Jump to content

Why you should be happy George W. Bush is our President

Recommended Posts

Hmm, lessee...


1991: U.S. leads coalition that liberates Kuwait (a Muslim nation) -- we're still there as their protectors.


1995: U.S. begins leading coalition that liberates Bosnia (again, Muslims) -- we're still there as their protectors.


1998 (or 1999, exact year escapes me): U.S. leads coalition that saves Kosovo (still another Muslim nation) -- we're still there, too.


2001: U.S. leads coalition that liberates Afghanistan (whaddya know, another Muslim nation) from brutal Taliban dictators -- p.s.: Brown & Root just got a $45 million contract to build troop support facilities at bases in Afghanistan...guess where else we're going to be for a good while?


Doesn't exactly meet any definition of "xenophobic war on the Muslim world"...read something besides propaganda leaflets.



Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

(first, i gotta tell ya, I don't think i have anything in my profile either - some boards can end up with some real whackos, and I am just cowardly enough to wish to give nothing to be traceable, just in case. While I do try not to be "too in your face" insulting, sometimes - w/out TOV and the smile on my face - ya just couldn't tell.


my apologies for that, if it's an issue... email me, and if you're someone I've come to respect on this board, cool...)




not to take away from Bush - or anyone, or to give anything to anyone, either - but I sometimes wonder if the idea of the Presidency as we know it isn't in need of some re-vamping. Certainly, government is pretty well constructed, but I wonder how any one single human being can in fact "lead" such a complex entity as 21st century America? I sometimes think we need an Executive President, and two real working Vice Presidents, one domestic, one international. Any bill would need 2 out of 3 signatures to go into law, etc., etc. I don't know, for sure, but at least that would set the ratio at one exec per 100 million foks! :-)


If we are trying to elect someone who's a genius, well... is that all we need? Someone with a lot of heart and humanitarianism - Jimmy Carter, say, and again with ALL due respect - may be better off in other endeavors. Certainly he's remembered more for peanuts prior to the White House, and for providing houses to people after.



What are all the qualities we look for in a President?


I sometimes wonder if someone who's been in politics all their lives is really the best choice (I know Bush hasn't, of course, but I suspect some grooming went on). Lawyers? Wrong side of town for most folks. How do the privileged really understand the rest of the country?


But sadly, it's the folks with money who CAN campaign - and I'd bet that many an average Jane or Joe could be a darned good Pres - probably even some of the folks on this board! But most of you will never get a chance! Ok - that's neither here nor there, I know, and a lot of folks would never TAKE the chance, even if they got it, and it's NOT a criticism of the system, anyway - just life!


Leadership of a diverse, segmented, multicultural population is a difficult thing. Trying to keep everyone happy would paralyze the function. Being "Quick on the trigger" may be called for sometimes, but at other times certainly not.


I haven't thot this thru myself, but someone once asked me if I noticed how everything started to fall apart after the death of J. Edgar Hoover... hmmm.



Does any President get a clean slate when they first sit down behind that desk? there's a TON o' stuff left over from the predecessor, some good, some bad, and trying to rebuild everything from the ground up every four years - well, let's say it's not the best use of someone's time. Clean house? yes. Rebuild it? no.


well, I'm taking the long way around the lake to get to this - I thing some things are forced upon a President by the events of current history. Some think any recent sitting President would have handle the Cuban Missile Crisis pretty much as Kennedy did. Still, one has to wonder about Viet Nam. Johnson had his hands full with that, and it truly tarnished much of the Great Society. Eisenhower WARNED us about the military industrial complex, but I know a lot of retirees looking for military action in the middle east to stimulate that old wartime economy!




Well, I know I couldn't. And while I doubt that Bush by himself can, you gotta have hope and faith in his cabinet. And Powell needs.... ok, that's WAY off track.


911 was forced upon Bush, and he reacted admirably. Currently, I have strong doubts about the wisdom of the US playing the world's vigilante, but I'm prepared to wait and see what the hardandfinal plan might come to be, and of course until then, I'll withhold judgement.


crikey, I'm a-ramblin!







Link to post
Share on other sites



You may find this hard to beleive, but if you peruse past postings on this forum, you will find that I have been labeled as quite liberal. Ask anyone.


But I have to answer your post about Clinton vs Bush. If genius and self-made were the only criteria for president, then Hannibal Lechter and Charles Manson should should run as shoo ins.


I supported Clinton, I remember the interview in 1992 when the Clintons faced the cameras and Bill admitted he caused pain in his marriage. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Then Paula Jones came forward and I wondered where the money came to finance her. Then the whole whitewater thing. I agreed with with Hiliary on the Today show that the republicans had a huge right wing conspiraicy against him. Then came Monica and his forthright claim "I did not have sex with that woman"


Then after all that, the 11th hour presidential pardons have a left a bad taste in my mouth. I liked Bill Clinton, but nothing will make me more bitter than defending with gusto someone who betrays me.


So Bill Clinton may well be a self made man with a genius IQ, George W Bush may be a a man as full of foibles as anyone and a rich spoiled child, but I dont expect Dubya to put a knife in my back and twist it, Bill already has.

Link to post
Share on other sites


I understood and appreciated your last post (even though I'll never understand why Clinton was so appealing to so many). Regardless, I just want to add one thing in defense of a man I truly appreciate -


If George W. is as dull as some want to portray him - How did he come to fly a fighter jet? I don't care how much influence his dad might have had at the time, the military isn't going to let a slightly above average wanna-be fly a multi-million dollar jet because sonny thought it would be fun. Furthermore, an F14 is slightly more complicated then your typical BMW. Pick any jet pilot in the military and have a conversation with him...How many do you walk away from, thinking "Boy, that guy wasn't very sharp."


And, if he's the coward and/or spoiled rich boy some want to portray him - Why did he chose to risk his life flying a fighter jet at all (I don't care what part of the sky he defended)? Flying a fighter jet is dangerous. Anyone who doesn't think so, just can't be taken serious.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those in the media and opposition party who persist in labeling Bush as dumb should consider the following quote from Mark Steyn, a Canadian political commentator.


"If Bush is too dumb to be president, how dumb do you have to be to be consistently outwitted by him?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't despise Bush by any means. Heck, I voted for him in 2000. But to say he deserves praise for shedding a tear for a fallen veteran is rather fool hardy.


As per President Bush's National Guard Service, the following was recently received by the Pentagon (not from me by the way):


Department of Defense

The Pentagon

Washington, D.C. 20301-1900


To whom it may concern:


Recently, I was made aware of allegations concerning several violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) by George W. Bush during the Vietnam War. The alleged acts include being Absent Without Leave (UCMJ Article 86) for a period of more than a year from his National Guard assignments in Texas and Alabama. According to the UCMJ, a person who is AWOL for more than 30 days with evidence of no intent to return to duty is guilty of Desertion. (UCMJ Article 85)


To understand the gravity of this offense, one need only read the section 4.9.5 e. of Article 85, which states that the maximum punishment for desertion in a time of war (3), is, "Death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct". As far as I am aware, George W. Bush has never received any punishment for these alleged crimes, nor has he ever been charged.


When I read about these allegations in national media outlets including, but not limited to; The Boston Globe(1), The Washington Post(2), The Birmingham News(3), and The Dallas Morning News(4), I decided to call the Department of Defense to find out what the Statute of Limitations was for these crimes. I was informed that because of the nature of the crimes; deserting one's country during a time of war, that there is NO statute of limitations, and these crimes, if proven, can still be prosecuted today.


The purpose of this correspondence is to make a formal written complaint with circumstantial and documentary evidence of George W. Bush's violations of the UCMJ. Since he is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, the details of his past service or lack thereof, are of particular interest to the American people.




From May to November 1972, George W. Bush was living in Alabama working on the US senate campaign of Winton Blount and was required to attend drills with the Air National Guard unit in Montgomery, Alabama. There is no record that he attended any drills whatsoever. Additionally, General William Turnipseed ® who was commander of the unit at that time has stated in interviews that he never saw Bush report for duty.


On September 5, 1972, Bush had requested permission to perform duty for September, October, and November at the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery. Permission was granted, and Bush was ordered to report to General William Turnipseed. In interviews, Turnipseed, and his administrative officer at the time, Kenneth K. Lott, have stated that they had no memory of Bush ever reporting.


Seven months later, at Ellington Air Force Base in Texas, Bush's two superior officers were unable to complete his annual evaluation covering the year from May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973 because, "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report." Both superior officers, who are now dead, and also Ellington's top personnel officer at the time, mistakenly concluded that Bush served his final year of service in Alabama. Bush returned to live in Texas after the senatorial election in November, 1972, so this is obviously not true.


According to the records available from the National Guard, the period between May 1972 and May 1973 remains unaccounted for. George W. Bush himself has refused to answer questions about this period in his life, other than to state that he fulfilled all of his National Guard commitments. If this were true, why is there no record of him fulfilling these commitments at either of his posts in Texas or Alabama? Why is there not one commanding officer that can come forward and state unequivocally that Bush reported for duty?


If the allegations are true that Bush deserted his country during a time of war, this is one of the gravest offenses one can commit against their country, short of treason. This is why there is no Statute of Limitations concerning these crimes. My father served proudly as a field surgeon in Vietnam, and it distresses me greatly that a person could use his family's influence and power to not only avoid the draft for service, but then to not fulfill the duties that he was assigned in substitute for serving in Vietnam.


These crimes are not to be taken lightly, and I believe that all men and women who serve America proudly would be shocked that a soldier was allowed to abuse the system in the way that George W. Bush allegedly has. These charges warrant investigation, and until a satisfactory record of Bush's service is produced, I can only assume that Bush did indeed desert his country in a time of war.


I implore you to investigate these charges. In this time of war and talk of preemptive strikes against other countries, it

would serve the American people greatly to know that our Commander in Chief did not run away from duty during Vietnam. If this man is to send other's husbands, wives, and children to die in a foreign land, we must make sure that he fulfilled his obligations and commitments to America before he demands that others do the same.





Link to post
Share on other sites



As for the "shedding a tear" comment, I simply stated that I believe Bush to be a man who sincerely cares about our nation's military personnel. If you chose to believe that he staged his tears - fine. I can understand why you'd be skeptical, especially if you ever supported the likes of Clinton.


As for the bull#$%&! article that you've posted, you can't believe for a second that folks are going to take it seriously. PLEASE, are you going to tell me that the Democratic Party - as desperate as they can be - couldn't uncover such an election-changing story on George W? Or worse, they sat on it and let George W. take the election away from Gore. Not likely. This is just another ploy being executed by the distressed, unconscionable caretakers of a feeble and impotent party.


"had no memory of Bush ever reporting"


"has not been observed"


This is not documentation of wrong doing. These are simply the poor recollections of people who have been manipulated by liberal ideologues - some 30 years later.


With supporters like you, Bush doesn't need any enemies.


Link to post
Share on other sites



This story was published before he got the nomination. The Bush people have done their best to make sure the facts don't come out. If you actually believe that folks who sign up should serve their tour, let him know. I find it rather interesting that many of the Republicans that were denouncing Clinton for avoiding service see no problem with the current president either going AWOL or worse.


I know you want to blame the "liberal" media. However, it was published in a number of places and the Bush people were not exactly willing to set the record straight. If he has nothing to hide, open the records. He hasn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites



You seem to have a habit of interjecting your thoughts and making them others beliefs.


Where do you find any evidence that I believe Bush "staged his tears?"


I stated no such thing. My only point is that having a president feeling sorry about loss of life doesn't exactly float my boat. Granted, the opposite, a president that does not care, scares the heck out of me!


Put your biases aside and consider the following. If I stated that "We should be happy George W. Bush is president" because he showed up at a press conference in a smart looking suit with a nice red tie I don't think you would be in agreement with me 100% (I hope). Does that mean you feel Bush is not a good president? No. It just means that you think that being a sharp dresser does not make a president. Same with me, feeling bad about a loss of life (something I think 99.9% of the population feels) is not a good criteria either.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a bit of a knee-jerk response on my part...


Nevertheless -


acco40, my point was and still is - We should be happy to have a President that apparently understands and appreciates the cost of a potential war. I believe - despite what others (liberals and some in the media) are trying to portray - Bush is not taking the lives of our military personnel for granted. He knows the costs.


firstpusk (and acco40), this is a lame story. Even the media knows it. If Bush were guilty of anything (i.e., being AWOL for a year or anything similar), we'd all know it and Gore would be in the White House. If you need "Bush's people" to tell some story - to confirm this fantasy, then obviously the story is bogus. Do you really believe there is some sort of military cover up? Do you believe President Clinton would have allowed for such a cover up to take place? He's a democrat...remember. Was he so envious of Gore, that he'd allow Bush to steal an election he didn't deserve? He would have helped that investigation along if there were any truth to it. The fact is, this story is simple slander. As for Clinton and his sad story, he couldnt have set the record straight because the evidence was too condemning. He couldnt deny the facts.


As for me being bias, you're probably right - I don't trust most of folks "leading" the Democratic Party. When Bush makes a fool of himself like Clinton, I'll come back to this forum to recognize your wisdom and beg your forgiveness for being so foolish. But I doubt that Bush will ever come close to imitating Clinton. Until then, I think you're the one who's placed too much trust in the wrong places.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Wow. I didn't know that being a Republican was code for checking your common sense at the door. Can Bush fake tears -- well, do bears do it in the woods? If so, then politicans do it in front of cameras.


Bush is a politician. Anybody who thinks that a politician can be a saint is naive. Clinton was also a politician, and he was not a draft dodger. He resigned from ROTC and wrote a letter saying why. He never got drafted. Bush had a low lottery number (fact, easily researched by going back to the NY Times or Wall Street articles from before his first election as president). He joined the Air National Guard (fact). He lived in Texas, but was assigned a unit in Alabama (fact). He did not drill, but was paid and listed as active and got drill credits for days when he was not with the unit (facts, by the way admitted by his ex-co and by other officers in his unit). At the time his daddy was a senator/government cabinet member (fact).


I'm a Republican, but I'm not so stupid as to believe that just because Bush says he's a Republican that he's either an angel or the second comming. He's a politician. The fact that 50% of the electorate wanted to ignore his "service" record and elect him does not mean that the facts are not facts or that it was excusable conduct. I'm a former Army officer, JAG prosecutor and ROTC grad.


In case you haven't notice, not all criminals get convicted, and heck some don't get prosecuted!


Want some more funny facts? Guess which administration was the object of more money spent on special prosecutors than any other administration in history? Yes, give the little lady a cupie doll, it was Reagan.


Guess which administration was the object of the longest running term of special prosecutors than any other administration in history? Yes, give the little lady a cupie doll, it was Reagan.


Finally, guess in which administration the special prosecutors actually obtained the most convictions (not counting watergate, since the burglars were not politicians and if excluded the numbers aren't there)? Yes, give the little lady another cupie doll, it was Reagan.


By contrast, the special prosecutors sent after Clinton spent a hair less than those after Reagan, and got exactly one conviction of a politician (the fomer Secty of Ag(?)) for accepting crystal bowls and stuff.


I voted for Reagan, twice. I still think that besides Ford, he was the greatest President we've had in modern times. I also think that some of the laws under which his appointees were prosecuted sometimes don't make sense. But I've got no stars in my eyes that the guy was an angel. Hell, he was not only a politician, he was a Hollywood actor! I'll bet he could cry on cue also!


Haven't had enuf funny facts? How about this one. When Clinton was elected a Marine officer named Oliver North published, over his signature, several criticisms of Clinton's ethics, honesty and character. At the time he made these public announcements, he was on active duty with the Marine Corps. He was not court-martialed for these offenses. Under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) such comments by an officer about the President, even outside the hearing of the President are crimes). He was not prosecuted.


The UCMJ provision is as follows:




Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."


At almost the same time, a Marine E4 faxed an anonymous letter to the office of Congresswoman Pat Schroeder. The letter was insulting and questioned her ethics, honesty and character. At the time, Congresswoman Schroeder was a ranking member of the Armed Forces Committee. The FBI and Office of Naval Invesigations (I think that's the name, I was Army) made a full blown investigation, id'd the E4 and he was prosecuted, convicted and ejected from the Service. It was a crime under the UCMJ for him to have sent the letter. It was, in fact, the same crime that Mr. North committed.


The Article of the UCMJ applicable to the enlisted member was:




Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, ll conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."


Any idea why the E4 was prosecuted and not the LTC? Come on, the darling of the conservative press and pundits vs. a nobody E4 with no powerful friends. As an Army JAG I saw several of these, they weren't right, but they're life, just like politicians who cry on cue and wax eloquent about servicemen giving the "final full measure" although the politician himself did not serve and is not a veteran.


Another funny fact? Ok, sure. After the invasion of Grenada, like in all military conflicts since and including WWII, the military issued a general order prohibiting the removal of "war trophies", including captured weapons from the theater of war to the US. An admiral loaded his plane with weapons and US Customs caught him in the act when he landed. At the same time (literally the same week) an Army Captain and his crew chief put 6 captured rifles (taken from the same warehouse as the Admiral's hoard) onto their Black Hawk and flew home. They were caught by MP's acting as customs agents. The Captain and crew chief were court-martialed, convicted, imprisoned and ejected from the Service. The Admiral was not prosecuted nor punished. I wrote, as a prosecutor working at the time for The Judge Advocate General of the Army, the clemency review request for the Captain, and recommended clemency on the "t'ain't fair" rule. While I was commended for my intellectual honesty and forthrightness, the clemency petition was denied. Go figure.


Wow. That was longer than I intended, but the point should be clear. Bush and the current congress do not have a mandate. They barely had enough votes to get into office. They need to be treated with the caution that a marginal candidate(s)in non-definitive races deserve. They do not need to presume that they are God's chosen, 'cause they aren't anymore than the candidate here in Colorado that lost by 122 votes out of 168,000+ cast!




Link to post
Share on other sites



If you're convinced that the rest of the country believes as you do, then how do suppose President Bush was elected...Oh yeah, there's that right wing conspiracy again. Sorry. You know, its funny how much influence Rush Limbaugh and Fox News wields. As for President Clinton, I let his record speak for himself. Of course, that assume he hasnt found a way to rewrite it.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...