Dole Questions Kerry's Vietnam Wounds

[EddyBeers]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Aug 23 2004, 07:46 AM
Bush IS a deserter?

It's amazing what the haters will say withouth solid proof. What a joke.

Here is some proof of the widely accepted claim that Bush was a deserter. Every article goes through in some detail the activities of Mr. Bush in 1972-1973:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3...816&s=williams

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review...k/s_205769.html (this second article is more on the W's inability to get to the bottom of anything controversial in his presidency)

http://www.masslive.com/editorials/republi...50312158880.xml

http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm

The last one is particularly good, but I am sure somebody is going to point out that it is not funded by a multibillion dollar media empire such as Rupert Murdoch or TIME AOL so therefore can not possibly be a fair and accurate portrayal of Soldier Bush's fearless service in Birmingham.

[Bingo]

To me both sides are just silly in all this.

The focus now is on Kerry ... did he lie? Is the Bush group playing dirty politics? but it was equally as silly with the National Guard thing and Bush earlier this summer.

Who cares?

It was forever ago and will have no bearing on the presidency. Amazing how much importance is placed on military service in the US.

Imagine Chretien or Preston Manning with a rifle?

I wouldn't call Dole a Bush guy either ... just like I wouldn't attribute every silly comment made by Howard Dean to Kerry.

[Cowperson]

A surprisingly even-handed look at the history of political smearing by Bill O'Reilly in today's New York Daily News.

Kind of puts the current smearing into perspective and answers my earlier point that this isn't particularly new even if it is damned ugly.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-193009c.html

Cowperson

[Displaced Flames fan]

For me, it's just about the double standard that is prevalent on this board....big time.

You can question Bush about ANYTHING...but for God sakes, don't question John Kerry.

It's a joke, but I've come to expect that to be quite honest.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by EddyBeers@Aug 23 2004, 02:57 PM
Here is some proof of the widely accepted claim that Bush was a deserter. Every article goes through in some detail the activities of Mr. Bush in 1972-1973:

http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm

The last one is particularly good, but I am sure somebody is going to point out that it is not funded by a multibillion dollar media empire such as Rupert Murdoch or TIME AOL so therefore can not possibly be a fair and accurate portrayal of Soldier Bush's fearless service in Birmingham.

You're right, that was a very informative site and was well documented. What it did document was that Bush was absent from duty for a time period and that he was later reinstated. It never discloses what the problem was. Based on that, and what I have read about Bush, I will promote this theory (and it is just a theory). I don't think Bush was a deserter. If he was he should have been shot (which I guess is still a tanglble possibility in the United States). I think there was something else behind the "missing time" and it was a very good reason for being away from duty, completely excusable, and a reason for the military to leave it out of his records or not release it.

George Bush used to be a very wild child. He was a party animal and liked to drink, alot. He later found God to help him with this demon (in reality I think he found God because his wife was tired of his crap and she was ready to divorce him and take all his money). I think that when Bush was in the TXANG he probably went a little too far one a bender and ended up being disciplined and sent to dry out. This is something that the military would have likely been obliged to keep confidential and would have not included in their records, other than medical which are sealed without expressed written consent.

So I don't think Bush deserted. I think that's all BS. I think its a time in Bush's life that he has grown out of (for crying outloud, it happened 30 years ago) and would not go down the same road again. I don't think it matters in this election nor is relevant for doing the job of the president. All I care about is the guy's ability to handle issues and challenges relevant in today's world. Having said that, I'd be very curious to know what the hell Bush is going to do in the areas of foreign policy, offshoring of jobs and the economy in general? That's what matters.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Aug 23 2004, 07:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Aug 23 2004, 07:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-EddyBeers@Aug 23 2004, 02:57 PM
Here is some proof of the widely accepted claim that Bush was a deserter. Every article goes through in some detail the activities of Mr. Bush in 1972-1973:

http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm

The last one is particularly good, but I am sure somebody is going to point out that it is not funded by a multibillion dollar media empire such as Rupert Murdoch or TIME AOL so therefore can not possibly be a fair and accurate portrayal of Soldier Bush's fearless service in Birmingham.

You're right, that was a very informative site and was well documented. What it did document was that Bush was absent from duty for a time period and that he was later reinstated. It never discloses what the problem was. Based on that, and what I have read about Bush, I will promote this theory (and it is just a theory). I don't think Bush was a deserter. If he was he should have been shot (which I guess is still a tanglble possibility in the United States). I think there was something else behind the "missing time" and it was a very good reason for being away from duty, completely excusable, and a reason for the military to leave it out of his records or not release it.

George Bush used to be a very wild child. He was a party animal and liked to drink, alot. He later found God to help him with this demon (in reality I think he found God because his wife was tired of his crap and she was ready to divorce him and take all his money). I think that when Bush was in the TXANG he probably went a little too far one a bender and ended up being disciplined and sent to dry out. This is something that the military would have likely been obliged to keep confidential and would have not included in their records, other than medical which are sealed without expressed written consent.

So I don't think Bush deserted. I think that's all BS. I think its a time in Bush's life that he has grown out of (for crying outloud, it happened 30 years ago) and would not go down the same road again. I don't think it matters in this election nor is relevant for doing the job of the president. All I care about is the guy's ability to handle issues and challenges relevant in today's world. Having said that, I'd be very curious to know what the hell Bush is going to do in the areas of foreign policy, offshoring of jobs and the economy in general? That's what matters. [/b][/quote]
Great post, and even though we disagree on a lot of items, I'm totally on side with this one.

It would be nice to see a election decided on issues, and issue resolution.

However I do stand by my word that if one side uses his past as a tool, the other side has a right to take a serious look at it

[EddyBeers]

I have a hard time believing that Bush was drying out for 12 months, it must have been quite a bender, but an election on the issues is not what Bush/Cheney want. They will never willing engage in an informative discussion on any of the following issues:

1) The massive loss of jobs in the USA
2) The shrinking middle class in the USA
3) The loss of influence in the world of the USA
4) Why the wealthy needed tax cuts to spur on the economy and then just sat on the money that they saved? Why doesn't supply side economics work?
5) The war in Iraq and whether Mission was Accomplished when W declared it was
6) The unilateralist bent of the current administration
7) How a CIA undercover agent was outed by the administration and why
8) What happened to the money that they paid Chalabi

Bush will never discuss these issues, that is why he brings up peripheral issues such as Kerry's service in Vietnam or "Kerry is the most Liberal senator" when the organization that comes up with such rankings (The esteemed Heritage Institute) place an over emphasis on tax votes

My prediction is that within the next 6 weeks we will be talking about how Bush is trying to duck the debates or at least some of them.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Bush hasn't brought up Kerry's service record.

Kerry has.

Bush has said on more than one occasion that he will NEVER question John Kerry's service record. I would imagine a lot of that has to with his lack of one.

Kerry is the guy that won't talk issues. He hasn't laid out a single plan of action on any of the issues you mentioned. His platform is I'm a war hero and my name is not George Bush. He has nothing else to run on.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Aug 23 2004, 10:52 PM
Bush hasn't brought up Kerry's service record.

Kerry has.

Bush has said on more than one occasion that he will NEVER question John Kerry's service record. I would imagine a lot of that has to with his lack of one.

Kerry is the guy that won't talk issues. He hasn't laid out a single plan of action on any of the issues you mentioned. His platform is I'm a war hero and my name is not George Bush. He has nothing else to run on.

Then you obviously didn't watch any of the Democratic National Convention and listened to Keyy's speech. I thought he did a very good job laying out a framework to solving the problems that face the country. I'm waiting for the Republican National Convention to hear what Bush has to say in response.

I'm especially looking forward to the debates to see how the candidates do against each other. I think Bush is the more entertaining and charismatic orator, but I think he's short on substance. Kerry appears to be longer on substance but have zero style. I think it will boil down to style versus substance as to who is more effective. I also feel that it will also boil down to whether George produces any more Bushisms that make him look like a dope.

I'm also looking forward to the vice-presidental debate. The wily veteran warhorse Cheney against the impish young startup Edwards. A clash of style and experiences. I think this could be a deciding factor for a lot of people. I think there are tons of people out there that don't like either candidate and are looking for something to identify with. How Edwards does could be the difference in the undecided vote, essentially being the one shining light in field of grey.

[Displaced Flames fan]

1) The massive loss of jobs in the USA

Direct result of 9-11. It took 3 days for me to find out I was losing my job as a result of that Tuesday. Me and 12,000 of my coworkers. There are similar stories all around the country. No President has ever had to deal with this kind of economic event (ie outside factor damaging the economy).

2) The shrinking middle class in the USA

Would love to see some numbers on this. Can't really talk about it intelligently without them. I'm middle class, lost my job after 9/11 and am still middle class. Can't speak to all though. Was the middle class not shrinking before Bush took office?

3) The loss of influence in the world of the USA

Natural progression and many would argue a good thing. Though it's hard to deny that the world hates Bush and has from day 1...which is curious IMO.

4) Why the wealthy needed tax cuts to spur on the economy and then just sat on the money that they saved? Why doesn't supply side economics work?

Everyone got a tax break. That should be made clear. I think the arguemnet that the wealthy might not have needed one is a legitimate one. Would love to see the percentage of the money from the tax cuts that went to wealthy people. What's Kerry's economic vision for the country? Clinton's was great until the last 6 months of his term when the economy took a nose dive.

5) The war in Iraq and whether Mission was Accomplished when W declared it was

W didn't declare the mission accomplished. He declared major combat operations against the Baathist regime over....and they were.

6) The unilateralist bent of the current administration

Unilateralist bent? Because they went into Iraq they are on a unilateralist bent? Explain please how one act has become a bent.



7) How a CIA undercover agent was outed by the administration and why

Ask Bob Novak...who is the leaker and who is no friend of the White House. If the White House leaked the name of Mr. Wilson's wife to Novak, why is he now refusing to say so? He won't talk and the reason he won't talk is because the secrecy damages the White House because of assumption. Joe Wilson has been proven to be a liar on other issues and I won't take his word that the leak came from the White House and neither should you no matter how much you hate Bush. What would be the point of leaking her name by the way? What did the White House have to gain from it?


8) What happened to the money that they paid Chalabi

Chalabi was in the good graces of the US Government long before George W. Bush took office. Where's the money that the Clinton administration gave him? At least Chalabi has been shown to be a self-serving liar (if not worse) and the administration has done the right thing by severing the ties.

These are my honest answers to your issues as someone who doesn't hate George Bush but hasn't decided who to vote for. If you can find it possible to respond without the infantile remarks that have littered your posts in this thread I'd enjoy discussing your thoughts on the issues and your thoughts on my thoughts.

If not, don't expect me to reply.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Aug 23 2004, 11:08 PM
I think there are tons of people out there that don't like either candidate and are looking for something to identify with.

I hope you're right about this. It certainly is the category I fall into. I fear that so many people are making their minds up based on emotion and the thought that anything is better than Bush. Those types of reasons are dangerous. They blind you to issues.

One reason I'm still considering Kerry is that I think there are a lot of people so consumed by their hatred for Bush that another 4 years with him would be nothing but turmoil because of that emotion. If Kerry is elected, you won't see that kind of emotion from Bush supporters.

It's certainly a new and strange phenomenon.

[RougeUnderoos]

Whatever DFF. We all know that you are stuck down here with the rest of us. It's an insult to us lower class types that you think you are some fancy-britches middle-class type :P .

[EddyBeers]

1) Massive loss of jobs: The Bush government predicted in his 2002 economic report ( a report drawn up after 9/11 and any other economic calamity that once can come up with) that there would 138 million payroll jobs by 2004, right now the Americans are at 131 million, 7 million less than Bush predicted himself.

2) Shrinking middle class : Please see above, but for further proof Bill Clinton created 22 million jobs during his 8 years in office, Bush will become the first president since Hoover to lose jobs. Jobs that Bush is creating are less affluent than the jobs they lost. Please see Lou Dobbs on CNN for more documented proof on this matter.

3) I do not think that the world hated Bush on 9/12/01 but that may just be my opinion. He had an opportunity to use that goodwill, but instead implemented a defence plan drafted by Wolfowitz and Cheney in 1992 ( a plan that was incidently leaked to the NY Times at the time and disavowed by GHW Bush), a plan that could not gain the support of any nations who did not receive substantial American foreign aid outside of Spain, Great Britain and Australia.

4) This site is more dedicated to the offloading of taxes to the states under Bush, but the final paragraph is on the average tax cut per group of people. Those earning more than 1 million dollars received on average 371 times larger monetary gain than the bottom 60% of American income earners. Despite this, they refused to invest it in the American economy (please see points one and two) thus proving the falacy of supply side economics.
http://www.bushtax.com/

5) Well we can agree to disagree on this one, but his made for 2004 election moment saying "Mission Accomplished" sure won't be on any ads this fall. I thought that meant that the mission was accomplished, I would love to see the direct quote where dubya says "Military activities against the bathist regime have been completed" or something to that effect.

6) They pulled out of the multilateral International Court, they pulled out of the mulitilateral Kyoto Accord, they pulled out of the multilateral Anti-Ballistic Missiles treaty, the multilateral Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Missile defence shield, refusal to sing landmine treaty, pulling out of the 143 nation treaty regarding biological weapons. I could list more, but I think the "bent" is becoming apparent.

7) I do not know how to respond to this one, Novak is one of the biggest Republican cheerleaders in the mainstream media in the USA outside of Fox News. The point of leaking the name is to shut up Wilson and let him know that they know no bounds regarding other people's personal lives.
Please see blackballing of John McCain in South Carolina, using bigotry to get Republicans to vote for Bush because of "annonymous" reports that McCain adopted a black child, when in reality it was a Cambodian orphan. Please see anything on Karl Rove if you need to know why it was leaked.

8) The money that Clinton gave him is a mere fraction of the money allocated to him personally under Bush and the money cumulatively given to his organization.

I eagerly look forward to your correspondence.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by fotze@Aug 23 2004, 02:04 PM
Good call transplant!!!

Bush Denounces Ads by Outside Groups

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040823/D84L2PB80.html

And thats all i was getting at.

Not who said what about who and when and where.

This PARTICULAR ad campaign was disturbing and way beyond anything else seen in PAID COMMERCIALS this campaign.

Clearly Bush understands that as well...and now so does the Kerry camp.


Bingo...have to agree with you...who cares who did what and when. Especially 30 years or more ago.


There is NO room for this nonsense in this presidential campaign...from either side. I guess that somehow translates into a double standard however.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by EddyBeers@Aug 24 2004, 01:07 AM
1) Massive loss of jobs: The Bush government predicted in his 2002 economic report ( a report drawn up after 9/11 and any other economic calamity that once can come up with) that there would 138 million payroll jobs by 2004, right now the Americans are at 131 million, 7 million less than Bush predicted himself.

2) Shrinking middle class : Please see above, but for further proof Bill Clinton created 22 million jobs during his 8 years in office, Bush will become the first president since Hoover to lose jobs. Jobs that Bush is creating are less affluent than the jobs they lost. Please see Lou Dobbs on CNN for more documented proof on this matter.

3) I do not think that the world hated Bush on 9/12/01 but that may just be my opinion. He had an opportunity to use that goodwill, but instead implemented a defence plan drafted by Wolfowitz and Cheney in 1992 ( a plan that was incidently leaked to the NY Times at the time and disavowed by GHW Bush), a plan that could not gain the support of any nations who did not receive substantial American foreign aid outside of Spain, Great Britain and Australia.

4) This site is more dedicated to the offloading of taxes to the states under Bush, but the final paragraph is on the average tax cut per group of people. Those earning more than 1 million dollars received on average 371 times larger monetary gain than the bottom 60% of American income earners. Despite this, they refused to invest it in the American economy (please see points one and two) thus proving the falacy of supply side economics.
http://www.bushtax.com/

5) Well we can agree to disagree on this one, but his made for 2004 election moment saying "Mission Accomplished" sure won't be on any ads this fall. I thought that meant that the mission was accomplished, I would love to see the direct quote where dubya says "Military activities against the bathist regime have been completed" or something to that effect.

6) They pulled out of the multilateral International Court, they pulled out of the mulitilateral Kyoto Accord, they pulled out of the multilateral Anti-Ballistic Missiles treaty, the multilateral Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Missile defence shield, refusal to sing landmine treaty, pulling out of the 143 nation treaty regarding biological weapons. I could list more, but I think the "bent" is becoming apparent.

7) I do not know how to respond to this one, Novak is one of the biggest Republican cheerleaders in the mainstream media in the USA outside of Fox News. The point of leaking the name is to shut up Wilson and let him know that they know no bounds regarding other people's personal lives.
Please see blackballing of John McCain in South Carolina, using bigotry to get Republicans to vote for Bush because of "annonymous" reports that McCain adopted a black child, when in reality it was a Cambodian orphan. Please see anything on Karl Rove if you need to know why it was leaked.

8) The money that Clinton gave him is a mere fraction of the money allocated to him personally under Bush and the money cumulatively given to his organization.

I eagerly look forward to your correspondence.

1. So your beef is not with the loss of jobs, but the inability to meet the goals his administration set for job creation? That's a much more reasonable issue IMO. I eagerly await John Kerry's job creation plan. Simply spouting that Bush has lost more jobs than any president since Hoover is a statement that lacks bite. Of course he did. The American business community panicked on 9/11.

2. You didn't give me anything new here really. I don't think I can get an appointment to meet with Lou Dobbs, so a little more specificity would be helpful.

3. Fair enough. It's also fair, then, to note that certain opposing nations had illegal interests in Iraq at the time which throws into question the assertion (common) that these countries opposed the action because it was wrong. We've also found that the UN's administration of the Oil for Food porgram was rife with corruption and another reason that people didn't want to see Hussein out of power. Certainly American intelligence was flawed, but Hussein didn't comply with the resoultion (1441) that he had every opportunity to avoid the war with. Hell, who knows, maybe he did so just to hasten the failure of Bush.

4. See, I have a problem with this analysis of the tax cut, and unfortunately it's the one that gets used all the time. Your supply side economics issue is much more relevant than the disparity between upper class and lower class cuts. You see, most people who make $50,000 or less, have children and are marred don't pay ANY income tax to start with. So you can't cut their taxes. They (WE) did get increased credits for children and standard deductions which were very welcome to me. How can the Feds cut my income tax if I don't pay any to start with? Now, if the richies of the USA pocketed the cash instead of investing it (hard to imagine...come on now) then you can argue they don't deserve the tax cut they got and I probably wouldn't argue with you. Are you telling me, though, that all this money they received as a result of the tax cut is under mattresses?

5. I wasn't quoting Bush with what I said....but on that day, with his announcement, I took it to mean that Saddam Hussein's government had been defeated and it had. I won't argue that the plan from this point on has proven to be tragically flawed. I await John Kerry's plan for Iraq and I find it hard to belive that the insurgency will end when he is elected. He'll be facing the same complex problems.

6. I'll have to reasearch most of these, but the US never signed the Kyoto Accord to begin with...mainly because our environmental laws are among the toughest in the world. You can't pull out of something you were never a part of.

7. More of the Bush dirty ad stuff? I thought I told you guys Kerry did the same thing to Dean. Forgive me if your point of leaking Wilson's wife's name seems more than a little counterproductive to me in a logical sense. What did they need to shut Wilson up about? Wilson's foot is firmly entrenched in his mouth. He's a liar.

8. Chalabi...mere fraction? So what. Makes zero difference and is a non-issue. The US government got played by this guy and he's been playing them for a long, long time. Clinton's adminitstration is no less guilty.

Thanks for dropping the childish antics. It's appreciated.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by transplant99@Aug 24 2004, 01:40 AM



There is NO room for this nonsense in this presidential campaign...from either side.# I guess that somehow translates into a double standard however.

Lol...

see move-on.org add (a group in the class of the Swifties) Bush=Hitler ads.

Nobody said a damn thing about that.

Hitler Ad 1

Hitler ad #2

Please right click and save to save the host's bandwidth.

These ads ran on TV and were funded by 527 group move-on.org

There was a thread about them here and people thought they were funny. There was no outrage.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by transplant99@Aug 24 2004, 01:40 AM
And thats all i was getting at.

And this isn't the first time Bush had denounced the ads.

Not sure why you refused to believe me when I told you that yesterday and posted a link to that effect.

Personal? I dunno, I'm asking.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Aug 23 2004, 10:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Aug 23 2004, 10:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-transplant99@Aug 24 2004, 01:40 AM
And thats all i was getting at.

And this isn't the first time Bush had denounced the ads.

Not sure why you refused to believe me when I told you that yesterday and posted a link to that effect.

Personal? I dunno, I'm asking. [/b][/quote]
I said to START this thread... (And nothing more)

THIS particular ad campaign should be denounced....thats happened....yes again.
Apparently even Bush agreed with me.

Personal?

Hardly.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by transplant99@Aug 24 2004, 03:14 AM

I said to START this thread... (And nothing more)

THIS particular ad campaign should be denounced....thats happened....yes again.
Apparently even Bush agreed with me.

Personal?

Hardly.

You lost me. At this point I have no idea what you were saying.

I thought you were condemning Bush for not denouncing the ads (even though he already had).

If that's not what you were saying, I'm sorry for my replies. I misunderstood you I guess.

I'm extremely confused.

[Bingo]

The election will come down to economics and Terrorism ... plain and simple.

I think in the end Bush will actually win this thing because more independents or undecided voters will, in the end, not want to rock the boat when it comes to the war on terror and risk a back pedal that brings the war back to U.S. soil.

Is that a valid reason to vote for Bush? I'll leave that alone given the obvious arguments that will follow, but I do think that's the key issue in the final outcome.