"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney said.
"Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."
As I read this, he's not saying the danger is that ifwe elect Kerry, thenthe danger is that we'll be attacked. He's saying that ifwe elect Kerry andwe're attacked, thenthe danger is that we'll treat it as a criminal act rather than an act of war.
BEIRUT, Lebanon, Sept. 8 - The brutal school siege in Russia, with hundreds of children dead and wounded, has touched off an unusual round of self-criticism and introspection in the Muslim and Arab world.
"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims," Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of the widely watched satellite television station Al Arabiya said in one of the most striking of these commentaries.
Writing in the pan-Arab newspaper Al Sharq al Awsat, Mr. Rashed said it was "shameful and degrading" that not only were the Beslan hijackers Muslims, but so were the killers of Nepalese workers in Iraq; the attackers of residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar, Saudi Arabia; the women believed to have blown up two Russian airplanes last week; and Osama bin Laden himself.
"The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim," he wrote. "What a pathetic record. What an abominable 'achievement.' Does this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?"
Mr. Rashed, like several other commentators, singled out Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a senior Egyptian cleric living in Qatar who broadcasts an influential program on Al Jazeera television and who has issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, calling for the killing of American and foreign "occupiers" in Iraq, military and civilian.
"Let us contemplate the incident of this religious sheik allowing, nay even calling for, the murder of civilians," he wrote. "How can we believe him when he tells us that Islam is the religion of mercy and peace while he is turning it into a religion of blood and slaughter?"
There's even more to the story, but I couldn't find it. Not quickly anyway. I read it on my palm pilot this AM then tried to find it online. Maybe I'll repost it later when I get a chance to get at the whole story.
Mr. Rashed recalled that in the past, leftists and nationalists in the Arab world were considered a "menace" for their adoption of violence, and the mosque was a haven of "peace and reconciliation" by contrast.
"Then came the neo-Muslims," he said. "An innocent and benevolent religion, whose verses prohibit the felling of trees in the absence of urgent necessity, that calls murder the most heinous of crimes, that says explicitly that if you kill one person you have killed humanity as a whole, has been turned into a global message of hate and a universal war cry."
A columnist for the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Siyassa, Faisal al-Qina'I, also took aim at Sheik Qaradawi. "It is saddening," he wrote, "to read and hear from those who are supposed to be Muslim clerics, like Yusuf al-Qaradawi and others of his kind, that instead of defending true Islam, they encourage these cruel actions and permit decapitation, hostage taking and murder."
In Jordan, a group of Muslim religious figures, meeting with the religious affairs minister, Ahmed Heleil, issued a statement on Wednesday saying the seizing of the school and subsequent massacre "was dedicated to distorting the pure image of Islam.''
"This terrorist act contradicts the principles of our true Muslim religion and its noble values," the statement said.
Writing in the Jordanian daily Ad Dustour, columnist Bater Wardam noted the propensity in the Arab world to "place responsibility for the crimes of Arabic and Muslim terrorist organizations on the Mossad, the Zionists and the American intelligence, but we all know that this is not the case.''
"They came from our midst," he wrote of those who had kidnapped and killed civilians in Iraq, blown up commuter trains in Spain, turned airliners into bombs and shot the children in Ossetia.
"They are Arabs and Muslims who pray, fast, grow beards, demand the wearing of veils and call for the defense of Islamic causes,'' he said. "Therefore we must all raise our voices, disown them and oppose all these crimes."
In Beirut, Rami G. Khouri editor of the Daily Star, wrote that while most Arabs "identified strongly and willingly" with armed Palestinian or Lebanese guerrillas fighting Israeli occupation, "all of us today are dehumanized and brutalized by the images of Arabs kidnapping and beheading foreign hostages."
Calling for a global strategy to reduce terror, he traced what he called "this ugly trek" in the Arab world to "the home-grown sense of indignity, humiliation, denial and degradation that has increasingly plagued many of our young men and women."
A Palestinian columnist, Hassan al-Batal, wrote in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper Al Ayyam that the "day of horror in the school" should be designated an international day for the condemnation of terrorism. "There are no mitigating circumstances for the inhuman horror and the height of barbarism," he said of the school attack.
In Egypt, the semi-official newspaper Al Ahram called the events "an ugly crime against humanity."
In Saudi Arabia, newspapers tightly controlled by the government - which finds itself under attack from Islamic fundamentalists - were even more scathing.
Under the headline "Butchers in the Name of Allah," a columnist in the government daily Okaz, Khaled Hamed al-Suleiman, wrote that "the propagandists of jihad succeeded in the span of a few years in distorting the image of Islam.''
"They turned today's Islam into something having to do with decapitations, the slashing of throats, abducting innocent civilians and exploding people,'' he said. "They have fixed the image of Muslims in the eyes of the world as barbarians and savages who are not good for anything except slaughtering people."
"The time has come for Muslims to be the first to come out against those interested in abducting Islam in the same way they abducted innocent children,'' he added. "This is the true jihad these days, and this is our obligation, as believing Muslims, toward our monotheistic religion."
At least some are starting to speak up. Where were they after 9-11? Bali, Jakarta, Riadyh etc. etc. In short, where the hell have they (moderate Muslim's) been?
He did. He also was in the Air Force, he spent 120 days on active duty alone, including his other training time he was active duty for 21/2 years.
Speaking of, Another desperate Dem attempt, foiled.
More is coming out about the bogus memo's CBS "aquired" from a DNC er um Kerry CampaignAnonymous source.Â
One of the people mentioned Buck Staudt as to pressuring Killian had retired over a year and a half prior to the memo being written. Ooops.
Retired Maj. General Bobby Hodges whom CBS used to trump up verify the memo's said he was never actually shown the documents. He said he was mislead and after seeing them he says they're forgeries.
The P.O box used on the "memo's" The National Guard was not using address like that at the time.
The family disputes it. CBS says the documents came from Killian's personal files, which Killian's family says he never kept. They also said he hated to type and wasn't very good at it. If a machine was availible that could print a document that looks amazingly like a Microsoft word document it would have cost 20,000 in today's dollars and was very complicated and used in print shops for brochures etc.. Highly unlikely for a Guard unit and even more unlikely for Killian to keep a personal memo typed on something he couldn't have used.
The "expert" they used to verify the authenticity of the document said he was only and is only qualified to verify signatures, The L.A. Times reported that handwriting analyst, Marcel Matley, who CBS had claimed vouched for the authenticity of four memos, vouched for only one signature, and no scribbled initials. The Times reports he has no opinion about the typography of any of the supposed memos. Most experts agree they are most certainly forged.
Earl Lively, director of operations for the Texas Air National Guard in the 1970s, told the Washington Times that the memos are "forged as hell."
Retired Colonel Maurice Udell who trained Bush said the documents are fake. "I completely am disgusted with this (report) I saw on 60 Minutes,"' Udell said. "That's not true. I was there. I knew Jerry Killian. I went to Vietnam with Jerry Killian in 1968."
CBS still refuses to say whom their source was. They
They're desperate.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Sep 13, 2004 at 06:11pm.]
Last February, White House spokesman Scott McClellan held aloft sections of President Bush's military record, declaring to the waiting press that the files "clearly document the president fulfilling his duties in the National Guard." Case closed, he said.
But last week the controversy reared up once again, as several news outlets, including U.S. News, disclosed new information casting doubt on White House claims.
A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.
Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he accumulated sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method, which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.
The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last week but emphasized that Bush had "served honorably."
Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty."
Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a retired Air Force colonel who originally certified the White House position that Bush had completed his military obligation, stood by his analysis. After a reporter cited pertinent Air Force regulations from the period, he complained that if the entire unit were judged by such standards, "90 percent of the people in the Guard would not have made satisfactory participation."
"90 percent of the people in the Guard would not have made satisfactory participation."
The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.
That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.
Not two years of weekends. Two years.
After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.
According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).
Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?
That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush “deserted” (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went “AWOL” (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).
Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.
“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”
So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.
Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.
In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.
Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.
During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.
A 1970 evaluation said Bush “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and was “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.”
A 1971 evaluation called Bush “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.” And a 1972 evaluation called Bush “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.”
George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.     It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the Guard and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole community's attention.     The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers.     If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots be available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional reservists with outside employment.     The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt. Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were shoved into nonflying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because there just wasn't room for all of them anymore.     Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s.The image of a reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months' basic training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge for many wanting to avoid Vietnam.     There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.
    The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life.
    Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt. Bush abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.     Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.     Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard, as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career affairs until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment. Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on the active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has little use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely option for a temporary hire.     As a commander, I would put such "visitors" in some minor administrative post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged. Today, I can't even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to "pull drills" for a couple of months, I wouldn't be too involved with him because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the unit combat ready.     Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt. Bush twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for a required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:     First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly — the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.     If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user.     Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado" to which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a specific unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I'm "being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction or court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt. Bush's performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in The Washington Post in 2000.     Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career parallels Lt. Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a guardsman, I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense of the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in crashes flying air-defense missions.
Thanks again for thet RANT, which is FULL of holes, and is missing a BIG section of his records...
Good thing you don't rant.
You like the guy, you vote for him. For a Marine who says he actually took live-fire, you are easily pleased.
Easily pleased? I don't think so. I applaud Kerry and Bush's service. They did their time and did what they did which is more than many have done. My issue with Kerry is what he did when he came home. And as a Marine what he did to the men he served with is disgusting. He wasn't simply a protestor like many. When he met with the communists while we were still fighting and men being beaten in prisions is disgusting. When for the next 20 years in the senate he attempted to defund the military at every turn. When he now suddenly calls them his brothers is laughable after essentially calling them murderers 30 years before is troubling. And most vets, the VFW and the Leigion have endorsed him. Yet because he's your guy you're voting for him. Yea, I'm the one who's easily pleased.
Yeah...ALL of those outlets are TRAITORS for even questioninghis record, or doing their JOBS. That damn liberal media, and all their LIES!
Where have I ever said the media are traitors? Please do find it. I don't care if they question it or investigate it, just use all the facts and non forged documents.
The truth is, you would vote for him if he was caught giving the VP a blow-job.
Not that it's any of your business, but what makes you think I can't have a few drinks now and then? I'm not a drunk like some people.
I was born with multiple kidneys. I had surgery to have one of them removed, and I had bladder surgery as well because of infection caused by the bad kidney.
I can send you pictures of all my scars (which means you'll have to see me naked). I have about half a dozen of them from various surgerys and tubes and whatnot.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Sep 14, 2004 at 08:36am.]
Name the bills that he voted to under-fund ANY Military expenditures, and WHY he voted that way, IF he did...OK?
Should we start with the 87 billion he voted against before he voted for and work our way back?
By the way, everone who served during that time KNOWS or has SEEN pictures of guys with necklaces made from the ears and fingers of dead VC...or as I have seen, jars filled with them...? He was commenting on the 150,  and you know it.
Vet: Kerry coerced me to testify of atrocities
Renounces participation in 1971 'Winter Soldier Investigation'
Posted: September 8, 2004
A combat veteran who testified to war crimes during the 1971 "Winter Soldier Investigation" has filed an affidavit claiming John Kerry and other leaders of Vietnam Veterans Against the War coerced him into making false claims.
That's just one of the many of the 150 who either didn't see attrocities or were never in Vietnam. Nobody ever said they didn't happen they did. Just not on the daily scope Kerry would have had the country beleived.  Al Hubbard who was Kerry's co leader in VVAW later turned out to have never been in Nam. In fact many of the 150 in detroit were later discredited. Again, they were forced to use false testimony ot make their case. Not much has changed in 30 years, well except that now they all probably have jobs at CBS.
Â
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Sep 14, 2004 at 08:47am.]
Screw you Fold. Once again you're trying to compare yourself to vets who actually saw combat. You weren't even close. And that's by your own admission. Big, BIG, difference.
LUGANO, Switzerland Â— Did Saddam Hussein use any of his ill-gotten billions filched from the United Nations oil-for-food program to help fund Al Qaeda?
Investigations have shown that the former Iraqi dictator grafted and smuggled more than $10 billion from the program that for seven years prior to Saddam's overthrow was meant to bring humanitarian aid to ordinary Iraqis. And the September 11 Commission has shown a tracery of contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda that continued after billions of oil-for-food dollars began pouring into Saddam's coffers and Usama bin Laden declared his famous war on the U.S.
Now, buried in some of the United Nation's own confidential documents, clues can be seen that underscore the possibility of just such a Saddam-Al Qaeda link — clues leading to a locked door in this Swiss lakeside resort. Â
Fold, you get really upset when people attack or question someone's service right? It seems though like you have no problem in questioning or attacking George Bush's service. How come that is?
Kerry got a student deferment, then joined the Naval Reserves, not the Navy.
Bill Clinton avoided the draft altogether, just like Cheney and a lot of other very good people.
George H.W. Bush was a first-term Republican congressman in a state that was heavily Demo at the time and probably didn't have the clout to get special treatment for his son.
And all the fuss about who served when where and how and questionable documents is just draining coverage away from both candidates' messages. The electorate is not being served by this stupid food-fight.
I could swear you've said in the past you joined the Navy to avoid being drafted.
I'm not dogging you other than you castigate everyone that has never served. You do it all the fucking time. You can question people, but no one else can.
Fuck that!
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Sep 18, 2004 at 11:04am.]
I,I,I,I,I, 19 of them in fact. That's what Fold is all about. Yeah, we all know how great you WERE after hearing you're service story for the 57th time. ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Legion Posts are always open to the public. Fund raisers, spagetti feeds, bingo, the list goes on. So need to worry, JT. Like you were, HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why is it OK for Fold to question and criticize GW (a fellow veteran) day after day but Fold takes exception when someone does it to him?...Therein lies the continuing hypocrisy of Bill-Fold.
The current majority of Guardsmen and Women who are THERE, fighting this War, NEVER thought they would be outside of the U.S., NOR did they think that their terms, would be EXTENDED, at the whim of a President. They just thought they would get an education or somthing...
Then you go to college. You do not join the military. The military's job is to kill people and break things. If you join not knowing this or thinking differently, then you are an idiot.
Saying that they never thought they would be in combat is like saying a couple who has sex never thought they would get pregnant. A man and woman have sex, under the right circumstances they can get pregnant. They may say "we didn't want to get pregnant, we took precautions, etc." But there is always the chance, by having sex, that there may be a pregnancy. Same with enlisting. They may not want to go to war and be in combat, but there is always the chance. You can take precautions, serve when there is a time of peace. But there is always the chance, and by signing up you have to fulfill that responsibility. Isn't it better to plan for the worst scenario than think everything will be fine?
<----- Inventor of the Silver Star with a combat “V”
No, I was born with kidney disease.
---------------------------------
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Drinks at McGovern's", anyone?
---------------------------------
**TALK ABOUT LOW!!! What a really shitty thing to say....
I have to admit...That even I have shit on you "fold" about your "back"Â Â --but--you never went and explained it..you just got really pissy about it.....
THX--blew you off again about being a prick and instead of saying "fuck off" like you do-- he explained the situation as to why and what happened.
I honestly think you should think about how shitty that was and consider an "sorry about that comment"....have you ever considered saying that on a thread?
(I'm saying this because THX would never ask for an apoligy from you)
OH--I don't give a shit about my spelling errors....I don't so..don't even bring that shit up to me.....
Tell that to Dick, will you?
The entire quote:
As I read this, he's not saying the danger is that ifwe elect Kerry, thenthe danger is that we'll be attacked. He's saying that ifwe elect Kerry andwe're attacked, thenthe danger is that we'll treat it as a criminal act rather than an act of war.
That's only the second half of the sentence. It's actually two different points.
Oil Can knows what he was saying: Pick us or risk death.
and Kerry said he will wait for an attack before doing anything.
uh...that's exactlywhat he said...
"Because ifwe make the wrong choice, thenthe danger is that we'll get hit again..."
[Edited by molegrass on Sep 9, 2004 at 07:14am.]
It doesn't take 3 million men to defeat an army that walks on bare feet. The Iraqi Army was NOT a test of our troops strength, at least I hope NOT.
Weren't you the one clamoring for more troops to be sent there? It was 151,000 in a country of 22 million not 3 million soldiers.
It's about time.
Rational Muslims haveto start doing this, and keep it up, or they run the risk of world hatred.
Unfortunately, the history of Islam is full of such mass slaughter. They've got to come to terms with that, and move into the 21st century.
There's even more to the story, but I couldn't find it. Not quickly anyway. I read it on my palm pilot this AM then tried to find it online. Maybe I'll repost it later when I get a chance to get at the whole story.
Here's the rest of the article http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/international/middleeast/09arabiya.html
Mr. Rashed recalled that in the past, leftists and nationalists in the Arab world were considered a "menace" for their adoption of violence, and the mosque was a haven of "peace and reconciliation" by contrast.
"Then came the neo-Muslims," he said. "An innocent and benevolent religion, whose verses prohibit the felling of trees in the absence of urgent necessity, that calls murder the most heinous of crimes, that says explicitly that if you kill one person you have killed humanity as a whole, has been turned into a global message of hate and a universal war cry."
A columnist for the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Siyassa, Faisal al-Qina'I, also took aim at Sheik Qaradawi. "It is saddening," he wrote, "to read and hear from those who are supposed to be Muslim clerics, like Yusuf al-Qaradawi and others of his kind, that instead of defending true Islam, they encourage these cruel actions and permit decapitation, hostage taking and murder."
In Jordan, a group of Muslim religious figures, meeting with the religious affairs minister, Ahmed Heleil, issued a statement on Wednesday saying the seizing of the school and subsequent massacre "was dedicated to distorting the pure image of Islam.''
"This terrorist act contradicts the principles of our true Muslim religion and its noble values," the statement said.
Writing in the Jordanian daily Ad Dustour, columnist Bater Wardam noted the propensity in the Arab world to "place responsibility for the crimes of Arabic and Muslim terrorist organizations on the Mossad, the Zionists and the American intelligence, but we all know that this is not the case.''
"They came from our midst," he wrote of those who had kidnapped and killed civilians in Iraq, blown up commuter trains in Spain, turned airliners into bombs and shot the children in Ossetia.
"They are Arabs and Muslims who pray, fast, grow beards, demand the wearing of veils and call for the defense of Islamic causes,'' he said. "Therefore we must all raise our voices, disown them and oppose all these crimes."
In Beirut, Rami G. Khouri editor of the Daily Star, wrote that while most Arabs "identified strongly and willingly" with armed Palestinian or Lebanese guerrillas fighting Israeli occupation, "all of us today are dehumanized and brutalized by the images of Arabs kidnapping and beheading foreign hostages."
Calling for a global strategy to reduce terror, he traced what he called "this ugly trek" in the Arab world to "the home-grown sense of indignity, humiliation, denial and degradation that has increasingly plagued many of our young men and women."
A Palestinian columnist, Hassan al-Batal, wrote in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper Al Ayyam that the "day of horror in the school" should be designated an international day for the condemnation of terrorism. "There are no mitigating circumstances for the inhuman horror and the height of barbarism," he said of the school attack.
In Egypt, the semi-official newspaper Al Ahram called the events "an ugly crime against humanity."
In Saudi Arabia, newspapers tightly controlled by the government - which finds itself under attack from Islamic fundamentalists - were even more scathing.
Under the headline "Butchers in the Name of Allah," a columnist in the government daily Okaz, Khaled Hamed al-Suleiman, wrote that "the propagandists of jihad succeeded in the span of a few years in distorting the image of Islam.''
"They turned today's Islam into something having to do with decapitations, the slashing of throats, abducting innocent civilians and exploding people,'' he said. "They have fixed the image of Muslims in the eyes of the world as barbarians and savages who are not good for anything except slaughtering people."
"The time has come for Muslims to be the first to come out against those interested in abducting Islam in the same way they abducted innocent children,'' he added. "This is the true jihad these days, and this is our obligation, as believing Muslims, toward our monotheistic religion."
At least some are starting to speak up. Where were they after 9-11? Bali, Jakarta, Riadyh etc. etc. In short, where the hell have they (moderate Muslim's) been?
Â
Watching Fold turn a moderate Muslim comment into GW Vietnam bashing is truely an amazing act of desperation.
NEWS FLASH!......GW DID serve, Fold.
He did. He also was in the Air Force, he spent 120 days on active duty alone, including his other training time he was active duty for 21/2 years.
Speaking of, Another desperate Dem attempt, foiled.
More is coming out about the bogus memo's CBS "aquired" from a
DNC erumKerry CampaignAnonymous source.ÂOne of the people mentioned Buck Staudt as to pressuring Killian had retired over a year and a half prior to the memo being written. Ooops.
Retired Maj. General Bobby Hodges whom CBS used to
trump up verify the memo's said he was never actually shown the documents. He said he was mislead and after seeing them he says they're forgeries.The P.O box used on the "memo's" The National Guard was not using address like that at the time.
The family disputes it. CBS says the documents came from Killian's personal files, which Killian's family says he never kept. They also said he hated to type and wasn't very good at it. If a machine was availible that could print a document that looks amazingly like a Microsoft word document it would have cost 20,000 in today's dollars and was very complicated and used in print shops for brochures etc.. Highly unlikely for a Guard unit and even more unlikely for Killian to keep a personal memo typed on something he couldn't have used.
The "expert" they used to verify the authenticity of the document said he was only and is only qualified to verify signatures, The L.A. Times reported that handwriting analyst, Marcel Matley, who CBS had claimed vouched for the authenticity of four memos, vouched for only one signature, and no scribbled initials. The Times reports he has no opinion about the typography of any of the supposed memos.
Most experts agree they are most certainly forged.
Earl Lively, director of operations for the Texas Air National Guard in the 1970s, told the Washington Times that the memos are "forged as hell."
Retired Colonel Maurice Udell who trained Bush said the documents are fake. "I completely am disgusted with this (report) I saw on 60 Minutes,"' Udell said. "That's not true. I was there. I knew Jerry Killian. I went to Vietnam with Jerry Killian in 1968."
CBS still refuses to say whom their source was. They
They're desperate.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Sep 13, 2004 at 06:11pm.]
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm
Last February, White House spokesman Scott McClellan held aloft sections of President Bush's military record, declaring to the waiting press that the files "clearly document the president fulfilling his duties in the National Guard." Case closed, he said.
But last week the controversy reared up once again, as several news outlets, including U.S. News, disclosed new information casting doubt on White House claims.
A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.
Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he accumulated sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method, which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.
The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last week but emphasized that Bush had "served honorably."
Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty."
Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a retired Air Force colonel who originally certified the White House position that Bush had completed his military obligation, stood by his analysis. After a reporter cited pertinent Air Force regulations from the period, he complained that if the entire unit were judged by such standards, "90 percent of the people in the Guard would not have made satisfactory participation."
"90 percent of the people in the Guard would not have made satisfactory participation."
The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.
That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.
Not two years of weekends. Two years.
After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.
According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).
Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?
That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush “deserted” (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went “AWOL” (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).
Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.
“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”
So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.
Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.
In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.
Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.
During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.
A 1970 evaluation said Bush “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and was “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.”
A 1971 evaluation called Bush “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.” And a 1972 evaluation called Bush “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.”
http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx
Â
George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.
    It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the Guard and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole community's attention.
    The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers.
    If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots be available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional reservists with outside employment.
    The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt. Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were shoved into nonflying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because there just wasn't room for all of them anymore.
    Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s.The image of a reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months' basic training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge for many wanting to avoid Vietnam.
   Â
There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.
   Â
The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life.
    Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt. Bush abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.
    Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.
    Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard, as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career affairs until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment. Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on the active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has little use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely option for a temporary hire.
    As a commander, I would put such "visitors" in some minor administrative post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged. Today, I can't even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to "pull drills" for a couple of months, I wouldn't be too involved with him because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the unit combat ready.
    Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt. Bush twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for a required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:
    First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly — the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.
    If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user.
    Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado" to which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a specific unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I'm "being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction or court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt. Bush's performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in The Washington Post in 2000.
    Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career parallels Lt. Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a guardsman, I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense of the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in crashes flying air-defense missions.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htmÂ
Â
What out guys, it's gonna blow!
I earned 38 purple heart and 47 Silver Stars, all with a combat “V”.
And your sources are who? CBS?
Thanks again for thet RANT, which is FULL of holes, and is missing a BIG section of his records...
Good thing you don't rant.
You like the guy, you vote for him. For a Marine who says he actually took live-fire, you are easily pleased.
Easily pleased? I don't think so. I applaud Kerry and Bush's service. They did their time and did what they did which is more than many have done. My issue with Kerry is what he did when he came home. And as a Marine what he did to the men he served with is disgusting. He wasn't simply a protestor like many. When he met with the communists while we were still fighting and men being beaten in prisions is disgusting. When for the next 20 years in the senate he attempted to defund the military at every turn. When he now suddenly calls them his brothers is laughable after essentially calling them murderers 30 years before is troubling. And most vets, the VFW and the Leigion have endorsed him. Yet because he's your guy you're voting for him. Yea, I'm the one who's easily pleased.
Â
I'm the lecturer?
Fricking A, someones off his meds.
Yeah...ALL of those outlets are TRAITORS for even questioninghis record, or doing their JOBS. That damn liberal media, and all their LIES!
Where have I ever said the media are traitors? Please do find it. I don't care if they question it or investigate it, just use all the facts and non forged documents.
The truth is, you would vote for him if he was caught giving the VP a blow-job.
Wrong president.
FWIW: I considered joining the military, I talked to a recruiter when I was in High School, but they wouldn't take me.
Medical issues.
No, I was born with kidney disease.
I thought you quit drinking Bill?
Not that it's any of your business, but what makes you think I can't have a few drinks now and then? I'm not a drunk like some people.
I was born with multiple kidneys. I had surgery to have one of them removed, and I had bladder surgery as well because of infection caused by the bad kidney.
I can send you pictures of all my scars (which means you'll have to see me naked). I have about half a dozen of them from various surgerys and tubes and whatnot.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Sep 14, 2004 at 08:36am.]
Were you drafted, Bill Fold?
Name the bills that he voted to under-fund ANY Military expenditures, and WHY he voted that way, IF he did...OK?
Should we start with the 87 billion he voted against before he voted for and work our way back?
By the way, everone who served during that time KNOWS or has SEEN pictures of guys with necklaces made from the ears and fingers of dead VC...or as I have seen, jars filled with them...? He was commenting on the 150,  and you know it.
Vet: Kerry coerced me to testify of atrocities
Renounces participation in 1971 'Winter Soldier Investigation'
Posted: September 8, 2004
A combat veteran who testified to war crimes during the 1971 "Winter Soldier Investigation" has filed an affidavit claiming John Kerry and other leaders of Vietnam Veterans Against the War coerced him into making false claims.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40333
That's just one of the many of the 150 who either didn't see attrocities or were never in Vietnam. Nobody ever said they didn't happen they did. Just not on the daily scope Kerry would have had the country beleived.  Al Hubbard who was Kerry's co leader in VVAW later turned out to have never been in Nam. In fact many of the 150 in detroit were later discredited. Again, they were forced to use false testimony ot make their case. Not much has changed in 30 years, well except that now they all probably have jobs at CBS.
Â
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Sep 14, 2004 at 08:47am.]
Screw you Fold. Once again you're trying to compare yourself to vets who actually saw combat. You weren't even close. And that's by your own admission. Big, BIG, difference.
LUGANO, Switzerland Â— Did Saddam Hussein use any of his ill-gotten billions filched from the United Nations oil-for-food program to help fund Al Qaeda?
Investigations have shown that the former Iraqi dictator grafted and smuggled more than $10 billion from the program that for seven years prior to Saddam's overthrow was meant to bring humanitarian aid to ordinary Iraqis. And the September 11 Commission has shown a tracery of contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda that continued after billions of oil-for-food dollars began pouring into Saddam's coffers and Usama bin Laden declared his famous war on the U.S.
Now, buried in some of the United Nation's own confidential documents, clues can be seen that underscore the possibility of just such a Saddam-Al Qaeda link — clues leading to a locked door in this Swiss lakeside resort. Â
 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html
[Edited by on Sep 17, 2004 at 08:04am.]
Why would you join the Navy during Vietnam?
My dad and his brother both did that....
My dads reason, is so that he wouldnt have been drafted into the army...
My uncle on the other hand joined, because its what their dad did during WW2Â
Also, my step-dad joined at that same time too...
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Sep 17, 2004 at 12:28pm.]
I know why Bill Fold joined. My point is, his reasons were less than noble.
Which is fine, I understand.
But I'm not on here all the time pointing fingers.
So Foldy they let you out of your rubber room again LOL.
His reasons were less than noble? Nah, can't be. Do tell.
Fold, you get really upset when people attack or question someone's service right? It seems though like you have no problem in questioning or attacking George Bush's service. How come that is?
Kerry got a student deferment, then joined the Naval Reserves, not the Navy.
Bill Clinton avoided the draft altogether, just like Cheney and a lot of other very good people.
George H.W. Bush was a first-term Republican congressman in a state that was heavily Demo at the time and probably didn't have the clout to get special treatment for his son.
And all the fuss about who served when where and how and questionable documents is just draining coverage away from both candidates' messages. The electorate is not being served by this stupid food-fight.
'Bill - Fold' 9/18/04 4:01am
Geez, are you threatening me again?
I could swear you've said in the past you joined the Navy to avoid being drafted.
I'm not dogging you other than you castigate everyone that has never served. You do it all the fucking time. You can question people, but no one else can.
Fuck that!
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Sep 18, 2004 at 11:04am.]
Tell us JT, why did Wicked's kin-folk join the service, back then?
He says why in his post.
Wicked Nick 9/17/04 12:23pm
Both my dad and my step-dad joined because they didnt actually want to be drafted.
And my uncle joined, as I already said, because its what my grandfather did, during WW2.
Now, Fold... if your suggesting that they had other reasons for joining, just drop it right now, because your wrong.
Bill Fold ain't trying to suggest anything, WN.
I,I,I,I,I, 19 of them in fact. That's what Fold is all about. Yeah, we all know how great you WERE after hearing you're service story for the 57th time. ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Legion Posts are always open to the public. Fund raisers, spagetti feeds, bingo, the list goes on. So need to worry, JT. Like you were, HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why is it OK for Fold to question and criticize GW (a fellow veteran) day after day but Fold takes exception when someone does it to him?...Therein lies the continuing hypocrisy of Bill-Fold.
The current majority of Guardsmen and Women who are THERE, fighting this War, NEVER thought they would be outside of the U.S., NOR did they think that their terms, would be EXTENDED, at the whim of a President. They just thought they would get an education or somthing...
Then you go to college. You do not join the military. The military's job is to kill people and break things. If you join not knowing this or thinking differently, then you are an idiot.
Saying that they never thought they would be in combat is like saying a couple who has sex never thought they would get pregnant. A man and woman have sex, under the right circumstances they can get pregnant. They may say "we didn't want to get pregnant, we took precautions, etc." But there is always the chance, by having sex, that there may be a pregnancy. Same with enlisting. They may not want to go to war and be in combat, but there is always the chance. You can take precautions, serve when there is a time of peace. But there is always the chance, and by signing up you have to fulfill that responsibility. Isn't it better to plan for the worst scenario than think everything will be fine?
'Bill - Fold' -
(
P1-L
| PFID:efa8614)
- 08:30am Sep 14, 2004 PST(#4597 of 4624)
(
<------Inventer of the IRAQ War.)
THX 1138
- (
P4-L
| PFID:efa8549) - 08:29am Sep 14, 2004 PST(#
4596
of 4597)
<----- Inventor of the Silver Star with a combat “V”
No, I was born with kidney disease.
---------------------------------
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Drinks at McGovern's", anyone?
---------------------------------
**TALK ABOUT LOW!!! What a really shitty thing to say....
I have to admit...That even I have shit on you "fold" about your "back"Â Â --but--you never went and explained it..you just got really pissy about it.....
THX--blew you off again about being a prick and instead of saying "fuck off" like you do-- he explained the situation as to why and what happened.
I honestly think you should think about how shitty that was and consider an "sorry about that comment"....have you ever considered saying that on a thread?
(I'm saying this because THX would never ask for an apoligy from you)
OH--I don't give a shit about my spelling errors....I don't so..don't even bring that shit up to me.....
Background: I met Bill Fold at McGoverns for drinks once. That's what he meant by that comment.
oh see...I feel like shit now....geez...
...wtf...bill-fold made a funny???
I'm sorry I didnt' catch it...and my last post was outta line....
You can still delete or edit it.
I hate to delete shit.....and I don't like to edit shit.....so I'll just leave it for what it is.....SHIT
Â
Kitch at least you are man enough to admit when you are wrong unlike some one who's name I refuse to type again.