View Full Version : George Bush - resume

12th Feb 2004, 01:24
I had this sent to me today - would you vote for him?

George W. Bush
The White House, USA


LAW ENFORCEMENT: I was arrested in Maine in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.

MILITARY: I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

COLLEGE: I graduated from Yale University with C average. I was a cheerleader. Although my GPA was insufficient to enter Harvard, I persevered and got an MBA, graduating near the bottom of my class.


I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.

I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. But I made money on the sale.

I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal with my father's friends that took land using taxpayer money. While my business partners ran the business, I did PR and made connections. This made me a multi-millionaire. With the help of my father and our right-wing friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected Governor of Texas.


I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union.

During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.

I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

I set the record for the most executions by any Governor in American history.

With the help of my brother, the Governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.


I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in
any12-month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.

I am the first president in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.

I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one year period.

After taking-off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S.history.

I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD.

In my State Of The Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq, then blamed the lies on our British friends.

I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S.

In my first year in office over 2-million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a12-month period.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any president in U.S. history.

I set the record for least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in war time.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to
simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people) shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

I've broken more international treaties than any president in U.S.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any
administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

I am the first president in U.S. history to order an unprovoked,
pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community.

I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government .

I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations
remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. prisoners of war"
(detainees) and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

I am the first president in history to refuse United Nations election
inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.

My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history.

My political party used the Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate ripoffs in history.

I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

I am first president in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.


All records of my tenure as Governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed, and unavailable for public view.

All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt
companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President,
regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable
forpublic review.

Please consider my experience when voting in 2004.

Send this to every voter you know.

12th Feb 2004, 01:26
Michael Moore...........is that you ;)

Onan the Clumsy
12th Feb 2004, 01:45
Jerricho I think your MIL is preparing something similar for you :E

12th Feb 2004, 02:02
That so..............

I can hardly contain myself (maybe that will push me over the edge!)

12th Feb 2004, 02:25
As a lifelong Republican, I was glad to see him beat Gore, but his performance since 911 turned me against him.

He is a phony, a consumate liar, and is surrounded by the worst scoundrels and opportunists in politics, his so called "Neocons".

We're in deep doo doo.

12th Feb 2004, 21:29
As a lifelong Republican, I was glad to see him beat Gore, but his performance since 911 turned me against him.

Welcome back Capt. Ed .

12th Feb 2004, 21:51
Although Dubya's dodgy Texas/Alabama National Guard record has been around on the for years, ever since Kerry seems to be his Dem opponent it has become very relevant. Guess Karl Rove very much regret for having Dubya making a glorious hook landing on May 1st.

Even dental records are now pulled to save poor ol' Dubya's @ss, but if you look at Kerry's Vietnam record (http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/02/02_400.html), I doubt whether this will be enough.

What I appreciate in Kerry is the fact that after being in Nam he came to the conclusion that the war was wrong and went against the mainstream to testify. A man of principles (then)?

Send Clowns
12th Feb 2004, 22:12
Interesting the idea that someone's driving record and their record of grades in university should be made public. Odd that instead of sympathy and support for a reformed alcoholic, supposed "liberals" attack him for his former weakness. The same liberals, presumably, who were so cheered when Yeltsin, who was still an alcoholic, took power in Russia :rolleyes:

I never liked Bush as a president, I did not want him to win when the election was held. Pieces like this, which contain a lot of propoganda, speculation and irrelevancy plus a few outright lies disgust me utterly, to the point I am so embarrassed by any possible association with the people who would use such revolting tactics that I feel myself, against my will, supporting Bush. Some true, relevant and pertinent points are there, but I find myself unwilling to believe them because of the utter spite, the pure, vile nastiness with which this is delivered.

This is one of the few things that would persuade me, were I an American, to vote for Bush despite my own views.

Jerricho, you've got it. Moore was funny once, until he became the kind of man he'd always slated.

Onan the Clumsy
12th Feb 2004, 23:02
SC He didn't 'win'.

I also think several items on that list are unnecessary, but I think the point being made, (and this certainly is the case with the military record) is that it's one thing for a person to have 'failings' or hold positions with which you might disagree, but it's absolutely another thing for them to make great pronouncements if their history contradicts them.

The president's eagerness to send others to war can be viewed in sharp contrast to his earlier military commitment.

This and similar contradictions I think is at the heart of the initial posting.

That and the fact that it's all cyclical. The same type of things were being circulated when Clinton was in office and will be once Kerry takes over ;)

Smedley I meant to applaude you when you made your posting. Regardless of my feelings, it takes a certain amount of courage to say what you said.

12th Feb 2004, 23:26
God I just love some of these so-called actually factual anti-Bush statements of “REAL” facts on Bush.

In Capt. Kaos’s post there is link comparing Kerry’s military record to Bush’s. Please read the link and pay very close attention to Bush’s record of spring, 1971. It states that Bush used an F-102 to shuttle tropical plants from Florida to Texas.

Well for God’s sake, the F-102 was a single seat fighter with about 45 minutes of fuel, just where the hell did he put all these tropical plants? If you are going to lie about someone, at least make it a believable lie.

Sounds like more of Michel Moore’s magical facts and fiction.


12th Feb 2004, 23:28
I've got an idea where he could have put them............:E

Onan the Clumsy
12th Feb 2004, 23:34
Maybe he smoked 'em :E

12th Feb 2004, 23:52
Talk about propoganda in the extreme! So extreme in fact that it's almost a .... joke ? Oh, I get it now, hehe. :hmm:


Send Clowns
13th Feb 2004, 01:33
Onan, he won. According to US liberals at the time, on any count of the Florida vote he would have won. However long they recounted there was no way for Gore to bring home the state, and although Bush had fewer votes in the nation, he wins. As I say, I was cheering for Gore. I felt the contest had been rigged, but as a realist accepted that it had not as soon as this was accepted by Gore's own supporters.

If the post had not started with an attack on a 28-year-old driving conviction suffered by a man who was at the time an alcoholic, I might have been more receptive. I have not personally known anyone affected directly by alcoholism, but even I can have sympathy.

Kaptin M
13th Feb 2004, 04:58
Why the #*@" can't the President of the United States of America learn to pronounce the word "nuc-lear" correctly??!!
He is supposedly a university graduate - "nucular" is something you expect to hear from a 5 year old.
George WMD Bush. :*

13th Feb 2004, 06:28
When Bush signed up for pilot training in the 102 people forget that there were 102's in VIETNAM. A whole squadron running around dropping a pair of 250lb bombs and providing air defence interception. So if you were looking to avoid Vietnam you would hardly sign up for the 102. I am sure he could have found a nice cushy 141 slot if he was looking to duck nam...

As to the tail end of his service. The 102 was rapidly phased out as the airframes ran out of hours and replaced in the guard with the 106. That would have required a whole new school and even now it is VERY common for a person to be allowed to languish collecting a check and doing nothing for the tail end of their service when their aircraft gets retired if they are not going to another aircraft. (find a phantom driver from the 90s and ask him, if he didn't go to the 16...)

He got an HONORABLE discharge. If just one of these acusations were true he would have received a general discharge or even an administrative discharge.

So like everything else. Most of this is crap.


13th Feb 2004, 08:36
Another red herring.

The single 102 squadron(507th?) in SE Asia was withdrawn in dec 1969.

Onan the Clumsy
13th Feb 2004, 10:36
And yet I'm reminded of all those stories of boys lying about their age so they could join up for The Great War, or guys in Bomber Command or the 8th Air Force in World War Two who had completed a tour but went back and did another one. Or old guys who formed Home Guard units knowing full well they'd last maybe a day if the Germans ever invaded.

I think that's what people are reacting to. Sure the ANG counts as service, but if someone is so willing to send other people out to war now, maybe they could have tried a little harder to get a posting overseas for themselves when it really mattered.

SC I really have no idea what happened in Florida, though I'm not convinced the result was correct.

Would this administration be as lenient on a crack addict who got hopped up and robbed a store? perhaps not. They'd probably just make sure he was still in prison 28 years later.

13th Feb 2004, 11:17
Kaptin, I wouldn't get too upset about his pronounciation. There are a lot of words that Americans mis-pronounce. Why do they call Aluminium aluminum, solder soder, herbs erbs and ar&e fanny etc.? Also think that many an American university degree is no guarantee of intelligence or literacy. President bashing is not confined to Bush, every King, President, Prime Minister and leader has been a candidate in the past and will be so in the future. Question is; can we do better?

13th Feb 2004, 13:10
Techman, the F-102 served with the Air National Guard until 1978. Lt. George W. Bush was discharged in 1973. The Viet Nam War ended in 1975.

13th Feb 2004, 13:30
I apologise for breaking our own rules on "cut and paste", but I think this makes for interesting reading, whichever side of the fence you sit on.

I am neither a fan nor an enemy of GW Bush, but this does show an alternative view to that we normally see in here.


The following is a reprint of a Letter to the Editor of the Washington Times, printed in the 2/11/04 (today's) issue. The letter's author is a fighter pilot who served with Lt. George W Bush in the Air National Guard.................

It's about time someone came forward to put a stop to this extremist liberal BS that sees President Bush's 2 or more years on active duty (including completing his pilot training and subsequently flying fighter-interceptor missions in the Convair F-102) as the moral equivalent of fleeing to Canada to escape the draft.

The far-left extremist Democrats have just one overriding goal and will say anything and do anything to achieve that goal: GET BACK IN POWER ! ! ! With friends like these, our nation doesn't need enemies . . .

Letters to the Editor 'Bush and I were lieutenants' George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.
It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the Guard and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole community's attention.
The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers.
If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots be available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional
reservists with outside employment. The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt. Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were shoved into nonflying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because there just wasn't room for all of them anymore.
Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months' basic training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge for many wanting to avoid Vietnam. There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.
The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life.Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt. Bush abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.
Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and later in Alabama for a Senate campaign. Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard, aspilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career affairs until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment. Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on the active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has little use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely option for a temporary hire.
As a commander, I would put such "visitors" in some minor administrative post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged. Today, I can't even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to "pull drills" for a couple of months, I wouldn't be too involved with him because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the unit combat ready.
Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt. Bush twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for a required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly — the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc. If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user.
Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado" to which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a specific unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I'm "being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron,
group or wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction or court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt. Bush's performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in The Washington Post in 2000.
Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career parallels Lt. Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a guardsman, I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense of the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in crashes flying air-defense missions.
While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan and Iraq. It didn't happen by accident. It happened because back at the nadir of Guard fortunes in the early '70s, a lot of volunteer guardsman showed they were ready and able to accept the
responsibilities of soldier and citizen — then and now. Lt. Bush was a kid whose congressman father encouraged him to serve in the Air National Guard. We served proudly in the Guard. Would that Mr. Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague senators and congressmen to serve now in the Guard. In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are starting to get out of hand and it's time to stop and reset before disaster strikes. We say, "Knock it off." So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to slander the Guard: Knock it off.
U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard
Herndon, Va

13th Feb 2004, 20:24

I know the dates, and the fact is that the 102 had been withdrawn from Vietnam by the time GW signed up for training on the type.

I am not making any judgement as to why he ended up on a type that was certain not to bring him to Vietnam, I am just saying that he did and that it was known at the time.

13th Feb 2004, 20:37
But wino, did he serve in Vietnam? No he didn't, there was a conflict going on and he was staioned in Texas!

Dress it up anyway you wish, but he wasn't there. His father had a far more honourable service record.

It is a problem when you have a man who did not serve his country at a time of conflict and yet has no hesitation in signing the executive order in launching a war, e, for what exactly?

That signature has now resulted in 500+ US families without their sons, daughters, fathers, mothers etc.

13th Feb 2004, 20:49
Today the National Guard is a serious fighting force certainly worthy of respect. I believe the Guard already sent 60.000 troops to Iraq.

During the Vietnam War it was quite different as the National Guard's own website (http://www.ang.af.mil/history/Forging.asp) says:

"Vietnam revealed a negative aspect of relying on reservists. For largely domestic political reasons, President Johnson chose not to mobilize most of the nation's reserve forces. The 1968 callups were only token affairs. Johnson's decision to avoid a major reserve mobilization was opposed by the senior leadership of both the active duty military establishment and the reserve forces, but to no avail. The Reserves and the Guard acquired reputations as draft havens for relatively affluent young white men. Military leaders questioned the wisdom of depending on reserve forces that might not be available except in dire emergencies."

While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. Me think Col.ret.Campenni got kerried away a little bit when he wrote this top gun piece. I wonder what his war-decorations are?

13th Feb 2004, 20:50
OW 22

'Fraid I disagree with you on that one.

GWB was "elected" to run a country, as are leaders around the globe. Apart from the US, where else is as much emphasis placed on being a "War Hero" etc?

Surely this experience is not a prerequisite to leading a country - into war or in peacetime? e.g. T Blair...

I don't think it is essential to have experienced war before you, as Pres or PM can send your troops into one.

Having said all the above I would like to state that I think history will tell the truth about Iraq and the ever changing or newly appearing reasons for invading it. I just hope lessons were learned and we never see the like of it again.


13th Feb 2004, 21:30
Sorry, I should have re-phrased that. I meant to say thats what people will have a problem with.

Of course its neither right or wrong and legally of course there is no pre-requisite in the US CON about having to have a service record served during a war!

Send Clowns
13th Feb 2004, 22:35
1W22For largely domestic political reasons, President Johnson chose not to mobilize most of the nation's reserve forces ... The Reserves and the Guard acquired reputations as draft havens for relatively affluent young white menSo you agree that the reasons for National Guard not being called up was political, and that any member could have been called up. Clearly some were in 1968, and by 1970 there is certainly no reason to suppose that more would not be. Note it seems entirely possible that Lt Bush asked after roles in Vietnam, putting his head above the parapet, making him more likely to be called up early if mobilisation of reserves did start. You rely on some amorphous 'reputation', provenance and accuracy unspecified for your argument. Not really very reliable.

Having said all this, have any of you criticising Bush's lack of participation in the war ever volunteered for service yourselves? Have you even joined your own nations' services, that are unlikely ever to be sent anywhere that approaches Vietnam in the horror of the conflicct, or the hopelessness of the military position (due to political interference)? Are you then not showing cowardice greater than that you accuse Bush of?

14th Feb 2004, 00:00
So yet another left-wing whispering campaign is shown up for what it is... Complete claptrap.

Anyone who accuses someone who spent two and a half years flying fighters of dodging the draft is an imbecile.

14th Feb 2004, 00:28
A really laughable reply Chaffers.

14th Feb 2004, 00:56
I hope the ex-fighter community in here will set you straight on just how laughable it is OW.

14th Feb 2004, 01:27
As much as I with 2 years on the front will have Chaffers.

Whats your service record?

I'll give you a clue, I'm 58 and I'm from New York.

Where would you suppose I was 1967-1968??

14th Feb 2004, 01:45
Not flying fighters I would assume.

Are you still saying that anyone flying outside of the combat zone was draft dodging??

14th Feb 2004, 01:47
Are yiu saying that they weren't? Are you saying that the US needed Bush patrolling the hostile waters of the Gulf of Mexico rather than the Gulf of Tonkin???

14th Feb 2004, 01:51
Absolutely I'm saying they weren't.

It would appear that you are merely seeking to belittle the records of those who weren't grunts. I can understand interservice rivalry and a certain degree of penis envy towards fighter jocks but accusing them of draft dodging does yourself no favours.

14th Feb 2004, 02:26
Chaffers, it is a matter of record that Bush totally failed to turn up for a lot of his time, to the extent that he lost his medical; also that he requested to transfer to an Alabama unit who didn't even possess a single aircraft of any type, let alone 102's, and met on one evening per week.

Dodger? Oh yes.

14th Feb 2004, 02:32
I think, Huggie, that I am more inclined to believe a USAF Colonel over your usual warped and vilipended sources.

Remind me exactly how many years Michael Moore served with GWB?

About time you luvvies either call Col. Campenni a liar, else put up and shut up.

14th Feb 2004, 02:45
Thank you for calling me a draft dodger/coward because I never went to war OneWorld 22!!!

I suppose that 37 years of Air Force time mostly flying fast jets is of no consequence to you then?

As it happens, I was flying Jaguars when the Harriers went to war in the Falklands. I would love to have gone, but it was not my choice. I was flying Harriers when the Jaguars went to war in GW1. I would love to have gone but it was not my choice.

It could be that GWB was possibly in the same position.


How does Capt Kaos get off assuming that Col Campenni has no war record when he states that "As a guardsman, I even got to serve in two campaigns". Even if he didn't, how does that make him unknowledgable about how the system works or what was happening during the Vietnam war?

How do you get off assuming that a national leader needs to have had military experience to enable them to send their country to war? I believe that is why most democracies have the equivalent of a Ministry of Defence - to provide expert advice (and please don't come back to me with the charge that it was not damned expert this time round, because this argument has nothing to do with the principle entailed). And they also have the equivalent of a War Cabinet - to make those decisions collectively. As I said, what happened this time round has nothing to do with the principle of your argument, that if a president/prime minister/ chairman has no military experience (and specifically according to you no war experience) then he has no qualifications nor right to send his country to war!!!! Utter balderdash mate!

14th Feb 2004, 02:52
Presumably Dubya joined the Texas ANG because it was his local "outfit".

Surely the type of equipment used by ANG units dictated the likelihood of their being sent into combat, then as now?

What possible influence could he (or his father) have had over the type of equipment in use by the Texas ANG at that time?

Personally, I believe that Dubya can be justifiably criticised, even vilified, over a number of issues.

This, however, is not one of them.

And as for military service being a pre-requisite before leaders of nations may commit forces to battle, would anyone please care to tell me which wars two of the USA's greatest wartime Presidents, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D Roosevelt, fought in?

14th Feb 2004, 03:06
Good man Caslance. :ok:

I will consider not weeing on Salford, even should my bladder be full.

14th Feb 2004, 03:10
Oh, feel free to ease yourself over Ordsall, Chaffers. It could only be improved by the process. :ok:

14th Feb 2004, 05:59
SphereSpredda, I was referring to Campenni's anti-war remarks towards Kerry, who received 3 PC and a Silver Star. Do you imply that Campenni did went to Vietnam? Btw, what's your opinion about the paragraph I quoted from the Guards own website?

It's not the issue here about what a president can do or not, it's about Bush's credibility. As the self-acclaimed War-President, asking for full commitment from his troops, he needs credibility. As for the War Cabinet and it's advisors, well, many of them did dodged the draft...

Before you ask, yes I served 2 years in the Army of my country. Draft still existed those days. And no, I haven't experienced any war, other than the Cold War.
I think, Huggie, that I am more inclined to believe a USAF Colonel over your usual warped and vilipended sources. Chaffers, would you be inclined to believe Gen.Turnipseed, who commanded the Alabama unit back then:
'Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not,'' Turnipseed said. ''I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered.''

14th Feb 2004, 06:00
Ha , ha Chaffers!!

I have huge respect for fighter pilots, particulary those who fly actual combat missions!! Just answer the question, do you hold GWB is the same esteem that you would hold a pilot who actually flew combat missions?

I was always grateful for their support in the field.

Cas, nobody is saying leaders have to have military records. What I said was that it was what SOME voters are saying. It doesn't bother me one way or the other.

As I said, there are 500+ US families probably wondering exactly why their loved ones were killed some 6000 miles away when the Iraqis barely had a rocket that could fly how many miles?!

But then again, we were told that they were a clear and present danger so it must be true.............................

14th Feb 2004, 06:29
Ah, you're preaching to the converted where the "clear and present danger" is concerned, OW.

But, hey, what's new about politicians telling lies and others (almost never the politicians - strange eh?) shedding their blood as a result?

Why single Dubya out?

14th Feb 2004, 06:40
Not singling him out Cas. Just asking what many US families are asking!

Anyway, sod this, nothing ever gets sorted on PPRuNe, things just go round and round in circles. Neverending. Same old s***e.

And its the great 6 Nations tournament tomorrow, what a great sport Rugby is!

Can't wait, c'mon Ireland!!!!

14th Feb 2004, 06:42
I'm with you there, OW!!!!!! :ok:

C'mon, you England, Swing Low, Sweet Chariot etc, etc, etc........!!!!!:)

West Coast
14th Feb 2004, 06:45
It amazes me that because someone can't recall seeing someone that means he is AWOL. I can't remember seeing my Commanding Officer from my entry in to the military in the early 80s. WHat are the chances a CO from that long ago is going to remember the whereabouts of one LT when he likely had hundreds to deal with. The paper trail seems to bear out what Bush has said but that nimrod at the DNC loves political slagging over the truth.
Before you slag Bush anymore perhaps you should take a long look at the mouth piece for this lie, Terry Mcauliffe. Look at his military background. Look really hard because you won't find it. I doubt he knew what AWOL meant except for watching reruns of MASH. Take a look at his slim shady investments. All the Enron talk has taken the heat off him for his $18 million profit in 18 months off a $100,000 investment in Global Crossing. Surprise, they went into bankruptcy after he took his profit.
Perhaps he was trying to play catch up with Billary after white water.

14th Feb 2004, 06:49
Not getting involved anymore WC!

I trust you'll be getting up very early and heading to a bar to watch Ireland play France in Paris??

Lot of pissed off Irish fans going, Valentines day in Paris!!! Have to drag the wives and GF's over. Ah, La Pigalle will be very quiet this weekend!!

I'll be in Twickenham Cas, Ireland will get thrashed of course. But I'll drown my sorrows with a pint of that fine London bitter Fullers around beautiful Richmond!!

Huron Topp
14th Feb 2004, 06:50
is Campenni a liar? No, but he is muddying the waters. When did he serve with Bush? As he states himself, in 70-71. What is being questioned is Bush's whereabouts in 72-73. Notice the discrepancy?

Same can apparently be said of the latest gent to claim to have worked with Bush in Alabama, retired Colonel Calhoun. Unfortunately, the released docs from the WH show that Bush performed NO duties during the time Calhoun claims to have had him in his office.

Any of you boys ever missed your medical? If so, what were the consequences?

14th Feb 2004, 06:51
I wouldn't be too sure about your prognosis of the result, but I cannot possibly argue about the ale.

Slainte!!! :ok:

14th Feb 2004, 07:12
Then came this follow-up from a reporter: "I do think this is important. You know, it might strike some as odd that there isn't anyone who can stand up and say, I served with George W. Bush in Alabama....Particularly because there are people, his superiors who have stepped forward...who have said in the past several years that they have no recollection of him being there and serving. So isn't that odd that nobody -- you can't produce anyone to corroborate what these records purport to show?" McClellan answered, "We're talking about some 30 years ago." But there were 600 to 700 people who served at the Alabama base at that time. Surely, if the White House had to find someone who went to grade school with Bush 45 years ago--and class sizes were not that big back then--they could.

McClellan's most unbelievable statements came after a reporter asked him about the annual performance review that indicated Bush had not reported for duty at his home base in Houston for a year. Let's go to the videotape:

Q: The President's officer effectiveness report, filed by his commanders, Lieutenants Colonel Killean and Harris, both now deceased, for the period 01 May '72 to 30 April, '73, says he has not been observed at this unit, where he was supposed to show up and earning these points on these days....The president said he returned to Texas in November of '72. So some of these dates of service, which are in these [payment] records, ought to have been noted by his commanding officers, who, nevertheless, said, twice, he has not been observed here. Can you explain that?

A: I'm not sure about these specific documents. I'll be glad to take a look at them. But these [newly released] documents show the days on which he was paid for his service.....

Q: So he served, but his commanding officers didn't know it?

A: Again, I don't know the specific documents you're referring to. If you want to bring those to me, I'll be glad to take a look at them and get you the answers to your questions.

McClellan didn't know about this specific document? That would be like Martha Stewart's attorney saying he was not familiar with her stockbroker's assistant's contention that she had sold stock on inside information. This document--first brought to public attention in May 2000 by Walter Robinson of The Boston Globe--is at the core of the case against Bush. If McClellan does not know about it, Bush ought to fire him immediately (or name him head of the CIA).

Later in the press briefing, another reporter took a stab at forcing McClellan to deal with Exhibit A.

Q: After all of the things you repeated here, you cannot explain this contradiction, the fact that his payroll records indicate he was paid for a period of time for fulfilling service, and yet his commanding officers at that time wrote that he was not observed. Can you or can you not explain that contradiction?

A:....I said I would glad to go back and look at the document that he's referencing. I have not --

Q: You know the document he's referencing. Everybody does. His commanders --

A: No, I have not -- I have not seen the document he's referencing.

Q: -- are quoted repeatedly for years --

A: You're talking about quotes -- you're talking about quotes from individuals. And we said for years, going back four years ago, that the president recalls serving and performing his duties.

Q: I understand that, but his commanders do not recall it. And, in fact, they say, that he was not observed. So can you explain the contradiction, or can't you?

A: I've seen some different comments he's -- no, I've seen some different comments made over the recent time period.

Q: I haven't seen any different -- different comments...from his [Houston base] commanders, who said he was not observed. Can you explain the contradiction?

A: Look, I can't speak for those individuals. I can speak for the president of the United States. And I can speak --

Q: -- the documents --

A: And I can speak for the fact that the documents that -- as far as we know, all the documents that are available relevant to this issue demonstrate that the president fulfilled his duties. Are you suggesting these documents do not reflect that?

That's the whole issue. A critical document says Bush was gone for a year. It was signed by two superior officers who were also his buddies. As for the documents McClellan held in his hand, reporters asked him if the White House was maintaining that they proved Bush had actually reported for duty in Alabama.

Q: It's your position that these documents specifically show that he served in Alabama during the period 1972, when he was supposed to be there. Do they specifically show that?

A: No, I think if you look at the documents, what they show are the days on which he was paid, the payroll records. And we previously said that the president recalls serving both in Alabama and in Texas.

Q: I'm not interested in what he recalls. I'm interested in whether these documents specifically show that he was in Alabama and served on the days during the latter part of 1972 --

A: And I just answered that question.

Q: You have not answered that question. You --

A: No, I said -- no, I said, no, in response to your question, Keith.

Q: No, so the answer is, "no"?

A: I said these documents show the days on which he was paid. That's what they show. So they show -- they show that he was paid on these days....It just kind of amazes me that some will now say they want more information, after the payroll records and the [attendance] point summaries have all been released to show that he met his requirements and to show that he fulfilled his duties.

Can you believe it? Reporters wanted definitive information stating that Bush had truly been at the Alabama base? That apparently was too much for the press secretary. And when one of the media hounds asked exactly what Bush had done while supposedly serving in Alabama, McClellan countered, "You're asking me to kind of break down hour-by-hour what he was doing during 1972 and 1973. What these documents show is that he was serving in the National Guard and he was paid for that service." No one was requesting an hour-by-hour itemization. But McClellan would only say that Bush "remembers serving during that period and performing his duties." Bush, it seems, has no recollection of what that service entailed. Instructing pilots? Filing papers? Hanging out at the officers' lounge? He won't say.

West Coast
14th Feb 2004, 12:46
If I'm up at the wee hours its to change diapers, being a modern sensitive man of the 00's that I am. Hell of a reason to raise a pint of Harp however (you can keep the nasty ass Guiness stuff)
Hope they kick the hell out of the French. Yeah, thats right gramdpa if your reading this.

14th Feb 2004, 18:21
Col. Campenni dealt quite effectively with the mudraking over whether his COs would have remembered him or not whilst he was on non-flying status. I really can't see why the luvvies are getting into such a lather about it, smacks of desperation.

Gee some people remember him and some don't! Isn't that amazing, must be a conspiracy!

Michael Moore must be right, he must be...... I staked so much on his reputation for truth and honesty, he must be right, please tell me he's right.

14th Feb 2004, 20:54
Why does the American public make such a big deal about military service for the president or a presidential candidate. They elected Bill Clinton and he wasn't even in the National Guard, let alone Viet Nam. At least George hasn't had Monika hiding under the presidental desk in the oval office. Or have the Democrats forgotten all that already?:confused:

Say again s l o w l y
14th Feb 2004, 21:16
I'd rather have a president getting a b*ow-job than F*cking the rest of the world.

14th Feb 2004, 21:28
Keep up the good work with Bush bashing. We have 96 more attendees from "Democrats for Bush" in our GOP group.

:ok: :ok: :ok:

14th Feb 2004, 22:01
Seeing as we're dealing in non-sequiturs, there's a squirrel in my back garden.

:ok: :ok: :ok:

normally right blank
14th Feb 2004, 22:27
To sum up a little:

If GWB did NOT win, how come he's driving around in that big 747?

Guardsmen died in F-100's in Vietnam - (Yes I know, before etc.)

30 years working with Guards, Reserves etc. (from the US). Anytime, instead of "regular". Especially those that flew in the civilian world in their normal work.

Carter? How did that Iran thing go?

Anyone let off in a singleseater jet IS risking his life. The one sending him off is also liable to get tons of heavy metal in his own backyard, IF that individual ejects. Not taken so lightly as some here suggest.

Take a look at the "Vulcan" thread. They were not in the frontline in the quiet skies of Europe?

Best regards

Send Clowns
15th Feb 2004, 03:05
Personally, I believe that Dubya can be justifiably criticised, even vilified, over a number of issues.

This, however, is not one of them.
Glad I can agree with Caslance, without reservation, on something :D

15th Feb 2004, 08:05
Jhusht came back from that lovely pub across the stade in St Denis and got pished with a very nnaysh bunch of Ireland fans.we decided to drink a tote ally neutral beer,belgian Leffe...lethal shtuff if you ashked me.

i offeered a toast to Cas and 1world.

Rugby is the greatesht shport and thank you English lovely people to have given it to ze world,even if they're not gentlemen.
Zat's ze prob with the Rosbifs:they invent new games all the time and they then seem to get a rather nasty proselytising itch...aspreading the good word and all that just for the fun of the game...result is you don't expect sheep herders from New Zealand,kangaroo racing aussies,beach bums from Jamaica and french cassoulet farters from south west Gaulle to act like gentlemen,do you?
These irish fans they sing like angels,but they were drunker than I.
Merde,it should have been a new topic the patrol is going to come after me again.

Who gives a snail about GWB's record anyway?

Me? I'm going to prepare for to-morrow's match with a bottle of a gallo nero from Tuscany
Et vive le rugby!

15th Feb 2004, 08:22

Nice one Lemurian!

Allez les bleus et les verts!!

15th Feb 2004, 08:22
Merci, Lemurian!

I shall make a point of offering a toast to your good self tomorrow, by way of return!

Vive le Rugby, et allez France!!!

(Until WE play you, of course!!!):ok:

15th Feb 2004, 11:10
At least George hasn't had Monika hiding under the presidental desk in the oval office.

And therein lies the cause of the world's problems, perhaps...:=

16th Feb 2004, 01:13
While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda
Lies, [email protected] Lies and Propaganda.... (http://www.newsday.com/ny-kerry0215,0,4733861.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)

16th Feb 2004, 09:12
The truth is, Bush essentially skipped Vietnam. Unlike Bill Clinton, he did not protest a war he judged to be morally wrong. Unlike Sen. John Kerry, he did not fight in the war and then protest its bankrupt policy when he returned.

Instead, Bush's father used his influence to get junior moved to the top of a long waiting list at the Texas Air National Guard two weeks before his son graduated from Yale in 1968. As the Washington Post has reported, Bush was accepted for pilot training, even though he received the lowest acceptable grade on the aptitude test.

Castro had his audience of 1,400 economists in stitches when he read out some of Bush's more unfortunate statements.
Among other gaffes, Castro quoted Bush as saying: "I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy"; "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"; "More and more of our imports come from overseas"; and "The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case."

NBC's "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno":

"I was watching TV last night. I saw an interesting documentary on the Ninja, the Japanese soldier. According to legend the Ninjas were warriors who could make themselves invisible whenever there was a war. Kind of like Bush and the National Guard."

"The White House has now released military documents that they say prove George Bush met his requirements for the National Guard. Big deal, we've got documents that prove Al Gore (news - web sites) won the election."

16th Feb 2004, 10:34
3 points:

1) Clinton was quoted actually "loathing the military"

2) Kerry mocked America by having the flag upside down on the cover of his book, "The New American Soldier" which curiously enough is very difficult to find now. I post a link to its cover for you: http://www.grunt.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9531

Both were wrong. Vietnam was a necessary war as part of the overall containment policy against communism.

3) You obviously know nothing about getting into military reserve units. The vast majority of them are still "bubba clubs" and you have to know somebody to get into one (especially aviation units). How Bush got into one is routine.

Onan the Clumsy
16th Feb 2004, 11:21
You obviously know nothing about getting into military reserve units. The vast majority of them are still "bubba clubs" and you have to know somebody to get into one (especially aviation units). How Bush got into one is routine. isn't that essentially what squire was saying, or is it ok for it to be that way?

Kerry mocked America by having the flag upside down on the cover of his book So does that mean I was right? (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118860)

16th Feb 2004, 11:29
Squire is implying that Bush got uniquely special treatment. What I am stating is that many, if not most, reserve units were that way in the past and are still that way now. Both of the reserve units I have been in had waiting lists to get into to but I moved ahead because I knew people in the units. That's the way life is.

16th Feb 2004, 13:23
Now that the Democrats have a war hero, Kerry's morally wrong war has suddenly become right and just. The great circus is running again!:yuk:

16th Feb 2004, 13:54
Nope what I am implying is one guy stood by his convictions and chose not to serve, one served and then followed his convictions and said it was wrong and the third used his connections to avoid serving but give the appearance of doing his duty. Then decried the war saying it was a political war directed by politicians, after instigating another war years later with a target that was at best unclear if not invisible. After outright lying to the public for the reasons ...............Jeez they were quick enough to impeach Bill for his lie...........Get your farking priorities sorted :mad:

16th Feb 2004, 15:08
Clinton? Convictions? Are you daft? He never did anything but blow in the wind. And by that "principle" of his, another person was forced to serve. That's called yellow in my part of the country.

Looks like you hate George W really bad. Curious to see the reaction abroad when W. wins re-election in 2004. I will be casting my vote here in Florida.

16th Feb 2004, 17:35
Now that the Democrats have a war hero actually, they do have more than one (http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html) Reverend....

16th Feb 2004, 17:35

I would not worry to much about your vote as it will be counted as Republican no matter what you do.


:O :O :p :O :O

16th Feb 2004, 20:14
Vietnam was a necessary war as part of the overall containment policy against communism.

As I picked myself up off the floor after reading this it occurred to me that everybody else must be similarly stunned by it to let it pass.

46Driver, you make Wino look like a namby-pamby liberal. Just curious, are there any other members of your secret club besides you and West Coast?

16th Feb 2004, 21:23
My secret club? Hmmm, well there is the Naval War College from which I just returned last week after a 2 week seminar but that's not so secret. Of course, you might want to try "A Necessary War" by Michael Lind. Why else do you think we went to Vietnam? Same reason as we went to Korea....

By the way, I am not as conservative as many of the locals here or where I grew up. You see bumper stickers such as "Get the US out of the UN" and "Clinton" whereby the "C" is replaced with the hammer and sickle. And then of course, there is the giant billboard as you drive into Pensacola that says, "America, Love it or Leave it." Ahhh, life in the Deep South.....

How are your studies going?

16th Feb 2004, 22:02

"Vietnam was a necessary war as part of the overall containment policy against communism."

What response is appropriate?



46, Almost finished mate. Thanks for asking.

edited to remove personal attack.:rolleyes:

16th Feb 2004, 22:29
Worst president in history? ( Letter to the Editor )

The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain
about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst
president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war
on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From
1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never
attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333
per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked
us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives
were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never
attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times
by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated
two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear
inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and
captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600
soldiers, an average of 30 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not
allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!


16th Feb 2004, 22:38
Thought you might like this review of Lind's "A Necessary War" from the liberal "Atlantic Monthly".


I'm not on heavy medication, but I am on the Atkins Diet. Must have Krispy Kreme....

16th Feb 2004, 23:28
“FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us”
Germany declared US war.

“Bush liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida” Much too early to conclude. Taliban is far from dead, Al Qaida is very active in/around Iraq, though not in the US (may be that only matters to the writer?) and hell knows what happens when the Allies leave Iraq.

“put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot”
Huh?? Libya was a result of years of secret diplomatic negotiations, mainly by the Brits. The UN put nuclear inspectors in Iran because of EU diplomacy and as far as I recollect N Korea threw out the inspectors because of the US?

Ignorance is bliss, probably the writer is watching Fox too much?

16th Feb 2004, 23:35

I was beginning to wonder where the Anti-Michael Moore was. I had always assumed there had to be one.

“Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Why are opponents of Dubya always referred to as “liberals”? Do they have special cards with that printed on it? Is it a matter of to disagree with GWB you have to be a “liberal” or is it more if you are a “liberal” you have to disagree with GWB? The Oxford English Dictionary defines “liberal” as “open-minded, candid, unprejudiced”. Try replacing the word “liberal” with the following in the above paragraph “open-minded, unprejudiced individual(s)”. Reads a lot better I think.

“Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.”

Can someone give me a dated chronology of this one?

”Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Germany had attacked US “interests” many times prior to December 1941. Furthermore, Germany declared war on the US. It is unlikely that had this not happened the US would not have fought a two-front war. For an interesting take on this try “1945” by Newt Gingrich, yes him. It turns out he was a Professor of History before entering politics.

”Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year. “

If I remember correctly this was started by North Korea and the UN sent troops of which the US was one of many countries to participate.

”John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.”

If I again remember my history the Vietnam “conflict” did not start in 1962 but at least 20-25 years earlier. 1962 is simply the year the US started sending “advisors”.

”Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.”

Highly subjective and only then in hindsight.

”In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 30 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.”

Crippled Al-Qaida? Do not see it myself.

Put inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot? THAT IS THE WAY A WORLD LEADER IS SUPPOSED TO ACT.

Which terrorist did the US capture? I am sure I would have heard of a terrorist organisation that had a member who had killed 300,000 of “his own people”.

”Worst president in history? Come on!”

Maybe not but certainly the worst in the last 100 years.



16th Feb 2004, 23:40
By definition BHR, you are certainly no liberal. Everyone is entitled to an opinion as long as it's yours, eh? :rolleyes:


17th Feb 2004, 00:10

"By definition BHR, you are certainly no liberal. Everyone is entitled to an opinion as long as it's yours, eh? "

That is your opinion of me and you are entitled to it. :(

I was going to say that I find you very liberal. :p



p.s. I have never only those who hold the same opinion as mine are entitled to opinions. In fact I would hate that. I would much rather discuss a topic with someone who is of the opposite opinion as mine. Then crush them with facts that prove my case and disprove theirs. :D :D

17th Feb 2004, 00:15
Now I know what's really wrong with the intellectual Europeans ( can't help but to include many inUK),if it comes from Micheal Moore's pen or mouth,it must be the ultimate truth.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “liberal” as “open-minded, candid, unprejudiced

You know,we are bunch of hicks here. Our definition between Democrats (liberals) and Republicans (conservatives)is explained at best:

A liberal and a conservative are walking down the street when they happen upon a homeless man. The conservative takes $50.00 out of his pocket, gives it to the homeless man, hands him his business card and tells him to call him for a job interview or to help him find someone who can help him find a job. The conservative also tells him where he can buy some food and lodging with the money. The liberal is impressed.

A while later they happen upon another homeless man. The liberal doesn't want to be upstaged by the conservative so he tells the homeless man where he can get a meal and bed at tax payer expense. He also tells him how to collect unemployment benefits at taxpayer expense. He then takes $50.00 out of the conservative's pocket and gives it to the homeless man.


17th Feb 2004, 00:51
Aiiieeeeeeeeeeeee!!! So homespun and folksy it hurts the teeth to even read it!!!! :ooh:

To tell you the truth, Nani, most "intellectual Europeans" wouldn't know who Michael Moore was if he jumped up and down in front of them wearing a "Hi, I'm Michael Moore..." t-shirt and shouting "Hi, I'm Michael Moore!" through a loud-hailer.

But they'd still agree that the current US regime are several wasps short of a picnic.:ok:

17th Feb 2004, 06:30
"Liberals smoke pot and date people of other races, and conservatives try to stop them with guns." ;)

FDR had a secrect pact with the Brits and the Dutch to protect their interests in SEA and was actually involved in war with Japan by December 3rd, Washington time, when the Dutch at Batavia, with the approval of the home government, invoked the ABCD agreement and Rainbow 5 (A-2) because Japanese forces had passed the line 100 East and 10 North and was thought to be threatening the Dutch possessions as well as the Kra Peninsula and Thailand. Without Pearl Harbor this would have been very difficult to explain the Congress.

18th Feb 2004, 20:08
Then crush them with facts that prove my case and disprove theirs.

May I suggest that before your fact-crushing virginity is lost you look up the political definition of liberal. :rolleyes:

I do believe I have explained it to you before..... Wasted effort I see.

18th Feb 2004, 21:18
lib·er·al [l'bbərəl, l'bbrəl]

1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others
2. POLITICS progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual
3. generous: generous with money, time, or some other asset
My great-aunt was liberal in her bequests.

18th Feb 2004, 23:09

“May I suggest that before your fact-crushing virginity is lost you look up the political definition of liberal.”

Oh wise one do you have a particular place to look up the above? Is there such a thing as the Oxford English Dictionary of Political Definitions?

As to my fact-crushing virginity, I am not quite sure what you mean in this case but I have witnessed your opinions getting a good rogering over the last few years so I take it your cherry has been popped.



p.s. Hugs, thanks. I have yet to see why the term "liberal" is used in such a perjorative sense in the US.

18th Feb 2004, 23:25
just a few points to chew on:

Liberal in the US is on the left
In the UK it is in the centre / center
In continental Europe it is right-wing free-market.
e.g. Margaret Thatcher was often described as 'ultra-liberal' in France.
The differences are explained by the history of 'liberal' ideas.

A 'moral' stance cannot be determined by facts alone. However, as the man said, 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?'

Michael Moore is pretty popular in France, for the obvious reasons.

18th Feb 2004, 23:38
Oh wise one do you have a particular place to look up the above? Is there such a thing as the Oxford English Dictionary of Political Definitions?

Yes plenty of places, you do tend to see such things mentioned on Politics courses.

The thing which tickles me so is that you actually looked up the definition and still got the wrong end of the stick, and this despite the fact that I have previously described such things to you at length!!

You really do have the memory of a goldfish.

18th Feb 2004, 23:46
Actually, the best way to illustrate liberal and conservatives here in the States is to show where they stand on individual issues:

Liberals: affirmative actions
Conservatives: meritorious selection

Liberals: broad interpretation of the Constitution leading to "activist" judges and the rise of federal power
Conservatives: strict interpretation of the Constitution leading to more power being granted to local governments

Liberals: high taxes to support massive government programs
Conservatives: low taxes to allow the individual to rise or fall on their own

Liberals: anti-death penalty
Conservatives: pro-death penalty

Liberals: pro-abortion
Conservatives: pro-life

Liberals: pro-labor
Conservatives: pro-business

Liberals: confiscation of guns
Conservatives: protection of the 2nd Amendment

Liberals: downsizing of the defense department and the CIA
Conservatives: expansion of the Pentagon & intelligence sources

Liberals: freedom from religion
Conservatives: freedom of religion

Liberals: worldwide peacekeeping intervention
Conservatives: limited use of US forces - but use in overwhelming strength when sent

These are only generalities. I would like to hear what issues are important in Europe and how the parties differentiate themselves.

Send Clowns
19th Feb 2004, 00:34
Yes, Huggy, so why are so many 'Liberal's illiberal and taken to demanding that others must act and think in the way the 'Liberal' demands? As stated before, we need a political definition, and they vary.

19th Feb 2004, 01:03
Yes indeed.

And then perhaps one of the Great Pprune Right-Wing Echo Chamber would be so kind as to enlighten the rest of us as to why 'Conservatives' are always in such an almighty hurry to put labels on everything and everyone in sight?

19th Feb 2004, 05:57

"The thing which tickles me so is that you actually looked up the definition and still got the wrong end of the stick, and this despite the fact that I have previously described such things to you at length"

Your failure to understand the distinction between me and my quotation from the OED not withstanding you have also seen Hugs post another dictionary definition of "liberal" yet in your overwhelming arrogance and misguided self belief you think that everyone in here should take the word of a PC repairman. I hate to break into your "Right-Wing Echo Chamber" (thanks for that phrase, Caslance) but the world of Pprune is not a remake of the Monty Python Sketch "Bicycle Repairman". Furthermore, the Skoda advert is not real. No one actually cares what Skoda drivers think.

You feel free to ignore any facts that do not tie in with your preconcieved notions. You have gotten real good at it now.



19th Feb 2004, 17:00
Answer is easy Cas (btw, love that phrase), labeling liberals is easier to indentify them as the enemy, rather than to discuss the issue. Unfortunately for them commies have left the building, so left are the liberals and fuzzie wuzzies....

Found an interesting quote:

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 .... Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country (Colin Powell, My American Journey, p. 148)

Spot on, Colin..... ;)

19th Feb 2004, 20:49
Sorry to say that I'm not familiar with any of those things BHR, don't drive a Skoda, can't remember the sketch and don't know any PC repairmen.... :rolleyes:

As for your continuing failure I can only assume for your sake that you are in permanent denial. However to clear up your mistake, and even though I have done so before, I will explain specifically for any special needs people who might agree with you.

Liberal is overloaded with with definitions however you took the personal use and applied it to the political. Whilst the political definition, or at least the usage, does indeed change from state to state the personal definition (roughly meaning broad minded) is constant. I'm sure that once you master primary school English you may well be suited to a role as a PC repairman and may some day buy a Skoda and a Monty Python DVD. :rolleyes:

Be careful around the London Underground BHR, you might get caught up in one of their regular insurgency campaigns. :rolleyes:

Flip Flop Flyer
20th Feb 2004, 01:41
If you children would stop admiring your own image and actually take the time to read and try to understand what is being said, perhaps we could move on?

It stands to reason, that the US definition of a liberal is quite the opposite of that in Europe. A European liberal is a right-wing supporter, in the US a left wing supporter. You may quote all the dictionaries in the world, if it makes you feel better, or you could just read what is being said.

However, the definition of left and right wing is also very different on opposite sides of the pond, and indeed within Europe. If I was to put a label on the US democrates, it would be "conservative right wing". I would put your "other party" somewhere to the far right of Djengis Khan. For all pracitical purposes, when viewed from this side of the pond, is that the Democrats and Conservatives are pretty much the same kettle of fish, and both parties are well to the right of most liberal/conservative parties in Europe.

I've always had a deep suspicion towards countries with a single- or two party system. They tend to marginalize everyone else; the US fright of communism is a good example. Having a parliament of several very different parties assures that everyone has a voice, and teaches people to respect views very different from their own, instead of either banning them outright or labelling them with rather disgusting badges.

Holland, the Scandinavian countries and Germany are excellent examples of how mult'-party systems breeds tolerance. The US two-party system is an equally excellent example of how a two-party system breeds intolerance to differing political views, which is strang for a nation that is otherwise so rich in diversity.

20th Feb 2004, 02:39
Saying that European liberals are right wing supporters is only true in a few states, in general the liberals would be left-centrist in Europe.

The liberal ideals are enshrined in almost all political parties, which is why the Liberal party itself is no longer a factor. As liberalising laws come onto the statute books the role of a liberalising party is diminished. A similar effect has been seen in the last 10 years with regards to the Green party. At one European election they took a surprising number of seats, which in turn caused all remaining parties to become 'green' and marginalise the actual Green party to little more than a rather extremist pressure group.

The term liberal has rather a nice woolly feel to it, though in a society with full economic, religious and political freedoms it tends to be used pejoratively for obvious reasons. Rights after all are useless without upholding one's responsibilities, however those who demand more rights are often seen to be pushing for fewer responsibilities instead.

20th Feb 2004, 02:58
Chaffers is quite correct in stating that political liberals are left-of-centre on the European political spectrum, just as they are on the US political spectrum - the centre is just in a different place, that's all.

Now, economic liberals are usually strict free-marketeers and tend to have Right-wing and Libertarian political views. Perhaps this is where the confusion arises?

Huron Topp
20th Feb 2004, 06:15
46Driver said:

Liberals: broad interpretation of the Constitution leading to "activist" judges and the rise of federal power
Conservatives: strict interpretation of the Constitution leading to more power being granted to local governments.

Considering certain edicts of Bush & Co., they must be liberals then. Don't recall any prez ever getting so involved in education and marital rights as they have. And those are clearly states issues, not federal. Ain't even gonna touch their complete lack of the seperation of Church and State, 'cause there ain't none.:yuk:

20th Feb 2004, 07:09
If you read what I said, I finished with "these are only generalities." One of the reasons that conservatives are upset with Bush is that he has expanded some federal power and programs.

For liberal activism, you can start with affirmative action. Liberals have tried to use the courts to diversify institutions such as colleges by mandating a quota of minorities. Conservatives generally believe that whoever works the hardest and does the best deserve the rewards.

On the subject of guns, liberals have taken the Bill of Rights to mean that 9 rights are for the individual and one right is for the state (the 2nd amendment) Conservatives generally believe that the Bill of Rights was a 10 amendment Bill of Rights for the citizen.

As for religion, liberals concentrate on the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion - conservatives continues on to read that (Congress shall make no law) "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

The marital issue is interesting because you have states such as Massachusetts where gays can be married and then the rest of the country (the big red swaths that Bush carried) generally ban gay marriage - so the federal courts are going to have to intervene to settle it.

The biggest generalization is that liberals in the US want more government regulation and intervention while conservatives want power pushed down to local assemblies or left to the discretion of the individual citizen.

no reds
20th Feb 2004, 07:21
read your details
my daughter`s pregnant, my car has been stolen - l think for an armed robbery - my mother in law claims l gave her a STD and it seems l have cancer of the testicles.
ps the house is on fire

Get it sorted mate