POLITICS: White House Releases Unreadable Bush Military Payroll Records

Originally posted by worldwatcher
He will be re-elected only if 1 or more of the following occurs before elections:

WMD's are conveniently found
Bin Laden is captured/found dead
A major attack occurs on USA soil

and my instincts leads me to believe that one or all will happen as necessary to keep Bush in office.

I just might have to agree with all of the above.

Colonel?? Want to ellaborate?

Originally posted by worldwatcher
He will be re-elected only if 1 or more of the following occurs before elections:

WMD's are conveniently found
Bin Laden is captured/found dead
A major attack occurs on USA soil

and my instincts leads me to believe that one or all will happen as necessary to keep Bush in office.

I agree it is entirely possible that they may happen. In matter of fact, months ago I stated it is probably a sure thing. The question remains though, if something as such occurs will it be because of the election or simply because we finally have done something right? I know that if it happens people will sure as hell question this administrations motives that much more, but what if it really has nothing to do with elections and we just happen to have one of the following happen?

IMO, people against Bush will say its because of the election and people for him will say about time. But does the capture of OBL or WMD's mean that we are finally getting somewere on this war on terror? Biasness aside for a second, would you seriously be mad if we found either?

Originally posted by Dreamz
So according to you finger you think that the president is the president of the world community? Sorry, I think he acts on the people in Americas opinion and from what I remember the polls to go to war with Iraq were well over 60% and to me that is a majority.

No, I don't think the President is President of the world. If you read my post I said he listens to the world AND the people of his country. If you are going to invade a country and overthrow their leader then you need the approval of the UN at the least. Saying that Iraq was a clear danger to the U.S. was nothing short of a lie and anyone with hint of intelligence saw right through it. I'm sorry but your assumption that a President only acts on the feelings of the people of his country doesn't fly when it comes to us leaving our country to invade another.

If that's the case I guess you would have no problem with North Korea deciding to invade South Korea because the leader of North Korea is acting on the will of his people and sees South Korea as a threat, right? What about South Korea invading the North to take out their dictator because they feel the North is a clear threat to them and they decide to do it without the UN or the U.S. backing them? Well as soon as South Korea even hinted at that, Bush told them they better not do anything. So who are we to tell them anything? Why is the U.S. the police of the world that can tell any country it likes how to run it's business? The hypocrisy runs deep, very deep. The U.S. can do whatever it liked in the name of National Security, but if any other country in the world tries anything even remotely similar....It's all rather disgusting.

Bin laden will never be caught he is a multi billion dollar industry and the war on terrorism is a pure phoney media war designed to let you sleep safe in your bed knowing the authorities are getting away with whatever they want. As for keeping secrets regarding 9/11 well history proves its very possible. 9/11 had to have a state sponsored setup its too big for a little organisation to do alone.

No, I don't think the President is President of the world. If you read my post I said he listens to the world AND the people of his country. If you are going to invade a country and overthrow their leader then you need the approval of the UN at the least. Last time I looked resolution 1441 was passed unanimously and was clear int he distinction that severe consequences would happen if Iraq did not cooperate. Everyone knew what the consequences would be.Saying that Iraq was a clear danger to the U.S. was nothing short of a lie and anyone with hint of intelligence saw right through it.So congress who saw the same intel that the president did approved the war because it was a clear lie, even some of the democrats who oppose the war now. Hindsight is 20-20 and know it all factor is easy for democrats now after they approved the war. I'm sorry but your assumption that a President only acts on the feelings of the people of his country doesn't fly when it comes to us leaving our country to invade another. Its not an assumption, its a fact that the presidents #1 goal as CEO is to protect its citizens and as I previously stated the intel, correct or not, stated at the time that Iraq was a threat.

If that's the case I guess you would have no problem with North Korea deciding to invade South Korea because the leader of North Korea is acting on the will of his people and sees South Korea as a threat, right? hat about South Korea invading the North to take out their dictator because they feel the North is a clear threat to them and they decide to do it without the UN or the U.S. backing them?They are seperate issues, they dont have the same policies as we as Americans have, We look for our security to never be pounced on and are not afraid to take action to someone, as opposed to nations like SK and NK who know severe consequences will be leveled upon them if any such drastic actions were taking. No country had troops in Iraq when we attacked either, so if NK or SK attacked eachother the US would have a big problem with it as would I because our troops are dead set in the middle of the conflict. NK or SK also doesnt have the constant threat of terror as we do know either. Well as soon as South Korea even hinted at that, Bush told them they better not do anything. So who are we to tell them anything? I guess the fact they are a democratic country in the region, we have 50k troops in SK and that our direct interests in terms of Japan are involved, I would say we have a direct initiative to be involved.Why is the U.S. the police of the world that can tell any country it likes how to run it's business? Because every country expects us to be and we are the lone superpower and quite frankly the only country with thew balls to do so.The hypocrisy runs deep, very deep. Your right it does, the US gets ripped for policing the world, but we constantly get asked to police it. If we do we get criticized becauise of our imperialistic intentions and if we dont, we are the greddy americans, its a no win situation.The U.S. can do whatever it liked in the name of National Security, but if any other country in the world tries anything even remotely similar....It's all rather disgusting.The US is trying to mantain order, believe it or not. Think about Israel, if I was president I wouldnt hesitate to give them a green light to do whatever possible to eliminate terrorism by them in order of National Security, but the US tells them to hold back because they want to work out a agreement that can work for both sides. The issues of other peoples national security is different because we are on two peacekeeping unions, the UN and Nato. They constantly ask us to meddle in their problems instead of taking care of them themselves. Thats how america is touched each day with the double edged sword of hatred and love.

[Edited on 10-2-2004 by Dreamz]

"His Dad is Skull and Crossbones"
"Couldn't they have just faked the records?"
"The reporters ripped him apart"

Just goes to prove that people will believe what they want to believe, to heck with the facts.

The hypocrisy of it all is that the ones attempting to find a chink in this president's armor are the same ones that that defended the last one's draft-dodging shortcomings at every turn, and were these republicans attempting to raise the specter of a democratic president having a less than "Duty, Honor, Country" past, well, we remember how that went, don't we?

TC dont forget the bombing of Afghanistan by Clinton that nada one democrat ever brings up when the idea of pre-emption surfaces. Doesnt that set the table for future pre-emption before Bush walked into the White House?

who ever said I defended Clinton? I voted Dole fyi.

Just because I dislike this Bush administration does not mean I am a Clinton lover.

Clinton dodged the draft using family and political influence. President Bush did the same thing in regards to his awol from National Guard Duties.

WW, I dont think anyone said you supported Clinton. I think the relation that comes to mind is that people tend to say Bush did one thing because he is a republican and Clinton did another thing because he is democratic. People look at party affiliation to much instead of looking at the whole picture and I am guilty of that sometimes as well.

The point that Bush just released records on his military service still does not appease to democrats because they want to win. The reason Republicans will believe it is because they want Bush to win. See the perspectives. It takes a moderate mind to understand that while both may have been draft dodgers, is it really that important of an issue?

Easy, there, Slick, it's not you that is the target, but all the "journalists" and Democrats that play the political card without looking at their entire hypocritical hand. Were it not for them, you wouldn't even have heard of the alleged AWOL story.

Sounds to me like a load of crap. First off, if the LES's indicate he was paid, then he was in attendance. No if's, and's or Finance but's.

For what reason would he have gone AWO-Loose? As indicated, his Dad being who he is, could have insured that Dubbya had no Southeast Asian tours, wouldn't one think? Heck, that would have been alot easier than attempting an AWOL cover-up, up to even altering LES's and other Finance documents to make the story plausible.

No, to what end, pursuing what benefit would Dubbya have been pursuing, considering his station in life?

I think thomas crowne did assume I was in favor of Clinton because he quoted my words.

Yes it is an important issue. As a Commander and Chief of the United States of America, I would want my President to be an individual who didn't dodge service to his country, because it shows he has no respect for the people whose lives he risks when getting involved in military action.

going off on a tangent, people should vote for the best choice not for which party is going to be in control.

oh yes and didn't George Bush have an alcohol or drug problem? perhaps that's why he went awol and the story needs to be covered up.

Anyway, even though this issue should matter, in the long run it's pointless too. Something else will be happening to someone else and the media will turn to that.

Here are two of the initial copies released to the Internet. We'll post more as we find them.

Gee, those just appeared from the White House when this has been an issue for 4 years? Why didn't these um "official" records appear last time?

This stinks. And those look about as convincing as if I made them.

...so don't presume to call anyone a "draft dodger". The fact is, particularly as the "ChickenHawk list" indicates, career minded young men who had worked on their connections got legal get-out-of-death cards. Was it honorable? Mostly not. But you can live with minor dishonors.
Bush did not push through with the Iraq/Afganistan fiascos because he had "ballz" in the face of opposition: he had a power-drunk sense of entitlement. To make it even remotely to have been a noble cause is to be completely blind to the enourmous primary & collateral benefits that his crony network have garnered, and that he too will garner after his "presidency" ( just like his father, he'll be on Carlyle's board of Directors the Monday after Kerry's inaugeration).

About this thread:

TRANSCRIPT

QUESTION: The records that you handed out today and other records that exist indicate that the president did not perform any Guard duty during the months of December 1972, February or March of 1973. I'm wondering if you could tell us where he was during that period. And also how is it that he managed to not make the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status?

MCCLELLAN: The records that you're pointing to, these records are the payroll records. They're the point summaries. These records verify that he met the requirements necessary to fulfill his duties. These records, these payroll records reflect...

QUESTION: That wasn't my question. Where was he in December of '72...

MCCLELLAN: These records...

QUESTION: ... February and March of '73? Why did he not fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status?

MCCLELLAN: These records I'm holding here clearly document the president fulfilling his duties in the National Guard. The president was proud of his service. The president...

QUESTION: I asked a simple question. How about a simple answer?

MCCLELLAN: John, if you'll let me address the question, I'm coming to your answer.

QUESTION: Well, if you would address it, maybe you could.

MCCLELLAN: I'm sorry, John, this is an important issue that some chose to raise in the context of an election year. And the facts are important for people to know. If you don't want to know the facts, that's fine. But I want to share the facts with you.

QUESTION: I'll ask one more time: Where was he in December of '72, February and March of '73. Why didn't he fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status in 1972?

(and NO, the Spawn of Ari "I'm the Devil's Bitch" Fleisher never answered the question)

www.nytimes.com...