Spooje:
Which is why I qualified it as “according to Coulter,” rather than just asserting it.
So…
It is more dangerous to fly a fighter jet around the United States than it is to be in a war zone?
How many of our brave young men and women have been killed or injured in Afganistan and Iraq? How many National Guardsmen have been killed or injured flying fighter jets around the United States during the same time period? :rolleyes:
Well shit. I’m not sure why I did it, but I reposted in Scylla’s Great Debates thread. This gave him the chance to ignore the contents of my post over there as well.
To summarize:
I posted this question:
“What do conservatives, on the whole, believe about the evidence of Bush’s AWOLness and other suspect military behaviors? Because I haven’t seen anyone come out and state that they think he is innocent of the charges leveled by the Dems; they just seem to hide behind his “honorable discharge” as if that somehow negates all the damning evidence that has been gathered against him.”
Scylla responded by asking me to supply evidence in this regard, noting that the Dems did not have the power to “level charges” against Bush, choosing to view the word “charges” in a legal sense only, thus in some way proving my point about Republicans hiding behind semantics.
Now as a general rule I do not choose to participate in 99% of the debates here at the SD. They simply don’t interest me enough to provide the “cites” which seem to be the bedrock of an assertation made here. Since Scylla addressed me directly, though, I went ahead and answered his questions, provided three “cites,” as it were. I thought these links provided substantial evidence of the “charges leveled” against Bush.
Scylla then responded and informed me that he had another thread in GD discussing this issue. To my mind, since he asked me for evidence in this thread, and I responded with what I considered evidence in this thread, common courtesy dictates that he provide his response to the evidence he requested in the thread in which he requested it.
Soooo, I posted to say that I guessed I would post my response in his GD thread, but I felt it disengenous of him to avoid answering me here like that. I also wrote: “Does anyone else smell weasels?”
He replied to say that he wasn’t being disengenous (quote: “naive or insincere”) and that he thought he was being “nice” by including me in said GD thread. He also made it clear that he wouldn’t respond if I continued my “weasel” reference.
You know, Scylla, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass, nor a weasel’s one, what you think about all this, really. Actually, it’s quite clear what you think. I merely, because you asked, provided what I considered substantive cites that addressed the questions you, Scylla, directed to me, essvee. I do, however, consider it good form for one to respond to the answers one asks for in the thread that one asked for them.
Do what you want, you will anyway. Oh yeah, read this definition of “disingenuous” from dictionary.com, would ya? I truly believe the word applies to your behavior in this thread, and to many of your political posts on the SD in general. Note: I spelled the word incorrectly in my post.
dis·in·gen·u·ous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dsn-jny-s)
adj.
- Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who… exemplified… the most disagreeable traits of his time” (David Cannadine).
- Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
Forgive me for skipping straight to the post without reading anything past Scylla, but this turns me straight into Ed Anger and I am fucking pissed off. Scylla, although it was your post which set me off, I know you wouldn’t deliberately question someone’s personal courage if you were fully aware of the facts. This isn’t directed toward you–it’s to all you fucking bastards who dare to question the actions of people who have actually seen war.
Back to you fucking assholes who dare to assail Max Cleland. Fucking read this.
Max Cleland was in goddamn Khe Sanh, the Alamo of Vietnam. When his boys got shot up, he went out there and continuously exposed himself to enemy fire while he patched up his fellow injured troops, and then dragged them to safety. You want a Silver Star of your own, you chickenhawk pricks? Go do something gallant in the face of enemy action. And generally, if you do that you’ll get a Bronze Star. A Silver Star usually comes with the unwritten caveat that you got shot, or should have.
How fucking dare you to have the audacity to conflate the circumstances behind Cleland’s Silver Star with the grenade accident which happened four days later.
Essvee:
I generally try to address anybody’s points who addresses me. Again, I’m sorry about the confusion with the new thread. I was trying to be courteous not discourteous.
Since you seem to want me to address your cites here, I will do so:
Ok, I’ve read Cecil’s post before. We’re talking about some of the things in it, now.
For this Awolbush thing, am I supposed to browse it, or what? Again, it seems like most of this ground has been covered. I don’t speak for Elucidator, but we seem to have come to the conclusion that Bush was not AWOL, so we’re kind of past this. If you thik we’ve missed something, let me know.
(though I will ask that you do it in that thread)
And your final cite is a general rehashing of the fiasco. I am aware that the Democrats are looking at Bush’s National Guard service.
Thank you for responding to my request for cites. Again, I’m sorry about the confusion.
Ok?
Good post. I was not aware of the circumstances surrounding Cleland’s Silver Star.
By this account, the man is a legitimate hero, and Coulter certainly has done him short shrift.
I’m still disapointed he’s choosen to attack the military service of another for politics, and feel that it makes him a legitimate target because he has done so.
But I see no call to paint his service as anything other than heroic. He seems to have earned that.
Well, not quite. While I agree that the record, such as it is, is undramatic and certainly does not rise to such an inflammatory charge as “desertion”. “AWOL” is a different matter. Lt. Bush appears to have been the recipient of considerable leniency. As well, if the authorities of the Texas ANG had wished to be severe, they might very well have leveled such a charge, though more as a procedural than as a criminal matter. I don’t see Lt. Bush being dragged off to Leavenworth.
Yeah, she’s as full of crap as any of the extremists (on either side).
But I gotta admit; she does star in one of my naughty little fantasy scenes!
Yeah, baby! Tell me about the libs! Oh YEAH! 
Lest anyone be left with the wrong impression: Here’s Scylla’s account of the incident:
Here’s Cleland’s:
From http://www.doxagora.com/.
You remain a piece of shit. Saying “but Ann Coulter said so” only demonstrates that you are a mindless Republican automaton piece of shit. Denegrating a wounded veteran? You and Ann can go be cunts together. Fucking Slander and Treason indeed.
Having read through the thread, it amazes me that any conservatives still waste time trying to defend Coulter’s positions. Haven’t her positions and her rhetoric bitten y’all enough yet? Hasn’t she proven herself to be so far removed from reality that you should do your best to distance yourselves from her, rather than trying to defend her?
I mean, I realize she features in a number of sexual fantasies for y’all (though I personally can’t fathom the Coulter-fetish), but when do you simply say “enough” to her embarrasing tirades against all things liberal?
Hell, most liberals understand that Michael Moore is an embarrassment more often than anything else. Why hasn’t Coulter acheived that status yet with conservatives? If anything, she’s even worse than Moore.
Which is it? Am I a robot, or a piece of shit?
Wow. Some people have certainly shown their true colors here.
You, sir, are Robo-Shit.
That’s right. I crap ingots, and piss molten lead.
Domo arigato, Mr. Robo-shit.
Ha Ha! That was really funny Scylla! I especially liked the part where you completely ignored the fact that you posted an entirely inaccurate and misleading characterization of how a Silver Star winner was seriously wounded in an accident during a mission in Viet Nam, and instead chose to focus on a literal meaning of an insult that I used.
Okay, if you want to be literally-oriented: Denigrating the service of a decorated veteran by suggesting that, rather than finding and recovering a grenade where he had just gotten out of a helicopter on a mission to set up a radio relay, he instead “cluelessly picked up a hand grenade” in a non-combat situation while “getting a beer,” is shameful, pathetic, disgraceful, disgusting, beyond contempt, partisan weaseling of the highest magnitude. Failing to correct your “mistake” suggests that it was hardly a mistake at all, but rather an attempt to smear and debase a man simply because he chose to call Bush’s behavior into question. If anyone is in a position to question Bush’s behavior, I suggest Max Cleland is.
How about this: if you ever post anything here that turns out to be correct, please let me know.
You’re lying. On the previous page, I said:
Why not cut the namecalling and the lying, and just play nice?
Thanks, Scylla. The last cite was in response to your bit about the “charges.” Note the title of the article. And the AWOLbush.com site was indeedfor browsing. There are a number of different and well-respected media sources, and documents, and other stuff on there that makes it clear, to me at least, that if G.W. hadn’t been a child of privilege, he easily could have had to address charges of being absent without leave.
Where am I lying? Your post refers to Cleland winning the Silver Star, and Coulter giving him short shrift. It does nothing to correct the entirely misleading characterization of the circumstances of his injuries that you are responsible for posting here. Stop the lying and the namecalling? Show me where you posted anything resembling a retraction of your characterization. Replace your divots. Correct your bullshit. Then you won’t be such a prick.
When you say:
"I especially liked the part where you completely ignored the fact that you posted an entirely inaccurate and misleading characterization of how a Silver Star winner was seriously wounded "
The quotation I posted where I recharacterize Cleland as a hero based on Sofa’s link is proof that I did not ignore the error in my earlier characterization. It was both an acknowledgement and a correction.
In light of this incontrovertible evidence, your continued assertion that I ignored it, is a bald and transparent lie, a rather obvious one, too.
Your post refers to Cleland winning the Silver Star, and Coulter giving him short shrift. It does nothing to correct the entirely misleading characterization of the circumstances of his injuries that you are responsible for posting here. Stop the lying and the namecalling? Show me where you posted anything resembling a retraction of your characterization. Replace your divots. Correct your bullshit. Then you won’t be such a prick.
[/QUOTE]