Bushies stellar record

I recieved this lil tid bit of info the other day and thought I would share it with everyone here in Hooville. I hope that you all enjoy this and don't forget come November y'all better get out there and VOTE!!!

remember.. when u vote...

RESUME

GEORGE W. BUSH

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20520

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

Law Enforcement:

*I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days.

*My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.

Military:

*I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL.

*I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use.

*By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

College:

*I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

*I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.

*I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975.

*I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

*I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.

*With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS

*I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-! ridden city in America.

* I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

*I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.

*With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

*I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.

* I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.

*I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

*I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

*I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

*I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

*I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.

*In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.

*I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

* I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President..

*I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.

*One of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate

bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron.

* My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

* I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip- offs in history.

* I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed. I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

* I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

* I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.

* I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.

* I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.

*I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

* I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

* I refused to allow inspector's access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

* I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).

* I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.

* I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.

* I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

* I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.

* I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community.

* I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in wartime.

* In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.

* I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

* I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD.

* I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden [sic] to justice.

* During the Iraq War and Occupation thousands of American troops were

injured and killed. I did not have the time to attend any of the funerals for our fallen soldiers but I did have the time to attend more than 43 fund-raising events of the Republican party.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

* All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.

* All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

* All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.

PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004.

Hugs and tons of licks,

Greg

Greg Seattle Wa [email protected]

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html http://briefcase.yahoo.com/seaboy4hire

Gee and I only thought that he was a the worst president since Herbert Hoover.

I vote for Georgie boy the day he pulls Osma out of his ass and tells us that he has been hiding there along.

Show BUSH the DOOR in '04!!

Which Weighs More in History:

A semen-stained blue dress, or the bloodied uniforms of 500+ dead American soldiers sent to fight a war of choice by a man who hid from Vietnam by serving in the Texas (and Alabama) Air National Guard?

RE: Which Weighs More in History:

Hey give George a break-On his active duty their wasn't one Viet Cong attack in all of Alabama or Texes. He is a true war hero that we should all thank for his steller war service.

RE: Which Weighs More in History:

>Hey give George a break-On his active duty their wasn't one

>Viet Cong attack in all of Alabama or Texes. He is a true war

>hero that we should all thank for his steller war service.

How many Viet Cong attacks were there in Oxford and Little Rock, Arkansas?

The same people who would have anointed Bill Clinton King for Life if they were able now suddenly find someone's Vietnam War activities so important. That's just awesome.

RE: Which Weighs More in History:

It’s been more than three years now. Are you people EVER going to stop comparing every Bush criticism to Bill Clinton and blaming every Bush administration failure on the Clinton administration?

I know that Clinton’s success as a president and the fact that his supporters still respect him drives you folks crazy, but isn’t this constant comparison backward – instead of forward – just a little lame? Don’t you think it is a little more relevant to compare Bush to the current alternatives?

RE: Which Weighs More in History:

>It’s been more than three years now. Are you people EVER

>going to stop comparing every Bush criticism to Bill Clinton

>and blaming every Bush administration failure on the Clinton

>administration?

You are missing the point completely. If liberals said that criticism X when made against President Clinton was invalid and irrelevant, then that's pretty fucking significant to point out when they make the same criticism X against President Bush. It shows the utter lack of authenticity and bona fides of the criticism, and demonstrates the hypocrisy of those making the criticism.

If, for instance, liberals argued when Clinton was running that his Vietnam war activities were irrelevant, then they can't argue now that Bush's Vietnam war activities are relevant.

If Clinton was a whore for every special interest in the country and rented the Lincoln Bedroom to corporate contributors, and liberals didn't object to this practice, then that's sort of relevant to the authenticity and bona fides of the liberals' complaints that Bush is captive to special interests, don't you think?

I know it'd be nice if only the other side were held to standards of purity and integrity, but that's not how it works. If one side is pretending to be the standard-bearers of Value X, Value Y and Value Z - and yet that same side routinely violated those Values when they were in power only 3 years ago - only the blindest of partisan hacks would insist that such facts ought not be pointed out.

>I know that Clinton’s success as a president and the fact

>that his supporters still respect him drives you folks crazy, . . .

Don't attribute sentiments to me that I don't possess and, in fact, have previously negated. I told you before I think Clinton was a good President and did a competent job.

Do you see how fucking cliched and pre-programmed you can be? Someone points out that liberals are being hypocritical by criticizing Bush for doing the same thing as Clinton did, and rather than hear that argument as what it is, you immediately scream: "Clinton-obssessed hater." Please don't assume that everyone else is drowning in the same political steroetypes that you are. As hard as it is to believe, there are people who aren't trapped in the "Democrats-great/Republicans-evil" prison or vice-versa. Some people think they're more similar than different and watch with digust as the two sides endlessly scream the same insults at each other which actually apply equally to both.

That happens all the fucking time around here. Someone says Liberal View X is wrong, or that Liberals are saying X now whereas they said Not X when Clinton was President, and the mere pointing out of that fact must mean, ipso facto, that the person pointing that out is a Rush Limbaugh-brainwashed, Clinton-hating clone. Maybe it just means that Liberal View X is wrong. Ever considered that?

RE: Which Weighs More in History:

>>I know that Clinton’s success as a president and the fact

>>that his supporters still respect him drives you folks crazy,

>. . .

>

>Don't attribute sentiments to me that I don't possess and, in

>fact, have previously negated. I told you before I think

>Clinton was a good President and did a competent job.

>

>Do you see how fucking cliched and pre-programmed you can be?

Yes. Do you see it in yourself? Do you see how often you take the most extreme, far left viewpoints and paint all liberals with the same brush? Lump all of us together with one big generalization? Sort of like when I say “you folks†to describe the conservative posters on this board.

>That happens all the fucking time around here. Someone says

>Liberal View X is wrong, or that Liberals are saying X now

>whereas they said Not X when Clinton was President, and the

>mere pointing out of that fact must mean, ipso facto, that the

>person pointing that out is a Rush Limbaugh-brainwashed,

>Clinton-hating clone. Maybe it just means that Liberal View X

>is wrong. Ever considered that?

Actually, you may or may not have noticed that I haven’t said a word about Bush’s military service or lack thereof because I don’t think it is particularly relevant.

I understand that it is a political reality that if you open a door, your political rivals are going to come through it. Bush opened the door when he landed on that aircraft carrier in a military flight suit and presented himself as the great conquering military hero. I believe that he was trying to draw on his military credentials and it was a political misstep. Now people are spending an enormous amount of effort making much ado about nothing.

I get your point, but I must not have framed by question very well because it sure seems that you didn’t get mine. You rail against the quality of debate, intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy on a fairly regular basis, and yet, you seem equally programmed to respond to the TYPE of argument rather than the argument itself.

I’m simply asking you if it wouldn’t be more relevant, and a higher quality debate, if you, the standard-bearer of intellectual honesty, argued the current situation. For instance, why the president’s military service is not material or how it compares to one of the current candidates.

Vast right-wing hypocrisy...

>The same people who would have anointed Bill Clinton King for

>Life if they were able now suddenly find someone's Vietnam War

>activities so important. That's just awesome.

Clinton's only hope for clinging on to the Whitehouse through re-elections wasn't that he's a "War President".

I am constantly amazed at how ever single right-wing failing is Clinton's fault, yet the economy, peace, and prosperity had nothing to do with him apparently...

RE: Which Weighs More in History:

>>Do you see how fucking cliched and pre-programmed you can be?

>

>Yes. Do you see it in yourself?

I am not enslaved by one of the 2 political parties, nor am I enslaved by either side of the ideological divide. I think Clinton did good things and great things, and I think Bush did bad and awful things. I think Clinton was a competent President and would have liked to have seen Bush defeated had the Democrats nominated someone other than a belief-less, soul-less empty vessel.

I think leftist liberals and far-right conservatives are equally hypocritical and dishonest, and I think the GOP and Democratic Parties are equally corrupt. I despise partisans who will say and spout anything critical about the other side, and who will defend their own side, regardless of the issue in question.

What is pre-programmed about that?

>>That happens all the fucking time around here. Someone says

>>Liberal View X is wrong, or that Liberals are saying X now

>>whereas they said Not X when Clinton was President, and the

>>mere pointing out of that fact must mean, ipso facto, that

>the

>>person pointing that out is a Rush Limbaugh-brainwashed,

>>Clinton-hating clone. Maybe it just means that Liberal View

>X

>>is wrong. Ever considered that?

>

>Actually, you may or may not have noticed that I haven’t

>said a word about Bush’s military service or lack thereof

>because I don’t think it is particularly relevant.

Then the things I said about the hypocrisy of Clinton-supporters criticizing Bush's military service don't apply to you. What's the problem?

>I get your point, but I must not have framed by question very

>well because it sure seems that you didn’t get mine. You

>rail against the quality of debate, intellectual dishonesty

>and hypocrisy on a fairly regular basis, and yet, you seem

>equally programmed to respond to the TYPE of argument rather

>than the argument itself.

Yes, you're correct about this. Here's why:

The vast majority of those who identify themselves as liberals (the vast majority here who participate in these discussions) couldn't care any less about the issues they "debate" or the accusations and smears they make. They care only about one thing: having their side win. The same is true for the vast majority of conservatives. So trying to engage them in debate on the "issues" is totally useless. They aren't interested in that.

I'll give you a couple of the more compelling examples I know of. First, many liberals constantly run around saying that Bush is not legitimately elected, that he was "selected" by the Supreme Court, that it was a coup, etc. etc. I've seen liberals here saying that over and over.

So, one day, I posted the article from the New York Times which detailed the findings of a consortium of respected media outlets from around the country which counted ALL the ballots after the Inaguration and concluded unambiguously and decisively that Bush would have won EVEN IF the Supreme Court has affirmed (rather than reversed) the Florida Supreme Court's order for a recount, because had the recount gone forward as that court ordered it, Bush still would have had more votes.

In other words, it has been mathematically proven beyond any doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision did NOT alter the election outcome, and even had it decided the other way, and the recount occurred, Bush would still have won.

This was published in the New York Times. The other major media consortium which did the same thing (led by the WSJ) reached exactly the same conclusion. I posted that here because nobody in good faith can continue to claim that the U.S. Supreme Court "chose" Bush.

When I posted it, none of the people who said these things responded. But about a week later, Trilingual wrote a post referring to Bush as "unelected" and saying that the Supreme Court chose him. I told him how dishonest that was in light of the NY Times article, and he ignored that, and has repeated his lie several times since then. Several other posters who were in the thread where I posted the NY Times article have now taken up repeating it.

Go to any liberal blog or discusison group on the Internet - literally, any - and you will see constant referneces to Bush being unelected and that the Supreme Court chose him. This is demonstrably false, an indisputable falsehood, but no matter how many times you tell them that and prove to them that it's false, they will never stop saying it, because they don't care about the facts, only about smearing the other side and winning.

Second, when I listen to conservative talk radio, say to the Rush Limbaugh Show, I get sick to my stomach in exactly the same way as I do when I read liberals' posts here. Every criticism he makes about "liberals" is equally applicable to conservatives. Every "inconsistency" he claims exists in liberals' views exist exactly the same in his views. Every "character flaw" he finds in liberals exist in his favorite politicians, which he overlooks when someone he likes has it. Exactly the same is true for libearls.

It's so interesting how IDENTICAL liberals and conservatives sound. Rush Limbaugh thinks that every news event is the by-product of secrete, conspiratorial schemes by the all-powerful and all-evil Clintons, who manipulate the media and all world events for their own power. Liberals think exactly the same thing about Karl Rove, Fox News and Bush. They are fucking IDENTICAL, and the thing that characterizes them most centrally is that they don't care at all about whether what they are saying is true; they will say anything as long as they think it hurts the other side and helps theirs.

NOW - as to why I frequently point out that the liberals here make criticisms of Bush which are at least just as applicable to Clinton, where they didn't care about the criticism: It's one of the ONLY forms of argument that these types understand.

If you just take the criticisms they make of Bush, they will NEVER admit that they are misguided or wrong, becasue their ONLY goal is to harm Bush. So the only way you can make any progress is to show them that they are being inconsistent. That Flaw X that they clai bothers them so much in Bush actually existed more in Clinton, and they didn't care then. It exposes their hypocrisy and the utter lack of sincerity in the beliefs they claim to have.

Or, my current favorite - when Bush said that Iraq had WMDs, he was "LYING!!!!". But when the Democratic Senators said exactly the same thing with access to exactly the same intelligence, they were merely mistaken.

Think about your argument; it's really rather amazing. Liberals ran around for 8 years under Clinton excusing all sorts of conduct and behavior which they now claim to find so offensive. Conversely, conservatives ran around for 8 years claiming that so much of what Clinton did was awful, but they defend the same thing when Bush does it.

Why would anyone ALLOW these people to get away with that. "Oh, forget what I said 3 years ago when Clinton was President. It only matters what I say now." Why would anyone agree to have their memories wiped clean and to allow hypocrisy to go unexposed by agreeing to keep silent about the fact the things these people are saying now is exactly the opposite of what they said 3 years ago? I'm sure they would like that, but that's not going to happen.

RE: Vast right-wing hypocrisy...

>Clinton's only hope for clinging on to the Whitehouse through

>re-elections wasn't that he's a "War President".

When Bush says he's a "War President," he's not making a claim that he fought in a war. Instead, he's making the claim that he is President during a time when the United States is at war. Did you really not know that? Whether Bush did a good job when he was in the military, or whether he dodged military service altogether like Clinton did (and like Dean did), is really not relevant to that point.

>I am constantly amazed at how ever single right-wing failing

>is Clinton's fault, yet the economy, peace, and prosperity had

>nothing to do with him apparently...

Yes, sort of like the fact that there has not been a SINGLE TERRORIST ATTACK ON U.S. SOIL in the 2 1/2 years since 9/11 - something which nobody would have believed on 9/12/01 - has nothing to do with Bush.

RE: Vast right-wing hypocrisy...

>>Clinton's only hope for clinging on to the Whitehouse

>through

>>re-elections wasn't that he's a "War President".

>

>When Bush says he's a "War President," he's not making a claim

>that he fought in a war. Instead, he's making the claim that

>he is President during a time when the United States is at

>war. Did you really not know that? Whether Bush did a good

>job when he was in the military, or whether he dodged military

>service altogether like Clinton did (and like Dean did), is

>really not relevant to that point.

We both know you're only pretending not to get the point. Of course "I'm a War President' means the current war, and the fact that he didn't even bother to remain qualified to do his duty for his last years in the Guard *of course* has bearing since he's sent over 500 soldiers, many of whom are in the Guard, to die. Not to mention he has the leadership qualities of a grapefruit--militarily as well as fiscally. On top of the FACT that he lied to start the damn war which has precious little to do with Terrorism anyway!

>>I am constantly amazed at how ever single right-wing failing

>>is Clinton's fault, yet the economy, peace, and prosperity

>had nothing to do with him apparently...

>

>Yes, sort of like the fact that there has not been a SINGLE

>TERRORIST ATTACK ON U.S. SOIL in the 2 1/2 years since 9/11 -

>something which nobody would have believed on 9/12/01 - has

>nothing to do with Bush.

By that same logic Bush is an utter failure, he had been President almost a year when the single biggest terrorist attack in US history happened, and Clinton did far better then 2.5 years without foreign terrorist attacks on U.S. Soil...

RE: Vast right-wing hypocrisy...

ooo ooo I want to try one.. how about no skyscrapers were blown up by terrorists in the 4.5 billion years that Earth was here before Bush took office..

RE: Which Weighs More in History:

>I think leftist liberals and far-right conservatives are

>equally hypocritical and dishonest

You’ll get no argument from me there and this issue is a perfect example with both sides reversing themselves and justifying it by focusing on the differences in the two situations and ignoring the similarities. But don’t you think that is just human nature? We favor, trust, understand and excuse the behavior of the people we care about.

As I said, I don’t think this is a particularly relevant issue, but I still see a difference in how Clinton handled the situation and how Bush handled it. They both took advantage of the system to avoid service. However, I see a college deferment as superior to a Guard enlistment that was only half-heartedly fulfilled.

Is this viewpoint affected by my fondness for Clinton and disdain for Bush? Probably. Would I be able to excuse Clinton if he had received a college deferment but not attended classes? Perhaps. But that’s not what happened with Clinton and the jury seems to be out as to whether Bush ‘attended class’ or not.

That’s enough to make a difference to a more moderate person like myself, so it’s MORE than enough to convince an ideologue that the two situations are not even remotely related.

>The vast majority of those who identify themselves as liberals

>(the vast majority here who participate in these discussions)

>couldn't care any less about the issues they "debate" or the

>accusations and smears they make. They care only about one

>thing: having their side win. The same is true for the vast

>majority of conservatives. So trying to engage them in debate

>on the "issues" is totally useless. They aren't interested in

>that.

You will obviously post whatever kind of response you like on whatever topic you choose, but there is no reasoning with the unreasonable, and that’s exactly what you’re doing when you engage the extreme on either side of the spectrum.

I suggested you try posting some argument as to why Bush’s military service is irrelevant or how it compares to his current rivals because you’ll have a much better chance of reaching more moderate people. Someone like myself will listen to reason but is not moved by cries of “hypocrisy” or comparisons to Clinton.

Although I learn a great deal from this board (A source of great amusement for the friends who know I participate.) you certainly aren’t obligated to help expand my political understanding. We all have hot-button issues. Just as Woodlawn isn’t going to pass up an opportunity to point out when people contradict themselves, I don’t expect you to let real or perceived hypocrisy go by unchallenged. It's all very entertaining either way.

RE: Which Weighs More in History:

"We all have hot-button issues"

Okay, I'll bite. What are your hot button issues, phage. You are entertained either way, but what fires you up?

RE: Vast right-wing hypocrisy...

isn't amazing how the Rethugs bring up Clinton every time Bush's piss poor record is attacked? here's the difference with the military service thing:

Clinton did not go around wearing a flight suit pretending to be something he is not.

Clinton did not sign up for National Guard service and then shirk his duty.

Clinton did not do a photo op with a Mission Accomplished! banner or a turkey purely for PR, while around him soldiers were dying for the Halliburton Corporation, not an abandoned war on terror.

Get it?

RE: Which Weighs More in History:

>>You are missing the point completely. If liberals said that

>>criticism X when made against President Clinton was invalid and

>>irrelevant, then that's pretty fucking significant to point out

>>when they make the same criticism X against President Bush. It

>>shows the utter lack of authenticity and bona fides of the criticism,

>>and demonstrates the hypocrisy of those making the criticism.

Just evaluating the logic here...

Sounds right... ... unless in the meantime the situation or the context has changed. It could be relevant at one time and/or in one context, but irrelevant or less relevant at another time and/or in another context.

>The same people who would have anointed Bill Clinton

>King for Life if they were able now suddenly find someone's

>Vietnam War activities so important. That's just awesome.

>

>>If, for instance, liberals argued when Clinton was running that his

>>Vietnam war activities were irrelevant, then they can't argue now

>>that Bush's Vietnam war activities are relevant.

Just speculating. Maybe the difference is in the fact that Clinton did not present himself as a War President, or a military leader, or go parading around the deck of a carrier in a jumpsuit under a banner saying "Mission Accomplished," or build his (re)election campaign around trumpeting his involvement in a war. Perhaps those things make the specifics of earlier military service more relevant to the situation.

Or perhaps not.

True, Clinton didn't have a shooting war to fight. But we're just wondering here about whether there is a difference in the two historical contexts, aren't we? I guess it's just Bush's bad karma that he wound up being President at the wrong time.

RE: Which Weighs More in History:

I wasn’t fishing and I don’t want to hijack this thread, but since you asked, I want to be polite. Mine is the separation of church and state. I get fairly apoplectic whenever someone introduces their superstitions into a debate that is not about religion. I try not to go on the attack because I know that my views on the utter absurdity of their beliefs can be deeply offensive. I just wish they would give me the same courtesy and leave the mumbo-jumbo at home.

RE: Vast right-wing hypocrisy...

>We both know you're only pretending not to get the point. Of

>course "I'm a War President' means the current war, and the

>fact that he didn't even bother to remain qualified to do his

>duty for his last years in the Guard *of course* has bearing

>since he's sent over 500 soldiers, many of whom are in the

>Guard, to die.

Bill Clinton sent soldiers to die as well. Ever heard of Somolia? He also put soldiers at risk in the war he prosectued as Commander-in-Chief (without UN approval - gasp!) in Kosovo.

How come it was OK for Bill Clinton to send soldiers to their deaths if he never served in the military, dodged the draft, and let other Americans go and die in his place in Vietnam?

>By that same logic Bush is an utter failure, he had been

>President almost a year when the single biggest terrorist

>attack in US history happened, . . . .

He was President for 8 months when that occurred. And it's planning and implementation occurred for years under Clinton, who let Al Qaeda sit in Afghanistan unbothered while they turned that country into their own private terrorist camp.

<<... and Clinton did far better then

>2.5 years without foreign terrorist attacks on U.S. Soil...

Ever hear of the First World Trade Center bombings?

RE: Vast right-wing hypocrisy...

>Clinton did not go around wearing a flight suit pretending to

>be something he is not.

George Bush was a pilot of fighter aircraft in the National Guard. The records just released by the White House contain evaluations from his superiors which said that his skills were excellent and near the top of his class. So when he put on a flight suit, he wasn't "pretending" shit - he was a fighter pilot and, apparently, according to his reviews at the time, a quite skilled one.

>Clinton did not sign up for National Guard service and then

>shirk his duty.

First, there's no evidence at all that Bush "shirked" anything. The only evidence I know of is his "honorable discharge." A National Guardsman came forward last week and said he vividely recalls Bush serving in Alabama.

How does that compare to Clinton's military service? Pretty favorably, I think.

>Clinton did not do a photo op with a Mission Accomplished!

>banner or a turkey purely for PR, while around him soldiers

>were dying for the Halliburton Corporation, not an abandoned

>war on terror.

Clinton sent soldiers to die in Somolia and put soldiers into war in a war in Kosovo that was not authorized by the UN. What right did he have to send soldiers to die in combat when he cowardly avoided combat himself?

RE: Vast right-wing hypocrisy...

>ooo ooo I want to try one.. how about no skyscrapers were

>blown up by terrorists in the 4.5 billion years that Earth was

>here before Bush took office..

Gosh, who says that little liberals living in trite liberal enclaves aren't sufficiently serious or mature to undertsand that threat the U.S. faces and to take steps to ensure our national security? How could anyone say such a mean and bad thing?

RE: Vast right-wing hypocrisy...

>George Bush was a pilot of fighter aircraft in the National

>Guard. The records just released by the White House contain

>evaluations from his superiors which said that his skills were

>excellent and near the top of his class. So when he put on a

>flight suit, he wasn't "pretending" shit - he was a fighter

>pilot and, apparently, according to his reviews at the time, a

>quite skilled one.

That’s funny, I heard that he tested at the very bottom when it came to qualifying for flight school, something that makes him skipping over 500 people to get into the Guard somewhat curious as well.

Hmm, *Air* National guard fighter pilot... How exactly does that qualify him even touch the controls of a Navy Anti-Submarine Warfare aircraft, and most hilariously, to imply he may have had the slightest thing to do with landing it?

What about the LIE that he needed to arrive in the showiest, most expensive way possible? The reporters arrived via Helicopter, and the COD aircraft could have been used as well.

>>Clinton did not sign up for National Guard service and then

>>shirk his duty.

>

>First, there's no evidence at all that Bush "shirked"

>anything. The only evidence I know of is his "honorable

>discharge." A National Guardsman came forward last week and

>said he vividly recalls Bush serving in Alabama.

The fact that he didn't bother to be medically qualified to do his duty doesn't qualify?

>Clinton sent soldiers to die in Somolia and put soldiers into

>war in a war in Kosovo that was not authorized by the

>UN. What right did he have to send soldiers to die in

>combat when he cowardly avoided combat himself?

Somalia WAS UN authorized, more then authorized, and was to distribute food and save lives. A failure, yes, but with good aims. Kosovo? The reasons stated to go into Kosovo were accomplished, as opposed to ever-changing and having been proven to be based on BLATENT LIES!

RE: Vast right-wing hypocrisy...

>>By that same logic Bush is an utter failure, he had been

>>President almost a year when the single biggest terrorist

>>attack in US history happened, . . . .

>

>He was President for 8 months when that occurred. And it's

>planning and implementation occurred for years under Clinton,

>who let Al Qaeda sit in Afghanistan unbothered while they

>turned that country into their own private terrorist camp.

Utter BULLSHIT, Clinton was opposed to the Taliban, very concerned about Al Qaeda, and every fucking time he so much as sent a cruise missile in the entire right wing stood up and screamed 'wag the dog'. Republicans for national security MY ASS!

9/11 very well may not have happened without the Bush/Halliburton administration’s improving of relations with Afghanistan in order to get a fucking pipeline deal.

><<... and Clinton did far better then

>>2.5 years without foreign terrorist attacks on U.S. Soil...

>

>Ever hear of the First World Trade Center bombings?

Yep, hmm, yet the World Trade Center was still standing when he left office, in fact is wasn't attacked again his whole term. Meanwhile, a plot to destroy LAX was foiled under him.

Still the biggest terrorist event in US history happened on Bush's watch, and I happen to think, because of it. Maybe if he'd spent less fucking time on vacation and more time listening to the warnings about Al Qaeda...

RE: Vast right-wing hypocrisy...

>That’s funny, I heard that he tested at the very bottom when

>it came to qualifying for flight school, something that makes

>him skipping over 500 people to get into the Guard somewhat

>curious as well.

He did not score well on his qualifying tests and undoubtedly had help from his father and friends in getting in, like most rich, well-connected kids of that era did. But once he was in, he performed extremely well in his flying evaluations, at least as reported by CNN.com this weekend in a story detailing the release of his flying records.

>Hmm, *Air* National guard fighter pilot... How exactly does

>that qualify him even touch the controls of a Navy

>Anti-Submarine Warfare aircraft, and most hilariously, to

>imply he may have had the slightest thing to do with landing

>it?

Bush was a military pilot who flew complicated, dangerous aircraft. I know it's easy for you to mock and demean as you troll the streets of Los Angeles looking for cock, but it's not exactly easy or risk-free to fly military aircraft. Like anyone who did it, I have no doubt that he's proud of it. There was obviously some political showmanship involved with the aircraft carrier landing - something that Democrats would NEVER do!! - and even many conservatives at the time found it tawdry and cheap, but it was based on the FACT of Bush's history as a military pilot.

>The fact that he didn't bother to be medically qualified to do

>his duty doesn't qualify?

He didn't bother to medically qualify for flying because he had been approved to transfer to Alabama where he would not be flying anyway. Why did he get an honorable discharge?

>Somalia WAS UN authorized, more then authorized, and was to

>distribute food and save lives. A failure, yes, but with good

>aims.

LOL!!! I love how liberals think the U.S. military is supposed to be used to do charity work and feed people, but isn't supposed to be used to fight sworn enemies of the United States.

By the way, if the U.S. military should be used to avert mass deaths, doesn't Bill Clinton have the blood of 750,000 Rwandan citizens on his hands for refusing to lift a finger to help them as they plunged into genocidal warfare?

Also, in addressing Somalia, you skirted (actually, ignored) the point. Bill Clinton sent soldiers to die in Somalia. How can you justify someone who cowardly avoided military service sending other people to die in combat?

Kosovo? The reasons stated to go into Kosovo were

>accomplished, as opposed to ever-changing and having been

>proven to be based on BLATENT LIES!

Why was it OK for Bill Clinton to fight a war in Kosovo without UN approval, but not OK for George Bush to do so in Iraq? Does a U.S. war require UN approval or not?? Can anyone answer that, please? I've been asking that question for 2 years now in every forum of every kind that I can find, and I can never get an answer from Bush-bashers. You're a feisty, argumentative type, James, so perhaps you can provide me with one?

Also, the goal of the Iraq War was to implement Bill Clinton's policy of "regime change" in Iraq. Last time I looked, that was accomplished.