FLEETWOOD MAC fans for KERRY

[dontlookdown]

Aside from picking up fresh copies of remastered Tusk cd's and getting the best seats we can for the upcoming outdoor summer tour, the other great thing most of us will get a chance to do is vote in a primary. And all of us (U.S. fans) will get to vote in November.

In Iowa and New Hampshire a record number of voters turned out to vote this year. The November election is predicted to be one of the biggest turnouts in U.S. history. Many feel it is because of an uprising against the Bush administration.
Please join Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks and show your support for the Democrats on your state's primary day.

It's been a long hard ride the past 3 years and I think we've all had enough. Let's work together and rid our great country of this pathetic abysmal president.

I'm supporting John Kerry and hope you'll give him some serious consideration as well. I think he will beat George W. Bush with a powerful mandate in November.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dontlookdown
Aside from picking up fresh copies of remastered Tusk cd's and getting the best seats we can for the upcoming outdoor summer tour, the other great thing most of us will get a chance to do is vote in a primary. And all of us (U.S. fans) will get to vote in November.

In Iowa and New Hampshire a record number of voters turned out to vote this year. The November election is predicted to be one of the biggest turnouts in U.S. history. Many feel it is because of an uprising against the Bush administration.
Please join Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks and show your support for the Democrats on your state's primary day.

It's been a long hard ride the past 3 years and I think we've all had enough. Let's work together and rid our great country of this pathetic abysmal president.

I'm supporting John Kerry and hope you'll give him some serious consideration as well. I think he will beat George W. Bush with a powerful mandate in November.

I will be supporting the Democratic nominee for president.
:)
I am thrilled to hear that Lindsey and Stevie are supporting the Democrats as well.

[CarneVaca]

Hmmm.... I'd like to see some official statement from the band to show they are supporting Kerry. Otherwise this is just hearsay.

I will not vote for Kerry in my primary because

--He voted for the Iraq resolution
--He voted for No Child Left Behind
--He voted for the Patriot Act

While voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who were against the war somehow were able to compartmentalize this, this voter isn't.

[dissention]

Kerry has had my support since he ran for Senate and I've been supporting him since he decided to campaign for president, but where did you hear that Stevie and Lindsey endorsed him? I can imagine Lindsey endorsing him, but not Stevie (even though she seems to be a lefty).

Was it in the news?

:)

[Merf]

I'm with Chris-- I will be supporting whomever the Democrats nominate. But I'm also with Carne in that I'd like to see where you found the info that the band is supporting Kerry specifically. Otherwise, maybe this belongs on the Chit Chat board?

[dissention]

I looked on several news sites and the only endorsements from musicians that I found were from Carole King and Tom Petty.

[ShamHy89]

I'm totally for Kerry in this election, but I can't vote for another several years so I'll be cheering along anyways.

Shamus:)

[AgainLindsey]

Please join Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks and show your support for the Democrats on your state's primary day.

?

la nicks is apolitical

[Hawkeye]

Aside from picking up fresh copies of remastered Tusk cd's and getting the best seats we can for the upcoming outdoor summer tour, the other great thing most of us will get a chance to do is vote in a primary. And all of us (U.S. fans) will get to vote in November.

Sorry Remasters of Tusk and rumours and the the upcoming Concert tour, Outwigh the stupid primarys and elections by a umm "Landslide":laugh: Anyways I'm with Stevie in being apolitical and not caring. I guess I'm leaning tords Bush only because he's our current President and why change leaders in the middle of trying to hunt down terrorists. And this should be in the CHOT CHAT forum.

[dontlookdown]

you can't be one half of a duo with Lindsey Buckingham and be apolitical.
you can't be a close friend of Sheryl Crow and Tom Petty and Don Henley and be apolitical.

Stevie mentioned publically last year that Fleetwood Mac isn't a political band for fear of getting Dixie Chicked.

You know that when she walked out on that stage for Bill Clinton in 92 and then played for him again before he left the White House that there's not an apolitical bone in her body.

her wild heart has always been in the right place - comfortably on the left - hugging the shore of the Palisades in southern California

John Kerry's voting record should always be noted. But remember, he has the skills to debate Bush into the fetal position any day of the week. He served this country in the military. Bush went AWOL in 73 and then went on to be a closeted cocaine addict.
Let's vote for electibility and be sure that our bigoted racist misogynist president is out the door in January.

[dontlookdown]

ok - one more mention and then I'll stick to the music.

my family lost 4 friends in the World Trade Center attacks - including someone I went to high school with.

the way the Bush Administration has attempted to co-opt this tragedy is sickening. The families that I know - those four - are disgusted with him and how he used their own tragedies for his political gain. They feel betrayed. They are all conservative families. Even if I was a Republican, I would never vote for Bush for that reason alone. New Yorkers are disgusted with him - he has never had an inkling of respect for that city until he saw it as a means to propell his platformless agenda into the limelight. What a coward and what a fraud. The man is a despicable alcoholic power monger. He deserves to spend the rest of his days in Crawford Texas.

[Bella Figura]

personally, I will not vote for the President based on the recommendations of my two favorite musicians regardless of whether they pubically or privately endorse a candidate.

It's my right to vote, so I will think and choose based on my own personal beliefs and needs...Stevie and Lindsey have their own hands to pull the lever in November.

Please Do Not Vote For Your President or any other elected official based on any other person's opinion without using your own brain first.... :nod:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dontlookdown
you can't be one half of a duo with Lindsey Buckingham and be apolitical.
you can't be a close friend of Sheryl Crow and Tom Petty and Don Henley and be apolitical.

Stevie mentioned publically last year that Fleetwood Mac isn't a political band for fear of getting Dixie Chicked.

You know that when she walked out on that stage for Bill Clinton in 92 and then played for him again before he left the White House that there's not an apolitical bone in her body.

her wild heart has always been in the right place - comfortably on the left - hugging the shore of the Palisades in southern California

John Kerry's voting record should always be noted. But remember, he has the skills to debate Bush into the fetal position any day of the week. He served this country in the military. Bush went AWOL in 73 and then went on to be a closeted cocaine addict.
Let's vote for electibility and be sure that our bigoted racist misogynist president is out the door in January.

But Stevie in a friendly way dissed Clinton by calling him too young on Letterman in 1994. :shrug: I think she wisely never comments on politics and sticks to the music. Personally, I wish more people did :cool: I mean who cares what Toby Keith or Babs has to say. I certainly do not, esp. when they are no more or less qualified than I am to make that opinion.

BTW - this topic and just about every other political topic you can imagine are raging on the Chit Chat board. :nod: Jump right in as you and Dissention apparently think alike and I am currently and as usual defeating Dissention with my stunning acumen :cool: (Note: I am just joking Dissention)

[AliP]

Originally posted by dontlookdown
Please join Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks and show your support for the Democrats on your state's primary day.

It's been a long hard ride the past 3 years and I think we've all had enough. Let's work together and rid our great country of this pathetic abysmal president.




No Thanks.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Hawkeye
I guess I'm leaning tords Bush only because he's our current President and why change leaders in the middle of trying to hunt down terrorists.Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but yikes... that line of thinking is kind of scary.
The man has been ineffectual (or worse) in all other areas of his presidency, so I don't think his "War On Terrorism" should be the deciding factor on voting for him.

As it is, the only "terrorist" he's managed to capture is one who wasn't even a pressing threat to our country. While the true threat is still free, and his cronies are still making plans to terrorize the USA. Coming up on three years since 9/11.

And don't get me started on things like the "Defense of Marriage Act" where he's trying to tell the people of this country how to live their lives (when we all know what a morally upstanding person he's been).

At any rate, this does belong on the Chit-Chat Forum.
I'm not the moderator of this particular forum though, so i can't move it... but from now on, please limit political conversations that only have a tenuous Mac-connection to Chit-Chat. :)

Thanks!

[strandinthewind]

Okay I am starting a thread as we speak about this in the Chit Chat Forum - You and me Stew - now :laugh:

[mhxx77]

I typically don't post on message boards, I simply enjoy reading what fans are talking about, but I couldn't not put my 2 cents in...

If I were Lindsey or Stevie I would be livid right now. Dontlookdown has no information that says Lindsey or Stevie support ANY candidate. I know for a fact that neither of them have made any statement or comment regarding the election, and certainly not a statement supporting any particular candidate. Dontlookdown is using their names. Simple as that.

Dontlookdown is spotlighting what's really disgusting about politics...

There are 2000 people on this message board, and the majority of them most likely adore Lindsey and Stevie. Dontlookdown supports Kerry, which is all fine and good, but to blatantly lie, to make a comment that is meant to make people believe that Lindsey and Stevie specifically support Kerry, in order to gain a few uneducated votes, makes me ill.

Dontlookdown is hoping to find people on this message board who would vote to put someone in office solely based on the fact that Lindsey and Stevie think you should.
Which is a lie. But even if it were so, I'm pleased to see that people on The Ledge are informed and intelligent enough to vote based on politics, and not on what their favorite musicians do and say.

Fleetwood Mac performed for Clinton, true. But it wasn't a Democrat issue, it was an American issue. There's nothing wrong with discussing and speculating who people like Lindsey and Stevie support, but dontlookdown should keep his/her "facts" to his/herself and quit trying to persuade people with false information.

There's my 2 cents.

[dontlookdown]

I simply stated that I was supporting Kerry and encouraged others to look into his campaign.

I also simply stated that Buckingham and Nicks are supporting the Democrats. I did not say that they were supporting Kerry. I titled my post Fleetwood Mac fans for Kerry.

Please read carefully before you react and make blanket statements Mr. mhxx77. You're behaving like a Republican!

Since I was a kid, Fleetwood Mac, Linda Ronstadt, The Eagles, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Warren Zevon, Jackson Browne, the Grateful Dead, Bruce Springsteen and tons of other great bands have been active in Democratic political events locally here in Southern California.
If that makes you angry and you want to remain in denial about it and about our country - then do so. You've got the whole right wing of this country basking in denial so you won't be alone....

[diamondsnake]

Originally posted by dontlookdown
apolitical.


What does this word mean?

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by diamondsnake
What does this word mean? Christopher, "apolitical" means that someone has no interest in, or opinion on, politics. :)

[diamondsnake]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Christopher, "apolitical" means that someone has no interest in, or opinion on, politics. :)

Then that would be me. I don't have the slightest idea what the difference is between a republican or a democrat. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by diamondsnake
Then that would be me. I don't have the slightest idea what the difference is between a republican or a democrat. :laugh:

If you're old enough to vote and don't want to get drafted in the next couple of years, you might want to find out.:)

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by diamondsnake
I don't have the slightest idea what the difference is between a republican or a democrat. :laugh: In some ways that's a good thing... because many people use political opinions to marginalize folks into "us vs. them."

At the same time though, it is good to be at least somewhat informed about what's going on in the political world, as these things will affect your future. :)

But for now, just enjoy being a teenager... then when you're old enough to vote, start paying more attention to politics. Even if it's just enough to form an opinion. :)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dontlookdown

Since I was a kid, Fleetwood Mac, Linda Ronstadt, The Eagles, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Warren Zevon, Jackson Browne, the Grateful Dead, Bruce Springsteen and tons of other great bands have been active in Democratic political events locally here in Southern California.


At one point Fleetwood Mac did a fundraiser for Birch Bayh in the late 70's. It might have been when he was running for the Democaratic nomination in '76.:)

[diamondsnake]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
If you're old enough to vote and don't want to get drafted in the next couple of years, you might want to find out.:)

Well I will be old enough to vote in a few years... would someone mind enlightening me on what the difference is between democrats and republicans. I was overexagerating a little. I know a couple of differences, but would someone mind explaining?

And why would I get drafted? Are we going to war or something? And since I don't beleive in violence, do "they" really have the right to force me to fight in a war?

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by dontlookdown

Please join Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks and show your support for the Democrats on your state's primary day.


This seems a pretty bogus way to attract voters to Kerry or the Democratic party. It's obvious from this statement you're hoping some naive Fleetwood Mac fans would be convinced to vote Democratic because their heros do. Or was this simply a feeble attempt to excuse putting forward your political views in the Fleetwood Mac forum instead of Chit Chat where it belongs? Regardless, why not let THEM declare themselves affilated with a party instead of doing it for them?

And I agree with Sharon. Vote for whom you believe is the best candidate, not for whomever someone tells you Stevie and Lindsey would vote for.

[Hawkeye]

Wait a minute, elaborate more on this drafted thing. I thought that was gone since like after vietnom. It's not being used now. And which party wants a draft. This is news to me.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by diamondsnake
Well I will be old enough to vote in a few years... would someone mind enlightening me on what the difference is between democrats and republicans. I was overexagerating a little. I know a couple of differences, but would someone mind explaining?

And why would I get drafted? Are we going to war or something? And since I don't beleive in violence, do "they" really have the right to force me to fight in a war?

It's great that you want to know more, but I advise going to the Chit Chat forum to ask your questions. I'm sure you'll get plenty of answers. :)

[diamondsnake]

Originally posted by Hawkeye
Wait a minute, elaborate more on this drafted thing. I thought that was gone since like after vietnom. It's not being used now. And which party wants a draft. This is news to me.

I agree, how did this whole drafted thing come up? I haven't heard anything about this...

[Jason T.]

Originally posted by ShamHy89
I'm totally for Kerry in this election, but I can't vote for another several years so I'll be cheering along anyways.

Shamus:)

Good Lord, don't I know the pain of that. I've gotten so interested in this election, almost obsessively. Unfortunately, I won't turn eighteen until December 19th! I'm going to cry...

Note: Shouldn't this be on the Chit Chat board?

To actually answer the question of the topic. KERRY ROCKS!!!

[HomerMcvie]

At one point Fleetwood Mac did a fundraiser for Birch Bayh in the late 70's.[/QUOTE]
Was this the Indianapolis Tusk Tour stop? That was my first FM show. I seem to recall the ticket (possibly) saying something about Birch Bayh. I've got the stub somewhere (would take hours to find). I remember that I was sick as a dog, but INSISTED to my Mom that I HAD to go.

[misterbug]

what is this, c-span?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by diamondsnake
I agree, how did this whole drafted thing come up? I haven't heard anything about this...

Start with this article. I'd also advise getting your news from a variety of sources and see which candidates and parties appeal to you.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~11676~1920761,00.html#

Army chief planning large U.S. force in Iraq through 2006
By Robert Burns
The Associated Press


AP / Evan Vucci
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker testifies today on Capitol Hill before the House Armed Services Committee hearing on military preparedness.





WASHINGTON - The Army's top general said today he is making plans based on the possibility that the Army will be required to keep tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq through 2006.

Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, told the House Armed Services Committee that "for planning purposes" he has ordered his staff to consider how the Army would replace the force that is now rotating into Iraq with another force of similar size in 2005 - and again in 2006.

Stretched by commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea and the Balkans, the Army has used emergency authority to go beyond the limit set by Congress on the number of soldiers who can be in uniform, Schoomaker said.

He said the Army now is about 11,000 soldiers above the 482,400 limit and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has authorized the service to temporarily exceed the limit by as much as 30,000.

The decision about when to end the U.S. military presence in Iraq will be made by President Bush and his national security aides, in consultation with American commanders in Iraq. As a service chief, Schoomaker's role is to ensure that soldiers are trained and equipped for any mission the president requires.

Of the 105,000 troops going to Iraq this winter and spring to replace the 130,000 who have been there since the start of the war, about 80,000 are Army soldiers. The replacement force, which includes 25,000 Marines, is scheduled to spend a full year in Iraq.

Army officials have said that planning for the 2005 rotation of forces into Iraq will begin in February.

Schoomaker said he was opposed to Congress passing legislation to permanently expand the size of the Army, mainly because it would be too costly.

"I'm adamant that that is not the way to go," the Army chief said.

Even while the Iraq war continues, the Pentagon is planning a new offensive in the two-year-old Afghanistan campaign to try to stop remnants of the Taliban regime and the al-Qaeda terrorist network, officials said today.

Orders have been issued to prepare equipment and supplies, though the operation will not necessarily require additional troops in the region, where about 11,000 Americans are still deployed, a defense official said on condition of anonymity.

Schoomaker said the Army is enjoying success in recruiting new soldiers.

"There are more people lining up to come in than we've ever had, and the quality of those people is higher than it's ever been, and there's no indication right now that that's not going to continue," he said.

Members of the House panel expressed surprise that Rumsfeld had agreed that the Army needed as many as 30,000 more soldiers, since he has publicly opposed a legislative move to expand the service.

Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, D-Calif., said it sounded as if Rumsfeld was accomplishing through the use of his own executive powers the troop increase that he had resisted on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said he was concerned that the requirement for large numbers of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan may break the Army.

"This does not mean we should pull back from our commitments," Skelton said. "We can't unring the bell. We're there. We've got to win. We've got to stabilize that country," he said of Iraq. "We cannot afford that to evolve into a civil war."

[mhxx77]

Dontlookdown... maybe I talked too much in my last post, so I'll try and keep this one simple...

"Please join Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks and show your support for the Democrats on your state's primary day."

You're trying to tell me that you weren't insinuating that Lindsey and Stevie support Democrats, therefore supporting Kerry? Bull.

And I find it laugh out loud funny that from my post you somehow believe that I am "acting" like a republican. I hate to break it to you but politics are a bit more complicated than that. And a republican I am not. You should want your candidate to win because the majority elected him, not because people like you have wrangled votes.

Urge people to get educated, urge people to get out there and vote. But don't try and sway people.

I simply think that your attempt to gain votes for your candidate is sad and wrong. It's called an opinion, something that everyone should be able to formulate themselves...without your help. And I certainly don't think a FM message board is the place to discuss politics, so I'll end this conversation here.

[diamondsnake]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Start with this article. I'd also advise getting your news from a variety of sources and see which candidates and parties appeal to you.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~11676~1920761,00.html#

Army chief planning large U.S. force in Iraq through 2006
By Robert Burns
The Associated Press


AP / Evan Vucci
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker testifies today on Capitol Hill before the House Armed Services Committee hearing on military preparedness.





WASHINGTON - The Army's top general said today he is making plans based on the possibility that the Army will be required to keep tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq through 2006.

Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, told the House Armed Services Committee that "for planning purposes" he has ordered his staff to consider how the Army would replace the force that is now rotating into Iraq with another force of similar size in 2005 - and again in 2006.

Stretched by commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea and the Balkans, the Army has used emergency authority to go beyond the limit set by Congress on the number of soldiers who can be in uniform, Schoomaker said.

He said the Army now is about 11,000 soldiers above the 482,400 limit and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has authorized the service to temporarily exceed the limit by as much as 30,000.

The decision about when to end the U.S. military presence in Iraq will be made by President Bush and his national security aides, in consultation with American commanders in Iraq. As a service chief, Schoomaker's role is to ensure that soldiers are trained and equipped for any mission the president requires.

Of the 105,000 troops going to Iraq this winter and spring to replace the 130,000 who have been there since the start of the war, about 80,000 are Army soldiers. The replacement force, which includes 25,000 Marines, is scheduled to spend a full year in Iraq.

Army officials have said that planning for the 2005 rotation of forces into Iraq will begin in February.

Schoomaker said he was opposed to Congress passing legislation to permanently expand the size of the Army, mainly because it would be too costly.

"I'm adamant that that is not the way to go," the Army chief said.

Even while the Iraq war continues, the Pentagon is planning a new offensive in the two-year-old Afghanistan campaign to try to stop remnants of the Taliban regime and the al-Qaeda terrorist network, officials said today.

Orders have been issued to prepare equipment and supplies, though the operation will not necessarily require additional troops in the region, where about 11,000 Americans are still deployed, a defense official said on condition of anonymity.

Schoomaker said the Army is enjoying success in recruiting new soldiers.

"There are more people lining up to come in than we've ever had, and the quality of those people is higher than it's ever been, and there's no indication right now that that's not going to continue," he said.

Members of the House panel expressed surprise that Rumsfeld had agreed that the Army needed as many as 30,000 more soldiers, since he has publicly opposed a legislative move to expand the service.

Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, D-Calif., said it sounded as if Rumsfeld was accomplishing through the use of his own executive powers the troop increase that he had resisted on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said he was concerned that the requirement for large numbers of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan may break the Army.

"This does not mean we should pull back from our commitments," Skelton said. "We can't unring the bell. We're there. We've got to win. We've got to stabilize that country," he said of Iraq. "We cannot afford that to evolve into a civil war."

How does this article relate to "being drafted"? I read the whole thing, but didn't see anything specificly saying they were going to draft people.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by diamondsnake
How does this article relate to "being drafted"? I read the whole thing, but didn't see anything specificly saying they were going to draft people.

Sometimes you have to read between the lines. Here's one that's a little clearer and BTW, I have also posted others in the Chit Chat Forum.

http://www.ljworld.com/section/stateregional/story/151198

Selective Service notice spurs worry about draft
By Scott Rothschild, Journal-World

Friday, November 7, 2003

Federal officials are trying to fill selective service boards across the country, but they denied Thursday that the effort was a prelude to reviving the draft.

advertisement

But with the nation at war and American forces spread thin, questions about the possibility of re-establishing the draft are increasing.

"I don't think you ever want to see the draft reinstated," said Bryan Young, a Wichita junior at Kansas University. "But if the draft was necessary to achieve what President Bush thought was needed, I would say it's my duty as a citizen to honor that commitment."

The draft ended in 1973 amid controversy during the Vietnam War. Critics said the poor and minorities were disproportionately conscripted, while young people from middle- and high-income families were granted college deferments or other excuses that kept them out of the armed services.

This week, rumors about reinstating the draft leaped to the forefront after a U.S. Department of Defense Web site sought applicants for local draft boards.

The headline on the posting read: "Serve Your Community and the Nation. Become a Selective Service System Local Board Member."

A spokesman for the Defense Department who declined to identify himself said the posting was taken down after several people called expressing concern.

Officials with the Selective Service System, a civilian agency that registers young men in case a draft were re-established, denied that the posting on the Defense Department Web site represented a new effort to reinstate the draft.

"This not even remotely resembles efforts to kick it up a notch," said Dan Amon, a public affairs specialist for the Selective Service System.

He said the Selective Service routinely sought applicants to fill 11,000 slots on local draft boards nationwide to be ready if the draft ever were reinstated. The terms on these voluntary boards are for 20 years, and many are now expiring, he said.

"We're just going through a cycle," he said. He said when the information was posted on the Defense Department Web site, it raised some alarms. "We're not even quite sure how it got there," he said.

A draft could only be authorized by the president and Congress. Under that scenario, the local draft boards would decide which draft-age men would receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service.

During most of the Vietnam War, if a college student could show progress in his studies, he was excused from military service. If a draft were instituted now, a college student's induction into the military could be delayed only until the end of the current semester.

Some have argued that the draft should be reinstated.

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has said that the all-volunteer force is largely made up of the nation's underclass. Others have said that the nation had an aggressive foreign policy because few in Congress or the Bush administration had military experience.

Young, the KU student, said he would be disappointed if the draft came because it would mean the nation faced an emergency.

"I would feel disappointed only to the extent that it was war, and war is unfortunate. I wouldn't feel disappointed to discontinue my college career," he said.

[DeeGeMe]

I do get to vote next week in the SC primary. But I'm not thrilled with Kerry. As someone said earlier, I'm very unhappy that he voted for the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and NCLB. If the repugs were so successful in painting Gore with the liberal Democratic brush, they'll have a field day with Kerry. All they'll have to do is mention his close friendship with Ted Kennedy down here in the South and Kerry is toast. And you can't win the White House without winning a few key Southern states. Don't get me wrong--I think Ted Kennedy has made some brilliant speeches and has done a fine job trying to hold the Republican feet to the fire. Not that any of it seems to be doing any good. Where is the media at these days? Oh, I know--too busy kissing Bush butt. If Bill Clinton would have done 1/100 of the crap that Bush has done, he would have been hung from the top of the Washington Monument. I'm still confused on the whole, "It's wrong to lie about sex thing, but it's okay to lie about WMD." Anyway, if Kerry ends up the nominee, I'll vote early and often--anything it takes to make sure that we give Mr. Bush a one-way ticket back Crawford, Texas.

[golden braid]

Originally posted by AgainLindsey


Stevie did do the Artists' Rights concert and I think she also went to Sacramento along with Don Henley and others to promote some bill about artists' record contracts or something like that. I can't remember. But anyway that was political.

[diamondsnake]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Sometimes you have to read between the lines. Here's one that's a little clearer and BTW, I have also posted others in the Chit Chat Forum.

http://www.ljworld.com/section/stateregional/story/151198

Selective Service notice spurs worry about draft
By Scott Rothschild, Journal-World

Friday, November 7, 2003

Federal officials are trying to fill selective service boards across the country, but they denied Thursday that the effort was a prelude to reviving the draft.

advertisement

But with the nation at war and American forces spread thin, questions about the possibility of re-establishing the draft are increasing.

"I don't think you ever want to see the draft reinstated," said Bryan Young, a Wichita junior at Kansas University. "But if the draft was necessary to achieve what President Bush thought was needed, I would say it's my duty as a citizen to honor that commitment."

The draft ended in 1973 amid controversy during the Vietnam War. Critics said the poor and minorities were disproportionately conscripted, while young people from middle- and high-income families were granted college deferments or other excuses that kept them out of the armed services.

This week, rumors about reinstating the draft leaped to the forefront after a U.S. Department of Defense Web site sought applicants for local draft boards.

The headline on the posting read: "Serve Your Community and the Nation. Become a Selective Service System Local Board Member."

A spokesman for the Defense Department who declined to identify himself said the posting was taken down after several people called expressing concern.

Officials with the Selective Service System, a civilian agency that registers young men in case a draft were re-established, denied that the posting on the Defense Department Web site represented a new effort to reinstate the draft.

"This not even remotely resembles efforts to kick it up a notch," said Dan Amon, a public affairs specialist for the Selective Service System.

He said the Selective Service routinely sought applicants to fill 11,000 slots on local draft boards nationwide to be ready if the draft ever were reinstated. The terms on these voluntary boards are for 20 years, and many are now expiring, he said.

"We're just going through a cycle," he said. He said when the information was posted on the Defense Department Web site, it raised some alarms. "We're not even quite sure how it got there," he said.

A draft could only be authorized by the president and Congress. Under that scenario, the local draft boards would decide which draft-age men would receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service.

During most of the Vietnam War, if a college student could show progress in his studies, he was excused from military service. If a draft were instituted now, a college student's induction into the military could be delayed only until the end of the current semester.

Some have argued that the draft should be reinstated.

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has said that the all-volunteer force is largely made up of the nation's underclass. Others have said that the nation had an aggressive foreign policy because few in Congress or the Bush administration had military experience.

Young, the KU student, said he would be disappointed if the draft came because it would mean the nation faced an emergency.

"I would feel disappointed only to the extent that it was war, and war is unfortunate. I wouldn't feel disappointed to discontinue my college career," he said.

Coming from a boy in his late teens, this is scary stuff. So what side supports this draft idea? The republicans? Also, is it true that the democrats don't beleive in war?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by diamondsnake
Coming from a boy in his late teens, this is scary stuff. So what side supports this draft idea? The republicans? Also, is it true that the democrats don't beleive in war?

I would suggest checking out cnn.com and just reading about politics and what's going on. After doing that, you'll be able to form your own opinions. There are also links to all of the candidates web pages there and those have their postions on the war.

[jwd]

DeeGeMe:

"It's wrong to lie about sex thing, but it's okay to lie about WMD."

Or is that the other way around? :confused:


DeeGeMe:

Anyway, if Kerry ends up the nominee, I'll vote early and often

Now that's a sure way to get your candidate elected. :laugh:


As for the original topic suggesting that Stevie and Lindsey, and well every member of FM being pro-Kerry/Democratic is definitely misleading. I do think John McVie is Republican and remember Christine doubting whether she would vote for Clinton(if she could), and Stevie saying she thought Clinton was too young to be president. Just because they play for the Clintons doesn't necessarily mean they agree with their political views. It's an honor to play at such events, plain and simple. Nothing more, nothing less. I do agree, that no matter what the members of FM believe, everyone should use their own minds and make their own decisons. :)


Joe

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
Or is that the other way around? :confused:


:rolleyes:

I'm really interested in hearing how lying about sex is just as atrocious as lying about war.

Proceed. :D :wavey:

[dissention]

Originally posted by diamondsnake
Coming from a boy in his late teens, this is scary stuff. So what side supports this draft idea? The republicans? Also, is it true that the democrats don't beleive in war?

The Republicans support the draft and will reinstate it if Bush is re-elected. Of course, this hasn't been confirmed, but anyone who keeps up with politics knows it'll happen. ;) :laugh:

And, yes, most Democrats do not support this ridiculous war that was sold to the American people.

[CarneVaca]

Hawkeye, you had the most telling post so far. Really, it explains why people like Bush get elected:

Sorry Remasters of Tusk and rumours and the the upcoming Concert tour, Outwigh the stupid primarys and elections by a umm "Landslide" Anyways I'm with Stevie in being apolitical and not caring. I guess I'm leaning tords Bush only because he's our current President and why change leaders in the middle of trying to hunt down terrorists. And this should be in the CHOT CHAT forum.

See what I mean?

Furthermore, saying you'll vote for him because he's already the president flies in the face of what democracy is about. There's something terribly wrong with that kind of rationale.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by dissention


And, yes, most Democrats do not support this ridiculous war that was sold to the American people.


Except Kerry, right? And Clark, depending on what days you ask him. ;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
Except Kerry, right? And Clark, depending on what days you ask him. ;)

Touche. :D

I agree, but no one else can beat Bush like Kerry. And Clark is just a nut bag. He's just...u...g...h.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by dissention
Touche. :D

I agree, but no one else can beat Bush like Kerry. And Clark is just a nut bag. He's just...u...g...h.

I think Clark is a dud too. And I do think that Kerry is a respectable man. Dean, however, is a double ugh. :)

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
I think Clark is a dud too. And I do think that Kerry is a respectable man. Dean, however, is a double ugh. :)

You say that. But you just pointed to a big flaw in Kerry's presidential bid. Don't you think the Bushers are going to have him for lunch over voting for the war while claiming to oppose it? It's pretty clear to me that Kerry was playing politics with the lives of Americans, not to mention Iraqis, when he decided to vote for the war. If he had thought most Americans were against it, he would have voted against it.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
You say that. But you just pointed to a big flaw in Kerry's presidential bid. Don't you think the Bushers are going to have him for lunch over voting for the war while claiming to oppose it? It's pretty clear to me that Kerry was playing politics with the lives of Americans, not to mention Iraqis, when he decided to vote for the war. If he had thought most Americans were against it, he would have voted against it.

I'm a Republican. Of the Democrats, I have the most respect for Kerry and Lieberman. I will not be voting for Kerry or any of the Democrats. I won't be voting for Bush, either.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
I do think John McVie is Republican and remember Christine doubting whether she would vote for Clinton(if she could),

Joe

I don't think Mick, Chris or John are American citizens.

[DeeGeMe]

Krista, please tell me you're not going to vote! Vote for somebody--even if it is Shrub. Honestly, I wish it was mandatory to vote in this country. Of course, given time, I'm sure it will be under the Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft presidency. We just won't be able to vote for any party other than the Repugs. Sorta like Florida last time.

[sodascouts]

I believe this topic has been moved to where it belongs: Chit Chat. Why not reply to all this intelligent discussion there?

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?threadid=12976

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
I'm a Republican. Of the Democrats, I have the most respect for Kerry and Lieberman. I will not be voting for Kerry or any of the Democrats. I won't be voting for Bush, either.

I'm not surprised about Lieberman. He's just a Republican who calls himself a Democrat. God knows why. Your choice of Kerry is interesting, but then again, he has voted like a Republican for the last three years.

[dissention]

Originally posted by sodascouts
I believe this topic has been moved to where it belongs: Chit Chat. Why not reply to all this intelligent discussion there?

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?threadid=12976

If it ain't broke...:laugh: :wavey:

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by DeeGeMe
Krista, please tell me you're not going to vote! Vote for somebody--even if it is Shrub. Honestly, I wish it was mandatory to vote in this country. Of course, given time, I'm sure it will be under the Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft presidency. We just won't be able to vote for any party other than the Repugs. Sorta like Florida last time.

I am considering voting for the Libertarian candidate, Nolan. I agree that voting is important. I just have been disgusted with the major party candidates these past two elections.

[jwd]

dissention:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jwd
Or is that the other way around?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





I'm really interested in hearing how lying about sex is just as atrocious as lying about war.

Proceed.


First let me say that I don't believe Bush "lied". We all know Clinton lied, no doubt about it. And you can belittle his offense(s) by using sex or blow jobs, but it was a lot more than that. But to answer your question, I can sum it up in one word. PRINCIPLE.


Joe

[strandinthewind]

Not only did Clinton lie under oath and obstruct justice, he furthered this criminal act by sending out his cabinet members to speak with the press to perpetuate his lie. That is pretty bad if you ask me, but no one died over it. Yet, Clinton was impeached over this.

Conversely, Cheney and several other senior members of W's inner circle as well as the head of the CIA and other people knew and openly opined the Niger nuclear stuff was false. It is unknown of W had actual knowledge a la RR and W1 and the Iran-Contra stuff :rolleyes: However, W did after the fact say the nuclear Niger stuff was false and he should not have said it. Thousands have died from this lie and the US has for the moment lost face with the world.

Thus, although I recognize Clinton actually broke a law (I am unsure if W did - Where do you look up laws regulating the Pres.'s lying about the reasons for going to war? :laugh: ), W's lie was far worse IMO. He should be impeached.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Unfortunately many will still find themselves confused to what they air...Dem or Repub...after they read every web site out there...Basically it's like this :

If we had a democratic President right now who was leading this war, the republicans would be opposing it and the Dems. praising it..that's just the way I see it....Clinton bombed Iraq MANY times...so I for one do not think this war is a Democrat or Republican war...the reason Kerry voted for it..
Unfortunately now he opposes it (which makes me wary of him.)

I am a registered Republican...but that does not mean I strictly vote that way....I try to judge by who I like the best, no matter what their political party....I don't agree with Democrats on Taxes...I dont agree with Republicans on gay marriage....I dont agree with Democrats on Affirmative Action or Abortion......And I dont agree with Republicans on Medicare and Social Security...

So Who I'm going to vote for is very in the air right now!!

Chris

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by ShangriLaTroubl
I am a registered Republican...

You can still be saved. Don't lose faith. ;)

[diamondsnake]

Clinton had every right to lie- it was no ones business who he slept with.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by diamondsnake
Clinton had every right to lie- it was no ones business who he slept with.

Except perhaps his wife, and hmm... maybe, just maybe, all the taxpayers who were paying for the office in which he was getting serviced.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by diamondsnake
Clinton had every right to lie- it was no ones business who he slept with.

In a vacuum this is true. However, when a man of power sleeps with a woman in his employee and then gives her a job, that is wrong. That brings it into the public eye, esp. when our tax dollars are providing her with this new job, which she is getting because she, inter alia, fellated the Pres. of the U.S. not because she interviewed for it etc. Moreover, nothing gives anyone, much less the Pres. of the U.S., the right to lie under oath no matter whether they should have been asked. Moreover, he sent his cabinet out to perpetuate his lie and he kept foreign heads of state waiting while he was having sex on U.S. Fed. Govt. property.

Personally, I cannot for the life of me figure out why the feminists did not take BC to task for this. If a Republican had done it, they would have gone for the throat even if, as here, both parties were consenting adults.

[secondhandchain]

And why would I get drafted? Are we going to war or something? And since I don't beleive in violence, do "they" really have the right to force me to fight

Sorry to inform you, but we ARE at war right now in Iraq. Soldiers are dying every day.

[dissention]

Originally posted by secondhandchain
And why would I get drafted? Are we going to war or something? And since I don't beleive in violence, do "they" really have the right to force me to fight

Sorry to inform you, but we ARE at war right now in Iraq. Soldiers are dying every day.

If the draft was reinstated, you'd be drafted because we "need" more people in Iraq to fight for the oil. The White House has been saying all along that we need more troops. :rolleyes: Although, I do love how Shrub mumbled off a list of nations that have contributed troops. Ha. All of their contributions probably make up less than a thousand soldiers.

And, yes, they can force you to go *or* work in a low-level job in Iraq. Maybe being a cook or a gun cleaner. But you'd still be in danger.

And Shrub would disagree about being at war. We're simply "spreading Democracy." :laugh:

Oh, I can't wait until that bastard is gone. If he gets re-elected, I will shed some tears.

[Ghosty]

Just because FWM played for Bill Clinton does not mean Stevie voted for him or supported him. When the prez asks you to play, it's considered an honor, whether you voted for him or not. It's also great publicity.

When she was on David Letterman during Street Angel (I think it was then) and he asked her about Clinton, she seemed to not want to say too much, but it sounded like she did not vote for him or support him. She was tight-lipped but said she thought he was too young to run a whole country, and then made a joke about Al Gore and all his many kids. She is just polite in not pushing her views onto others, especially her fans. She doesn't feel it's her place to bash someone in public, nor promote them. Geez, even her statement when she came out of the premiere for that Robin Hood movie many years ago, she said something like - 'it's not my place to say, it was not my movie.' And I appreciate stars who do not try and push their fans into their own views of things. I have always admired Stevie a lot because of that.

[mylittledemon]

It is everyone's right to vote. And it's nice to see that everyone is at least GOING to vote. There's nothing I hate more than to see someone who is 18 and won't vote. At any rate, I always vote for the lesser of the Two Evils. I don't like Kerry at all. I'm voting for Bush...again.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Ghosty
She doesn't feel it's her place to bash someone in public, nor promote them.

Unless it's Prince.:laugh:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Ghosty
She is just polite in not pushing her views onto others, especially her fans. She doesn't feel it's her place to bash someone in public, nor promote them.

Gee, you're going to have to explain to me how dodging a question about how you feel about the president constitutes a polite refusal to push your views on others. If someone asks me what do you think of Bush and I answer that in my humble opinion, he is the biggest moron to ever occupy the White House, how is that pushing my view on others? I was asked a question and I answered.

Take it from someone who used to ask questions for a living: It's far more polite to answer the question than to dodge it. And I'm not knocking Stevie. She can answer or not answer whatever she wants. But let's not take our interpretations of it so far.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by mylittledemon
I always vote for the lesser of the Two Evils. I don't like Kerry at all. I'm voting for Bush...again.

I'll start by saying that voting for the lesser of two evils is a low standard indeed. That is not necessarily your fault.

But interpreting that to mean that Dubya is the lesser of two evils surely is. The man got us into an illegal war in which upwards of 10,000 have died. He's rolled back just about every environmental protection he could think of and pushed through Congress a Medicare bill that was a shameful corruption of what it was intended to be, and the result of which will be senior citizens paying more for medication while drug companies make more money. And there's so much more, but those are three particularly odious events. Lesser of two evils? Time to wake up.

[dissention]

Originally posted by mylittledemon
It is everyone's right to vote. And it's nice to see that everyone is at least GOING to vote. There's nothing I hate more than to see someone who is 18 and won't vote. At any rate, I always vote for the lesser of the Two Evils. I don't like Kerry at all. I'm voting for Bush...again.

Bush is the lesser of two evils? That's fine if you don't like Kerry, but look at the candidates and their qualifications and views.

There is hope for you yet!

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I'll start by saying that voting for the lesser of two evils is a low standard indeed. That is not necessarily your fault.

But interpreting that to mean that Dubya is the lesser of two evils surely is. The man got us into an illegal war in which upwards of 10,000 have died. He's rolled back just about every environmental protection he could think of and pushed through Congress a Medicare bill that was a shameful corruption of what it was intended to be, and the result of which will be senior citizens paying more for medication while drug companies make more money. And there's so much more, but those are three particularly odious events. Lesser of two evils? Time to wake up.

C'mon, that list could be quite bigger, dude. :laugh: :wavey:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I for one also think people exaggerate things about the President.

From what I understand the President believes that everyone should be able to choose a health care plan that meets their needs at a price they can afford. By allowing patients the choice of doctors, and hospitals seniors will be able to get even better care.

There is a huge problem in health care dealing with cancer. Under the Presiden'ts health care plan it would provide full coverage for disease prevention such as screenings for cancer, diabetes and osteoporosis

For people to say he is ruining Medicare, I just think that's bull. The President has committed up to $400 billion over the next ten years in his FY 2004 budget to pay for modernizing and improving Medicare.

This plan would give all Medicare beneficiaries access to prescription drug coverage that lets seniors get the medicines they need, without the government dictating their drug choices. Choice of an individual health care plan that best fits their needs just like Members of Congress and other federal employees enjoy today. The plan will make sure that low-income seniors receive additional financial assistance so they will not have to pay more to receive better benefits than they currently do under Medicare.


So what people keep saying about this medicare thing makes no sense to me..

Democrats call this a republican war...well the great words of Bill Clinton ring in my head , as he talked to the country about striking Iraq.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. "
"Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States"
"But once more the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests we will do so."

hmmm

Chris

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Also...Clinton (who I think was a great president) during a visit to Portugal in October told Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso that he was convinced Iraq had the WMD up until the fall of Saddam Hussein. Clinton said given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, he believed that......Will democrats believe Clinton?

Chris

[Johnny Stew]

I'm never entirely sure why a past president's opinion is considered important in regards to what a current president is doing.

Sure, Clinton might have believed... as recently as this past October... that Iraq did have WMDs, but he isn't the one who made the decision to send our young men and women off to war.

And I'm sure he was basing his opinion on information he may have had at the time of his presidency... but the fact of the matter is, it's been four years since he was in the White House, and things change.

Since the time Clinton left the White House, U.N. inspectors couldn't find any evidence of WMDs in Iraq, after months of searching... and several other sources point to the fact that no one knew positively that Iraq was still in posession of WMDs.
And yet, we still went off to war... and our government still considered the idea that Iraq might "possibly" have WMDs important enough to re-focus their war efforts towards Saddam Hussein, when their main focus should have always been Osama Bin Laden.

Based on intelligence reports, Hussein was not a present, credible threat to the safety of this country, and yet our government insisted he was.

If they wanted to take him down eventually, so be it... but the "evidence" they presented to this country in order to justify this war, was, at best, unsubstantiated, and, at worst, an outright lie.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by ShangriLaTroubl
For people to say he is ruining Medicare, I just think that's bull. The President has committed up to $400 billion over the next ten years in his FY 2004 budget to pay for modernizing and improving Medicare.

Evidently you missed the reports last week that the bill is going to end up costing something like 30 percent more than what the administration said it would before it passed. Oh darn, just another little minor detail they got wrong. Hmmm....kinda like the nuclear cake that was coming out of Africa and those huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, right? All unintentional little mistakes, of course.

This plan would give all Medicare beneficiaries access to prescription drug coverage that lets seniors get the medicines they need, without the government dictating their drug choices. Choice of an individual health care plan that best fits their needs just like Members of Congress and other federal employees enjoy today.

I guess there are people out there ready to believe anything. Make no mistake. This bill is going to cost seniors millions and millions of dollars and is going to make it tougher for all of us to get decent health care. As it is, I'm already paying more for health insurance than I was just a year ago. Ask anyone around you. They'll probably say the same thing. And it's going to get worse.

So what people keep saying about this medicare thing makes no sense to me..

Of course not. Because you've bought the bull****.

And frankly, I don't care what Clinton said or didn't say about Iraq. The fact is there were no WMD in Iraq and Saddam was no threat to us. That should have been the end of the story.

[David]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I guess there are people out there ready to believe anything. Make no mistake. This bill is going to cost seniors millions and millions of dollars and is going to make it tougher for all of us to get decent health care. As it is, I'm already paying more for health insurance than I was just a year ago. Ask anyone around you. They'll probably say the same thing. And it's going to get worse. My health insurance went up $1,500 from 2002 to 2003. Not went up to---went up.

It's a good thing I like bologna sandwiches!

[dissention]

Originally posted by ShangriLaTroubl
I for one also think people exaggerate things about the President.

From what I understand the President believes that everyone should be able to choose a health care plan that meets their needs at a price they can afford. By allowing patients the choice of doctors, and hospitals seniors will be able to get even better care.

There is a huge problem in health care dealing with cancer. Under the Presiden'ts health care plan it would provide full coverage for disease prevention such as screenings for cancer, diabetes and osteoporosis

For people to say he is ruining Medicare, I just think that's bull. The President has committed up to $400 billion over the next ten years in his FY 2004 budget to pay for modernizing and improving Medicare.

This plan would give all Medicare beneficiaries access to prescription drug coverage that lets seniors get the medicines they need, without the government dictating their drug choices. Choice of an individual health care plan that best fits their needs just like Members of Congress and other federal employees enjoy today. The plan will make sure that low-income seniors receive additional financial assistance so they will not have to pay more to receive better benefits than they currently do under Medicare.


So what people keep saying about this medicare thing makes no sense to me..

Democrats call this a republican war...well the great words of Bill Clinton ring in my head , as he talked to the country about striking Iraq.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. "
"Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States"
"But once more the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests we will do so."

hmmm

Chris

Methinks you need to look up some information about this Medicare plan. ;)

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I have looked up information on this Medicare plan...I did not think the information up on my own, obviously it is what I heard...

The question for me really is, who to believe, ya know? You here opposite things from both sides, it is hard to distinquish the truth. Myself being a new 18 yr old voter, I guess I am still trying to figure out WHAT I am...I have read A LOT of info on both sides....and I just seem to agree with things about both..

Chris

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Also you made a very good point Johnny Stew about the war...I appreciate that, it has made me rethink you could say, my stance...which is now even more unclear, hopefully with the right amount of research, and info from both sides I will be able to decide by November...

Chris

[jwd]

Bush isn't the only one who believed Saddam had WMDS.



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
> develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
>is our bottom line."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
>
> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
>We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
>destruction program."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
>
> "Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great
>deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
>nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
>greatest security threat we face."
> - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
>
> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
>since 1983."
> - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
>
> "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
>U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
>appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
>effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
>destruction programs."
> - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
> Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
>
> "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
>destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
>has made a mockery of the weapons inspection
>process."
> - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
>
> "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
>destruction and palaces for his cronies."
> - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
>
> "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
>programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
>continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
>continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
>licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
>the United States and our allies."
> - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,)
> and others, December 5, 2001
>
> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
>threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
> mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
>and the means of delivering them."
> - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
>
> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
>weapons throughout his country."
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
>
> "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
>deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
>power."
>- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
>
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
>developing weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
>
> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
> confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
>biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
>build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
>reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
> - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
>
> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
> to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
>that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
>and grave threat to our security."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
>
> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
>aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons
>within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always
>underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of
>mass destruction."
> - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
>
> "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
>every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy
>his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
>refused to do" Rep.
> - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
>
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
>that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
>weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He
>has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda
>members
> .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
> continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
>and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
> - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
>
> "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
>Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity
>for the production and storage of weapons of mass
>destruction."
>- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
>
> "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
>murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
>particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
>miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
>continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...
>So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
>..."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003



Joe

[gldstwmn]

We'll see.:)

[gldstwmn]

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031773418644&path=!news!columnists&s=1045855935174

Republican takes strong stand against war, Bush

JOHN HALL
TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST Feb 1, 2004


Is the Iraq war, if it is to be judged a wrongful war, a product of flawed intelligence or flawed policy?

The leading Democratic presidential candidates agree on the charge that the Bush administration erroneously packaged and presented intelligence to Congress.

"We were misled," said the front-runner, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, explaining why he is against the war but voted for the resolution authorizing it.

"What this administration has done is play politics," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark.

Former chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told last week of a massive pre-war intelligence failure on weapons of mass destruction.

But what of the policy? Much of the Democratic Party was squarely behind President Bush's policy on Iraq, which was backed by a bipartisan resolution opposing Saddam Hussein and advocating regime change.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean challenged the policy and blew the whistle on those in Congress, including Kerry, who voted for it. But lately Dean has softened his tone and turned his attention away from the Iraq war.



If you want to hear the fiery rhetoric of a crusading, anti-war true believer, call in a Republican. That's right. And a heartlander from Illinois.

When former Rep. Paul Findley openly broke with Bush over his Iraqi war policy, he didn't leave any asterisks in the text or wriggle room in the position.

"I believe President George W. Bush's decision to initiate war in Iraq will be the greatest and most costly blunder in American history," Findley wrote in a recent paper prepared for the Council for the National Interest, a Washington organization advocating a new direction for U.S. Middle East policy. "He has set Ameri- can on the wrong course."

Findley's quarrel is with the policy of this administration, not just intelligence.

At 82, retired from Congress for two decades, he was never the type who took on presidents of his own party. Though controversial, he was so loyal that he even defended Richard M. Nixon. Although he eventually voted for the impeachment of Nixon, he preferred censure.

But Findley said he is "fully prepared" to join in urging Bush's defeat this fall unless there is a change in Bush's policy in the Middle East.

The change Findley recommends - an immediate ultimatum to Israel to withdraw from all Arab lands seized in 1967 - has no chance of acceptance and would be radioactive to any Democratic opponent of the war in Iraq who even suggested it.

Nonetheless, Findley says, Bush must do it now. There has already been "grave damage" to the United States, he warned, and there would be "still greater harm if Bush continues his present course during a second term in the White House."

Many Iraqis still believe Bush "harbors dreams of an American empire," said Findley, whose Muslim contacts are extensive. And he is convinced Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's "high fences that contain Palestinians like cattle" are directly related to the troubles in Iraq and throughout the Muslim world.

Findley, in a telephone interview last week, said he could no longer be silent about what he considers to be a neoconservative, as well as a fundamentalist religious, takeover of the Bush administration.

Bush "seems oblivious to war's horror," Findley wrote in his recent paper. "The rockets and 1-ton bombs may kill a few Iraqi guerrillas and cause others to pull back and pause, but they kill and maim innocent civilians, level homes, turn neighborhoods into rubble and permanently blight many lives. They create deep-seated outrage, not cooperation."

The U.S. death toll in Iraq has surpassed 500, but Findley noted that the thousands of families of Americans wounded had been "permanently blighted in a war the United States has initiated."

It is a "fiery trial that may last far into the future - years of U.S.-initiated wars designed to punish regimes believed to harbor terrorists."

Findley said he knows of "many" other Republicans ready to urge Bush's defeat.

There is not any serious opposition to the president in the Republican primaries, however. That makes no difference to Findley, who hasn't been afraid in his long life is a sailor, weekly newspaper editor, congressman and author to stand alone in unpopular causes.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58296-2004Jan28.html?nav=hptoc_n

Charity Event May Have Terrorist Link
Pentagon Adviser Who Spoke at Function Thought Money Was for Quake Victims
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 29, 2004; Page A08


Pentagon adviser Richard N. Perle, a strong advocate of war against Iraq, spoke last weekend at a charity event that U.S. officials say may have had ties to an alleged terrorist group seeking to topple the Iranian government and backed by Saddam Hussein.



The event, attended by more than 3,000 people Saturday at the Washington Convention Center, generated enough concerns within the administration that officials debated whether they had the legal authority to block the event, U.S. officials said yesterday. FBI agents attended it and, as part of a continuing investigation, the Treasury Department on Monday froze the assets of the event's prime organizer, the Iranian-American Community of Northern Virginia.

Perle, in an interview, said he was unaware of any involvement by the terrorist group, known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), and believed he was assisting the victims of the Bam earthquake when he delivered the paid speech.

"All of the proceeds will go to the Red Cross," Perle said. Informed that the Red Cross had announced before the event it would refuse any monies because of the event's "political nature," Perle said: "I was unaware of that." Perle declined to say how much he received.

Click the link for the full article.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I found this republican/democrat compatibility test which I really thought useful...It says im 88% compatible to the democratic party...which comes as a surprise to me (registered Republican, although I havent been able to vote yet) ....it helped me kinda figure out where I stand on certain things....its interesting to see if anyone wants to do it

http://www.3pc.net/matchmaker/quiz.html

[t.c.]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Except perhaps his wife, and hmm... maybe, just maybe, all the taxpayers who were paying for the office in which he was getting serviced.

Good point. I know if I did what he did while I was at work, I'd be fired! Then again, I guess considering he lives in his place of office, it's not so clear cut....???

But how about that he was under oath? And it was for a sexual harrasment lawsuit. And if any of us lied during that, we'd be in BIG trouble. I can't see how any woman can like him, actually, or atleast not be angry that he lied, and that he did not get in trouble for that. If a woman is raped she has to go on trial to try and prosecute the rapist. And she ends up getting the third degree herself, having to answer all kinds of personal questions about her sex life and history. Which is not fair, but it happens. Yet Clinton is not expected to have to? That really angered me. Big time. I don't care about his sex life. I do care that he lied *under oath* and got away with it, when none of us could have.

[t.c.]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ShangriLaTroubl
[B]Unfortunately many will still find themselves confused to what they air...Dem or Repub...after they read every web site out there...
I am a registered Republican...but that does not mean I strictly vote that way....I try to judge by who I like the best, no matter what their political party....I don't agree with Democrats on Taxes...I dont agree with Republicans on gay marriage....I dont agree with Democrats on Affirmative Action or Abortion......And I dont agree with Republicans on Medicare and Social Security...


Yes, my mind is boggled over all the contradictions out there right now. I am glad I am not alone!

I feel a lot like you do. Some repub issues I am totally against, like the gay marriages and their abortion issues. Yet I tend to side with them on a lot of other issues. And recently so many democrats have been totally hounding me and if I even question anything or say I am not sure about something, they insult me. It's getting so aggrivating. And meanwhile repubs don't "harrass" me like that. They say something in an even toned voice, and then that's it. It's left up to me to figure out how I feel about it. I can appreciate that more. I hate to say,but the democrats are going to push a lot of "middle of the road-ers" away with the extreme liberals out there who get all fired up. Which is not a good thing.

So far I don't know who to vote for. I see no one I want. It's depressing.

[t.c.]

Originally posted by diamondsnake
Clinton had every right to lie- it was no ones business who he slept with.


If you (are you male? female?) are ever raped, or your sister or your wife or your mother raped...and you go to the trial to support them, and see what kinds of questions she will be forced to answer under oath, you then might change your mind!

If it was NOT UNDER OATH then you would be right, it would have been no one's business. But that was not the case. It's also no one's business if a woman was a virgin or not before she got raped. But she is forced to answer all kinds of questions like that under oath, regardless. Perhaps the system sucks, but so does Bill for thinking he was above us and could and should have gotten away with it. In a sexual harrassment case, questions about if he has had sex at work and with people working under him (no pun intended) *is* relevant, I hate to say. Even if the charges were boogus. You still have to go through the motions, and not lie under oath.

[t.c.]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dontlookdown
[B]you can't be one half of a duo with Lindsey Buckingham and be apolitical.
you can't be a close friend of Sheryl Crow and Tom Petty and Don Henley and be apolitical.

Yes you can...I have friends who have different politcal opinions than I do.....


[QUOTE]
You know that when she walked out on that stage for Bill Clinton in 92 and then played for him again before he left the White House that there's not an apolitical bone in her body.

Errr....no....all that showed was that the prez asked FWM to play, and they did. There is no pre-requirement that says that had to vote for him....

[QUOTE]
her wild heart has always been in the right place - comfortably on the left - hugging the shore of the Palisades in southern California

oooookaaaaay....... whatever gets you through the day.....I always got the impression she did *not* support Clinton. Who's to say?

[t.c.]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by secondhandchain
[B]And why would I get drafted? Are we going to war or something? And since I don't beleive in violence, do "they" really have the right to force me to fight

We wouldn't have this country right now if it wasn't for war. And there would still be slavery if it wasn't for war. I hate it too, but I would fight if I had to...

If we all just decided to "go peace" we would be attacked and no longer be the US. I am grateful we have men and women who will defend us. It is one of our greatest blessings. We' d be in deep **** otherwise......

The day no one signs up for the military and there is not draft is the day we become a sitting duck with great big bull's eye on us. Thank goodness somebody defends us.

We are pretty lucky in this country. A lot have mandatory time served in their armies, where all boys go in to serve atleast two years the day they turn 18.

My love and appreciation goes out to the men and women who do serve this country.

[strandinthewind]

Once again, I think people are confusing issues about Iraq.

We now know that although the search continues, Iraq probably did not have WMD and the ability to deliver them as alleged by W's administration. But to say W alone was solely responsible for this misinformation is just wrong. Clinton and Bush I used alot of the same information. So, they are just as guilty for enforcing the no fly zones and conducting the missle strikes.

Moreover, I still maintain that SH alone is SOLELY responsible for the military action to remove his regime. Again, if you had a friend who lied to once or twice, would you still believe them - much less after 11 years.

Also, yes, the inspectors were allowed to return in 2002 after SH in violation of the UN kicked them out in 1998. Yes, these inspectors did not find anything meaningful. But, once again, SH did not allow them access to all requested sites and failed once again to honor his burden of providing them with proof that he destroyed his WMD. Even Kay admitted that this sequence of events justified the ousting of SH because SH still had the facilities to make these WMD and could have easily passed them to terrorists or, being the terrorist SH was, SH could have easily used them himself, a situation I submit we cannot allow post 9/11. So, this is why I think it is just flat out wrong when people say in hindsight (always 20/20) well SH had no WMD - bad Bush I and II and bad Clinton. It should be bad SH.

Note - I still think W should be impeached for knowingly embellishing the nuclear stuff. But, that is a separate issue from the question of why we thought SH had WMD and why SH's refusal to cooperate was the sole reason for the war.

:cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by t.c.
If you (are you male? female?) are ever raped, or your sister or your wife or your mother raped...and you go to the trial to support them, and see what kinds of questions she will be forced to answer under oath, you then might change your mind!

Clinton never raped anyone. :confused:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Clinton never raped anyone. :confused:

That we know of :cool: Didn't you see Primary Colors :laugh: ? If it is to be believed, I believe that having sex with an underage girl is statutory rape :shrug:

Interestingly, Clinton was a flat out liar about IMO small stuff like this. Despite this character flaw, I'd vote for him in a second because on the larger issues, he was genius :shrug:

[dissention]

Originally posted by t.c.
We wouldn't have this country right now if it wasn't for war. And there would still be slavery if it wasn't for war. I hate it too, but I would fight if I had to...

We aren't fighting this ridiculous war for our country, doll. We're fighting it to make campaign contributers happy and to make the oil flow smoothly through Halliburtons machinery.

Sorry, but the rationale people use to support this war is pathetic. Just like when they bitched and moaned about the Dixie Chicks saying what they said. "Our men died to give them the right to say those things!" they all cried. Yeah, and because they died for those freedoms, we shouldn't use them during wartime? Puhlease.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
We aren't fighting this ridiculous war for our country, doll. We're fighting it to make campaign contributers happy and to make the oil flow smoothly through Halliburtons machinery.

Now Now your alarmist doom and gloom liberalish is showing :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by t.c.


We wouldn't have this country right now if it wasn't for war. And there would still be slavery if it wasn't for war. I hate it too, but I would fight if I had to...

If we all just decided to "go peace" we would be attacked and no longer be the US. I am grateful we have men and women who will defend us. It is one of our greatest blessings. We' d be in deep **** otherwise......



You're exactly right. That is why everyone should keep this in mind when casting their vote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7372-2004Feb2?language=printer

Bush's Guard Service In Question
Democrats Say President Shirked His Duty in 1972



Please click the link for the full article.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
You're exactly right. That is why everyone should keep this in mind when casting their vote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7372-2004Feb2?language=printer

Bush's Guard Service In Question
Democrats Say President Shirked His Duty in 1972



Please click the link for the full article.
But clearly there is more to this than "he's a deserter" as asserted by many high in the DNC. Serving in the National Guard was valid. Moreover, even if he got leave to go work on that campaign, if the NG gave him leave to do so, he broke no rules. In the end, I say this is a dead issue because although there are titilating facts that can be spun to make make W look bad, in the end, the testimony of the guy in AL is not that reliable because that guy admitted he was not there all of the time and the NG was satisfied with his performace and that is hard to rebut 30 years later :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
But clearly there is more to this than "he's a deserter" as asserted by many high in the DNC. Serving in the National Guard was valid. Moreover, even if he got leave to go work on that campaign, if the NG gave him leave to do so, he broke no rules. In the end, I say this is a dead issue because although there are titilating facts that can be spun to make make W look bad, in the end, the testimony of the guy in AL is not that reliable because that guy admitted he was not there all of the time and the NG was satisfied with his performace and that is hard to rebut 30 years later :shrug:

Why won't Bush release his records? Why wouldn't he take the physical? Where's his DD-214?

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
But clearly there is more to this than "he's a deserter" as asserted by many high in the DNC. Serving in the National Guard was valid. Moreover, even if he got leave to go work on that campaign, if the NG gave him leave to do so, he broke no rules. In the end, I say this is a dead issue because although there are titilating facts that can be spun to make make W look bad, in the end, the testimony of the guy in AL is not that reliable because that guy admitted he was not there all of the time and the NG was satisfied with his performace and that is hard to rebut 30 years later :shrug:

Jason, he's a draft-dodger, plain and simple. And he has a year of his "service" unaccounted for. Spin it however you want, he won't tell us what happened and that shows that he's hiding something. Just like when he refused to answer questions about his cocaine use. :rolleyes:

[gldstwmn]

I give you The Chickenhawks:


http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks%3B%20Chickenhawk%20Headquarters

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Now Now your alarmist doom and gloom liberalish is showing :laugh:

I only speak the truth, unlike the evil GOP bastards that are running our coutnry into the ground!!! ;) :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Why won't Bush release his records? Why wouldn't he take the physical? Where's his DD-214?

I agree - but that was a long time ago. People will not really care about that. I think instead, they will buy the "Well his performance was good enough for his superiors" argument.

I mean what other facts are there that can refute that NG's conclusion. Moreover, the NG could release his service record in some sort of investigation, which will never happen.

So, in the end, I say there are more plausible current issues that the opposition can hold his feet to the fire on. :cool:

Also, I think in the back of a lot of peoples' minds in the thought of "I don't blame him, I would have done the same thing" :shrug:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Also, I think in the back of a lot of peoples' minds in the thought of "I don't blame him, I would have done the same thing" :shrug:

I'm sure most of our veterans don't think that way. Especially now that he's cut their benefits to a new low.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind


I mean what other facts are there that can refute that NG's conclusion.



His father is a member of the establishment?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind

So, in the end, I say there are more plausible current issues that the opposition can hold his feet to the fire on. :cool:



True. I was just responding to t.c.'s comment about the importance of military service.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
True. I was just responding to t.c.'s comment about the importance of military service.

EEK and :sorry: - I didn't mean it that way :laugh:

I saw on cnn that a non-scientific cnn poll also indicasted Edwards could statistically tie W. Interesting!!!!

[SteveMacD]

Originally posted by dontlookdown
You know that when she walked out on that stage for Bill Clinton in 92 and then played for him again before he left the White House that there's not an apolitical bone in her body.


I don't see what that has to do with anything. John McVie played those same shows, and he's a staunch Republican. Those gigs had nothing to do with their political beliefs.

[t.c.]

Originally posted by dissention
Clinton never raped anyone. :confused:


[sigh] I know that. Did I say he did? Did you not really read and comprehend what I said? Go re-read it a few times...please....

[t.c.]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dissention
[B]We aren't fighting this ridiculous war for our country, doll. We're fighting it to make campaign contributers happy and to make the oil flow smoothly through Halliburtons machinery.




So I see no one actually reads my full posts...??? Again, I didn't say we were. Did I? I wasn't talking about that at all. I was talking about the necessary "evil" of the draft, past, and if so, perhaps in the future. That's all. If at any time the military is not large enough, they will draft, dem or repub. They'd have to, whether they or we like it. That was my only point. I was not talking about this war, was I?

[t.c.]

Originally posted by dissention
Sorry, but the rationale people use to support this war is pathetic. Just like when they bitched and moaned about the Dixie Chicks saying what they said. "Our men died to give them the right to say those things!" they all cried. Yeah, and because they died for those freedoms, we shouldn't use them during wartime? Puhlease.


We *should* use those freedoms. I don't agree with what happened with the Dixie Chics. I feel they are entitled to their opinions just like we all are. If it offends a few, and they stop buying their albums, then that is the risk they take for speaking their mind. But I found the attack on them ridiculous. I think there is a lot of anger going around, and we are letting it out on whoever we can target. I'm not a fan of the Dixie Chics and have none of their albums. But I thought that whole thing got really ugly and way out of hand. I have no problem with people speaking their mind. My problem is when these issues come up, no one fully reads my replies and instead puts words in my mouth and gets sarcastic and snippy with me, doll. Yet no one answers when I ask sincere questions, hoping for sincere information back so I can be a little more informed. No one did that. And I can't say I am surprised because every dem and liberal I have asked never once (literally)has answered my direct questions, but instead goes into other topics bashing republicans and *all* their policies. And questions go unanswered. So if you really wanted to spread the word of the good of the Democrats, you'd give information and facts, not get snippy and pissy and put words in people's mouths. Because this is what turns me away. I get fed up and frustrated and ~ see ya! Who needs it.

Way to help inform someone who has an open mind and so far is not dem or repub but is trying to sort it out and figure out what makes sense to them....

[t.c.]

Clinton dodged draft too. And put a joint to his lips "but didn't inhale." And none of the Democrats gave a damn. So if you didn't care if he did it, you can't very well care that Bush did it, now can you? And so Bush had an addiction problem. So did (uh, does) Bill. Isn't his excuse is he is a sex addict? lol! So who cares. And everyone knew about all that (about Georgie) before the election. I think had the dems had someone better running than Gore, Georgie would not even be in office. But, we can't turn back time.... Trouble is, seems like no one decent wants to run anymore. I can't say I blame them. I am really beginning to hate politics. I had a long, long talk with a dear friend about parental consent for underage abortions. We both believe in pro-choice, but had different views on the parental issues. And man, in the end, we ened up both halfway changing each other;s minds. We realized there were damn good points to both sides, and a few bad points to each. And I realized - if I were in politics and had to vote on that, it would have been incredibly difficult to decide which side I would fall on. We came to the conclusion that depending on the girl, and her family situation, it really would vary. But laws don't work that way. It has to be black and white, never gray. And dammit, but that is hard. It really is. So I can see why so many people don't want to run for any office, Presidency included. I couldn't handle having to make those black and white decisions day after day. I really couldn't. I have much appreciation and empathy for all parties in all offices. It is not an easy job. Although too many probably do not take it as such....that is the sad part. The ones who understand how serious it is and how compassionate and empathetic one needs to be in that position are not the ones who run. Depressing....

But you won't have to put up with any more of my posts (that you won't fully read) and won't have to put any more words in my mouth. I'm outta here.... (it's my own fault for even peeking into a post titled what this one was....what was I thinking? I came here to get away from the distressing news of the world and think about something fun for a little break....time to get on with that...)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by t.c.
[sigh] I know that. Did I say he did? Did you not really read and comprehend what I said? Go re-read it a few times...please....

I read it and I believe that was your implication.:)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by t.c.
Clinton dodged draft too.

Actually he didn't. Please get your facts straight.:)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by SteveMacD
I don't see what that has to do with anything. John McVie played those same shows, and he's a staunch Republican. Those gigs had nothing to do with their political beliefs.

How can British citizens vote in the United States?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Actually he didn't. Please get your facts straight.:)

Now Now - no hiding the ball :laugh: (I am just kidding)

But seriously, many like Bill Maher assert that going into the National Guard during that time period was a way of dodging the draft while still serving your country. Many use this reasoning when asserting W was a draft dodger. So, from that vantage point and under that line of thinking, yes, they were both draft dodgers.

More importantly, unlike W, I do not recall hearing that Clinton had any of the issues W has/had with the no record of where he was, leave to work on a political campaign, etc., all of which the NG apparently had no probelm with.

But, they both went into the NG to get out of going into Nam as many, many people who could do did. :shrug:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I dont know that John is a British citizen...but regardless it was Lindsey who called John the staunch republican...ask him

Chris

[dissention]

Originally posted by ShangriLaTroubl
I dont know that John is a British citizen...but regardless it was Lindsey who called John the staunch republican...ask him

Chris

There can be no question that Lindsey is a lefty. He just looks like a Democrat. :laugh:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Lindsey is DEFINETELY a "lefty" lol....

"I think Mick [Fleetwood] just enjoyed the event. John [McVie] is a staunch Republican, so I think he was just taking it all pretty much in terms of the event itself. You also have to take the fact that [Clinton was] sitting twenty feet away. It didn't make me too nervous. I think it did make Stevie a little more nervous, because she doesn't have a guitar to hide behind."

"Before we did the last song, I said we were just pleased to be here at the end, just as in the beginning . . . Especially in light of what we have coming now, you have to appreciate a lot of the things that he did and what he tried to do and even the things he couldn't do." -LB-

[estranged4life]

Kerry could've/should've won Oklahoma last night. He was leading in the preliminary poll's, <b>UNTIL</b> his very dumb "I'm a conservative...More conservative than the conservative candidate" (!!!) statement in his only Oklahoma appearance blew up in his face.

Brian "Liberal? Conservative? Who gives a flyin' s--t...Just do the F'N job ok?" j.

[dissention]

Originally posted by estranged4life
Kerry could've/should've won Oklahoma last night. He was leading in the preliminary poll's, <b>UNTIL</b> his very dumb "I'm a conservative...More conservative than the conservative candidate" (!!!) statement in his only Oklahoma appearance blew up in his face.

Brian "Liberal? Conservative? Who gives a flyin' s--t...Just do the F'N job ok?" j.

That was incredibly stupid! :eek: :laugh:

What an idiot. :laugh:

But, he won five states, so I'm not complaining. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
That was incredibly stupid! :eek: :laugh:

What an idiot. :laugh:

But, he won five states, so I'm not complaining. ;)

Did you see last night when Kerry said he was for the death penalty for terrorists?

Also -

"Bless his heart," Rumsfeld is going further toward the path of that guy in Bagdad who kept saying "Iraq is not under attack - everything is fine!" :laugh:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/04/sprj.nirq.rumsfeld.congress.ap/index.html

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Did you see last night when Kerry said he was for the death penalty for terrorists?

No, I didn't. It shocks me, since he's so anti-death penalty. I may have to rethink my support.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
No, I didn't. It shocks me, since he's so anti-death penalty. I may have to rethink my support.

I say that is that is the only thing regrettable to you, it is not that big of a thing in application. I mean how many terroritsts will actually be caught tried and then put to death. So, it is a little bit of a rare occurance he is talking about there. Also, plese check my facts on that as i heard it late last night, etc.


In the end, I like Kerry.

:cool:

[estranged4life]

I was starting to warm to Kerry abit UNTIL his statement (That I posted earlier) which was a major "brown-nosing" of the "Religious Majority" here in OK, To win their support (I hate the bible belt, It's annoying to see the "Religious Nuts" protesting at a Fleetwood Mac concert!!!)...

Tsk,tsk,tsk...Now I have to go back to supporting my usual political candidate "I.Ben Had" for President :laugh:

Brian j.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I say that is that is the only thing regrettable to you, it is not that big of a thing in application. I mean how many terroritsts will actually be caught tried and then put to death. So, it is a little bit of a rare occurance he is talking about there. Also, plese check my facts on that as i heard it late last night, etc.


In the end, I like Kerry.

:cool:

I love Kerry, but I have such strong feelings about the death penalty. I'll still support him, but he should shut his yap if he wants me to keep campaigning for him. :laugh:

Interestingly, I always supported the death penalty *until* I went to the movies and saw "Dead Man Walking." I got so upset that I had to go to the bathroom to compose myself. :laugh: It was on USA the other day and I watched it, still surprised at the imapct it still had on me. I think its message of forgiveness and responsibility is so remarkable that you don't even have to be religious to be affected by it (I'm not religious, but if you saw me there would be no question that I looked like a protestant :laugh: ). But, to make a long story short, it was that one movie that made me become so against the death penalty and want to join the fight to abolish it.

[dissention]

Originally posted by estranged4life
I was starting to warm to Kerry abit UNTIL his statement (That I posted earlier) which was a major "brown-nosing" of the "Religious Majority" here in OK, To win their support (I hate the bible belt, It's annoying to see the "Religious Nuts" protesting at a Fleetwood Mac concert!!!)...

Tsk,tsk,tsk...Now I have to go back to supporting my usual political candidate "I.Ben Had" for President :laugh:

Brian j.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

LMAO!!!!

He also had me rolling my eyes when he said he was a Panthers fan. :laugh: Stop trying to cater to everyone, Kerry, it can't be done! :D

On a side note, I think his wife should be appointed the campaing manager. She'd make sure he didn't f*ck up. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
I love Kerry, but I have such strong feelings about the death penalty. I'll still support him, but he should shut his yap if he wants me to keep campaigning for him. :laugh:

Interestingly, I always supported the death penalty *until* I went to the movies and saw "Dead Man Walking." I got so upset that I had to go to the bathroom to compose myself. :laugh: It was on USA the other day and I watched it, still surprised at the imapct it still had on me. I think its message of forgiveness and responsibility is so remarkable that you don't even have to be religious to be affected by it (I'm not religious, but if you saw me there would be no question that I looked like a protestant :laugh: ). But, to make a long story short, it was that one movie that made me become so against the death penalty and want to join the fight to abolish it.

That was a good movie. My whole opposition to the DP is that juries make mistakes and technology improves. A good example is the now determined innocent people by DNA matching. Many wrong executions were stopped. Also, I think a life of hard labor is worse than the death penalty, which is Kerry's position. Yet, if they cught OBL - I say fry him even though I think the DP is wrong and I struggle with it. :shrug:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by dissention
I love Kerry, but I have such strong feelings about the death penalty. I'll still support him, but he should shut his yap if he wants me to keep campaigning for him. :laugh:

God forbid he says what he thinks. Look what that did to Dean.

Americans can't handle the truth. That's why we end up with mediocrity in the presidency.

Frankly, at this point, I'd rather vote for Jane'ts boob for president. How much harm could it do?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Frankly, at this point, I'd rather vote for Jane'ts boob for president. How much harm could it do?

Well, it certainly has had the exposure :cool:

(couldn't resist :laugh: )

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
God forbid he says what he thinks. Look what that did to Dean.

I liked most of the positions Dean had because I shared them, but I just didn't like *him.* He's an asshole. :laugh: I think his treatment of Joe Trippi speaks volumes about his quest for the White House. He's not a man that I want to support.

[CarneVaca]

Anyone with the name "trippi" running your campaign should give you pause. I'd much rather have Joe Sober running mine.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by ShangriLaTroubl
Lindsey is DEFINETELY a "lefty" lol....

"I think Mick [Fleetwood] just enjoyed the event. John [McVie] is a staunch Republican, so I think he was just taking it all pretty much in terms of the event itself.

Thanks Chris.:) My point was that you can't officialy declare yourself a memeber of either party unless you're registered to vote.:)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Now Now - no hiding the ball :laugh: (I am just kidding)

But seriously, many like Bill Maher assert that going into the National Guard during that time period was a way of dodging the draft while still serving your country. Many use this reasoning when asserting W was a draft dodger. So, from that vantage point and under that line of thinking, yes, they were both draft dodgers.

More importantly, unlike W, I do not recall hearing that Clinton had any of the issues W has/had with the no record of where he was, leave to work on a political campaign, etc., all of which the NG apparently had no probelm with.

But, they both went into the NG to get out of going into Nam as many, many people who could do did. :shrug:

Clinton was never in the National Guard.:confused:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Anyone with the name "trippi" running your campaign should give you pause. I'd much rather have Joe Sober running mine.

Especially if the candidate is from Vermont.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Especially if the candidate is from Vermont.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :wavey:

And if that certain candidate never moves his upper lip when he talks. It's maddening.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :wavey:

And if that certain candidate never moves his upper lip when he talks. It's maddening.

Don't worry, he'll be gone soon.;) :wavey:

[gldstwmn]

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=136082004

British officers knew on eve of war that Iraq had no WMDs
BRITISH intelligence officers learned on the eve of the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein had not assembled his chemical weapons and it was highly doubtful if he could deploy any within 45 minutes.
The Foreign Office yesterday admitted that the joint intelligence committee (JIC) warned in March last year that "the intelligence on the timing of when Iraq might use chemical and biological weapons was sparse".
This disclosure came as a senior Israeli politician claimed that Mossad, its intelligence agency, knew before the war that the 45-minute claim was "an old wives’ tale" - but decided against telling Britain or the United States.

In a further blow to the British government, Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, has said he does not know whether he would have recommended an invasion of Iraq if he had been told it had no stockpiles of banned weapons.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Clinton was never in the National Guard.:confused:

Oops! My blond roots are showing? :laugh:

How did he get out of Nam then? There was an email floating around awhile back that said Carter pardoned Clinton for draft dodging. I think it was a hoax.

Here is an article:

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V112/N37/clinton.37w.html

Here is a site with the I think hoax

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/clintondraft.html

[gldstwmn]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by strandinthewind
[B]Oops! My blond roots are showing? :laugh:

How did he get out of Nam then?

He took a student deferment and went to the UK to study at Oxford.:) He never served, legally.

[gldstwmn]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by strandinthewind
[B]Oops! My blond roots are showing? :laugh:

How did he get out of Nam then? There was an email floating around awhile back that said Carter pardoned Clinton for draft dodging. I think it was a hoax.

QUOTE]

The Carter pardon isn't a hoax but the email may have taken it out of context. In 1977, President Carter issued a blanket pardon to Vietnam War draft dodgers. Clinton also had a high lottery number which kept him out once the deferment was up. Some of what was on those sites appears to be true.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/democrat/clinton/skeletons/draft.shtml

Clinton's Draft Deferrment

[strandinthewind]

That CNN article states:

In the autumn of 1969, Clinton entered the draft but received a high number (311) and was never called to serve -- however, Clinton made every effort to avoid the draft prior to entering it.

First, Bill Clinton received education deferments while at Georgetown and Oxford (where he helped organize demonstrations against the war). Second, Clinton attempted to avoid the draft for four years by enrolling, but never joining, the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC). Clinton had enrolled in the ROTC hoping to avoid military service for four years, but, wanting a future in politics, had a change of heart and entered the draft.

In December 1969, safe from the draft with his high lottery number, Clinton changed his mind about joining the ROTC program and wrote a letter to the director of the ROTC program thanking him "for saving me from the draft" and regretted misleading him by not revealing the extent of his opposition to the war. The letter was leaked by the Pentagon to ABC news early in the 1992 fueled criticism of candidate Clinton's character.

Later in the 1992 campaign, it became known that Clinton's uncle had attempted to get Bill Clinton a Navy Reserve assignment during the Vietnam war. Clinton said he didn't know anything about it to the press on September 3, 1992 but a day later admitted that a former draft board member had informed him of his uncles' attempt several months before.
__________________________________________________

So, C was a draft dodger in the sense that he did everything legal that he could do to get out of or, if you will, "dodge," the draft. I mean he actually thanked the ROTC guy for "saving him" from the draft. Also, like W's father, a relative of Clinton tried to use his influence to get Clinton into the Naval Reserve, but it became unnecessary because of the subsequent luck of drawing high draft number, etc. So, to me Clinton's actions sound pretty much the same as W using his influence to join the NG. I see no distinction? :shrug:

Note: I cannot complain too loudly about either's actions because I think I would have done the same things to avoid actually going to Nam, although I would not have been apparently missing (albeit in a benign manner in the eyes of the NG) like W allegedly was, etc. :cool:

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by strandinthewind


So, to me Clinton's actions sound pretty much the same as W using his influence to join the NG. I see no distinction? :shrug:





Some Democrats who excused Clinton are all over Bush now. And some of the same Republicans who slammed Clinton on this issue are defending Bush. Politics as usual, in America. :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
So, C was a draft dodger in the sense that he did everything legal that he could do to get out of or, if you will, "dodge," the draft. I mean he actually thanked the ROTC guy for "saving him" from the draft. Also, like W's father, a relative of Clinton tried to use his influence to get Clinton into the Naval Reserve, but it became unnecessary because of the subsequent luck of drawing high draft number, etc. So, to me Clinton's actions sound pretty much the same as W using his influence to join the NG. I see no distinction? :shrug:

I see quite a distinction. Clinton never served in any type of army/military program, whereas Shrub "served" in the Guard to avoid being drafted and failed to show up for an entire year. That's a big distinction, IMO.

[CarneVaca]

Main difference: Michael Moore was right in saying Georgie Boy was a deserter.

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Main difference: Michael Moore was right in saying Georgie Boy was a deserter.

Yup.

[dissention]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Here's a statment from Michael moore about the deserter controversy:

You Say Deserter, I Say More Dessert... by Michael Moore

Friends,

I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a "deserter." What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants. In fact, he shot a man in Tucson "just to watch him die."

Actually, what I meant to say up in New Hampshire last week was that "We're going to have Bush for dessert come November!" I'm always mixing up "dessert" and "desert" -- I'm sure many of you have that problem.

Well, well, well. As George W. would say, "It's time to smoke ‘em out of their hole!" Thanks to my "humorous" introduction of Wesley Clark 10 days ago in New Hampshire -- and the lughead way the no-sense-of-humor media has covered it -- there were 15 million hits this weekend on my website. Everyone who visited the site got to read the truth about Bush not showing up for National Guard duty.

The weird thing about all this is that during my routine I never went into any details about Bush skipping out while in the Guard (it's not like it's the biggest issue on my mind or facing America these days!) I was just attempting my best impersonation of that announcer guy for the World Wrestling Federation, asking the cheering crowd if they would like to see a smackdown ("debate") which I called "The Generaaal Versus The Deserterrrr!!" (You can watch it here -- hardly anyone in the media has shown this clip because viewers would suddenly see the context of my comments.)

When the press heard me use that word "deserter," though, the bells and whistles went off, for this was one of those stories they knew they had ignored -- and now it was rearing its ugly, truthful head on a very public stage. Without a single other word from me other than the d-word, they immediately got so defensive that it looked to many viewers like they—the press—maybe had something to hide. After all, when I called Bush a deserter, how did they know I wasn't referring to how he has deserted the 43 million Americans who have no health coverage? Why didn't they assume I was talking about how Bush is a deserter because he has deserted the working people of this country (who have lost 3 million jobs since he's taken office)? Why wasn't it obvious to them that I was pointing out how Bush had deserted our constitution and Bill of Rights as he tries to limit freedom of speech and privacy rights for law-abiding citizens?

Instead, they have created the brouhaha over Bush's military record, often without telling their audience what the exact charges are. It seems all they want to do is to get Clark or me -- or you -- to shut up. "We have never investigated this and so we want you to apologize for bringing it up!" Ha ha ha.

Well, I'm glad they have gone nuts over it. Because here we have a Commander in Chief --who just took off while in uniform to go work for some Republican friend of his dad's -- now sending our kids over to Iraq to die while billions are promised to Halliburton and the oil companies. Twenty percent of them are National Guard and Reserves (and that number is expected to double during the year). They have been kept in Iraq much longer than promised, and they have not been given the proper protection. They are sitting ducks.

What if any of them chose to do what Bush did back in the early 70s -- just not show up? I've seen Republican defenders of Bush this week say, “Yeah, but he made up the time later.” So, can today's National Guardsmen do the same thing -- just say, when called up to go to Iraq, "Um, I'm not going to show up, I'll make up the time later!"? Can you imagine what would happen? Of course, none of them are the son of a Congressman, like young Lt. Bush was back in 1972.

Today, MoveOn.org has put together its response to this issue, and I would love to reprint it here. It lays out all the facts about Bush and the remaining unanswered questions about where he went for many, many months:

Here are what appear to be the known facts, laid out recently in considerable detail and documentation by retired pilot and Air National Guard First Lt. Robert A. Rogers, and in a 2003 book, “The Lies of George W. Bush,” by David Corn.

1. George W. Bush graduated from Yale in 1968 when the war in Vietnam was at its most deadly and the military draft was in effect. Like many of his social class and age, he sought to enter the National Guard, which made Vietnam service unlikely, and fulfill his military obligation. Competition for slots was intense; there was a long waiting list. Bush took the Air Force officer and pilot qualification tests on Jan. 17, 1968, and scored the lowest allowed passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion.

2. He, nevertheless, was sworn in on May 27, 1968, for a six-year commitment. After a few weeks of basic training, Bush received an appointment as a second lieutenant – a rank usually reserved for those completing four years of ROTC or 18 months active duty service. Bush then went to flight school and trained on the F-102 interceptor fighter jet. Fighter pilots were in great demand in Vietnam at the time, but Bush wound up serving as a “weekend warrior” in Houston, where his father’s congressional district was centered.

A Houston Chronicle story published in 1994, quoted in Corn’s book, has Bush saying: “I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.”

3. Sometime after May 1971, young Lt. Bush stopped participating regularly in Guard activities. According to Texas Air National Guard records, he had fewer than the required flight duty days and was short of the minimum service owed the Guard. Records indicate that Bush never flew after May 1972, despite his expensive training and even though he still owed the National Guard two more years.

4. On May 24, 1972, Bush asked to be transferred to an inactive reserve unit in Alabama, where he also would be working on a Republican senate candidate’s campaign. The request was denied. For months, Bush apparently put in no time at all in Guard service. In August 1972, Bush was grounded -- suspended from flying duties -- for failing to submit to an annual physical exam. (Why wouldn't he take this exam from a doctor?)

5. During his 2000 presidential campaign, Bush’s staff said he recalled doing duty in Alabama and then returning to Houston for still more duty. But the commander of the Montgomery, AL, unit where Bush said he served told the Boston Globe that he had no recollection of Bush – son of a congressman – ever reporting, nor are there records, as there should be, supporting Bush’s claim. Asked at a press conference in Alabama on June 23, 2000 what duties he had performed as a Guardsman in that state, Bush said he could not recall, “but I was there.”

6. In May, June and July, 1973, Bush suddenly started participating in Guard activities back in Houston again – pulling 36 days at Ellington Air Base in that short period. On Oct. 1, 1973, eight months short of his six-year service obligation and scheduled discharge, Bush apparently was discharged with honors from the Texas Air National Guard (eight months short of his six-year commitment). He then went to Harvard Business School.

Documents supporting these reports, released under Freedom of Information Act requests, appear along with Rogers’ article on the web at http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=154.

In the absence of full disclosure by the President or his supporters, only the President and perhaps a few family or other close associates know the whole truth. And they’re not talking.

Bush was apparently absent without official leave from his assigned military service for as little as seven months (New York Times) or as much as 17 months (Boston Globe) during a time when 500,000 American troops were fighting the Vietnam War. The Army defines a “deserter” -- also known as a DFR, for “dropped from rolls” – as one who is AWOL 31 days or more: www-ari.army.mil/pdf/s51.pdf.

Well, there you have it. Someone got some special treatment. And now that special someone believes he has the right to conduct a war -- using other not-so-special people's lives.

My friends, I always call it like I see it. I don't pussyfoot around. Sometimes the truth is hard to take. The media conglomerates are too afraid to take this on. I understand. But I'm not. That's my job. And I'll continue to do it.

And when I'm wrong, like the thing about Bush pooping his pants, I'll say so.

Yours,

Michael Moore
[email protected]
www.michaelmoore.com

[dissention]

The beauty of video...

http://www.moveon.org/false/video/

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
I see quite a distinction. Clinton never served in any type of army/military program, whereas Shrub "served" in the Guard to avoid being drafted and failed to show up for an entire year. That's a big distinction, IMO.

While I perhaps agree that W's purported year absence is questionable, my point is the NG apparently had no problem with it and the records andlive testimony cited above are, at best, sketchy about W's presence during that time period. So, the only conclusion supported by the known facts is that W's service in the NG must have been legit. from that perspective. In the end, all we have is unsupported but probably true conjecture. Note: men have hung for less :laugh:

My point in comparing W and Clinton was and is many people like Bill Maher have indicated that W was a draft dodger solely because he joined the National Guard to get out of going to Nam. I submit C's educational deferment and his attempt to use connections to pull strings to get into the reserves is the same thing as W using his connections to get in the reserve and then apparently using his connections to get apparently choice assignments. I mean wouldn't everyone love to have had an educational deferrment while playing the ROTC game to avoid the draft :shrug:

In the end, they both used connections to play the system to avoid going to Nam while millions of Americans not so priviledged and without such options died there. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Main difference: Michael Moore was right in saying Georgie Boy was a deserter.

Again, I just do not see how they both were not deserters if you follow that line of logic?

Also, do not take any of my comments to mean I do not think they are not both "bad" for doing these things. They were. I am just saying there is no difference in my mind as they both used connnections to get out of serving in the Vietnam War.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Here's a statment from Michael moore about the deserter controversy:

You Say Deserter, I Say More Dessert... by Michael Moore

Friends,

I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a "deserter." What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants. In fact, he shot a man in Tucson "just to watch him die."

Actually, what I meant to say up in New Hampshire last week was that "We're going to have Bush for dessert come November!" I'm always mixing up "dessert" and "desert" -- I'm sure many of you have that problem.

Well, well, well. As George W. would say, "It's time to smoke ‘em out of their hole!" Thanks to my "humorous" introduction of Wesley Clark 10 days ago in New Hampshire -- and the lughead way the no-sense-of-humor media has covered it -- there were 15 million hits this weekend on my website. Everyone who visited the site got to read the truth about Bush not showing up for National Guard duty.

The weird thing about all this is that during my routine I never went into any details about Bush skipping out while in the Guard (it's not like it's the biggest issue on my mind or facing America these days!) I was just attempting my best impersonation of that announcer guy for the World Wrestling Federation, asking the cheering crowd if they would like to see a smackdown ("debate") which I called "The Generaaal Versus The Deserterrrr!!" (You can watch it here -- hardly anyone in the media has shown this clip because viewers would suddenly see the context of my comments.)

When the press heard me use that word "deserter," though, the bells and whistles went off, for this was one of those stories they knew they had ignored -- and now it was rearing its ugly, truthful head on a very public stage. Without a single other word from me other than the d-word, they immediately got so defensive that it looked to many viewers like they—the press—maybe had something to hide. After all, when I called Bush a deserter, how did they know I wasn't referring to how he has deserted the 43 million Americans who have no health coverage? Why didn't they assume I was talking about how Bush is a deserter because he has deserted the working people of this country (who have lost 3 million jobs since he's taken office)? Why wasn't it obvious to them that I was pointing out how Bush had deserted our constitution and Bill of Rights as he tries to limit freedom of speech and privacy rights for law-abiding citizens?

Instead, they have created the brouhaha over Bush's military record, often without telling their audience what the exact charges are. It seems all they want to do is to get Clark or me -- or you -- to shut up. "We have never investigated this and so we want you to apologize for bringing it up!" Ha ha ha.

Well, I'm glad they have gone nuts over it. Because here we have a Commander in Chief --who just took off while in uniform to go work for some Republican friend of his dad's -- now sending our kids over to Iraq to die while billions are promised to Halliburton and the oil companies. Twenty percent of them are National Guard and Reserves (and that number is expected to double during the year). They have been kept in Iraq much longer than promised, and they have not been given the proper protection. They are sitting ducks.

What if any of them chose to do what Bush did back in the early 70s -- just not show up? I've seen Republican defenders of Bush this week say, “Yeah, but he made up the time later.” So, can today's National Guardsmen do the same thing -- just say, when called up to go to Iraq, "Um, I'm not going to show up, I'll make up the time later!"? Can you imagine what would happen? Of course, none of them are the son of a Congressman, like young Lt. Bush was back in 1972.

Today, MoveOn.org has put together its response to this issue, and I would love to reprint it here. It lays out all the facts about Bush and the remaining unanswered questions about where he went for many, many months:

Here are what appear to be the known facts, laid out recently in considerable detail and documentation by retired pilot and Air National Guard First Lt. Robert A. Rogers, and in a 2003 book, “The Lies of George W. Bush,” by David Corn.

1. George W. Bush graduated from Yale in 1968 when the war in Vietnam was at its most deadly and the military draft was in effect. Like many of his social class and age, he sought to enter the National Guard, which made Vietnam service unlikely, and fulfill his military obligation. Competition for slots was intense; there was a long waiting list. Bush took the Air Force officer and pilot qualification tests on Jan. 17, 1968, and scored the lowest allowed passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion.

2. He, nevertheless, was sworn in on May 27, 1968, for a six-year commitment. After a few weeks of basic training, Bush received an appointment as a second lieutenant – a rank usually reserved for those completing four years of ROTC or 18 months active duty service. Bush then went to flight school and trained on the F-102 interceptor fighter jet. Fighter pilots were in great demand in Vietnam at the time, but Bush wound up serving as a “weekend warrior” in Houston, where his father’s congressional district was centered.

A Houston Chronicle story published in 1994, quoted in Corn’s book, has Bush saying: “I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.”

3. Sometime after May 1971, young Lt. Bush stopped participating regularly in Guard activities. According to Texas Air National Guard records, he had fewer than the required flight duty days and was short of the minimum service owed the Guard. Records indicate that Bush never flew after May 1972, despite his expensive training and even though he still owed the National Guard two more years.

4. On May 24, 1972, Bush asked to be transferred to an inactive reserve unit in Alabama, where he also would be working on a Republican senate candidate’s campaign. The request was denied. For months, Bush apparently put in no time at all in Guard service. In August 1972, Bush was grounded -- suspended from flying duties -- for failing to submit to an annual physical exam. (Why wouldn't he take this exam from a doctor?)

5. During his 2000 presidential campaign, Bush’s staff said he recalled doing duty in Alabama and then returning to Houston for still more duty. But the commander of the Montgomery, AL, unit where Bush said he served told the Boston Globe that he had no recollection of Bush – son of a congressman – ever reporting, nor are there records, as there should be, supporting Bush’s claim. Asked at a press conference in Alabama on June 23, 2000 what duties he had performed as a Guardsman in that state, Bush said he could not recall, “but I was there.”

6. In May, June and July, 1973, Bush suddenly started participating in Guard activities back in Houston again – pulling 36 days at Ellington Air Base in that short period. On Oct. 1, 1973, eight months short of his six-year service obligation and scheduled discharge, Bush apparently was discharged with honors from the Texas Air National Guard (eight months short of his six-year commitment). He then went to Harvard Business School.

Documents supporting these reports, released under Freedom of Information Act requests, appear along with Rogers’ article on the web at http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=154.

In the absence of full disclosure by the President or his supporters, only the President and perhaps a few family or other close associates know the whole truth. And they’re not talking.

Bush was apparently absent without official leave from his assigned military service for as little as seven months (New York Times) or as much as 17 months (Boston Globe) during a time when 500,000 American troops were fighting the Vietnam War. The Army defines a “deserter” -- also known as a DFR, for “dropped from rolls” – as one who is AWOL 31 days or more: www-ari.army.mil/pdf/s51.pdf.

Well, there you have it. Someone got some special treatment. And now that special someone believes he has the right to conduct a war -- using other not-so-special people's lives.

My friends, I always call it like I see it. I don't pussyfoot around. Sometimes the truth is hard to take. The media conglomerates are too afraid to take this on. I understand. But I'm not. That's my job. And I'll continue to do it.

And when I'm wrong, like the thing about Bush pooping his pants, I'll say so.

Yours,

Michael Moore
[email protected]
www.michaelmoore.com

Again, he can hemm and haww all he wants, but the fact of the matter is the NG was okay with what W did. Why is that not enough? The draft board was okay with Clinton's working the system and that is okay.

Also, this is rank tripe from Michael "It tell it like I want it to be not the way it is" Moore.

For example, his statement "Bush took the Air Force officer and pilot qualification tests on Jan. 17, 1968, and scored the lowest allowed passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion." He implies W was somehow unqualified. Yet, W passed the test. What more is there to say? Also, he became a fighter pilot - so apparently he was qualified :shrug:

Also, Moore asserts "But the commander of the Montgomery, AL, unit where Bush said he served told the Boston Globe that he had no recollection of Bush – son of a congressman – ever reporting, nor are there records, as there should be, supporting Bush’s claim." Yet, an earlier quote from this guy (perhaps in another thread) said this guy did not know if W was ever there because this guy was not always there. Yet, M. Moore asserts only half of this statement and then implies W could never have been there because this guy knows, when in fact he said he did not.

These reasons along with other half truths and/or lies from Michael Moore make me hate people like him. I say tell the truth and live with the consequences no matter how much you want to make your case. If W had done that with the exigency claim in the Iraqi WMD, all of this mess he is in right now would be gone or significantly lessened. But, people just love to stretch the truth. :nod:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind


So, C was a draft dodger in the sense that he did everything legal that he could do to get out of or, if you will, "dodge," the draft. I mean he actually thanked the ROTC guy for "saving him" from the draft. Also, like W's father, a relative of Clinton tried to use his influence to get Clinton into the Naval Reserve, but it became unnecessary because of the subsequent luck of drawing high draft number, etc. So, to me Clinton's actions sound pretty much the same as W using his influence to join the NG. I see no distinction? :shrug:



Let me break it down for you.:) W is a deserter and was AWOL. Big difference.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
While I perhaps agree that W's purported year absence is questionable, my point is the NG apparently had no problem with it and the records andlive testimony cited above are, at best, sketchy about W's presence during that time period.

Questionable? Other men went to Leavenworth for this type of thing. Where are his records? Daddy fixed it for him and they are praying to God no one digs too deep on this.
Next time you see a veteran you know, ask them how they feel about it.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, I just do not see how they both were not deserters if you follow that line of logic?

.

Because you have to actually be in the service to be a deserter.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, he can hemm and haww all he wants, but the fact of the matter is the NG was okay with what W did.

You keep saying that darlin' but where are his records? We don't know if they were okay with it or not. Why won't he release his records? Why wouldn't he take his physical that included a drug test?

[gldstwmn]

Hard evidence of criminal misconduct in the Plame case:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_01.html#002529

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, I just do not see how they both were not deserters if you follow that line of logic?

You can't desert if you don't join. That is actually as straightforward as it gets.

[strandinthewind]

I get that you cannot be a deserter if you do not join. I am not talking about that. I am talking about people like Bill Maher saying Bush is a deserter based solely on his decision to join the National Guard and on his using connections to get in. They say that everyone knew that then the NG was a way to avoid going to Nam and therefore, W was a "deserter." They do not use W's missing AL record to further this argument. They base the term "deserter" solely on W's going into the NG and using connections to get there.

So, I said if that is the case, Clinton did the same thing because he putzed around with the ROTC never (I think) really joinging, then his uncle tried to get him into the reserves, and then he fortuitously got a high draft number. So, by the same standard applied to W, Clinton should be labeled a "deserter" in that he did everything he could, including using family connections, to avoid the draft. So, like Bill Maher, here, I am in no way talking about the missing AL time and the fact that W joined the NG is irrelevant, at least to them, in this context.

Personally, I think the NG should release W's records. But, if they did, the fact still remains that at the time, the NG gave W an honorable discharge or whatever you get from the NG. So, based on those records, in the NG's opinion, W completed his service despite this alleged absence. This is a hard fact to overcome based on speculation, etc. But, again, I say make the records public. Apparently and sadly, no one cares too much about this issue anyway because it apparently did not hurt either of Clinton or W. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Because you have to actually be in the service to be a deserter.

Not according to Bill Maher and his followers. BM said that the mere fact that W joined the NG standing on its own was enough to call him a deserter :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I get that you cannot be a deserter if you do not join. I am not talking about that. I am talking about people like Bill Maher saying Bush is a deserter based solely on his decision to join the National Guard and on his using connections to get in. They say that everyone knew that then the NG was a way to avoid going to Nam and therefore, W was a "deserter."

I don't see what Maher has to do with this. He's entitled to his opinion but he's not a body of military of civilian law.:confused: Plese post the text of what he said.:)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Personally, I think the NG should release W's records. But, if they did, the fact still remains that at the time, the NG gave W an honorable discharge or whatever you get from the NG.

We don't know that. There is no proof because there are no records. That's the problem. Was he honorably discharged? Who knows? It's not the military holding back the release of his service records, it's W. Why?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I don't see what Maher has to do with this. He's entitled to his opinion but he's not a body of military of civilian law.:confused: Plese post the text of what he said.:)

I looked for it, but cannot find it. He said it on his show and on Bill O'Reilly's show. Bill Maher has a lot of followers. That is what he has to do with this.

Also, if you want to get technical, W is not guilty of desertion because the NG never found him to be one :shrug: Again, we can call him that all we want based on our opinion of the facts we know (which are not all of the facts). But, that is not the same as him being found guilty of desertion, which he was not. Rather, the NG was satisfied enough with his service to discharge him after completing his term to the satisfaction of the NG. The NG apparently is still happy with that decision.

Finally, to be techincal, you cannot be a deserter unless you are, I believe, 31 days AWOL (I think also a court martial for a convicted crime is desertion). W could not be AWOL for going to AL because he was authorized, right or wrong, to do so. I suppose if he was missing as much as is alleged while in AL, he may have been AWOL, but the NG did not see it that way. :shrug: Here is alink to an apparently amateur article containing links about this (sorry - I had no more time to research more and this site had it, etc. :cool:)

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
While I perhaps agree that W's purported year absence is questionable, my point is the NG apparently had no problem with it and the records andlive testimony cited above are, at best, sketchy about W's presence during that time period. So, the only conclusion supported by the known facts is that W's service in the NG must have been legit. from that perspective. In the end, all we have is unsupported but probably true conjecture. Note: men have hung for less :laugh:

Don't you think that the reason they have no problem with his absence is because his father used his influence to *not* make it a problem? He used his daddy to get him and I'm sure he used his daddy to get out.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, I just do not see how they both were not deserters if you follow that line of logic?

BECAUSE HE DESERTED HIS POST IN THE GUARD! ;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
For example, his statement "Bush took the Air Force officer and pilot qualification tests on Jan. 17, 1968, and scored the lowest allowed passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion." He implies W was somehow unqualified. Yet, W passed the test. What more is there to say? Also, he became a fighter pilot - so apparently he was qualified :shrug:

His point was that those positions in the Guard were highly coveted and very hard to obtain at that point, yet Shrub, ranking the lowest, got accepted. It doesn't pass the smell test.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Don't you think that the reason they have no problem with his absence is because his father used his influence to *not* make it a problem? He used his daddy to get him and I'm sure he used his daddy to get out.

I agree that is an issue - but my point in all of this is not W culpability - it is W did not do anything Clinton did not do. Clinton used family influence to avoid the draft. The two are equal in my eyes.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
His point was that those positions in the Guard were highly coveted and very hard to obtain at that point, yet Shrub, ranking the lowest, got accepted. It doesn't pass the smell test.

But, he qualified. That is legitimate. It would be different if he had failed the tests, etc. But, he did not. He passed them, particularly the flight school test, within the accepted range.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree that is an issue - but my point in all of this is not W culpability - it is W did not do anything Clinton did not do. Clinton used family influence to avoid the draft. The two are equal in my eyes.

Not being part of a military system and being AWOL from one is different. I don't understand why you don't see that. :confused:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I get that you cannot be a deserter if you do not join. I am not talking about that. I am talking about people like Bill Maher saying Bush is a deserter based solely on his decision to join the National Guard and on his using connections to get in. They say that everyone knew that then the NG was a way to avoid going to Nam and therefore, W was a "deserter." They do not use W's missing AL record to further this argument. They base the term "deserter" solely on W's going into the NG and using connections to get there.

Sorry, Bill Maher didn't say either was a deserter; he said they were draft-dodgers. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Not being part of a military system and being AWOL from one is different. I don't understand why you don't see that. :confused:

I see it and am not arguing against it. All I am saying is that Clinton and W both used family influence to avoid going to Nam. Some people, inclufing Bill Maher, have said that alone, by itself, etc. is enough to warrant the term deserter. So, I say, they are both deserts by that definition.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Sorry, Bill Maher didn't say either was a deserter; he said they were draft-dodgers. ;)

Nope - he said on Bill O'Reilly or somewheere that W was a "deserter." They had a big conversation about it.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Apparently and sadly, no one cares too much about this issue anyway because it apparently did not hurt either of Clinton or W. :shrug:

This is a huge issue with the veterans and servicemen in our country. Bush publicizes himself as this National Guard, jet flying hero, all the while there is a year-long period of him being AWOL and then getting honorably discharged for being dishonorable. They feel like they've been duped.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Nope - he said on Bill O'Reilly or somewheere that W was a "deserter." They had a big conversation about it.

I'll be happy to get you the transcript; he said draft-dodger. ;)

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
But, he qualified. That is legitimate. It would be different if he had failed the tests, etc. But, he did not. He passed them, particularly the flight school test, within the accepted range.

You don't get the point, dude. The point is that there were more qualified people out there that applied but got turned down because Bush used his daddy to get the position. Tell it to the guy who scored 30 points higher than Shrub and ended up paralyzed from a bullet wound when he was drafted to Nam.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
This is a huge issue with the veterans and servicemen in our country. Bush publicizes himself as this National Guard, jet flying hero, all the while there is a year-long period of him being AWOL and then getting honorably discharged for being dishonorable. They feel like they've been duped.

I agree its horrible, but they did not seem to care in the last election and given his hawkish nature, they do not seem to care now - at least in general and based on the polls. But, polls can change - ask Dean :laugh:

Also, even if BM said draft dodger (although I remember him saying somewhere the word "deserter" in this context), I still assert that W and Clinton are equally as "bad" for using family connections inan attempt to stay out of the draft regardless of the applicability of the terms deserter, AWOL, or draft dodger. I mean I do not see how Clinton's use of family connections is okay, but when W does it the Earth should open up and swallow him whole and into hell. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
You don't get the point, dude. The point is that there were more qualified people out there that applied but got turned down because Bush used his daddy to get the position. Tell it to the guy who scored 30 points higher than Shrub and ended up paralyzed from a bullet wound when he was drafted to Nam.

Again, tell that to the guy that Clinton was trying to leap frog over before he got his lucky high drat number. :shrug:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I mean I do not see how Clinton's use of family connections is okay, but when W does it the Earth should open up and swallow him whole and into hell. :laugh:

BECAUSE SHRUB USED HIS FAMILY CONNECTIONS TO GO AWOL FOR 18 MONTHS!!!

At least when Clinton did it, it was legal. It's illegal to go AWOL, yet Bush went along his merry way. :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, tell that to the guy that Clinton was trying to leap frog over before he got his lucky high drat number. :shrug:

Touche!

But what Clinton did wasn't illegal (or proven illegal as of yet).

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Touche!

But what Clinton did wasn't illegal (or proven illegal as of yet).

Neither was W's because the NG does not consider him AWOL or a deserter. So, I say they are the same.

Interestingly, I am amazed someone has not figured out a way to get W's records. Are they there - do they exist? The reason I ask is because apparently some records from his AL days have been released :shrug:

Also - I am not defending W.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree its horrible, but they did not seem to care in the last election and given his hawkish nature, they do not seem to care now - at least in general and based on the polls.

Mmm, I'm not too sure about that. This was just starting to get uncovered right before the election and once that happened, there was a much bigger story to chase. We weren't in a war on false pretenses then either. So it's important this time. Just you wait and see.:)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
Touche!

But what Clinton did wasn't illegal (or proven illegal as of yet).

Doesn't matter. Carter did the blanket pardon in '77, so even if they did find grounds, he'd be pardoned under the law.:)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Neither was W's because the NG does not consider him AWOL or a deserter. So, I say they are the same.



How do you know? THERE ARE NO RECORDS.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Doesn't matter. Carter did the blanket pardon in '77, so even if they did find grounds, he'd be pardoned under the law.:)

Does that mean you forgive Nixon? :laugh: As a wise professor of mine used to say - "just because you got some jackass to grant you a pardon doesn't mean you are not a criminal" :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
How do you know? THERE ARE NO RECORDS.

If W had been AWOL or a deserter, the NG would have been obligated to prosecute. They did not for whatever reason. Thus, the logical conclusion is they were satisfied with W's performance and without any evidence to the contrary, we cannot assume they were not.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Does that mean you forgive Nixon? :laugh: As a wise professor of mine used to say - "just because you got some jackass to grant you a pardon doesn't mean you are not a criminal" :cool:

Actually, I do forgive President Nixon. In reality, he was one of the most liberal presidents we've had for the last forty years.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Actually, I do forgive President Nixon. In reality, he was one of the most liberal presidents we've had for the last forty years.

:eek: :eek:

I actually did not mind Nixon, esp., his foreign policy.

I always wonder if Ticky Dick actually knew the extent of what they were doiong and what was really on those 17 (?) minutes of erased tape. I guess we will never know :confused:

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
:eek: :eek:

I actually did not mind Nixon, esp., his foreign policy.




Nixon and Ford were both fairly moderate. I think Nixon's problem was that he had little confidence in himself. Ford's problem was he was Nixon's VP. In actuality, Ford had a lot of integrity.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
If W had been AWOL or a deserter, the NG would have been obligated to prosecute. They did not for whatever reason. Thus, the logical conclusion is they were satisfied with W's performance and without any evidence to the contrary, we cannot assume they were not.

Oh the other hand, don't you think if Bush's military service records were exemplary they'd be waving them in our face over and over? Of course they would. He's hiding something and in a case of classic addictive behavior, he thinks it's just going to go away if he ignores it long enough. He's a deserter.

[gldstwmn]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by strandinthewind
:eek: :eek:

I actually did not mind Nixon, esp., his foreign policy.

I always wonder if Ticky Dick actually knew the extent of what they were doiong and what was really on those 17 (?) minutes of erased tape. I guess we will never know :confused:
[QUOTE]

Oh, make no mistake, I minded Watergate and the dirty tricks. However, no one loves a peacemonger more than a liberal and Nixon spent a lot of time going around establishing diplomatic relations with other governments, ending the draft and the Viet Nam war. That's a pretty liberal policy for any Republican. He was also a true conservative in the sense that he wanted to give more power back to state and local governments. he was a million times brighter than that tree stump currently occupying the White House.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
Nixon and Ford were both fairly moderate. I think Nixon's problem was that he had little confidence in himself. Ford's problem was he was Nixon's VP. In actuality, Ford had a lot of integrity.

I liked President Ford as well. Someone talked about Bush getting dealt a ****ty deck of cards. If anyone got that it was Ford. His wife also indirectly saved the life of Stevie Nicks. Gotta love 'em.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Oh the other hand, don't you think if Bush's military service records were exemplary they'd be waving them in our face over and over? Of course they would. He's hiding something and in a case of classic addictive behavior, he thinks it's just going to go away if he ignores it long enough. He's a deserter.

I agree, he would be waiving them. But, that is not proof he was a deserter or at least proof that directly contradicts the NG having no apparent problem with his service record. It could be that he served his time in the NG but was not that stellar and they do not want to publicize that.

Again, I think he has lots to answer for in this area. I just think labelling him a deserter has no basis in the facts as we know them because the NG certainly prosecuted many deserters. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
[QUOTE]Originally posted by strandinthewind
:eek: :eek:

I actually did not mind Nixon, esp., his foreign policy.

I always wonder if Ticky Dick actually knew the extent of what they were doiong and what was really on those 17 (?) minutes of erased tape. I guess we will never know :confused:
[QUOTE]

Oh, make no mistake, I minded Watergate and the dirty tricks. However, no one loves a peacemonger more than a liberal and Nixon spent a lot of time going around establishing diplomatic relations with other governments, endign the draft and the Viet Nam war. That's a pretty liberal policy for any Republican. He was also a true conservative in the sense that he wanted to give more power back to state and local governments. he was a million times brighter than that tree stump currently occupying the White House.

I agree. But, as my mother used to always tell me "You think you are so smart, but you still got caught!" :laugh:

Yes. poor Ford. I mean he had no chance.

[gldstwmn]

Cheney is still being paid by Halliburton! I can't believe this!

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16385

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Cheney is still being paid by Halliburton! I can't believe this!

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16385

He gets like several hundred thousand $$$ every year as deferred compensation. Also, he still own something like 433,000 stock options. So, although Cheney had to put all of this away while VP, he clearly still has a vested interest in it. :mad: