he looks at George’s poll numbers. How about when he sees his friend jim carville put a trash can on his head after the mid-term election? How about when he looks at the democratic challengers? There is no coherent message. The democrats are in total disarray. Now for the ultimate insult, how do you think lumpy feels when he sees dozens of standing ovations given by our men and women in the armed forces in favor of George W. Bush? How about the adjectives they use to describe him. My favortie was the Viking pilot who described George W. as a “stud.” Remember, that lumpy’s hero, billy-boy, received an unparalleled slap in the face. When billy-boy reviewed the fleet in the early 1990’s, the whole officer corp of the U.S.S. Stennis TURNED THEIR BACK ON HIM IN PUBLIC. Not to mention the ads that the military ran in 1993 stating their opposition to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” When has the military ever run ads against their Commander in Chief? I’ll tell you, it has only happened that one time. Now imagine how lumpy feels when he realizes that the Republicans control both Houses in Congress and the White House. I submit that lumpy is in far more discomfort every day than you guys could ever hope to make him.
lumpy, you used the word “chickenhawk.” This is as disingenuous as it is false. I just can’t believe that you would label everyone who serves in the National Guard as a “chicken.” By the way, George W. Bush was a fighter pilot. In case you don’t know, this is an extremely dangerous vocation. How about his other cabinet members. Heard anything about Colin Powell’s service record? How about the fact that Donald Rumsfeld flew over 1000 missions as a Naval Aviator. If these heroes are “chickens” then I am at a loss to describe you. I don’t think there is a sufficient adjective
Yeah! Go Bush in 04’! You accomplished your goals in Iraq:
Capture and/or kill Saddam.
Find chemical and weapons of mass destruction.
Oooops! My bad! He didn’t accomplish either! But yeah, go Bush! Oh yeah, Osama and Saddam are enjoying their vacation and making plans for an even better terrorist attack the next time around.
Fucking dumbasses.
Nate, you need to stick to training posts. The superficiality of your post is amazing.
To quote Nate Dogg from the Michael Moore thread:
“10) Who the fuck cares what I think anyway?”
Depends on the subject, Nate. You should definitely stick to Pussy Eating Renegad Style.
That was the most expensive photo-op in recent memory, I hope you enjoyed it… your tax dollars paid for it.
Speaking of Colin Powell, he said
“I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed… managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units…”
Here’s the Chickenhawks Database:
Dick Cheney: “had other priorities”
Rush Limbaugh: Medical excuse- anal cysts
and so on…
Bush went AWOL!!!
"Upon graduating from Yale, Bush applied for a position in the Texas National Guard, a coveted spot that required only part-time military duties at home, far from the battlefields of Vietnam. Bush was catapulted to the front of 500 other applicants after a friend of his father, then a wealthy Houston congressman, phoned the Speaker of the Texas House, according to the Boston Globe.
After completing training as a pilot, George W. Bush requested and immediately received a transfer to an Alabama National Guard unit in May, 1972. But Bush never showed up for duty there, according to the Alabama unit’s commander and the commander’s assistant, who were interviewed by the Boston Globe.
Military records show that Bush’s two commanding officers back in Texas reported George W. did not show up for duty there either for a year, and that they believed he had been transferred to Alabama. Meanwhile, when Bush failed to take his required annual medical exam in August, 1972, his pilot status was removed."
(The Toronto Star, Nov. 17, 2002. “What did Dubya do in the war, daddy?”)
Bush was a member of the “Champaigne Unit” where he served with other sons of the wealthy elite.
"Spring 1971:
Hired by Texas agricultural importer, Bush uses F-102 to shuttle tropical plants from Florida. "
"May 26, 1972:
Transfers to Alabama Guard unit so he can work on Senator William Blount’s reelection campaign. According to his commanding officer, Bush never shows up for duty while in Alabama, nor can anyone confirm he ever serves in the Guard again. "
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2003/02/ma_217_01.html
"MILITARY READINESS CONT’D: It’s no longer news that George W Bush, to avoid being sent to Vietnam, enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard in 1968. Nor is it news that Bush, contrary to assertions in his 1999 campaign autobiography A Charge to Keep, appears not to have honored his commitment to the Guard after moving to Alabama for a period, apparently failing to report for duty there for a full year, between May 1972 and May 1973. (No one who was in the Alabama National Guard at the time recalls encountering Bush; the only person who vouches for him is a former girlfriend, who merely says Bush spoke of doing Guard service in Alabama.) What is news, though, is that the Bush campaign continues to lie about Bush’s National Guard service.
“George W Bush served as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard from 1968 until 1973;” reads a snippet from the biography posted on the campaign’s website. This is demonstrably false on two counts. For one, although Bush began his Guard service in July 1968, he spent his first two years in basic training and flight school and did not begin serving as a pilot with the 111th Fighter- Interceptor Squadron at Houston’s Ellington Field until June 1970. Secondly, as has been reported in The Boston Globe and in these pages, after Bush moved from Texas to Alabama in May 1972, he never flew again. Nor could he, because he skipped his annual medical exam in 1972 and was suspended from flying.
What had been assumed is that Bush, upon returning to Texas from Alabama in May 1973, made up for his missed service by performing nonflying duty At least, that’s what Bush campaign spokesman Dan Bartlett told reporters in June. But now it seems unlikely that Bush did even that much. According to a report in the October 31 Boston Globe, “a Bush campaign spokesman acknowledged last week that he knows of no witnesses who can attest to Bush’s attendance at drills after he returned to Houston in late 1972 and before his early release from the Guard in September 1973?” That means Bush probably skipped the final 17 months of his National Guard commitment, a period almost as long as the 22 months he served as an actual pilot. But, then again, in the early '70s W. hadn’t yet ushered in “the responsibility era.”
Nate Dogg…were dumbasses huh?..
NO…Ive seen a few pix of you on here…your a skinny little runt who needs to do more eating and training that clacking away on the keyboard on this forum. YOUR the dumbass…and a skinny one at that…
lumpy,
First of all, thanks for confirming everything I said in the previous post. Your silence on all the subjects that I listed is tacit acknowledgment of everything I said.
Second, you characterized George W. Bush as a “chickenhawk.” Have you ever flown a supersonic jet? I’ve flown propeller driven planes and that is plenty dangerous. But a jet?!?
Third, I find the allegations about AWOl to be very troubling. People should fulfill their obligation to the military. If he went AWOl, he was wrong. I read the sites you indicated, there is a ton of information missing. You, being a democrat, immediately brought out your mud-slinger. You jumped to a conclusion using emotion. This is typical. I, however, will take a more pragmatic approach to this. I need A MUCH LESS PARTISAN SOURCE THAN THE BOSTON GLOBE AS THE CHIEF INVESTIGATIONAL SOURCE. It is easy for a democrat to assume that EVERYONE INVOLVED WOULD IMMEDIATELY BEND THE RULES FOR THE SON OF A MINOR CONGRESSMAN. I just do not accept that. This is slander against many people in the military establishment. Someone, somewhere, knows the truth. Frankly, I don’t see the truth in any of those articles. You can make lots of guesses and assumptions. Perhaps substance abuse was an issue. As a direct contrast to your hero, billy-boy, George W. Bush has freely admitted having a substance abuse problem in his youth. That is no excuse. However, I’m frankly more inclinded to believe this than your charges of “chicken.” Did you notice in your article that George W. Bush checked the box for voluntary service in Vietnam? Your little democratic friends tried to brush this off by saying that George W. knew this would be rejected. Again, the all powerful minor Congressman Bush to the rescue.
By the way, I find it INCREDIBLE that democrats would choose to call anyone chicken. My God, have you read the letter billy-boy sent while at Oxford? He was called up. Instead of flying jets, HE REFUSED SERVICE OF ANY KIND. I know, I should be used to democratic hypocrisy, but this one is especially stunning.
Nate, I’ve seen you post the thought about the goals in Iraq not being accomplished. Was the goal to capture/kill Saddam or just remove him from power? I could be unclear on the goals Bush laid out, but it seems to me that Iraq is free from the rule of Saddam, and that Iraq is definitely not a WMD threat now. Whether it was before depends on who you ask.
Was the war a 100% success? Hell no. Was it a 100% failure? Hell no to that as well. Personally, I think it did its job, but there are still some messes to clean up.
US=GG
If I ignore any of your dopey “points”, that cannot in any way be construed as “tacit acknowledgement” of anything. Nice try though.
The Boston Globe is a major newspaper. If you don’t find that a credible source for information, tough shit. The story was corroborated elsewhere, and the Bush camp did not dispute the facts. In fact the so-called “liberal media” (a myth, the media is not liberal) did not nail Bush as they should have, instead they let the story drift away. However Bush did not dispute the facts presented by the Boston Globe. If the story was bogus, shouldn’t Bush ask for a retraction or sue for defamation of character? Gee, why didn’t that happen? Because it’s TRUE.
Nobody in the MILITARY remembers Bush showing up for duty in Alabama. The only corroborating evidence he fulfilled his obligation there is a former girlfriend who remembers him “mentioning” something about it. Again, NOBODY IN THE MILITARY could confirm Bush showed up for duty in Alabama, including the other members of his squad. These are documented FACTS. Bush skipped out on the last 17 months of his military committment.
If someone declines military service, there is nothing inherently shameful about that… many people have done it, for a variety of reasons, for example Muhammed Ali. The issue here is HAWKS (guys like Bush who are all too eager to send OTHER people to war) who declined to go go to war themselves, when given the opportunity. Hence the term “Chickenhawk”.
Your attempted weaseling out of the facts here is a JOKE. If Bush WANTED to go to Viet Nam, he would have been there. Instead, Bush used his jet to make floral deliveries, as noted in those articles.
“Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.”
–Colin Powell–
At best, it would seem that US intel wasn’t very good on this subject. Even if some quantity of chemical weapons are found, it’s unlikely at this point that the quantities would be within even an order of magnitude of what the administrations “conservative estimates” sugested. Furthermore, successfully destroying or exporting that quantity of chemical agents within the few of days prior to the conflict, as suggested by the the whitehouse recently, would be difficult to realize under ideal circumstances, let alone under survaillance.
On the US effort to destroy its mustard gas stock–
“With shifts of personnel working days, nights and weekends, all 1,815 containers should be drained in less than a year, said Miguel Monteverde, public outreach manager for Bechtel’s Aberdeen operation. The entire project will cost taxpayers about $240 million, he said.”
The San Francisco Chronicle March 4, 2003
If the US has such difficulties in disposing of its arsenal, how exactly would the iraqis fair in a similer task in the short lead up to the war?
Some members of the adminstration have since backed off, suggesting “just in time production” to account for this discrepancy in findings. Convenient?Yes. But whether or not this is the case remains to be seen, and a good question would be whether this is the same quality of data as was the 100-500 ton claim. Despite its rather confident assertions to the contrary, it would seem that–at best-- the administration was in the dark during the lead up to the war and didn’t know what the hell it was talking about. They had no doubt about what they would find before the war…
One other bit of “intel” in the public domain–
“Intelligence reports indicate a high risk that Iraq would use chemical weapons during a U.S.-led war to topple President Saddam Hussein, Pentagon officials said Tuesday.
The reports indicate Saddam has given field-level commanders the authority to use chemical weapons on their own initiative, without further directives from the Baghdad, Pentagon officials said.
‘We continue to receive reports supporting the assertion that there is a high risk the Iraqi regime would use chemical weapons at some point during any conflict,’ Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Tuesday.”
–AP (off foxnews.com) 3/18
But…
“If the Iraqis did not use them … to defend an invasion of their own country, when were they ever going to use them, and how were they a threat to the United States?” asked Cato Institute’s Pena. “That’s the question that has to be asked and is being glossed over.”
–AP (May 4)
Just a thought…
Lumpy
Great link to the Boston Globe. Oh wait, you only mentioned the Globe in a reference with no link. The only links were to the Labor favoring (read communist) Mother Jones magazine, and that excellent unbiased source awolbush.com.
You have again proven you inability to think for yourself. Even stealing the phrase chickenhawk. You keep talking about facts, and yet cannot produce any. Every link you give is a biased link, an opinion, or an article you didn’t even read.
You completely ignore statements proving your statements wrong, just like the one you made about the Abraham Lincoln being 120 miles closer then it was.
While I believe you have the right to speak your mind (even if it is controlled by others) your statements should come with a disclaimer.
By the way, why do you act as though you are quoting viable sources, but only put links to completely biased sources? (I know, you wont like what my statement “suggests.” And this gives you a an excuse not to respond directly, and just go off on another made up rant quoted from your MASTERS web site.)