Sick of the National Guard debacle.

Status
Not open for further replies.
bountyhunter

you have a draft dodger calling a war veteran a commie coward for opposing an unjust war.

I don't remember hearing Clinton call Kerry any such thing! Oh, I'm sorry...I guess you were talking about Bush. All the inaccuracies in your post just confused me. Nevermind.

Rick
 
It is ironic how this board is essentially about the Second Amendment. The liberal Democrats can scream "AWOL" at George Bush until they are blue in the face. Show me the evidence that Bush was "AWOL." Instead I see posts denigrating his service in the National Guard but no evidence of "AWOL" that would withstand the scrutiny of a court martial. Now, for those concerned about where Kerry stands on the Second Amendment, check out the following link:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/scorecard/scorecard.php?inds=42
 
Damn right! Over 25% of the casualties in Iraq have been reservists/NG. So much for hiding out.

Back then, with the active army filled with draftees, the level of guard/reserve deployment that we see today did not exist. The national guard, by and large, was a safe way to avoid combat, or at least reduce your chances of going to Vietnam.
 
Back then, with the active army filled with draftees, the level of guard/reserve deployment that we see today did not exist. The national guard, by and large, was a safe way to avoid combat, or at least reduce your chances of going to Vietnam.

Not that any republican would care, but during Viet nam the highest level of guard deployment was about 5% of total force (not sure about breakdown of combat/support). That 5% level was only for one year. The other years were a lot less. So, you are correct that getting in the Guard was a REAL good way to stay alive back then.
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's when the people calling a draft dodger who hid in the Guard during the war
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hid, huh? Interesting take, however misinformed.


:

OK, I'll play the semantics game. Kerry had a 100% chance of front line service (he was there) and Bush had about a 5% (actually much less) chance of serving based on deployment records of the Guard from the time. In fact, in 1969 the guard number activated was much less than 5%.

So, you don't agree that is "hiding". OK. But one thing for sure, it sure as hell was a good way to drastically reduce your chances of seeing front line combat.
 
So you guys are saying that everyone who was in the guard or reserves in that era was dodging the draft? Pretty broad brush you're painting with. You know as well as I do that the failure to deploy the RC in any significant numbers was a political decision.

The fact remains that they were serving and available for deployment. Bush has done plenty of things that make him vulnerable. He's not vulnerable on this issue unless you are willing to put every other Vietnam era reservist in the same basket. Are you? Are you actually willing to stand up and say that?

Jeff
 
Kerry had a 100% chance of front line service (he was there) and Bush had about a 5% (actually much less) chance of serving based on deployment records of the Guard from the time. In fact, in 1969 the guard number activated was much less than 5%.

Well, Hells Bells! I had a much lower chance of seeing combat as a 98K during Desert Storm than an 11B.

Does that make me a deserter? A "draft dodger?"

I'll ask again for fix since I believe it's relevent: When and where did you serve that you feel so comfortable calling a Honorably Discharged Veteran a draft dodger?
 
Kerry said he won't make an issue out of it

Yep, he said that - knowing good and well that the the DNC and other Democratic party apparatus will continue the attack, while Kerry hypocritically tut-tuts over the whole thing.

Its all a pre-emptive strike against Kerry's protesting....
 
I have a sneaking suspicion that if the war records of Bush and Kerry were reversed, Bush supporters would be screaming at the top of their lungs about their war hero president who's "been there and done that" and denouncing Kerry as a cowardly elitist who weaseled his way into a job where he could look cool in a pilot's uniform yet still avoid serving in a war zone.

So let's forget what these two guys did during Vietnam and concentrate on their policies today - Bush for what he's done in office, Kerry for his voting record in congress. There's plenty to talk about without bringing up stuff that happened thirty years ago.
 
OK, I'll say it. John Kerry had a better war record than GWB. BFD!

This does NOT make GWB's record dishonorable.

There are many reasons why I will not be supporting Mr. Bush this November (too anti-libertarian for me) but he has handled foreign policy admirably and he is twice the leader Mr. Kerry could ever be.
 
Mark I haven't seen anyone here make any attempt to do anything other than defend the President's service, which has been under attack since 2000. While I personally feel that what Kerry has done since VN is reprehensible at best, there is absolutely no question in my mind that the man did his time and went above and beyond on more than one occasion. That does not give anyone a license to take free shots at the President's record, particularly when there is nothing to substantiate their claims...and especially when they have no record of their own.
 
This is a very good thread to show you how rot this country has become. 2nd Amendment defenders are going to defend a fiercly enemy of the 2nd. (Yes, Kerry).

I wonder, how many people despising Bush, were actually in the fighting forces in 'Nam.

We will get the president we deserve. Don't cry if it' Kerry!
 
I wonder why nobody has brought up G.W. Bush's more recent service: That of Commander-in-Chief of the military for the past three years...
 
From Newsweek:
The standard rap against Bush is that he was ducking combat by joining the Guard. Actually, the Texas Air Guard had a program called Palace Alert that allowed pilots to volunteer for flight time in Vietnam. Three of Bush's fellow pilots—Udell, Woodfin and Fred Bradley—recalled to NEWSWEEK that Bush inquired with the base commander about signing up for Palace Alert. He was told no; he had too few flying hours at the time and his plane, the F-102, was by then deemed obsolete for air combat.
 
There are still a lot of questions I'd like answered. Bush has flip flopped on his promise to realease all his military records from last week. What are they hiding?

The Bush admin is only releasing selected portions of his record. Why is that?


Why does a fighter pilot give up his wings so easily? 2 Pilots I've known did everything in their power short of cheating to make damn sure they passed their medical and would never conisder forfeiting their flying priveldges by skipping out on a medical exam.

Was Bush ever disciplined? Was he sent to a disciplianry unit? Did he accumulate points at a unit that only existed on paper?

Why did he miss so many drills during the year in question? Was he serving community service for another drunk driving incident?

Why do they keep pointing to his "honorable discharge" as proof that he served? My dad was NG Yankee Division mortar man before the war started and stayed in till the late sixties. He knew of several people who got HD's just to get rid of them. It seems to be common knowledge that an HD at that time did not always mean you served honorably. If that could happen to rank and file, it's not a stretch that a Senators grandson and Congressmans son got preferential teratment.

Many here belive that Bush got preferntial treatment to skip the wait list, especially with his barely passing scores yet Bush claimed that was not true while running for Governor. Did Bush lie about that?


This issue will remain open and the American people have a right to know. Just as Clinton's draft dodging was a character issue so is Bush's service record. There was never a sufficient airing of these issues in 2000. Bush got a free pass and was almost able to hide his arrest record. We still don't know if he was ever arrested elsewhere.

After Clinton, the bar was so low that Bush was able to acend the throne despite his failed business record, alcoholism, questionable military service, arrest record and complete absence of any accomplishments not aided by his name or fathers connections. and he was able to do it on a platform of honesty and integrity LOL!


This issue should remain open, the American people deserve no less. IMHO.
 
There are still a lot of questions I'd like answered. Bush has flip flopped on his promise to realease all his military records from last week. What are they hiding?

Here's some questions I'd like to see Kerry answer:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41071-2004Feb13?language=printer


The 1st 28 Questions For Kerry

By George F. Will
Sunday, February 15, 2004; Page B07


In the more than 250 days until Nov. 2, John Kerry can answer questions that linger despite, or because of, all he has said so far. Such as:



Other than denoting your disapproval, what does the adjective mean in the phrase "special interest"? Is the National Education Association a special interest? The AFL-CIO?

You abhor "special tax giveaways for the privileged and special interests." When supporting billions in ethanol subsidies, mostly for agribusinesses, did you think about corn-growing, caucus-holding Iowa?

Is the National Rifle Association a "special interest"? Is "special" a synonym for "conservative"?

When you denounce "lobbyists" do you include those for Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club? Is "liberal lobbyist" an oxymoron?

All the Americans affected by laws you pass -- that is, all Americans -- refuse to pipe down and mind their own business so that you can mind their business for them. Often they hire lobbyists to exercise their First Amendment right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." Can you despise lobbyists without disparaging that right?

You say the rich do not pay enough taxes. In 1979 the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?

You say the federal government is not spending enough on education. President Bush has increased education spending 48 percent. How much is enough?

In January 1991, after Iraq extinguished Kuwait's sovereignty, you opposed responding with force rather than economic sanctions. Have such sanctions ever undone such aggression?

On Jan. 11, 1991, you said that going to war was abandoning "the theory of deterrence." Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression?

The next day you said, "I do not believe our nation is prepared for war." How did unpreparedness subsequently manifest itself?

On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Persian Gulf War, you wrote "I share your concerns" and would have given sanctions more time. Nine days later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, "I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis." Did you have a third position?

You say the Bush administration questions "the patriotism" of its critics. You say that as president you will "appoint a U.S. trade representative who is an American patriot." You mean the current representative, Robert Zoellick, is not a patriot?

You strongly praise former Treasury secretary Bob Rubin, who strongly supports NAFTA and free trade. Have you changed your mind about him or about free trade (as you have changed your mind about the No Child Left Behind Act, the 2002 war resolution, the Patriot Act, etc.)?

You oppose immediate termination of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and you opposed the $87 billion to pay for involvement. Come again?

In 1994, the year after the first attack on the World Trade Center, you voted to cut $1 billion from counterterrorism activities. In 1995 you proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding. Are you now glad that both proposals were defeated?

You favor civil unions but not same-sex marriage. What is the difference? What consequences of gay marriage worry you? Your state's highest court says marriage is "an evolving paradigm." Do you agree? You say you agree with what Dick Cheney said in 2000: States should have a right to "come to different conclusions" about same-sex marriage. Why, then, were you one of only 14 senators who opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects that right? Massachusetts opponents of the same-sex ruling are moving for a referendum to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. How will you vote?

You favor full disclosure of political spending. Organized labor is fighting new regulations requiring full disclosure to union members of the political uses of their mandatory union dues. As president, would you rescind these regulations?

Praising McCain-Feingold restrictions on political contributions, you said: "This bill reduces the power of the checkbook, and I will therefore support it." In December you saved your sagging campaign by writing it a $6.4 million check. Why is your checkbook's unfettered freedom wholesome?

You deny that restricting campaign contributions restricts speech. How much of the $6.4 million did you spend on speech -- in the form of broadcast messages?

Billionaire George Soros says he will spend whatever is necessary to defeat President Bush. As one who believes -- well, who says -- there is "too much money" in politics, are you appalled?

There are 28 more questions where these 28 came from.
 
Another thing I find somewhat entertaining to think on; the socialists (Dems) launched the Vietnam War, bitch about how wrong it was, blame the war on a Republican, then praise kandidate Kerry for service during Vietnam.

Unbelievable.
 
hmmm

that's some pretty apathetic logic there Oji. (Apathy, the REAL threat to liberty.)


It would be more entertaining to remember that the vast majority of the GOP leadership dodged service. Congress has move Vets in the Dems that the GOP. I find the attempts to claim the warrior mantle by the GOP entertaining. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Unbeliveable :)
 
not at all. it's actually easier to name those that did serve.Powell Rumsfeld and McCain and North come to mind.


the rest, Bush, Cheney, Hastert, Lott, Delay, Perle, Wolfowitz, Card, Abrams, bolton, Thompson, Pitt, Ashcroft, Olson, Barr, Gingrich, Guilaini, nichols , Meyers, REAGAN, Quayle, Rove, Falwell, Robertson, Reed, Gafney, Nugent, etc etc did not serve.


The GOP is a vertiable bastion of draft dodging hypocrites and cowards. If you were in Nam, maybe some of your friends were killed in their place, you never know.

Check out the NH Gazettes Chickenhawk database. They got the good on the Dems too although it is a bit one sided.

But enough threadjacking. I gave Bush a free pass in 2000 but the more I read, the more questions get raised. If you are a Bush supporter, do not research his time in the NG, it will drive you nuts.




http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Index-DailyReads-Antiwar-ChickenhawkDatabase.htm
 
actually, I think JohnGalt at Freerepublic turned me on to the Chickenhawk thing if I remeber correctly, but I think he's one of the anti-neo-con, more traditional conservative types.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top