It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kerry is Calling for Rumsfeld to Resign

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Well, TrueLies, we have a choice between Skull and between Bones. Just what exactly do you propose we do? Hmm?
Kerry's a better man than Bush will ever be. Your man Bush is a deserter, a coward, a former drunk, probly a former coke-head and an all around mindless, swaggering mama's boy. Yeah boy, W's the man!

Welcome to Bush country! Check your brains at the door.


Wow, that's a pretty far off assumption that he's "my man" ... Jumping the gun because your filled with emotion more then logic are we??
Maybe you should take your own adivce and check your brain at the door... Hmm? Kerry is a boner I mean bonesman, just like Bush is. What I propose we do, is hang both aholes by their balls... Just because you get to the top doesn't mean that you have the right to pull the blanket over people's eyes, get away with war crimes, get away with dodging the draft, get away with starting a war over oil, ect, ect... Kerry is just as much of a tool as Bush is... Don't kid your self "kid" Their both damaged goods, actually they've never been goods, I can't give them that title... And you sir, are just another worm on a hook... Congratulation you feell for his bs... would you like ketchup with those lies??


Edit: Hope I didn't offend you, this is just the way I post... and the "kid" is because your eastcoastkid... thats all, don't think i'm trying to be mean, we live in a pc world, so it would be easy to assume this... Man, sometimes I wish I was in Scotland...

[edit on 26-8-2004 by TrueLies]




posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Well, TrueLies, we have a choice between Skull and between Bones. Just what exactly do you propose we do? Hmm?
Kerry's a better man than Bush will ever be. Your man Bush is a deserter, a coward, a former drunk, probly a former coke-head and an all around mindless, swaggering mama's boy. Yeah boy, W's the man!

Welcome to Bush country! Check your brains at the door.


Wow, that's a pretty far off assumption that he's "my man" ... Jumping the gun because your filled with emotion more then logic are we??
Maybe you should take your own adivce and check your brain at the door... Hmm? Kerry is a boner I mean bonesman, just like Bush is. What I propose we do, is hang both aholes by their balls... Just because you get to the top doesn't mean that you have the right to pull the blanket over people's eyes, get away with war crimes, get away with dodging the draft, get away with starting a war over oil, ect, ect... Kerry is just as much of a tool as Bush is... Don't kid your self "kid" Their both damaged goods, actually they've never been goods, I can't give them that title... And you sir, are just another worm on a hook... Congratulation you feell for his bs... would you like ketchup with those lies??


Edit: Hope I didn't offend you, this is just the way I post... and the "kid" is because your eastcoastkid... thats all, don't think i'm trying to be mean, we live in a pc world, so it would be easy to assume this... Man, sometimes I wish I was in Scotland...

[edit on 26-8-2004 by TrueLies]


Fair enough, both canidates are untrustowrty scum who do not deserve the position.

What exaclty do you suggest we do? Vote third party for somone with integridy adn honesty who.. in all honesty does not have a snowballs chance of survival in the corona of the sun? Yes that would make a very minor statement and your conscious would be clean but to be realistic will not fix the problems at hand.

If we lived in a socialist republic then absolutly, yes, a vote for a third party would make a differance as even third party votes still go twards a representitive in the senate. We however are in a diplomatic republic and thus we are in a win or lose situation and third party votes don't mean squat.

Wraith



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Having read all of this I am reminded of the sad state of this election. The fact that so many voters have to pick a candidate based on a "Lesser of two evils" philosophy is a major tragedy.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by wraith30

What exaclty do you suggest we do? Vote third party for somone with integridy adn honesty who.. in all honesty does not have a snowballs chance of survival in the corona of the sun? Yes that would make a very minor statement and your conscious would be clean but to be realistic will not fix the problems at hand.

If we lived in a socialist republic then absolutly, yes, a vote for a third party would make a differance as even third party votes still go twards a representitive in the senate. We however are in a diplomatic republic and thus we are in a win or lose situation and third party votes don't mean squat.

Wraith


Exactly! I've not once said I like Kerry. Kerry is the only alternative to Bush at this point in time. Kerry or Bush? Definitely Kerry OVER Bush. It's the only logical vote I can cast.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
Having read all of this I am reminded of the sad state of this election. The fact that so many voters have to pick a candidate based on a "Lesser of two evils" philosophy is a major tragedy.


Yes, it's also called a self defeatist attitude... Majority of people who vote, choose libertarian as their seconds choice as i've stated over and over.
The man's post above just goes to show how many numbskulls are actually out there that believe this, btw sir, i'm not calilng you a numbskull, but you are part of the pod...
In a realistic world, people are brainwashed, people believe what both 2 parties put out, in a realistic world, people are told that voting third party is just a waste of your vote, so yeah, your right, I guess I don't want to be part of your "reality" i'd rather live in my dream world where I don't fall victim to this complacent mindset and self defeatist attitude .... Thank #ing god...



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   
The question is: Is this a political move by Kerry or does he truly beleive that Rummy should resign?



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies

Originally posted by Djarums
Having read all of this I am reminded of the sad state of this election. The fact that so many voters have to pick a candidate based on a "Lesser of two evils" philosophy is a major tragedy.


Yes, it's also called a self defeatist attitude... Majority of people who vote, choose libertarian as their seconds choice as i've stated over and over.
The man's post above just goes to show how many numbskulls are actually out there that believe this, btw sir, i'm not calilng you a numbskull, but you are part of the pod...
In a realistic world, people are brainwashed, people believe what both 2 parties put out, in a realistic world, people are told that voting third party is just a waste of your vote, so yeah, your right, I guess I don't want to be part of your "reality" i'd rather live in my dream world where I don't fall victim to this complacent mindset and self defeatist attitude .... Thank #ing god...


No worries, you cannot offend me.

Defeatist, no , simply realistic. If you are in a battle, and you are the only one left surrounded by thousands of enemy. Is it defeatest to accept the fact that you are going to die? No, you should not shove your head in your hands and believe as hard as you can that it is not really going to happen.

Defeatest is to think why bother with the election.. nothing I do will matter anyway. Realistic thinking is to accept that due to the nature of our current system a vote for third party will not translate to representation of that third part in our senet or house.

I am not a defetist, I contemplate the teachings of Hagakure, study the philosophys of Sun Tsu and Minimoto Musashi, and try to practice the diciplins of Funikoshi, I try as well as I can to apply their wisdom to my life. There is not room for a defeatest attitude, nor is there room for a delusion of self importance, there is only awairness of self and the ability to face the truth.

Wraith

ps.. my biggest downfall for my diciplin is my nature for sarcasm... it's so very hard to controle.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
The question is: Is this a political move by Kerry or does he truly beleive that Rummy should resign?


I would say he honestly believes that Rummy should go.. but used the timing as a political move.

so the answer is yes.

Wraith



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by wraith30

Defeatest is to think why bother with the election.. nothing I do will matter anyway.


Nah nah nah nah nah... Sorry, but the defeatist attitude goes like this: Why should I bother voting libertarian when it won't matter anyway because it's a wasted vote...
That's defeatist.... Not realistic...


Realistic thinking is to accept that due to the nature of our current system a vote for third party will not translate to representation of that third part in our senet or house.


That is also defeatist.....Not realistic....

Why would somebody who's unaffiliated with either two parties vote for em if he/she knows they are both sell outs and corporate puppets in one way or another? Why would they subject their vote to something they don't believe it? BECAUSE IT WILL COUNT? Are serious?

Don't you think the lp and unaffiliated people will vote who they want regardless if they get in or not? A vote is vote, it's personal, not bought or not subjected... If you are a monkey, then I can see people doing what you do, not that your amonkey, well ok maybe in this scenario.. but no offense..
It's just not an effective thing for them to do... Whether the lp gets in or not, isn't the point for us lp's...

The point is to vote for WHAT WE BELIEVE IN... And not to be "rebellious" like you people think, but to make a political statement, saying not everybody is selling out and not everybody is BENDING OVER.... We've gotten #ed once, twice, three times you still want to get #ed, your call, apathy happens... If you don't, you grow a pair of balls and quit eating the horse# they put out for you to munch on..


I am not a defetist, I contemplate the teachings of Hagakure, study the philosophys of Sun Tsu and Minimoto Musashi, and try to practice the diciplins of Funikoshi, I try as well as I can to apply their wisdom to my life. There is not room for a defeatest attitude, nor is there room for a delusion of self importance, there is only awairness of self and the ability to face the truth.


Alright, then imo, it's a dellusion within a dellusion... Sun Tsu and Minimoto Musashi may have been brilliant teachers but either they left something out or your just not getting it.

Wraith

ps.. my biggest downfall for my diciplin is my nature for sarcasm... it's so very hard to controle.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Again like I said.. you can't offend me so no worries there.



That is also defeatist.....Not realistic....

Why would somebody who's unaffiliated with either two parties vote for em if he/she knows they are both sell outs and corporate puppets in one way or another? Why would they subject their vote to something they don't believe it? BECAUSE IT WILL COUNT? Are serious?



In a Socialistic Republic absolutly it would count. That is the exactly environment where a third party system works. We however do not live in a Socilist Republic. You can treat it like one all you like.. but that does not mean that you will be represented.



Don't you think the lp and unaffiliated people will vote who they want regardless if they get in or not? A vote is vote, it's personal, not bought or not subjected...

You are absolutly right, and I personaly feel that people should vote how they wish and how their conscious leads them.

That said, it still does not change the fact that the majority of people (lest the indipendance I know) who vote for indipendants and Lb, would typicaly vote against Bush if there was no other choise than the two. Therefor by default, those votes which would go to Kerry if there was only the 2 choises will be lost and will give Bush an advantage.




If you are a monkey, then I can see people doing what you do.


Be careful, you do not know my reasons that I vote the way that I do. Though I may disagree with your choise I do not insult you for that choice. I vote for my reasons as you do.



The point is to vote for WHAT WE BELIEVE IN... And not to be "rebellious" like you people think,


Again, be careful, I have never accused of anyone voting one way or annother for reasons of pure rebellion.



but to make a political statement, saying not everybody is selling out and not everybody is BENDING OVER.... We've gotten #ed once, twice, three times.

Perhaps it's because your statement is one that our system is not designed for.



If you don't, you grow a pair of balls and quit eating the horse# they put out for you to munch on..

*sigh, attacking my reasoning in this way really does nothing more than discredit your argument.



Alright, then imo, it's a dellusion within a dellusion... Sun Tsu and Minimoto Musashi may have been brilliant teachers but either they left something out or your just not getting it.


And you are entitled to your opinion, however making this statement with out some suggestion of what is missing or what exaclty is a best, realistic, solution is nothing more than an empty argument.

Wraith





[edit on 26-8-2004 by wraith30]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
It is Bush who should not run again. He's a DESERTER. Instead of being in the White House, he should be in the Big House (at Ft. Leavenworth).


If you served in the military, then it must be clear to you that whatever Bush might have done in the NG, he did not desert. You lose credibility among us who know what desertion is everytime you make such an ill-informed allegation.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by wraith30
In a Socialistic Republic absolutly it would count. That is the exactly environment where a third party system works. We however do not live in a Socilist Republic. You can treat it like one all you like.. but that does not mean that you will be represented.


I vote for lp, my vote is being represented even if it is just 5% us 5% are being represented. They are on the ballot where I live so I will vote.



You are absolutly right, and I personaly feel that people should vote how they wish and how their conscious leads them.




That said, it still does not change the fact that the majority of people (lest the indipendance I know) who vote for indipendants and Lb, would typicaly vote against Bush if there was no other choise than the two. Therefor by default, those votes which would go to Kerry if there was only the 2 choises will be lost and will give Bush an advantage.


Whoever they go to, I don't give a # in this situation because both are #ers in my opinion, so it wouldn't really matter now would it... I say to this... Same # different pile...



Be careful, you do not know my reasons that I vote the way that I do. Though I may disagree with your choise I do not insult you for that choice. I vote for my reasons as you do.


Your right... Not a monkey, maybe an ape. .j/k..


Again, be careful, I have never accused of anyone voting one way or annother for reasons of pure rebellion.


This wasn't really to you, although aimed at you, it was more for the people on here who think a vote for the lp or other is a "rebellious" vote, which is bs.
There are logical passionate well thought out reasons for our decision to vote such a party...


Also my opinion towards your teacher isn't empty, I said what I did because your statement looked like you were lacking something, so it had to be either of the two I mentioned above in my post... But thats just me... thanks for debating.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link   
The more they dig and find in the prision scandal in Iraq the closer is going to get to Rumsfeld, the link is there and he knows it.

If bush wins the elections Rumsfed will be replaced.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   



Whoever they go to, I don't give a # in this situation because both are #ers in my opinion, so it wouldn't really matter now would it... I say to this... Same # different pile...


Ya missed the point.


Yes, your vote will be represented on the ballot, and yes it will show up on the results. But like I said, in our political system and 5% vote for your party does not result in a 5% representation in the Senet, House, or any governing party in our system. If you lose in a presedential election your 5% vote is gone it changes nothing. At most you would need a 15% pull to allow for additional federal funding to be avalable in the next election for your party.

Wraith



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

If you served in the military, then it must be clear to you that whatever Bush might have done in the NG, he did not desert. You lose credibility among us who know what desertion is everytime you make such an ill-informed allegation.


Correct me if I am wrong but is not desertion defined as AWOL more than 30 days with intention of not returning?

Wraith



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by wraith30Correct me if I am wrong but is not desertion defined as AWOL more than 30 days with intention of not returning?


That's pretty close. And that's the reason the allegation of Desertion is so inaccurate. It may be that Bush missed a drill, but it is also clear he filed the appropriate paperwork for his transfer to Alabama and that he met his obligation for his duty, regardless of any other shortcomings.

Frankly, I'd believe that Bush was a gold-brick. But, by no definition, is he a deserter.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
It is Bush who should not run again. He's a DESERTER. Instead of being in the White House, he should be in the Big House (at Ft. Leavenworth).


If you served in the military, then it must be clear to you that whatever Bush might have done in the NG, he did not desert. You lose credibility among us who know what desertion is everytime you make such an ill-informed allegation.


In a time of war, you go AWOL for over thirty days, you are declared a deserter. Bush went missing from his Alabama National Guard unit from 1972-1973. What is not clear about that?

A good article from a Westpointer and Vietnam vet:



Livingston, a West Point graduate who served with the 11th Armored
Cavalry in Vietnam, is a psychiatrist who lives in Columbia, Md
By Gordon Livingston
Special to The Baltimore Sun

Among the human attributes that excite the most contempt, hypocrisy occupies a special place. Those who say one thing and do another or who criticize others for moral deficiencies that they themselves exhibit are deservedly the objects of public derision.
So it is with the “chickenhawks” of the Vietnam War generation currently providing what passes for leadership in this administration. They include Vice President Dick Cheney, who discovered he had “other priorities” during Vietnam, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who graduated from Cornell University in 1965 but decided to forgo military service during the war.
We recently have had a renewed opportunity to observe hypocrisy in action in President Bush’s reluctance to disavow the contemptible attacks by a group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
This collection of veterans, angry at Kerry’s antiwar activism after he returned home from Vietnam, continues to run TV ads attacking Kerry’s war record. One of the group’s leaders, John O’Neill, has published a book, “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry.”
The New York Times reports that “some people behind the ads had connections to the Bush family, to prominent Texas politicians and to President Bush’s chief political aide, Karl Rove.”
The Times also says that “the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men’s own statements.”
Whether this strategy will work is still a question. Redirecting public attention to the Vietnam War may prove unwise, considering the facts of Bush’s own choice to avoid service in a war he purported to support. According to The Washington Post, “A review of Bush’s military records shows that Bush enjoyed preferential treatment as the son of a then-congressman, when he walked into a Texas Guard unit in Houston two weeks before his 1968 graduation from Yale and was moved to the top of a long waiting list.”
Safely spared the prospect of combat service, he then virtually disappeared between May 1972 and May 1973. There are few records to indicate his whereabouts during that time.

The Associated Press noted that a full release of Bush’s records would clarify “allegations that potentially embarrassing material was removed in 1997 from Bush’s military file when he was running for re-election as Texas governor.”
Perhaps it’s not important who chose to serve and who did not in that misbegotten war. After all, Bush and prominent members of his administration simply made the same decision to find some way to avoid service that was made by many of the privileged young men of his generation, including Bill Clinton.
What smacks of hypocrisy, however, is to attack the service of Kerry, who lived an equally advantaged life yet made the choice to expose himself to the considerable risks of combat.
That he was intelligent enough to learn something from this experience and came home to oppose the war appears to be the real sin in the minds of many Republican hawks. They still argue that Vietnam was, in the words of Ronald Reagan, “a noble cause.” To change one’s mind as the result of experience is, of course, to “flip-flop.”
The issue here, in a presidential campaign, is not courage vs. cowardice. People go to war for many reasons. For young men of my generation, the system created a situation in which the largest proportion of those engaged in combat were those who lacked the education or connections to avoid it. It was a war fought largely by working-class and poor kids. (The majority of our soldiers in Iraq, despite an all-volunteer military, come from similar backgrounds.) Little sacrifice was asked of the society at large, particularly its most fortunate members.
This is what makes Kerry’s decision to go to war all the more remarkable, whatever the complicated motives behind it. Whether he deserved his medals, whether he bled enough to justify three Purple Hearts, is irrelevant. That he went, in contrast to our current bellicose commander in chief, is enough, one would think, to earn the respect of those who chose not to. We have all, especially veterans, had enough of this contrived issue.
My Bronze Star citation contains some exaggerations written into it by the officer in my unit who submitted it. It was apparently felt that the award reflected well on my regiment and the Army and helped fill a national need for heroism in a decidedly unheroic conflict.
I, too, opposed the war when I got home, based on what I had seen there. I am prouder of that than anything I did with a rifle in my hands. Like Kerry, I believed I had earned the right to speak out. I would prefer not to be criticized by those who didn’t go at all.


And even with money offered, not one man has come forward to attest to Bush's service in that Alabama unit for that year. One would think SOMEBODY would've recalled him being there.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by wraith30



Correct me if I am wrong but is not desertion defined as AWOL more than 30 days with intention of not returning?

Wraith


You are wrong.

Article 85—Desertion

“(a) Any member of the armed forces who—
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another one of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States Note: This provision has been held not to state a separate offense by the United States Court of Military Appeals in United States v. Huff, 7 U.S.C.M.A. 247, 22 C.M.R. 37 (1956); is guilty of desertion.
(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.
(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”
The rest may be found here…

usmilitary.about.com...

GWB did not desert, and was not AWOL. He would not and COULD not be discharged if there were questions or charges levied against him. The guard and reserves are not like the active duty forces. They have different requirements for completion of service. President Bush had, at the time of his discharge, 56 service points, of which only 50 were required. He more than made up his service.

Those of you who claim to know the UCMJ should do some research before you make such preposterous claims, especially when they have been debunked as so much trash so many times.


You stand corrected.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   
OOOOOOO, BURN!!!!!!!!!!!!


As long as we are talking about the lesser of 2 evils, it's clear to me that Bush, despite his flaws, will do what is best for the USA. Kerry will do what is best for his next election - as his many flip flop statements clearly show - and that my friends, is NOT who should be leading the most powerfull entity the world has ever known.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

He would not and COULD not be discharged if there were questions or charges levied against him.


Can you say naive? You obviously don't much about the ways of cronyism.

You Bushfans can delude yourselves all you want. The truth is Bush and Cheney and Wolfowitz were all too cowardly to do their duty. It's pretty damn sad that Bush couldn't even handle the friggin National Guard. How pathetic. Bush IS a deserter no matter how loud you scream he wasn't.




Yes, Bush's claim was that he was in Alabama as ordered to attend drill and complete his contracted training. Not a single credible witness has answered the calls that included rewards of cash to corroborate his story. During the Friday evening before the Democratic National Convention, the final payroll records from the Denver archives were released; records which erased the last doubt about Bush's non-attendance for training—proof from the massive system of clerks, airmen and commanders all simply said that he was not in Alabama doing what he was ordered to do. Was there a massive conspiracy throughout America against George W. Bush during 1972 in Alabama? Was there a conspiracy that included his unit administrative officer, commander in Alabama, his unit administrator, and his commander at the 111th in Houston?
www.onlinejournal.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join