Bush's Viet Nam Medals Uncovered

lucid,

Thanks for the rambling, irrelevant posts.

By the way, a true Libertarian is right of the FAR RIGHT. If you were a Libertarian, THERE WOULD BE NO POSSIBLE WAY YOU WOULD VOTE FOR THE RECOGNIZED “MOST LIBERAL SENATOR.”

Let’s put aside the facade and admit that you are a gore-loving-kerry-hopeful liberal. I prefer to argue with people who at least have the conviction to tell the truth.

You wrote, “I would prefer moderates in government. That pretty much rules out Bush.”

Are you calling kerry more of a moderate?!? Come on. VOTED BY HIS PEERS AS THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR!!! Does anyone here contend that George Bush is the most CONSERVATIVE Republican leader? By your tortuous logic, if your political litmus test was how close a candidate was to moderate, you should be a passionate George W. Bush supporter.

No more lies and deception. Just admit you are voting for kerry because your friends are.

“Bringing up Clinton is pointless” How convenient. Put aside principle when it suits the party. That, my 4 inch arm friend, is socialism. Pansy makes an excellent point. johnkerry said himself in 1992, “We shouldn’t make past service an issue.” Hear this clown lately? George Bush’s Guard service is front and center in our friend’s campaign.

By the way, in case any of you morons missed it, George Bush received excellent marks for flying one of the most unstable aircraft of the era. Let me guess, “Daddy Bush had those reports filed.”

The Military Men and Women follow courage. To suggest that George W. Bush lacks personal courage is to ignore his flight records in the Guard or his recent flight to downtown Baghdad. Again, the military can appreciate courage. They overwhelmingly voted for W. in 2000 and they will vote for him again in 2004.

“It doesn’t make sense to me. Kerry can criticize Bush’s record because he was “privledged.” Kerry is Boston Brahmin! His middle name? Forbes. He was as privledged as W was. Simple as that, so why the disparaging of Bush’s record and not Kerry’s? I won’t say it. I’ll just put Lumpy’s foot in his mouth. Man, you make it really easy for us “crooks on the right.””

–>Hey crook, how about because Kerry did his service, saw combat and is a legitimate war vet? Bush did squat - Why compare?

“You fools can vote for this guy if you wish. I’ll stick with a President who has restored the pride in our military. I’ll vote for a President who says what he means and means what he says.”

–>How has GWB restored the pride in the military? Why does the military back him so? Seems to me he’s put the military in danger’s way for an unclear cause. Now the military is being made to look like fools around the world. He is haphazardly risking your lives for who knows what? Things are getting worse instead of better in Iraq for both Americans and Iraqis…what’s to thank him and love him for?

lumpy,

Great Post!!! Sorry, pal. It’s easy to read between your arguments. The truth is right here for all to see.

“Kerry has been the lead sponsor of eight bills that have become law. Two are related to his work on the Senate panel on oceans and fisheries - a 1994 law to protect marine mammals from being taken during commercial fishing and a 1991 measure for the National Sea Grant College Program Act, which finances marine research.
In 1999, President Clinton signed his bill providing grants to support small businesses owned by women.
The rest of the laws he saw passed were ceremonial - renaming a federal building, designating Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day, National POW/MIA Recognition Day and World Population Awareness Week in two separate years.”

This is from a 2003 A.P. story. Your rambling about shooting down “bills with pork” is attempting to cover up something much more obvious: johnkerry is not and has not been an effective legislator. Worse, none of the eight bills he managed to pass into law HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL DEFENSE. If, as you contend, he is a passionate supporter of National Defense and Weapons systems, you would think that after 30 years he would have led the charge on AT LEAST ONE BILL? The centerpiece of his campaign is: I’m a decorated war hero and am qualified to defend our country during war time.
lumpy, you can’t possibly fault the majority of us for finding this hard to believe with his record of voting against a myriad of weapons systems. Hey pal, I love the whales and all, but they are not going to defend my family.

hmmm… beefpie… buffpants… crazed posting comments… blind eyed blather… could it be?

Bush is not moderate, he is an extremist who poses as a moderate. Would you say his runaway spending is moderate? He hasn’t vetoed a single spending bill in his entire presidency… a first in our history. He cut taxes for the rich during a time of war… a first in our history.

Here’s an article that discusses how right wingers like Robert Novak and Sean Hannity try to distort Kerry’s voting record on defense spending, when folks like Cheney have similar voting records:

Novak distorted Kerry’s defense record, denied that Cheney cut defense

On CNN’s The Capital Gang on May 1, co-host Robert Novak repeated distortions about Senator John Kerry’s voting record on national defense, and he falsely claimed that Vice President Dick Cheney did not cut weapons programs as Secretary of Defense under President George H.W. Bush:

MARGARET CARLSON: And Dick Cheney killed as many weapons programs as John Kerry ever voted against.

NOVAK: Yes. Yes. It’s - yes, that’s really stupid, Margaret. I mean - the whole idea that…

(crosstalk)

MARK SHIELDS: If we’re going to start saying “stupid”…

NOVAK: [During crosstalk, Novak apologized for saying “stupid.”] But I mean, the idea - I mean, it’s such Democratic propaganda that - that Cheney killed weapons programs, when we had Kerry voting against … all these.

Allegations regarding Kerry’s votes on defense echo the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign ads and a February Republican National Committee research brief. Yet Novak, the campaign ads, and the RNC brief all misrepresented the facts on Kerry’s record on military funding.

As the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Political Fact Check explained, “Kerry’s votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996 were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he’s been in the Senate.”

Since each appropriations bill contains hundreds of line items to fund all aspects of the armed forces - from weapons systems to soldiers’ salaries to schools on military bases - as Slate.com’s Fred Kaplan explained in a February 25 military analysis, one could use this same logic to claim that Kerry had voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces.

Novak is also wrong about Cheney. In the early 1990s, then-Secretary Cheney did indeed request that Congress make substantial cuts in the defense budget. Kaplan’s analysis quoted Cheney’s January 31, 1992 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

CHENEY: Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you’ve squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don’t fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. . You’ve directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s-all great systems . but we have enough of them.

Cheney’s request came three days after the State of the Union address, in which the president announced:

GEORGE H.W. BUSH: After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles.

Contrary to Novak’s claim, Cheney is on the record requesting specific weapons-systems cuts, while the charge against Kerry is based primarily on votes against appropriations bills – votes that cannot credibly be called weapons-programs cuts.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405030011

rightside up,

Thanks for posting. I will hopefully answer some of your questions about why we love W.

“Seems to me he’s put the military in danger’s way for an unclear cause.”

The cause is quite clear. It’s called blocking the ricin from reaching your house BEFORE it is sent. Saddam would have sent it at some point and at some time. Don’t waste your breath arguing with me. It would have happened.

“Now the military is being made to look like fools around the world.”

Wrong. Just you.

“He is haphazardly risking your lives for who knows what?”

We know what. Listen to W. He will tell you why.

“Things are getting worse instead of better in Iraq for both Americans and Iraqis…what’s to thank him and love him for?”

The worst thing to say. Is the present situation worse than under Saddam? I’m curious to hear your answer. Please go to Iraq. I agree with Bremer. 90% of Iraq is stable and happy we are there. We will leave. Huge difference between a real imperialist and a country living up to it’s ideals.

vroom,

I’m puzzled by your message. You said, “hmmm… beefpie… buffpants… crazed posting comments… blind eyed blather… could it be?”

Blind eyed blather? Care to debate? Do you have anything to add? If not, please go back to not lifting weights.

Could it be what? Could it be… I believe in what I say. Could it be… I use facts to back up my argument. Could it be… that I wish George W. Bush was a more persuasive speaker? Could it be… that I’ll take substance over style any day. Could it be… that johnkerry lacks both style and substance?

Crazed posting comments? That was very ungenerous of you. Funny how passion becomes “crazed conviction” when your opponent differs from you.

Beefpie, you simply refuse to look at the whole picture – other sources of information from more balanced sources.

It is very reminiscent of someone else with your take on politics. Don’t blame the messenger buddy.

Psst, don’t forget, muscles grow between workouts. Of course I spend a lot of time not working out – it’s called recovery.


gooooooooolllly!

its always funnier when its the other guy- even if you are a liberal…

“They actually made a movie about Cheney’s Veitnam service.”

Forrest Gump?

All of this focus on Kerry’s medals and Bush’s national guard service is irrelevant – and the counters are straw men. Kerry is the one who wanted to focus on Viet Nam, and now that people are he’s not so happy – but the whole thing is irrelevant as to the coming election. As are criticisms of Cheney or Bush concerning Viet Nam – as I recall, Lincoln never served in the military, and neither did FDR, but they did a pretty good job leading the country during their respective wars.

BTW, if you base your opinions of issues on campaign ads, you’re basically admitting that you are either a moron or don’t care what the actual truth is.

As to the spin of the voting record, and the avoidance of the issue, check out this column from Spinsanity:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/8598984.htm?1c

The debate over John Kerry’s record on defense has gone from bad to worse.

The Bush campaign began airing a new ad in key states last week claiming that “Kerry even voted against body armor for our troops on the front line of the war on terror.” That charge, however, is based on an October 2003 vote against a large supplemental appropriations bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (as the Bush campaign admits on its Web site). While the legislation did include funds for additional body armor, Kerry voted against the entire bill, not body armor specifically.

The ad is only the latest example of Bush’s misleading tactic of portraying votes by Kerry against massive appropriations bills as if they were directed against individual provisions within the bills. The campaign has made a number of similar allegations about Kerry’s votes on weapons systems in previous ads. The Massachusetts senator did support cuts or elimination of a number of weapons systems, but Bush has claimed that Kerry voted against various weapons based solely on his opposition to appropriations bills containing billions of dollars in spending beyond the items Bush singled out.

Some Democrats have sought to counterpunch by challenging gaps in Bush’s National Guard service record (as Kerry recently did) or the lack of combat experience among Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials. Most disturbing was a speech on the Senate floor last Wednesday by New Jersey Democrat Frank Lautenberg, which demonstrated how inflammatory partisan catchphrases are infiltrating the highest levels of national politics.

Lautenberg’s speech was devoted to excoriating Bush administration officials whom he described as “chicken hawks.” An accompanying chart defined a chicken hawk as “a person enthusiastic about war provided someone else fights it, particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war.”

The term chicken hawk has been used for years by a number of liberal pundits, most notably Al Franken, who devoted a chapter in each of his last two books to fictional Vietnam War stories called “Operation Chickenhawk” about conservatives who haven’t served in the military.

Other pundits who have used the term include author Joe Conason, CNN Crossfire co-host Paul Begala, and syndicated columnist Gene Lyons. Frequently, it is used to suggest that the so-called chicken hawk’s views on defense issues should be dismissed simply because they never served in the military.

That charge, which often includes the deeply antidemocratic suggestion that those who haven’t served should not criticize those who have, was at the heart of Lautenberg’s Senate presentation. In it, he called Vice President Cheney the “lead chicken hawk against Senator Kerry” for his recent speech criticizing Kerry’s record on defense. Lautenberg added, “They are quick to disparage those who did sacrifice. I do not understand how their conscience permits them to challenge Sen. Kerry’s commitment to our nation’s defense. The reality is the chicken hawks in this administration are doing a lousy job of bolstering our nation’s defense and supporting the troops.”

In his speech, however, Cheney condemned a number of Kerry’s votes and positions on defense and intelligence issues, which the vice president has every right to do regardless of his lack of military experience. Lautenberg’s retort is an attempt to avoid the content of those claims by focusing on who “sacrificed” more. But while Kerry and his supporters can certainly point to the senator’s military experience as a testament to his character, it’s not a serious response to questions about his record as a politician.

These two trends intersected recently in a U.S. News & World Report item about Bush’s new ad, which noted that the soldier it portrays is wearing a Vietnam-era helmet rather than a modern Kevlar one. A Kerry aide told the magazine: “Maybe if George Bush and his chicken hawk buddies had seen battle, they’d know the difference between props and equipment that saves lives.” A member of Bush’s camp responded that the soldier in the ad was “a symbol of Kerry’s votes to deny troops in Iraq body armor and other equipment.”

In reality, the only thing this exchange symbolizes is the way that both sides try to avoid and distort substantive issues.

Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan are the editors of Spinsanity (www.spinsanity.org) and the authors of the forthcoming book “All the President’s Spin: George W. Bush, the Media and the Truth.” They can be reached at feedback@spinsanity.org. Copyright 2004 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan.

I guess I was the only one who thought the original pictures posted were simply funny?

Some people just can’t take a joke.

Does anybody seriously think Kerry would be a better leader then Bush?

Here are a couple of stories that I think define the man pretty well.

Bush pauses to comfort teen

"…Lynn Faulkner, his daughter, Ashley, and their neighbor, Linda Prince, eagerly waited to shake the president’s hand Tuesday at the Golden Lamb Inn. He worked the line at a steady campaign pace, smiling, nodding and signing autographs until Prince spoke:

This girl lost her mom in the World Trade Center on 9-11."

Bush stopped and turned back.

“He changed from being the leader of the free world to being a father, a husband and a man,” Faulkner said. “He looked right at her and said, ‘How are you doing?’ He reached out with his hand and pulled her into his chest.”

Faulkner snapped one frame with his camera.

"I could hear her say, ‘I’m OK,’ " he said. "That’s more emotion than she has shown in 21/2 years. Then he said, ‘I can see you have a father who loves you very much.’ "

“And I said, ‘I do, Mr. President, but I miss her mother every day.’ It was a special moment.”

Special for Lynn Faulkner because the Golden Lamb was the place he and his wife, Wendy Faulkner, celebrated their anniversary every year until she died in the south tower of the World Trade Center, where she had traveled for business.

…“The way he was holding me, with my head against his chest, it felt like he was trying to protect me,” Ashley said. “I thought, ‘Here is the most powerful guy in the world, and he wants to make sure I’m safe.’ I definitely had a couple of tears in my eyes, which is pretty unusual for me.”

And this:

George W. Bush saluted an Army officer who had been badly injured during the September 11 terrorist attack on the Pentagon

"As you may know, the President and Mrs. Bush visited the Washington Burn Center on Friday 14 September. Among those they visited was LTC Brian Birdwell, who was badly burned in the Pentagon attack. Mrs. Bush went into Brian’s room, spoke to him for about a minute, all the time as if they had been long acquaintances. She then turned to Brian’s wife Mel, who at this time had been at the hospital for probably 2 1/2 days, and apparently, according to Mel herself, was dirty, grimy and had blood on her shirt.

Mrs. Bush hugged Mel for what Mel said seemed like an eternity, just as if Mel were one of her closest family members.

Mrs. Bush then told Brian and Mel that there was “someone” there to see him.

The President then walked in, stood by Brian’s bedside, asked Brian how he was doing, told him that he was very proud of them both and that they were his heroes.

The President then saluted Brian. Now, at this point in time, Brian is bandaged up pretty well. His hands are burned very badly as well as the back of him from the head down. His movements were very restricted.

Upon seeing the President saluting him, Brian began to slowly return the salute, taking, from the accounts so far, about 15-20 seconds to get his hand up to his head.

During all of this, 15-20 seconds, President Bush never moved, never dropped his salute. The President dropped his salute only when Brian was finished with his, and then gave Mel a huge hug for what also probably seemed like an eternity.

Pray for our leadership. Thank God for what we are, have, and will be.

As a note to those of you who might not be familiar with military protocol, the subordinate normally initiates a salute and will hold it until the superior officer returns the salute.

In the above incident, President Bush acted in the role of the subordinate to show his respect and high regard for the injured man.

…Birdwell’s older brother, Wade, also confirmed the story via e-mail:

“I cannot tell you how grateful and truly proud I am that when Brian started to return that salute, despite his wounds, the president held his salute firmly and thereby permitted my brother the honor of demonstrating his and the true character of so very many others of our fighting men and women. Indeed, you should know that it was this very character that likely saved Brian’s life in the first place. As Brian crawled through the fire, certain brave men and women pulled him from the carnage, carried him out to the parking lot, then into the adjoining street.”

  1. Remove stick(s) from asses.
  2. Stop being humorless
  3. sucks.

beefpie, buffpants
whatever latent name you are choosing to go by these days, I still think your a loudmouth pussy!

BeefPie, cream pie, whatever your name is this week…I began a lengthy reply, but remembered the progress I’ve made with the likes of you (or in fact you) in the past, and I digress…

I’ll spend my breath wherever I damn well please…Perhaps it is your mentality to simply listen to what your told and like it, but that shit don’t work with me…I can say what I want – so shove your orders up your ass.

The pics were funny…they certainly look alike…

Hedo, are you serious?

Hedo, sounds like you are describing politics… not character. Look, any monkey can get some things right.

Heck, I’m sure Kerry could too! :wink:

In fact, I suggest a “beer-off” style debate. Whoever earns the most purple hearts in 24 hours by opening cans or bottles of beer wins.

Right Side Up: thanks, that was awesome!

BeefPie: I never said who I was voting for, I simply pointed out that trying to question Kerry’s service record from people who spent more time dodging the draft was ludicrous. That and these same people engage in canned hunts which should elucidate you somewhat about their character. It has to do with shooting domesticated animals. Yeah, we need people with this kind of respect for life sending GI Joe and GI Jane across the ocean to fight for whatever they deem necessary.