The story sounds right. The aide just came out of an information warfare lecture, and yet, "when we act, we create our own reality" suggests C2W regurgitation. Sounds authentic to me, but

arrogance is so presidential.

It's not an issue.

Is not your head of state a queen...I am sure that means you are still required to bow and scrape before her majesty of divine right. Now that is arrogant and demeaning.

Let's make this interesting...

My wife seems to thing that Bush is more of a christian man than Kerry. I'm of the opinion that Kerry understands the difference between being a religious leader, and a leader of religion(s), for the better (later), of course.

Politics and religion, what a mix!

we are choosing between a mutton head and a chowder head then ?
why I don't vote

How backwards is it that people think that Bush is some kind of uber Christian disregarding his arrogance, lies, misleadings, failure to admit that he's wrong, failure to see anyone's point of view but his own and is a draft dodger - which I don't have a problem with except that he's so willing to send American soldiers to fight and die for him while he calls himself a war-time president. How can you be a draft dodger when it's your life at stake but then be a war-time president when he's out of harms way??? How can people think that's ok? wtf!??

Kerry's a Christian and went to war in Vietnam to fight for his country, decided that it was a bullshit war and he's the bad guy.

all im going to say is that in the last election we got stuck with gore or bush so bush got voted in just so that gore wouldnt i mean hell the guy had a persinality of a rock in this run around we are giong to vote kerry in becase just like before the other option sucks

Hopefully this wont go on much longer... One more election like this and I will have completely lost faith in America...

Every four years America gets the government it deserves and asks for.

the multi-generational failure of 'higher education'

First I don’t think it is far to call Bush a draft dodger. Truth with regard to both candidates service is required... both served honorably. Many of us who have served are sick of this replacing official records with lies and innuendo. Both served honorably now shut your cake hole.

It seems that some are selective in their criticism of presidents who commit troops to war without having seen the elephant themselves. For instance Clinton most certainly side stepped the draft and yet he received very little criticism from the from the left when he committed troops to Kosovo.

Kerry is not a bad guy because he decide that Vietnam was bad policy, he is a bad guy because of the way he went about it and because he claimed that his peers where war criminals.

You missed some good political conversation last night...this very thing was a topic. We're watching the game at the Longboard tonight if you’re interested :)

That's not accurate. There have been several books written by former Bush administration people. Their character is quickly assassinated and it blows over. One would wonder why Bush would surround himself with such horrible people in the first place (or whether character assassination is just modus operandi). These accounts of Bush all paint a pretty similar picture to that article.

PNAC is scary to me...

Sure people do write books after leaving administrations. Usually it is to sell books...just look at all the folks who had nasty thing to say about the Clinton Whitehouse. You have to take it all with at grain of salt.

Bush is a draft dodger. Technically, he's a deserter for not being AWOL for over 30 days. :eek: He used his daddys political influence to get into the National Guard then didn't even stay the whole time.

Clinton didn't get a lot of grief for being a draft dodger, but he did about lying about a blowjob. Wtf does a bj have to do with U.S policy??? Bush should be brought up on crimes against humanity. He lied about WMD's, he lies about wanting to free Iraq and sheep like you believe his every word.

Clinton didn't deny ducking the draft. He sent people into war not to flex American muscle, to grow the Empire, for oil, to finish what his daddy didn't, he didn't lie about why or what he was doing.... and that's the difference.

And maybe the soldiers in Vietnam that were mowing down whole villages of unarmed civilians(not that this was the nor, but it did happen) as well as the president should have been charged with being war criminals? Maybe???

Look, I know that you wont admit that I'm right. I doubt that you will admit it in your own head that I'm right, I doubt that you can. I saw a poll recently that 80% of the people that watch Fox news still believe that Iraq had WMD's. You're like some chick that stays at home every night while her husband is out with the 'boys' all night then comes home smelling like perfume and sometimes a few glitter flakes. You're in denial. No biggie. Clearly 48% of you monkeys are - according to the latest poll.



The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

-Nazi Reich Marshall Hermann Goering, at the Nuremberg War Trials

http://www.hijackingcatastrophe.org/

I don't know about Bush' military record, but my objection is with his business dealings: he used daddyo's influence to get some investors, then personally bailed out as the company collapsed, leaving the investors with pocket change.

I wish someone could find that reference; I can't pull it up now.

who gives a shit about their Vietnam service? Neither was issued a dishonorable discharge; it's total smokescreen to let them both ignore dealing with the issues.

Here is a fact: Bush administration told the US people that Iraq and Saddam had WMDs and were a serious and immediate threat. They also said there were ties between Iraq and Al Queda.

These statements were all false. The president may or may not told lies willfully; but the fact remains that the stated reasons for war have all been shown to be false.

The US people really deserve better than "we'll just say we did it for freedom and liberation now and mention something about staying the course and fighting terrorism. They're too stupid to stay on topic anyway." which is what we've gotten from this administration.

Here's another fact: John Kerry has provided absolutely no concrete plan for Iraq, for healthcare, for social security, for outsourcing, or for ANYTHING he's pushing. He's just making promises to get elected. We should believe France and Germany are going to help us out in Iraq if Kerry's elected? Their leaders have both said publicly that they won't.

Here's an observation: Neither side wants to deal with the obvious (and huge) issue of the deficit. Kerry wants to spend more money and says we need more troops. Bush wants to make current tax cuts permanent and put increasingly large numbers of people on govt payroll. No matter who's elected, this means increased deficits or tax hikes.

OK first you don't know the first thing about the UCMJ. Your application of article 86 is completely wrong. As are the pundits for Kerry. Article 86 does not apply to drilling reservist. Try again.

Invade for oil...take economics 101 kid. It’s cheaper to just give them green paper for it.

I could care less about Clintons Blow Job in the Oval Office...I kind had always assumed it was a tradition anyway. The fact that he lied at all is what got conservatives up in arms. Personally, I could care less.

The point about Clinton was that the left wing said nothing about the troop commitments for the war in Kosovo. Why don't you please explain to the rest of use why it was necessary to take out Milosevic...Don't worry I agree with Clintons thinking but I'd like to see you contrast that with our current situation.

War crimes happen and the perpetrators are punished. It has happened in all wars, don't assume that means it is accepted or condoned. Heads of state would only be responsible for war crimes if they ordered it or condoned it, as in the case of Milosevic or Saddam.

I was one of the guys going across the berm into Iraq...I am almost certain that they did NOT have WMD.

I think that the following quote is more to your mentality.

"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

-Neville Chamberlain-
after signing the Munich Pact with Hitler

yes, a strong intellectual point there
you have my respect for your in-depth analysis and insightful commentary

Article 86 does cover reservist drilling, it makes no distinction. I know that its currently a bit more relaxed - you just miss pay. You typically get to miss 2 drills a year with no harm (still get credit towards retirement.) However, command discretion is the key here - they could stil choose to charge you under article 86.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/...htm?once=true&

RE: Charging the CIC with war crimes for soldiers actions. Thats the dumbest thing I have ever heard. People make choices. No one FORCES a soldier to obey an unlawful order.

You are correct typically, two missed drills with no legitimate excuse is the general rule.

One of my collateral duties has been as a legal officer and as a SACO. There is lots of case law regarding reservist and Article 86 offenses and precedent makes it almost impossible to convict a reservist (not on active duty orders) of an Article 86 offence. The problem is not with your reading of the UCMJ but as it apply to reservist and their status under the UCMJ. For instance if a reservist pops positive for pot on a urinalysis during a drill weekend. He can’t be place on active duty for trial under the UCMJ. The assumption is that the crime was committed during the week , while the reservist was not covered under the UCMJ. Therefore, the policy is to administratively separate the reservist with the lowest characterization of service possible.

For those who believe our primary motivations for invading Iraq where oil...Please note the reason why food for oil would have never worked.

Tarik Aziz must be singing like a bird ;)

Link to Story

Still got the picture I sent you Bill...LOL

That was dumb.

The pics of kids that were affected by chem. wepons and the field of body bags have absolutely nothing to do with Bush ****ing up. How is showing Sadam's atrocities supposed to convince people that going into Iraq was wrong?



**sorry for shitty spelling. No spellcheck on this machine :-(

He claimed that he and his peers were war criminals - and that they had no choice but to be, given things like "free fire zones".
Kerry also claimed that both the Vietnamese peasants and the GIs we sent there were victims. As far as I can tell, he was trying to reduce the number of future victims (which I would have been one of - was in high school during the famous "war soldiers" gatherings) and there very definitely was a draft.)
He was a very angry guy - and I don't blame him. He was also pretty eloquent about the war (heard him once in '67 or '68). It was very clear that he felt used. He and his buddies gave everything and they got used - and were pissed (those that lived, anyway).

So... what part of the "way he went about it" makes him a bad guy? And how could he have gone about speaking out about what was going on in 'Nam and not been a bad guy in your eyes? Wait for Nixon to complete "Vietnamization"? How was that a solution? If you believe (as I think Kerry did) that both sides of the war there were victims, then that would just make for more victims.

My own personal take at the time (which hasn't changed much over 30+ years) was that not only were we involved in a civil war, but we were on the side of the "bad guys". Read John Paul Vann's book as it pretty much sums up my thinking in '68 - and now.

From another angle, you have to figure that JWB agreed with him at the time - at least about 'Nam being a bulls**t war - why else would he have gone to so much trouble to avoid it? And you have to ask - what is the best way to "go about" a bulls**t war:
1) go, fight, come home, protest
2) avoid (dad's in congress, so get a Guard pilot slot)

Of course, picking a president based on something he did or didn't do 30+ years ago is pretty dumb.
Yes, Kerry was the first one to bring it up, but the Bush camp, by responding as they have, made it a perfectly legitimate place to examine both candidates. You really think what GWB did was the right way to deal with a war like that? Make use of place and wealth to not be inconvenienced? Let the lower class guys go and maybe die? And Kerry's approach was wrong? His family wasn't rich but they had enough connections that he probably could have gotten a place in the guard...

Sorry - you got me started - guess I'm still pissed about 'Nam, too - thought I'd let that one go...