GoRon
Member
What you said is light years away from what Javafiend said.
deserter,awol blah blah blah.....
Cheney continues retreat on Murtha criticism
- Thread starter rick_reno
- Start date
- Status
What you said is light years away from what Javafiend said.
deserter,awol blah blah blah.....
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
"Bush AWOL"???
"Fake but accurate"???
"Fake but accurate"???
RealGun
Member
javafiend said:
"Starting to" is disingenuous, since you obviously have been anti establishment from the beginning. There has never been a chance that you would be complimentary of George Bush. I believe your motive is to suggest that others believe as you do. The problem is that others might be more objective.
Leatherneck
Member
Apparently serving one's country as a Congressman, a Secretary of Defense, and Vice President have no value unless you've dodged hostile fire of the ballistic variety. Have you done any of that, Javafiend? 
TC
TC
I offer this question: which is worse, deferments to avoid service, or a brief, truncated service marked by the creation of three questionable PH (minor wounds, possibly self inflicted --grenade in rice cache, grenade onto a rock too near the boat, giving himself minor shrapnel wounds from his own ord--and turning his back on his fellow servicemen by embracing their enemies in time of war?
Personally, folks who deliberately parade their military service to get brownie points - be it Bush or Kerry - or whomever, really don't impress me.
Modesty is a great virtue. I had an uncle who was at Pearl Harbor during the attack and another who was surrounded at the Battle of the Bulge. They didn't wear those experiences on their sleeves.
Not to hijack a thread but when I see Purple Heart license plates, I also feel ill at ease with such immodesty. Thank you for your service but, again, modesty is a virtue. Wear the medal at the appropriate ceremonies.
Modesty is a great virtue. I had an uncle who was at Pearl Harbor during the attack and another who was surrounded at the Battle of the Bulge. They didn't wear those experiences on their sleeves.
Not to hijack a thread but when I see Purple Heart license plates, I also feel ill at ease with such immodesty. Thank you for your service but, again, modesty is a virtue. Wear the medal at the appropriate ceremonies.
GoRon wrote:
Funny site. It claims that President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended . Tell it to the families of those who have been killed in Iraq since "Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended."
Real credible site alright......
Anyway, the site claims that "four ex-Guardsmen and three other people can verify for us that he was in Alabama performing his duty," but it doesn't name them. Can you?
According to copies of military records obtained by the Boston Globe, Bush stopped flying during his final 18 months of service in 1972 and 1973. The records indicated that he had not reported for Guard duty during a long stretch of time.
In 1972 Bush tried to get a transfer to Alabama, but the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver ultimately disallowed it. He lost his flight status for failing to submit to an annual physical exam. Bush was grounded.
In September 1972 he asked to do duty at a unit in Montgomery; permission was granted.
The commander of the Montgomery unit and his administrative officer told the Globe that they had no recollection that he ever reported. If Bush had performed duty in Alabama, his drill attendance records should have certified and sent to Ellington AFB in Houston, and there would have been a record. No records were found. His annual performance report dated 2 May 1973 noted, "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit" for the past year.
Deserter during wartime. What was he doing?
Funny site. It claims that President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended . Tell it to the families of those who have been killed in Iraq since "Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended."
Real credible site alright......
Anyway, the site claims that "four ex-Guardsmen and three other people can verify for us that he was in Alabama performing his duty," but it doesn't name them. Can you?
According to copies of military records obtained by the Boston Globe, Bush stopped flying during his final 18 months of service in 1972 and 1973. The records indicated that he had not reported for Guard duty during a long stretch of time.
In 1972 Bush tried to get a transfer to Alabama, but the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver ultimately disallowed it. He lost his flight status for failing to submit to an annual physical exam. Bush was grounded.
In September 1972 he asked to do duty at a unit in Montgomery; permission was granted.
The commander of the Montgomery unit and his administrative officer told the Globe that they had no recollection that he ever reported. If Bush had performed duty in Alabama, his drill attendance records should have certified and sent to Ellington AFB in Houston, and there would have been a record. No records were found. His annual performance report dated 2 May 1973 noted, "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit" for the past year.
Deserter during wartime. What was he doing?
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
Give it up, javafiend.
The "Bush went AWOL" claim is a joke. 60 Minutes tried to make the same case you're making, and it made them the laughing stock of the media. It's doing the same thing to your credibility.
"Fake but accurate"
Ultimately it doesn't matter. Murtha's proposal was flat out WRONG, and he deserved every bit of criticism he got. Even if Bush and Cheney were the scum of the earth, it still doesn't change the fact that Murtha (combat service and all) is a defeatist.
The "Bush went AWOL" claim is a joke. 60 Minutes tried to make the same case you're making, and it made them the laughing stock of the media. It's doing the same thing to your credibility.
"Fake but accurate"
Ultimately it doesn't matter. Murtha's proposal was flat out WRONG, and he deserved every bit of criticism he got. Even if Bush and Cheney were the scum of the earth, it still doesn't change the fact that Murtha (combat service and all) is a defeatist.
Unfortunately, the Republicans ensured that Murtha's resolution was quickly referred to a committee so it couldn't be promptly considered or voted on by the House.
In addition to the hundreds of Iraqis dying every week, an average of three American troops are dying every day there. In the first 24 days of this month, 75 GIs have lost their lives. A total of 2,104 US troops have died in Iraq since the invasion. And remember that for every soldier killed, there's another 8 wounded in action.
So how many US soldiers are you prepared to sacrifice? How long should the US occupy Iraq?
Did you see that the Iraqi Reconciliation Conference in Cairo endorsed the view that "resistance is a legitimate right for all people"? Somebody asked Condi Rice about this. Check out her take.
Rice:
But look at the statement from Cairo.
Quick, who's missing from that list? Occupational forces! Rice is acting as an apologist for a regime that has sanctioned killing our own.
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
As many as it takes, and as long as it takes.
Because the alternative, giving up and letting the terror masters win, would be FAR more costly.
"Thye Jihadists are either at your feet or at your throat." (Where's Winston Churchill when we need him?)
DRZinn
Member
Nice try, but no.
Attacking our troops, reprehensible as we (including I) may find it, is a legitimate act of war. What was condemned at the conference was attacking "Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," which was exactly right.
longeyes
member
Too bad honesty is in rather short supply in politics. All we see is people angling for advantage, on both sides, and the truth be damned. We all suffer for that.
gc70
Member
Please give a link to where you found this work of fiction, javafiend.
Actually, Murtha's resolution was simplified by the House leadership to its core question of terminating troop deployment in Iraq. And the resolution was promptly considered and voted on by the House.
In fact, the resolution was considered and voted on so promptly that the Democrats were furious because they didn't get Congress' Thanksgiving recess to tout the 8 "Whereas" talking-points that the House leadership stripped out of the resolution.
Maybe this vitriolic description by a Democratic Congressman will give you a clearer view of what really happened.
gc70
Member
Did you forget what you wrote?
And the committee referral was "so it couldn't be promptly considered or voted on." How does that fit with the description in this Washington Times news article:
On a more serious note:
).
I do feel like a damn fool for conveying the wrong meaning to you in my "work of fiction" comment.
But I feel just fine about my comments on the Murtha resolution, since I'm right.
So, the "resolution was quickly referred to a committee." Exactly which committee was that?
And the committee referral was "so it couldn't be promptly considered or voted on." How does that fit with the description in this Washington Times news article:
--------------------
On a more serious note:
javafiend, I apologize for leading you to think I was calling you a liar; that was certainly not my intention. I meant to poke fun at you for not citing your source, since nearly everything you express is supported by a source citation (no matter how wacky I think some of the sources may be
).I do feel like a damn fool for conveying the wrong meaning to you in my "work of fiction" comment.
But I feel just fine about my comments on the Murtha resolution, since I'm right.
Last edited:
No problem, gc, honestly, no hard feelings at all. Maybe I push and poke people a bit more than is needed here, but most of the time I'm grinning and chuckling as I do it.
But you are not right. There were two different resolutions. The GOP one was voted on; Murtha's wasn't.
From the very article you cite:
The claim that "in little more than 24 hours, Mr. Hastert and Republicans decided to put the question to the House" contains AP's opinion. Murtha's resolution calls for US forces "to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date and for the deployment of "a quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines" in the region.
The Republican resolution:
Did you catch that? "Earliest practicable date" vs. "immediately." People who have mastered reading comprehension recognize that these are two different things.
gc70
Member
Yeah, that reading comprehension thing is a pain; I usually don't get past word equivalency.
It makes you wonder what Murtha was thinking when he included:
It seems that the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Defense should know that job is already taken by a Marine Expeditionary Force, with ships already in the Persian Gulf.
denfoote
Member
In this case, I have to agree with Murtha even if he is a Democrat!!
As a former front line officer, he knows more about what is going on than the VP. As having been in 'Nam, I'm sure he sees the parallels!!!
As a former front line officer, he knows more about what is going on than the VP. As having been in 'Nam, I'm sure he sees the parallels!!!
gc70
Member
Just as a point of curiousity, has it struck anyone else a wee bit strange that the Pentagon was quietly working on troop drawdown plans when Murtha suddenly burst on the scene with his withdrawl resolution? Heck, there's not much that's sweeter than getting credit for your opponents' idea.
Headless Thompson Gunner said:
Its easy to say that when your risking nothing. Kind of like all those moms who support the war on terror but theres no way in hell that they would allow their kids to join the army. People might sing a different tune if your missing a leg, or are gone 12 months out of 18 on an all expense paid trip to the desert dunes.
gc70
Member
Some people view the question as fighting terrorism there or fighting terrorism here.
Bring all of the troops home. Where would the fight against terrorists be? At the restaurant you take your family to this weekend? On the bus your children ride to school? At the mall where you shop?
It's not a simple question and there is certainly not a simple answer.
NorthernExtreme
Member
denfoote said:
As a veteran of the 91 Persian Gulf War and Panama (front line), I can say without doubt that my experience does in no way make me better understand what is happening in Iraq today than the VP. Every situation is different; the tactics of yesteryear are unsuitable for today. The enemy of yesteryear is different than today.
Ones prior service is not to be considered validation for short sighted, political cut and run policy. We lost more soldiers in 1 day of WWII than we have lost in over 2 years of Iraq, but we stuck it out. If it is worth the loss of 1 life, it's worth every other life to justify the loss of the first. And for the record, WMD be dam?, we lost several hundreds in 91. I know some of you don't believe any of this is worth any life. But you remained quiet as U.S. servicemen were risking their life when the UN was in charge in Iraq.
The UN refused to honor their death by demanding Saddam comply with the Cease Fire Agreement (he signed), Saddam fired on American war plains patrolling the No Fly Zone (trying to kill American Pilots/ act of war). Sorry the rest of America doesn't realize Saddam own actions were all the legal reason needed for the reinstitution of hostilities. Sorry to see how many Americans were willing to put more American Pilots in harm way for the UN, but not for the US. Sorry to see how many Americans are willing to trash the President for trying to do something, but remaining quiet when the UN does nothing. Sorry to see how many Americans are willing to believe the worst about another purely based on political ploys and conflicting arguments.
Is Chaney perfect, NO! Is Bush perfect, NO! Are they trying to do something good and needed when no one else will, I believe so. You may believe what you want, but everything used against Chaney and Bush is only valid if you start with the belief that they willingly did it on purpose, and for all the wrong reasons. If you believe that, it says much about your own character.
Regards,
Last edited:
GoRon
Member
Cheney has access to information about the situation on the ground that Murtha doesn't. Cheney also has access to the people running the whole operation that Murtha doesn't.
Murtha should be ashamed of himself. He is nothing more than a tool of the leftists.
If he wasn't a "tool" he would have used much less strident language and would have made sure not to undermine the troops and the mission.
What is offensive is not his position but the way he chose to publicize his flip flop.
And notwithstanding Cheney's special access, he has a documented record of making false statements about Iraq.
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." -- Dick Cheney in speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention, August 2002.
"The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in hindsight." -- Dick Cheney on Monday, 21 November 2005, in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute.
Criticizing the administration does not undercut the troops and the mission.
“The fact of the matter is, [Washington, D.C.] has got a lot of people in it who are armchair quarterbacks, or who like to comment on the passing scene.” -- Dick Cheney, Interview of the Vice President by Wolf Blitzer, CNN, 23 June 2005.
“Dick Cheney said Thursday that if he and George W. Bush are elected they would look at crafting an exit strategy to get U.S. troops out of the Balkans. European allies could take on "a bigger share of the burden there," the Republican vice presidential candidate said. … Cheney also said President Clinton has no clear plan for removing troops from the Balkans. "I haven't seen yet any proposal from the administration to get out of Kosovo or Bosnia," he said while campaigning for the GOP ticket …” -- Dick Cheney, 31 August 2000, reported by AP.
Hey, Dick, here's a suggestion: ****.
- Status
