Kerry makes sense here

[kallend 2,114]

Quote

You should go buy the doll because it seems you are unable to address the issue at hand.

Were you in the boat when Kerry won the Silver Star? If not, all you know is hearsay.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

But mention the fact that Bush served out his time in Alabama

Now you are saying it is a fact that Bush did serve out his time in Alabama. Is this a fact, you are not sure or you just don't know.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Now you are saying it is a fact that Bush did serve out his time in Alabama. Is this a fact, you are not sure or you just don't know.

It's fact, Bush stated it himelf. He served out his time in Alabama campaigning for a congressman.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Quote

You should go buy the doll because it seems you are unable to address the issue at hand.

Were you in the boat when Kerry won the Silver Star? If not, all you know is hearsay.

No, I was not on the boat, and from what the citation says nether was Kerry.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Ron 10]

Quote

Interesting double standard there Ron.

A whole bunch of people slam a guy who won a Silver Star and a Bronze Star in combat, questioning what he did and the way he did it, and we don't hear a peep from you.

Actually I have said several times Kerry IS a war hero. I slam the fact that he claims to have seen alll these bad things, but never STOPPED them from happening. If he was an officer he had a DUTY to stop them. And report them...Why is it the first time we hear of it is at Winter Soldier?

I also slam that he changes sides rather often.

For the record...Kerry IS a war hero in my eyes.

Bush was in the National Guard..There is some doubt as to if he sevred his time like he was supposed to. He can't prove he did, but you can't prove he didn't.

I just got out and I don't have much more in the way of proof than he has...And I was ACTIVE, not NG. I bet I don't have as much as he has in the way of proof in 20 years.

As for the "statements" for the folks that claim Bush never was there...I have heard folks say I was kicked out...Uh nope, did 3 years and got good conduct medal, and an AAM on the way out. It is amazing what people will say when they are trying to tarnish you.

So I don't just listen to "folks".

Also the amazing thing about this country is you are INNOCENT till PROVEN guilty..Not like it is in Jolly old England were you have to prove you didn't do it...Here folks have to prove you did the bad thing.

Quote

Could it have something to do with their current political affiliation? No, you wouldn't be so obvious as that.

Nope...I liked Lieberman. He had honor. In fact for a while there I wanted McCain.

Bush sticks to his side. Kerry does not.

THAT is my issue with Kerry...His vote goes whatever way he thinks is popular..And then when the tides change he claims he was on that side all along anyway.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I also slam that he changes sides rather often.

You say changing sides, I say changing his mind. It's good to be open minded and adaptable, rather than having a personal agenda and forcing it on others. A politicians job is to serve the people according to their wishes, not control people based on their own beliefs.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

You say changing sides, I say changing his mind. It's good to be open minded and adaptable, rather than having a personal agenda and forcing it on others. A politicians job is to serve the people according to their wishes, not control people based on their own beliefs.

"Is Kerry for or against the Patriot Act?"

"Absolutely."

Open-minded is one thing, but either this guy doesn't think through his decisions and their repercussions, or he has no backbone. Either way I don't like that in a President.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Ron 10]

Quote

You say changing sides, I say changing his mind

I went to war and got all these shinny medals...The war was bad and people (not me) did bad things. (But I didn't stop them).

His 1984 campian proposals to cut defense spending then"Changing his mind" and calling the idea of cxling them "stupid and ill-advised". And blaming the idea on "a compain that drove him to the left"...So he votes whatever way the wind blows...And admitted it.

Proposed cuts to the CIA...Then we need better intel. Thats a 180 folks, not a modification.

He supported the No Child Left Behind act...Now he is the sharpest critic of it. Again, not a small change a 180.

He wrote part of the Patriot act...but crys that it is used. Why WRITE it if you didn't want it used? Cause it was popular.

He voted for the war...Then again cries we actually did it. Why VOTE FOR IT if you don' want it to happen??? Simple it was popular.

Kerry opposed the death penalty for terrorists...Till it became a popular idea...Now he supports it...a 180 degree change.

Kerry's opinions change with the popular vote..Not his own ideals.

Quote

It's good to be open minded and adaptable, rather than having a personal agenda and forcing it on others. A politicians job is to serve the people according to their wishes, not control people based on their own beliefs.

funny you say this to support Kerrry, but use the opposite tone against Bush Here

So is it OK to not do something you said you would if it turns out to be bad, or you only get part of it done...Or is it only OK for Kerry to do that?

You and Kerry are both good for each other... You call Double standards for everyone but yourselves.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[panzwami 0]

Quote

Looks to me like his service was more legitimate than a certain other presidential candidate's.

.....and which other candidate would that be?

------
Letters to the Editor - The Washington Times
Published February 11, 2004

'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 crewmembers. 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, as pilots 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.

COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired)
U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard
Herndon, VA.

Matt
-----

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

funny you say this to support Kerrry, but use the opposite tone against Bush Here

Ron...try reading that whole post in context. I used those as examples to ask you what your feelings about Bush were for doing the same thing you accuse Kerry of. You responded by rationalizing his discrepancies.

You don't have much room to accuse anyone of double standards.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Ron...try reading that whole post in context. I used those as examples to ask you what your feelings about Bush were for doing the same thing you accuse Kerry of. You responded by rationalizing his discrepancies.

You don't have much room to accuse anyone of double standards.

You said Bush lied and used those as examples...But you defend Kerry when he does the same thing..And on even a grander scale.

That IS a double standard.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

Ok...they're both liars...they're both politicians. Fair enough?

They both suck, I wish there were a better, viable candidate....but I'll take ANYONE over Bush for many many reasons which I've stated many many times.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

They both suck, I wish there were a better, viable candidate....but I'll take ANYONE over Bush for many many reasons which I've stated many many times.

Even if he's the same as Bush? [his record does suggest that; he's been for every Bush action your against]

Plus, him being a fluff in the wind, I'm betting he would add gun banning on top of all the things BUsh did that you didn't like.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Ron 10]

Quote

Ok...they're both liars...they're both politicians. Fair enough?

Yep. Fair for me.

Quote

They both suck, I wish there were a better, viable candidate

As do I.

Quote

but I'll take ANYONE over Bush for many many reasons which I've stated many many times.

And I'll take Bush over Kerry.

I just don't trust Kerry to keep his word in any matter.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

And I don't trust Bush not to further degrade our freedom, our international standing, and our economy.

[panzwami 0]

Quote

And I don't trust Bush not to further degrade our freedom, our international standing, and our economy.

Not to further degrade our international standing? I would argue that our international standing has been greatly strengthened:

-----
GEORGE W. BUSH -- GRAND STRATEGIST
By Tony Blankley
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Boston Globe - the respected, liberal newspaper owned by the New
York Times - ran an article last week that Bush critics may wish to read
carefully. It is a report on a new book that argues that President Bush has
developed and is ably implementing only the third American grand strategy in
our history.

The author of this book, "Surprise, Security, and the American
Experience" (Harvard Press) to be released in March, is John Lewis Gaddis,
the Robert A. Lovett professor of military and naval history at Yale
University. The Boston Globe describes Mr. Gaddis as "the dean of Cold War
studies and one of the nation's most eminent diplomatic historians." In
other words, this is not some put-up job by an obscure right-wing author.
This comes from the pinnacle of the liberal Ivy League academic
establishment.

If you hate George W. Bush, you will hate this Boston Globe story
because it makes a strong case that Mr. Bush stands in a select category
with presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and James Monroe (as guided by his
secretary of state, John Q. Adams) in implementing one of only three grand
strategies of American foreign policy in our two-century history.

As the Globe article describes in an interview with Mr. Gaddis: "Grand
strategy is the blueprint from which policy follows. It envisions a
country's mission, defines its interests, and sets its priorities. Part of
grand strategy's grandeur lies in its durability: A single grand strategy
can shape decades, even centuries of policy."

According to this analysis, the first grand strategy by Monroe/Adams
followed the British invasion of Washington and the burning of the White
House in 1814. They responded to that threat by developing a policy of
gaining future security through territorial expansion - filling power
vacuums with American pioneers before hostile powers could get in. That
strategy lasted throughout the 19th and the early 20th centuries, and
accounts for our continental size and historic security.

FDR's plans for the post-World War II period were the second grand
strategy and gained American security by establishing free markets and
self-determination in Europe as a safeguard against future European wars,
while creating the United Nations and related agencies to help us manage the
rest of the world and contain the Soviets. The end of the Cold War changed
that and led, according to Mr. Gaddis, to President Clinton's assumption
that a new grand strategy was not needed because globalization and
democratization were inevitable. "Clinton said as much at one point. I think
that was shallow. I think they were asleep at the switch," Mr. Gaddis
observed.

That brings the professor to George W.Bush, who he describes as
undergoing "one of the most surprising transformations of an underrated
national leader since Prince Hal became Henry V." Clearly, Mr. Gaddis has
not been a long-time admirer of Mr. Bush. But he is now.

He observes that Mr. Bush "undertook a decisive and courageous
reassessment of American grand strategy following the shock of the 9/11
attacks. At his doctrine's center, Bush placed the democratization of the
Middle East and the urgent need to prevent terrorists and rogue states from
getting nuclear weapons. Bush also boldly rejected the constraints of an
outmoded international system that was really nothing more that a snapshot
of the configuration of power that existed in 1945."

It is worth noting that John Kerry and the other Democrats' central
criticism of Mr. Bush - the prosaic argument that he should have taken no
action without U.N. approval - is rejected by Mr. Gaddis as being a proposed
policy that would be constrained by an "outmoded international system."

In assessing Mr. Bush's progress to date, the Boston Globe quotes Mr
Gaddis: "So far the military action in Iraq has produced a modest
improvement in American and global economic conditions; an intensified
dialogue within the Arab world about political reform; a withdrawal of
American forces from Saudi Arabia; and an increasing nervousness on the part
of the Syrian and Iranian governments as they contemplated the consequences
of being surrounded by American clients or surrogates. The United States has
emerged as a more powerful and purposeful actor within the international
system than it had been on September 11, 2001."

In another recent article, written before the Iraqi war, Mr. Gaddis
wrote: "[Bush's] grand strategy is actually looking toward the culmination
of the Wilsonian project of a world safe for Democracy, even in the Middle
East. And this long-term dimension of it, it seems to me, goes beyond what
we've seen in the thinking of more recent administrations. It is more
characteristic of the kind of thinking, say, that the Truman administration
was doing at the beginning of the Cold War."

Is Mr. Bush becoming an historic world leader in the same category as
FDR, as the eminent Ivy League professor argues? Or is he just a lying
nitwit, as the eminent Democratic Party Chairman and Clinton fund-raiser
Terry McAuliffe argues? I suspect that as this election year progresses,
that may end up being the decisive debate. You can put me on the side of the
professor.

Matt
-----

[PhillyKev 0]

What I mean by international standing is our ability to garner diplomatic support from other nations, particularly our traditional allies.

Interesting article, though. Pretty much sums up WHY other nations are looking on us with disdain.

[Ron 10]

Quote

And I don't trust Bush not to further degrade our freedom

Im more worried about "politicly correct" types stepping on my personal freedoms more than anything from the Patriot act.

And last I checked the right to have a weapon is on the Dems chopping block.

Quote

our international standing

People hated us WAY before Bush took office...And the Cole, 1st WTC attacks, Beruit, Somolia, Bosnia all happened on Clintons watch...And I bet if a Dem or Reb was in office on 9/11 it would have happened anyway.

Quote

and our economy

I am not an expert on economy...but last I checked the economy does not change fast. And through out history we have had lows and highs in a rather cyclic pattern.

Also many policies take years to have an effect. It has been said many times that you inherent the ecomony from the prior administration.

I have yet to see one policy that has *caused* the problems we are having.

And for every "expert" that you find that can blame it on any policy...I can find another "expert" that will say it had nothing to do with it.

At least when Bush says something I know he will not change his view tomorrow, and claim all along that it was how he felt.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[benny 0]

So what you're saying is, "he may be a dumbass, but at least he's a consistent dumbass"?

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[Guest]

I think I see that $10k being awarded any moment now.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[panzwami 0]

Quote

What I mean by international standing is our ability to garner diplomatic support from other nations, particularly our traditional allies.

From our traditional allies? Actually, we had a great deal of international support, including from "traditional allies" like Britain, Poland, and Australia (et al.)

"Because European countries now resolve differences through negotiation and consensus, there's sometimes an assumption that the entire world functions in the same way. But let us never forget how Europe's unity was achieved: By allied armies of liberation and NATO armies of defense. And let us never forget, beyond Europe's borders, in a world where oppression and violence are very real, liberation is still a moral goal, and freedom and security still need defenders. "

-President George W. Bush

Matt
-----

[Ron 10]

Quote

So what you're saying is, "he may be a dumbass, but at least he's a consistent dumbass"?

Well better than an inconsistent two faced dumbass.

I tend to think I can't do a better job than a guy from Yale that has been in politics for more years than I have been alive, and that has an entire set of well educated people advising him.

You may think you know more than a guy with all that. But when was the last time you had a briefing from the CIA, NSA, or FBI?

Or when was the last time you were in an economic "chat" with Greenspan?

Your last security issue had to do with making sure you locked your front door, not the security of a NATION.

And your last economic decision involved super sizing your value meal.

So I tend to think Bush knows more than you...Unless you care to tell us the last time you were at Langley, or DC?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[benny 0]

Ron now you're just being inflamatory. Sure, he gets more direct information than I do. So yes, maybe he is more prepared to make the decisions than I am. I suppose even a monkey, well maybe not a monkey, but then again, the monkey would get all those briefings. You can throw all the information you want at a fool, that doesn't mean he can synthesize the info and make inferential decisions on it.

Anyway, GWB has been in politics longer than you've been alive? Gee, here I was thinking he was driving oil companies into the ground till about the mid-80s, was I misled? Wow, if he's been in politics longer than you've been alive Ron, you must be pretty young, can you buy beer yet?

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[SkydiverRick 0]

According to Kerry's Bronze Star citation (signed by Admiral Zumwalt himself):"
Bull shit, Zumwalt signed a thousand things a day, or more likely his staff did, unless you told him he would not know he signed a citation for Joe Blow.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Ron now you're just being inflamatory.

No, I was trying to be funny/and prove a point.

I thought the "supersize a value meal" was pretty good.

Truth is you don't know what he gets told...Maybe he does not make the best choices based off of it...But how would you know? You don't have the same info he does.

Quote

Sure, he gets more direct information than I do. So yes, maybe he is more prepared to make the decisions than I am

Nothing to say just wanted to see that in print again

Quote

Anyway, GWB has been in politics longer than you've been alive?

Didn't he work on a Senate campaign in 1971? I was born in 1972.

I said IN politics...Working on a Senate campaign is in politics.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334