# Bush attacks critics claim pre-war intel was manipulated. Huge balls or delusional? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2005, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676 "2005-11-12T03:58:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2005, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/341 "2005-11-18T23:00:50Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > … or getting protected assignments even when sent to the war zone, (Al Gore)?.. Tiniest bit unfair. In all modern conflicts, the vast majority of service people never fire a shot in anger. They are logistical personnel, etc. “Rear echelon mutherfuckers” outnumber combat troops by a minimum of 10 to one. Besides which, Saigon is one hell of a lot closer to the shit than Houston. Not to mention the possibility of being wounded as a result of venereal combat. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2005, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/342 "2005-11-18T23:39:25Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Not to mention the possibility of being wounded as a result of venereal combat. Yeah, I’ve heard all about Houston ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/343 "2005-11-19T00:11:28Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > What do we do with politicians who grew up in the decades we missed having a war? Do we simply declare that people born (roughly) between 1901 and 1910 or 1935 and 1944 or 1955 and 1965 are not eligible to run for high office? We still had a military during those years, didn’t we? Even if there really wasn’t anything for them to do? A bigger problem is that we would, in effect, be barring anyone from running for president who had exceptionally poor eyesight, or fallen arches, or was in a wheelchair, or suffered from asthma, or anyone of the hundreds of medical conditions that preclude military service. And I, for one, do not want to tell [this guy](http://www.tolerance.org/images/dynamic_assets/images_150w/torg_murderball_150x150.jpg) he can’t run for president, because he will completely kick your ass, even if he doesn’t have the use of his legs. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/344 "2005-11-19T01:28:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Define “military _service_.” Does that include getting a job with a National Guard unit during a shooting war, then finding a way to be absent when the brass considers shipping the unit into the war zone (Dan Quayle), or simply “dropping out” when the job got too boring, (or something), (George W. Bush), or getting protected assignments even when sent to the war zone, (Al Gore)? Define it any way you want. Whatever it is, should there be a prerequisite of military service for being President? If you think there should be, what should it be? ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/345 "2005-11-19T04:46:25Z")
What **David Simmons** said about military service as a qualification for high political office. In the meantime I am soliciting orders for a bumper sticker to read as follows: **“I support the troops in this unnecessary and reckless foreign adventure”** The background would be a tastefull arrangement of red and white stripes with maybe a few white stars on a blue ground. Surely the boys in Washington can find no fault with these sentiments. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/346 "2005-11-19T05:05:45Z")
May I suggest including an image of Alfred E. Neuman? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/347 "2005-11-19T16:43:57Z")
I also agree that military service is not a prerequisite. The reason Bush (& company) are getting shit is not because they led the country into war when themselves avoided it, but rather that they led the country into a **reckless military adventure** while they themselves had avoided service. (You will notice that there was only a very small number of people who were irked by this during the Afghanistan conflict because more of us saw that as justified or at least justifiable.) It is the reckless actions and the use of the military as they own personal plaything that galls us. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/348 "2005-11-20T23:21:34Z")
Oh my, now we America haters are[getting German intelligence people to do our dirty work](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-curveball20nov20,0,1753730.story?coll=la-home-headlines) on the noble leader. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/349 "2005-11-21T00:31:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This is not intended to be an attempt to defend the war or Bush, but I have a question. Since a President, any President, may at some point feel the need to go to war—let’s assume with the backing of the whole country—should military service be a prerequisite for being President? Absolutely not, and not just because it’s a violation of so many people’s rights. It seems that as time goes on, we’re moving away from the idea that it should be. I’m hopeful that Vietnam will not be an issue in the next election, that 2004 was the last waving of that particular bloody shirt. Also, veteran by the name of Kennedy helped get the US into Vietnam, so let’s not pretend that military service means the President won’t make lousy decisions and get the country into unnecessary wars. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/350 "2005-11-21T01:38:24Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Absolutely not, and not just because it’s a violation of so many people’s rights. It seems that as time goes on, we’re moving away from the idea that it should be. I’m hopeful that Vietnam will not be an issue in the next election, that 2004 was the last waving of that particular bloody shirt. > Also, veteran by the name of Kennedy helped get the US into Vietnam, so let’s not pretend that military service means the President won’t make lousy decisions and get the country into unnecessary wars. Lyndon Johnson was Navy Lt. Commander in WWII. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/351 "2005-11-21T01:44:37Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Lyndon Johnson was Navy Lt. Commander in WWII. I guessed he probably served too, but I wasn’t sure. And hey, nobody ever lied America into a bad war better than Johnson did. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/352 "2005-11-21T04:01:10Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Oh my, now we America haters are[getting German intelligence people to do our dirty work](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-curveball20nov20,0,1753730.story?coll=la-home-headlines) on the noble leader. My favorite line of that story is: > [@](#): > > The White House, for example, ignored evidence gathered by United Nations weapons inspectors shortly before the war that disproved Curveball’s account. Still more evidence that the White House’s response to the inspections was to rush to war as the inspections were basically imploding their case for war. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/353 "2005-11-21T14:50:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Define it any way you want. Whatever it is, should there be a prerequisite of military service for being President? If you think there should be, what should it be? Translation: (whatever)(whatever)(whatever) I’m just trying to get off the subject on which my ass is currently being spanked. How about them Packers? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/354 "2005-11-21T15:26:59Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > Translation: (whatever)(whatever)(whatever) I’m just trying to get off the subject on which my ass is currently being spanked. How about them Packers? > > -Joe Spanked? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I originally asked if military service should be a prerequisite for being President. **tomndebb** asked me to define it and gave some examples. I replied back that he was free to define it ANY way he’d like, leaving the question: regardless of how you define it, should their be ANY requirement of military service for the Presidency? Perhaps you should read more slowly or have someone read to you. Advice: the next time you try to be cute or clever, try to know what you’re talking about. Otherwise you run the risk of looking like a jerk. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/355 "2005-11-21T15:39:18Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Absolutely not, and not just because it’s a violation of so many people’s rights. It seems that as time goes on, we’re moving away from the idea that it should be. I’m hopeful that Vietnam will not be an issue in the next election, that 2004 was the last waving of that particular bloody shirt. > Also, veteran by the name of Kennedy helped get the US into Vietnam, so let’s not pretend that military service means the President won’t make lousy decisions and get the country into unnecessary wars. I agree. In fact, everyone seems to agree. Not one person has advocated military service being a prerequisite for holding the presidency. Which brings me back to the reason I asked the question in the first place: If we all agree that a President needn’t have served in the military, isn’t it just a comlpete waste of time to repeatedly attempt to slam Bush for not having been in Vietnam, as some have done earlier in this thread.? Surely the incompetence with which he has managed this war has nothing to do with that. It seems fair to criticize him for displaying a “reluctance” to serve him combat himself, while not being very reluctant to send others into combat, but as far as the manangement of the war, whther he fought or not seems immaterial—unless we are willing to say that a President should have served in the military. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/356 "2005-11-21T16:13:32Z")
But his eagerness to go to war brings his lack of service into the discussion. We knew guys like Ike and JFK knew full well the realities of combat and wouldn’t go to war unless absolutely the last resort. The fact that Bush went to war as the first resort (and the only option ever considered) makes his lack of service fair game. Clinton didn’t serve either, but had he started a war with as little grounds as Bush, it certainly would have been the same story. Don’t start a war for nothing, and it doesn’t matter if you served. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/357 "2005-11-21T17:08:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It seems fair to criticize him for displaying a “reluctance” to serve him combat himself, while not being very reluctant to send others into combat, but as far as the manangement of the war, whther he fought or not seems immaterial—unless we are willing to say that a President should have served in the military. Well yes, and it seems fair to say that besides that assassination thing, Mrs. Lincoln rather enjoyed her night out at the theatre. In my view the whole point of the issue regarding Bush et al.'s combat is how they are using the military as their personal plaything, extinguishing lives for stupid reasons, lies, and deception, while they were unwilling to risk their own lives. However, the fact that they were unwilling to risk their own lives is just icing on the cake as far as I am concerned. I’d still be against their policy even if they had served bravely themselves. It just helps complete the picture of how depraved these people are. > [@](#): > > Spanked? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I originally asked if military service should be a prerequisite for being President. tomndebb asked me to define it and gave some examples. I replied back that he was free to define it ANY way he’d like, leaving the question: regardless of how you define it, should their be ANY requirement of military service for the Presidency? Perhaps you should read more slowly or have someone read to you. > > Advice: the next time you try to be cute or clever, try to know what you’re talking about. Otherwise you run the risk of looking like a jerk. I think **Merijeek** ’s point is that this whole thing about military service has been a hijack from the thread. (Admittedly, it would have been clearer if he had linked to the beginning of your hijack instead of one of your posts in the middle.) Actually, considering that your whole fixation with supporting the troops and the best way to express one’s opposition to the war is also a hijack of the thread, I’d say that what we have is a hijack of a hijacking (by the same person who committed the original hijacking). ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/358 "2005-11-21T17:09:56Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It seems fair to criticize him for displaying a “reluctance” to serve him combat himself, while not being very reluctant to send others into combat, but as far as the manangement of the war, whther he fought or not seems immaterial—unless we are willing to say that a President should have served in the military. Well yes, and it seems fair to say that besides that assassination thing, Mrs. Lincoln rather enjoyed her night out at the theatre. In my view the whole point of the issue regarding Bush et al.'s combat is how they are using the military as their personal plaything, extinguishing lives for stupid reasons, lies, and deception, while they were unwilling to risk their own lives. However, the fact that they were unwilling to risk their own lives is just icing on the cake as far as I am concerned. I’d still be against their policy even if they had served bravely themselves. It just helps complete the picture of how morally depraved these people are. > [@](#): > > Spanked? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I originally asked if military service should be a prerequisite for being President. tomndebb asked me to define it and gave some examples. I replied back that he was free to define it ANY way he’d like, leaving the question: regardless of how you define it, should their be ANY requirement of military service for the Presidency? Perhaps you should read more slowly or have someone read to you. > > Advice: the next time you try to be cute or clever, try to know what you’re talking about. Otherwise you run the risk of looking like a jerk. I think **Merijeek** ’s point is that this whole thing about military service has been a hijack from the thread. (Admittedly, it would have been clearer if he had linked to the beginning of your hijack instead of one of your posts in the middle.) Actually, considering that your whole fixation with supporting the troops and the best way to express one’s opposition to the war is also a hijack of the thread, I’d say that what we have is a hijack of a hijacking (by the same person who committed the original hijacking). ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/359 "2005-11-21T17:11:48Z")
Sorry about the double-post…Damn hamsters! ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676/360 "2005-11-21T17:17:41Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > But his eagerness to go to war brings his lack of service into the discussion. We knew guys like Ike and JFK knew full well the realities of combat and wouldn’t go to war unless absolutely the last resort. The fact that Bush went to war as the first resort (and the only option ever considered) makes his lack of service fair game. Clinton didn’t serve either, but had he started a war with as little grounds as Bush, it certainly would have been the same story. Don’t start a war for nothing, and it doesn’t matter if you served. Please reread my post. You begin with “But”, then make a point that I acknowledge. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-attacks-critics-claim-pre-war-intel-was-manipulated-huge-balls-or-delusional/330676.md?page=19)