As far as chemical weapons go do you think they would just have them sitting around? They were hid well enough that the inspectors didnt see them and now scientists have said that they were given a headsup on when the inspectors where coming. They also had 48 hours notice for when we were coming in so they well could have been destroyed or moved then. They have found preliminary evidence all over Iraq and they have found stockpiles of chemical suits and chemical antedotes. Why would they have these? We werent going to use chemical or biological weapons? And dont forget the Al Samoud and Scud missiles that they fired which were also banned. Some people are asking to see the murderer with the gun in his hand when sometimes all you can get is that the gun belonged to him and that it has his fingerprints.
lumpy,
Thanks for another post. Your viewpoints are highly amusing. To reiterate: clinton=disgraceful repudiation of the armed servies during vietnam era=no military service at all even when called=military having the lowest opinion of any president since buchanan=U.S.S. Stennis officers turning their back on him.
Bush=volunteered for National Guard Service=Rated as “excellent pilot”=honorable discharge=military gave President multiple standing ovations=described George W. Bush as a “stud.”
Again, do you know anything about boston’s politics? Of course, you don’t. Two words should sum it up: edward kennedy. Did you hear the poll done in the 2000 election cycle by a journalist that showed 90% OF JOURNALISTS VOTE DEMOCRATIC AND CONSIDER THEMSELVES DEMOCRATIC? It is hard to argue with a poll that states 90%. You and your little friends could make hay about unfair accusations of liberalism if the number was closer to 50%. But, you have no case when the number is so overwhelming.
Finally, here is your quote: “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.” That is the same argument that I just used in regard to you. I just stated that your silence is tacit acknowledgment of my statements. You responded, “If I ignore any of your dopey “points”, that cannot in any way be construed as “tacit acknowledgement” of anything. Nice try though.” Could George W. Bush just be ignoring the story as just another attack by you and your little friends? Which argument do you suscribe to? Remember, heads I win, tails you lose.
The Mage
You should be smart enough to track down the Boston Globe story about Bush going AWOL, without me posting a link. A “biased source” is one thing, a fact is a fact. “Biased sources” cannot make up stories out of thin air. The Boston Globe is a major metropolitan newspaper, do you claim they are making this up? This story was investigated, and as I said, military officials had no record of Bush showing up, and nobody in his squadron remembered him. What the heck is there not to “get” about all that? The man ducked out on his committment, during the Viet Nam war. This story is true, and when confronted with the details of his record Bush refused to elaborate. He had a chance to refute the charges and did not.
Regarding the “Top Gun” nonsense, getting back on topic:
I REPEAT, 30 MILES OFFSHORE.
I apologize for any formatting weirdness:
Byrd criticizes Bush’s carrier visit
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Sen. Robert C. Byrd yesterday criticized the “flamboyant showmanship” he said President Bush showed by declaring victory in Iraq from aboard USS Abraham Lincoln last week.
“It is an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq for the president to exploit the trappings of war for the momentary spectacle of a speech,” said Mr. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat.
???
?He said he also was “disturbed” by the content of the president’s speech, criticizing Mr. Bush for linking Iraq to the effort to capture Osama bin Laden and hunt down al Qaeda operatives.
???
Mr. Bush flew Thursday to the aircraft carrier, which was off the California coast bound for San Diego, to announce the war in Iraq was winding down and to declare victory, though not to proclaim all hostilities ended.
???
?Cable TV networks covered his landing in a Navy S-3B Viking plane and showed cheering sailors and Marines greeting him. Later that evening the news networks aired his 22-minute address.
???
“The tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free,” Mr. Bush said. The carrier’s island was draped with a banner reading “Mission Accomplished.”
???
?Some Democrats said the president was politicizing the war and sending the wrong message by holding the event on the carrier. Mr. Byrd said the banner reminded him of tobacco advertisements on old barns.
???
“I am loath to think of an aircraft carrier being used as an advertising backdrop for a presidential political slogan, and yet that is what I saw,” he said.
???
Administration officials said the president went to the carrier to thank the troops for a job well done in Iraq.
???
“There were more than 100 Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend the United States, and the president was honored to personally thank those on board the USS Lincoln,” said White House Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan. “Our men and women in the armed forced deserve nothing less.”
???
Earlier in the day, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said the president’s airplane landing was unnecessary because the ship was close enough to be reached by helicopter.
???
But he said the president wanted to go through with the flight and landing anyway.
???
“The president wanted to land on it, on an aircraft that would allow him to see an aircraft landing the same way that the pilots saw an aircraft landing. He wanted to see it as realistically as possible,” Mr. Fleischer said.
???
He said when plans initially were made for the speech, the carrier was expected to be several hundred miles from shore, outside helicopter range. But he said the carrier traveled faster than expected, probably due to good weather, and so was only 30 miles off the coast at the president’s arrival time.
???
The explanation by Mr. Fleischer prompted California Rep. Henry A. Waxman, the top Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, to demand a full accounting of the costs associated with the flight.
???
Mr. Waxman said the explanation means the president could have arrived “less theatrically” on the carrier. He asked the General Accounting Office, Congress’ investigative arm, to report on the event, which he said “had clear political overtones.”
???
For the White House’s part, Mr. McClellan dismissed the criticism, saying that “investigations are a dime a dozen with Congressman Waxman,” and that the cost of the plane flight is “virtually identical” to that of a helicopter flight.
???
Mr. Byrd, the longest-serving current member of Congress and a former majority leader and president pro tem of the Senate, recalled hearing the “soaring oratory” of former Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan and the “painful soul-searching” of former Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon. But he said Mr. Bush’s speech compared unfavorably to those.
???
He also said he “could not help but contrast the reported simple dignity of President Lincoln at Gettysburg with the flamboyant showmanship” of Mr. Bush.
Lumpy:
I have heard others state something about the distance, so I am not sure of the true distance myself. (You must be happy now.)
I went to the Boston Globe, but couldn’t find the article in question. Biased sources cannot make up stories out of thin air? Do you truly believe that? Remember you website linked to an article that stated that the New York Times stated that we were not in Baghdad, yet when I linked to the New York Times the front page article it was about the US being in Baghdad. Can’t make up stuff out of thin air? Get the Globe and read about the “Bat Boy.”
And I loved your great quote from the Wonderful Senator Robert “KKK” Byrd. I love to hear what this great Klansman has to say. Have you ever actually heard this man talk? (And yes he was a member of the KKK, and a very prominent member at that.) Him and David Duke can go straight to hell as far as I am concerned.
“Remember you website linked to an article that stated that the New York Times stated that we were not in Baghdad, yet when I linked to the New York Times the front page article it was about the US being in Baghdad.”
Sorry, I have no idea what that means. If there was a broken link, I can’t help that. If your comment is that some news sources were claiming the US troops were not in Baghdad when the US was claiming they were, I do believe the US claimed entrance to Baghdad prematurely, as part of their “Psy-Ops” campaign.
I agree it sucks that Byrd was in the KKK and it takes away from his credibility. I do believe that people can change, and it seems like Byrd has tried hard to make ammends for his earlier conduct.
I do think it is legitimate to call the President out on this “photo-op” issue though.
Glad to see you are willing to forgive and forget. Does that include David Duke who renounced his ties to the KKK? How about Trent Lott who has stated his regret for making a statement without thinking about it’s secondary meaning? Does this not mean that since Cheney has quit working for Halliburton you can no longer complain about ties to that company? We don’t want a double standard here do we?
And was this a photo-op? Of course. Was he the first politician to do something for a photo op? Is this the first time you have ever heard of this occurring? What seems funny is that you don’t realize that Byrd’s statements were his photo-op. He made sure he did it on camera, and his people made sure their links to the new got full access to his statements. This is nothing new. Politicians do this all the time.
How can you complain about one politically motivated action, and not recognize the other right in front of your face?
I tried to post about this topic on another thread and it got hijacked to talk about abortion, so I am going to say what I said over there because it is relevant here too.
US=GG, assuming you are in the military (I think I remember reading that in another thread – correct me if I am wrong), and to ptrDR and anyone else who serves in the military, I have immense respect for what you do. I was an ARMY brat, my father was Special Forces from 67-70. When I see the level of sacrifice and determination that men and women of the military have, and their willingness to carry out their orders with pride and honor, I am inevitabley moved by it.
There were a lot of people who fought and died with honor in Viet Nam… Bush was NOT one of them. Who cares if he learned to pilot a fucken jet? You can teach a monkey to fly a jet. People like to parachute for recreation, facing possible death each time they jump out of a plane. But that does NOT give them honor. Bush did what a lot of silver-spoons of that era did to avoid the war… they got into the Guard. Meanwhile, my dad, and thousands of worthy individuals who came home to a not-so-welcoming country, fought bravely. I respect you guys who serve. I know that you would sacrifice your own life to honor this country, and even if I had my doubts as to the motives of the people actually waging a war, I would never - even for a second - forget the soldiers who carry out their mission. I certainly don’t mean to show any disrespect to Guard members either. They are as committed as any members of our military. It is just clear that Bush did it specifically to avoid combat, which means that he is a coward, and I can’t respect that. I don’t see how any of you T-Men can!
Diesel said:
[quote]Let’s forget your father for one minute: Have YOU served your country, even as a mere ‘draft dofger’? Have YOU dodged any bullets as of yet to have such a big mouth?
Not everyone’s goal in life is be a GI and doge bullets and be everybody’s hero. Some people want to fix the aircraft in our military, be military police, and so forth and so forth. Such occupations dont usually send you out to the front lines. Bush’s inclination was to fly for the National Guard while attending college. Many do. Your dad’s inclination was to be a bad-ass with a rifle. Everyone’s got a job to do and without the pilots up there, the guys down there would be fried meat, and no war would be won.[/quote]
I have not served, but I have much respect for those that do. If you are one of those people, I truly commend you, especially with what is going on now.
Actually, my dad’s inclination was NOT to be a bad-ass with a rifle. There was a draft going on at the time. He and all of his brothers (except the youngest who was too young) volunteered. He was recruited for special forces while in basic training. He didn’t choose it. He did what was asked of him. Had he joined and they asked him to patch up wounded people or fix air conditioners on an aircraft carrier, it does not matter. He didn’t go looking for a fight, he just followed orders. If he had been a plumber I would have been no less proud of him. The fact is, he did not try to avoid going. Bush deliberately avoided combat. That is shameful!
There are estimates that by keeping this ship out at sea an extra day, the cost of the flight and everything else, that this photo-op has a price tag of an estimated 800,000 bucks.
I’m not sure if that is correct, but the resulting investigations should tell the tale.
I’m not sure why you right-wingers are being such babies about people raising questions about the cost of this photo-op… the Republicans did it during the last administration (“Travel-gate” anyone?)
You guys can dish it out, but you sure can’t seem to take it.
By the way, there have been presidents who were actually legitimate war heroes, who did not stoop to playing “dress-up” like this.
This part of my post went missing:
The website had no broken link. The link stated New York Times says that America is not actually in Baghdad. When I clicked the link, thinking it would take me to the New York Times, it actually took me to overthrow.com. By actually going to the New York Times I found that whatreallyhappened.com either links to lies, or he does not do his homework. I checked it out in seconds. Couldn’t he do the same?
Interesting.
Not to jump on Lumpy, But Lumpy are you are Leftist? Will you answer my direct questions (unlike Say)?
Do I agree with the wasting of Tax payers money? Hell no! Is Bush the only elected official to do this? Again, Hell no! After all did Ms. Clinton use transportation and other resources paid for by tax payers in her Sentator campaign? Hell Yes!
Should we take a more active roll in our governing as T-men and T-vixens. Hell Yes! So while you are sitting at your computer, pop a note off to you representatives.
Best of Luck.
Older Lifter
On some issues I am moderate, on some things I am liberal, on some things I am way left. My personal habits tend to be fairly conservative. I find myself getting more mainstream as I get older. I probably do not know enough about politics to represent any one ideology… it’s more a matter of “I know what I think, when I think it”. I don’t know that I can be pigeonholed. Maybe that is me just flattering myself though.
Honestly, I don’t care as much about this stupid photo-op as much as many other more significant issues, but I felt like replying to what seemed like a gleeful tone in this thread, (and derogatory comments about “billy-boy” etc) with a different viewpoint on this jet landing.
Good for you Lumpy.
This is out of control. I waste valuable time to watch some senior Democrates make fools of themselves on TV yesterday about this very issue.
What a sad state of affairs, but the way I sent each one a e-mail after their performance, telling them to focus on important issues.
Best of Luck.
Older lifter,
I couldn’t even invest as much energy as you did (writing a congressman) on this topic… I didn’t really care about the photo op either. Knowing GW’s background, when I saw his big entrance the most I would invest in this is to roll my eyes. They all do cheesy crap like that. I am used to it. If he had been a real soldier and not a big chickenhawk I may have been moved by his antics. Doesn’t bother me enough to do run him down for the bill on it though.
Hell, Air Shows put on by the USAF cost a lot more than that, and they don’t charge for those. Just the fuel on a figher jet alone costs easily over 25 grand for one demonstration. Those are just for good PR for the military, and they are a LOT of fun. My kids have a blast too!
Most of professional politicians and their family never see any action. How many politicians sons or daughters saw live action in this war? What about Vietnam? Is anyone really surprised that w was part of the champagne unit? Or that Clinton didn’t go?
US=GG wrote:
military having the lowest opinion of any president since buchanan=U.S.S. Stennis officers turning their back on him
Apparently this is just an urban myth.
www.snopes.com/military/salute
Unless you have some other form of substantiation?
Here’s a link that should work:
- If it was true, the Marines would see it as an insult to their own honor, not to Bill Clinton. Milks said crew members of the presidential helicopter “are chosen for their professionalism.”