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.

 

President Bush Why dont you Defend your Soldiers?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Yes I am a Bush supporter but I have a right to gripe when he screws up. For the most part he does a good job but he has done a few things this term that defy explanation if you are a conservative. First off his first order of business was to resurrect the illegal amnesty program and secondly he appointed the liberal leaning Gonzalez to Attorney General. Lastly he appointed the liberal leaning Margaret Spellings to the position of Education Secretary. With that rant out of the way he is really ticking me off by remaining silent on this Marine Controversy.

Bush is proud to say he is the commander in chief when he wants to use the military to get re-elected but when one of his boys needs him he remains quiet. I have given Bush a couple of days but I am tired of waiting. Bush should come out and defend the marine like a true commander in chief. Come on Bush you are alienating your conservative base.




posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Blackjackal

He is not the one to do the defending, he has to let the military handle the problem themself.

Politics is a very complex thing, and that is why is other under the Comanding in Chief to take care of things.

I know what you mean and I know how you feel, but that is how things are done.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I understand politics, but I don't understand using the title Commander in Chief to get re-elected and then turning your backs on those who are under your command.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   
BlackJack,

I may not agree with the president decisions but is things that are beyond his reach when it comes to military policies.

I hope things will be ok, and the soldier will be cleared.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Hilter didn't care for his troops, stalin didn't care, saddam didn't care and bush doesn't care. To leader's it's about winning the war and knowing how many numbers are required to acheive it.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I got some news, the soldier involved in the shoting incident is claiming that the Insurgent was hidding a gun and that he thought his life and the other soldiers was in danger, so he may get out of it after all.

Don't ask me where I got the information.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I think you're slowly starting to catch on, jackal...



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thorfinn Skullsplitter
I think you're slowly starting to catch on, jackal...


I am Conservative first and foremost. I voted for Bush assuming he would act conservative but so far he has been anything but. Still if I had to go back and vote again I would make the same decision because Kerry would have been far more liberal.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I agree.

When I heard about this, I wanted Bush to come out and say "damnit, this is war, and that marine did what he should have. Case closed."

Of course this is politics, and he probably can't do that, but I agree with you.

He needs to back that young man.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Right now the United States are very polarized. Bush may have won by 51 percent, but not all these 51 percent are conservatives. Some are moderates. So it makes good political sense to appoint a few liberals in the cabinet; if the Republicans move too far right, they could lose part of the moderate wing of their party and the White House knows that. And even though Bush doesn't have to face re-election, there's still 2006 coming up in Congress...



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Otts,

I know its all political but as American Mad Man stated I want Bush to defend the soldiers he used to get re-elected. Those men are out there dying for their "Commander in Chief" and he won't defend them because its too political. To hell with Politics some times you have to do what is right.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
I want Bush to defend the soldiers he used to get re-elected. Those men are out there dying for their "Commander in Chief" and he won't defend them because its too political. To hell with Politics some times you have to do what is right.


So what if Bush thinks the kid made the wrong decision and unlawfully killed the insurgent?

Wouldn't it be better in that case for him to say nothing and let the military handle it internally? If the story is allowed to die down, hopefully the military will be able to declare that this marine is either innocent or not guilty due to battle fatigue.

Just an alternative explanation for the silence from the White House.

B.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Bleys,

Your theory is extremely plausible.....

And if he did think the marine was in the wrong then I think it is right of him to keep his mouth shut. Yet, somehow I just wish he would stand up for the troops on this matter.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Bush drawing even more attention to this marine by publicly "sticking up for him" might make the situation worse for him. Putting him even more in the public eye would make his life even more miserable don't you think?
I did'nt vote for Bush but even I understand that combat can cause tremendous mental strain on a person and cause them to sometimes make bad judgements.
I'm sure the military understands this too and hopefully won't be hard on him.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join