That *#$%@!! Bush! Why I oughta.....

I must say that Cecil seems unduly kind to the Prez. And I’d say George W.'s enemies have nothing on the Enemies Of Bill. What I want to know is, what’s the deal with Geore W. going AWOL after only completing half his hitch with the Texas National Guard — a hitch which his father landed him? Isn’t that a bit unpatriotic, especially during wartime? Also, why is he so nice to the Saudis? More to the point what are we supposed to make of the fact that 911 was an almost all-Saudi production yet Bush, who has routinely been up to his a** in Saudis insist that they’re really our friends? I mean, that’s just a little stinky, no? These guys have been holding telethons for suicide terrorists fer Kripe’s sake. Forget Prescott and the Nazis. That’s exceedingly small potatoes. And, unlike the Clinton stuff, we don’t have to pay off tarts, betray friends or go around sniffing people’s sheets to find something smelly.

Seems to me the Enemies O’ George are a bunch of hapless louts compared to the EOBs.

I have two questions about this post.

  1. “what’s the deal with Geore W. going AWOL after only completing half his hitch with the Texas National Guard” by this I assume Braintree is referring to the year missing in Bush’s National Guard records. If I recall correctly (It’s been awhile since the election) he claimed that he served the full 4 years. Has there been any further info on this? (Although coming after Clinton’s total lack of military service I can see why this became a non-issue in the elections, most ex-military I know voted Bush).

  2. “Also, why is he so nice to the Saudis?” Is the author proposing the Saudi Arabian government was involved in the 9-11 attacks? While it is true that most of the hijackers in the attack were Saudis, there is a big leap from that to the assumption that their government was involved. When you are dealing with terrorist’s country of origin can be deceptive. That’s not to say there are not elements within Saudi Arabia that mean us harm. But then again there are elements with the USA that have blown up buildings etc (see Oklahoma City). It might be reasoned that the inclusion of so many Saudi’s into the attack was engineered to trigger just the diplomatic breach you seem to want.

This is NOT about Cecil’s column. The OP is raising questions that were not addressed by the Column, so I am moving this to a more appropriate forum.

I respectfully disagree. It was The Master Egghead Hisself who raised the issue of the stuff emanating from EOGs vs. EOBs which cannot be separated from the issue of the quality of scandalmongering for either administration.

As for my confused and not terribly bright ditto-head of a friend, Admiraltogo, see you on the other side, Junior.

Not terribly bright? I will respectfully state to Mr. braintree that I have not heard such a juvenile response since Jr. High. If you have a point to make please do so, however you might find that insulting people has won few discussions

braintree, check this out for your question:

http://awolbush.com/

Thank you vervdog. By the way it was my question, I would guess braintree already knew this information (or assumed it) by his statement “Isn’t that a bit unpatriotic, especially during wartime?” But again thanks for the link.

He who hesitates is lost. I finally get around to treating Admiraltogo (are we perhaps fighting for the Imperial Japanese Navy?) to the deconstruction his response deserves and it turns out someone has beaten me to the punch. An entire website!

  1. After making a huge stink about Clinton’s draft record which, according to Republican gasbags, showed old bill to be morally unfit for office (while getting plenty of press attention for their troubles) it seems odd that Bush’s much more serious desertion issue never got nearly as much play. It strikes me that there is a measurable quantitative difference in the comparative activity and success of the Enemies of Bill vs Enemies of George in influencing press coverage.

  2. Saudi Arabia is a repressive theocratic monarchy ruled by the Saudi Royal family which has evangelically been spreading its intollerant Wahabbi version of Islam by financing madrassas throughout the world from which Osama has recruited many of his terrorists. Bin Laden was and a large number of his financial backers and supporters are members in good standing of said family. Without active government support by the Saudi monarchy he is nothing. Comparing Timothy McVeigh to Osama Bin Laden and his Saudi supporters would make sense only if McVeigh were the equivalent of a Kennedy or a Bush instead of some backwoods loser. And please consider the example of the Saudi Ambassador’s son who accompanied his father when he met with President Bush at his Crawford Texas ranch. This son is an important donor to the cleric who hosted the telethon to help financially support the families of Palestinian suicide terrorists. Consider the fact that there actually was a national telethon to financially support the families of suicide terrorists. You simply can not separate the Saudi government from terrorism any more than you can separate the Republican party from tax cuts for the wealthy or President Clinton from a refreshing pair of pouty lips.

The only people who think I am rich are those who oppose tax cuts.

I would get a tax cut…hence I am rich…

…egads…
Sorry for the hijack:confused:

Clinton avoided the draft by his own academic achievment. I’ve never seen any evidence tha BC did anything illegal or unethical to avoid military service. Clinton also opposed the war.

Junior used his father’s influence to gain an assignment to a rich boy’s divison of the National Guard (called the “champaign division” at the time.) He was never seriously expected to shpw up for this assignment and, in fact, went AWOL for his last year of service.

Unlike Clinton, GWB supported the war in Vietnam. He was all for other guys going over there and getting shot, especially poor kids, but he did everything he could to make sure that his own candy ass never got anywhere near it.

I can’t understand why the military embraces a deserter.

A letter IIRC to the Draft Board was dishonest. When it was made public, that letter embarassed Clinton.

The big difference is that Bush served and Clinton avoided service. Piloting a plane is dangerous and demanding, even if one doesn’t get called into active combat. And, Bush had no guarantee that he wouldn’t be called into combat.

As far as the theory about Bush being AWOL for a year or a deserter, that allegation was never confirmed. Some of the old records are unclear, but there’s no proof of AWOL or desertion. That’s why it never got any traction. That’s why the military has no problem with him.

Braintree you sure know how to make a guy feel welcome, but I do appreciate the response over the rant. As for the two questions at hand:

  1. My first question was “Has there been any further info on this?” referring to the missing year in the presidents records. This request was due to the condition you mentioned in you original post aka there has been no mention of this in the media for the last couple years since the election. The people I work will who would seem to care the most; ex-military, and more importantly Vietnam vets did not believe the story. This has led most people I know to dismiss it. That’s why I asked my question. I’m here at this web site to try to learn the truth (which is by the way the purpose of the site). Facts and information on the matter (such as the site forwarded) are very likely to change my mind on the subject (I try to keep an open mind in all things). Statements like “treating Admiraltogo… to the deconstruction his response deserves" tends to close minds and detour the quest for the truth.
  1. As for the second question about Saudi Arabia. I have never doubted that there is a ground swell of anti-American (more properly anti-western) feeling. I have had several first hand reports from people you have worked there recently. I have also never doubted that there is widespread support for the Palestinian terrorists in this country. You would be hard pressed to find a Muslim country in the world that did not share this support (I have talked personally with people from Malaysia, Iran, and Lebanon about this). However the official position of Saudi Arabia is against such action directed at the USA (one might infer that they are more attached to “sinful” money then they let on the oil thing can work both ways). I would think this would represent an opportunity to get as diplomatically close to the Saudi’s as possible, and use their own government against these internal forces. Certainly some of the most blatant organizations channeling money to terrorist have been stopped (The state department web site http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/homepage.htm has info on this). Is the government doing enough about this? Probably not, but without Saudi help we would be hard pressed to do anything about it short of war.

Any way that is my 2-cents (and Please no Jokes about its “true worth”). By the way congrats on recognizing the origin of my web-name, most people have forgotten or never knew the first major war of the 20th century.

Braintree you sure know how to make a guy feel welcome, but I do appreciate the response over the rant. As for the two questions at hand:

  1. My first question was “Has there been any further info on this?” referring to the missing year in the presidents records. This request was due to the condition you mentioned in you original post aka there has been no mention of this in the media for the last couple years since the election. The people I work will who would seem to care the most; ex-military, and more importantly Vietnam vets did not believe the story. This has led most people I know to dismiss it. That’s why I asked my question. I’m here at this web site to try to learn the truth (which is by the way the purpose of the site). Facts and information on the matter (such as the site forwarded) are very likely to change my mind on the subject (I try to keep an open mind in all things). Statements like “treating Admiraltogo… to the deconstruction his response deserves" tends to close minds and detour the quest for the truth.
  1. As for the second question about Saudi Arabia. I have never doubted that there is a ground swell of anti-American (more properly anti-western) feeling. I have had several first hand reports from people you have worked there recently. I have also never doubted that there is widespread support for the Palestinian terrorists in this country. You would be hard pressed to find a Muslim country in the world that did not share this support (I have talked personally with people from Malaysia, Iran, and Lebanon about this). However the official position of Saudi Arabia is against such action directed at the USA (one might infer that they are more attached to “sinful” money then they let on the oil thing can work both ways). I would think this would represent an opportunity to get as diplomatically close to the Saudi’s as possible, and use their own government against these internal forces. Certainly some of the most blatant organizations channeling money to terrorist have been stopped (The state department web site http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/homepage.htm has info on this). Is the government doing enough about this? Probably not, but without Saudi help we would be hard pressed to do anything about it short of war.

Any way that is my 2-cents (and Please no Jokes about its “true worth”). By the way congrats on recognizing the origin of my web-name, most people have forgotten or never knew the first major war of the 20th century.

Braintree you sure know how to make a guy feel welcome, but I do appreciate the response over the rant. As for the two questions at hand:

  1. My first question was “Has there been any further info on this?” referring to the missing year in the presidents records. This request was due to the condition you mentioned in you original post aka there has been no mention of this in the media for the last couple years since the election. The people I work will who would seem to care the most; ex-military, and more importantly Vietnam vets did not believe the story. This has led most people I know to dismiss it. That’s why I asked my question. I’m here at this web site to try to learn the truth (which is by the way the purpose of the site). Facts and information on the matter (such as the site forwarded) are very likely to change my mind on the subject (I try to keep an open mind in all things). Statements like “treating Admiraltogo… to the deconstruction his response deserves" tends to close minds and detour the quest for the truth.
  1. As for the second question about Saudi Arabia. I have never doubted that there is a ground swell of anti-American (more properly anti-western) feeling. I have had several first hand reports from people you have worked there recently. I have also never doubted that there is widespread support for the Palestinian terrorists in this country. You would be hard pressed to find a Muslim country in the world that did not share this support (I have talked personally with people from Malaysia, Iran, and Lebanon about this). However the official position of Saudi Arabia is against such action directed at the USA (one might infer that they are more attached to “sinful” money then they let on the oil thing can work both ways). I would think this would represent an opportunity to get as diplomatically close to the Saudi’s as possible, and use their own government against these internal forces. Certainly some of the most blatant organizations channeling money to terrorist have been stopped (The state department web site http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/homepage.htm has info on this). Is the government doing enough about this? Probably not, but without Saudi help we would be hard pressed to do anything about it short of war.

Any way that is my 2-cents (and Please no Jokes about its “true worth”). By the way congrats on recognizing the origin of my web-name, most people have forgotten or never knew the first major war of the 20th century.

Wow,

3-times the post for the same low cost!

By the way that was an accident.

Admiraltogo,

My apologies. I took you for a Dittohead. Dittoheads are notorious for trying to sow confusion by mistating facts and using distraction and I mistakenly took that as your game. I have found that an agressive stance with such persons works best for me. I tend to heartily dislike overly enthusiastic partisans no matter what their political stripe. My instincts are usually good as to who’s got lights in their eyes but they failed me in this case. And you know how people are about Bill Clinton. So sorry.

But about the Saudis. I still don’t think you’ve fully got my idea here. The official government policy may be that terrorism is bad but they also teach in their public schools that we Americans are infidels who are going to burn in hell and that it’s OK to despise and even kill infidels. I could go on. There are dozens of examples of the Saudi government being our natural enemies if it wasn’t for all that damn oil. But the point is: a government or part of a government can talk one way and act another when it thinks a certain party isn’t looking. Part of a government may sincerely want to avoid acts of terrorism but if other parts of the same government decides it doesn’t care what the official policy is, they’re going to attack us anyway then the internal politics of that government become a moot point. That government is not our friend, it’s our enemy. Please consider that no one has been thrown in jail in Saudi Arabia over 911, no one has been disgraced. No one has been punished. Doesn’t exactly smell like a housecleaning, does it?

As for december: Customarilly, one does not get credit for serving in the army if one becomes a deserter. NO ONE remembers ever seeing George Bush show up for his reassignment including especailly his commanding officer. Since GWB’s father was the US Ambassador to the UN at the time and the former Congressional Represenative of Texas’ 7th district, doncha think somebody woulda kinda remembered his pressence? Isn’t it highly unusual that nobody does? If you can find us a witness to GWB’s service please provide him.

Really, Junior, if obsfucation’s your game you’ve got just so much to learn.

Oh, and one more thing: For what it’s worth, Al Gore, who you may recall was the guy GWD actually ran against, not only completed his tour of duty in front of witnesses and everything, he served in Viet Nam. That’s considerably more dangerous than blowing off the war as some fly boy in Texas even if one isn’t a deserter.

Bush supporters don’t have to find a witness. The burden of proof falls on those making the serious charge of “deserter.” The fact that people don’t remember something that happened 30 years ago isn’t enough to create a prima facie case.

A little historical perspective, the National Guard was well known during the Viet Nam war as an, [although not foolproof](http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/guard101-callups.asp#1968-1969 USS Pueblo/ Vietnam), alternative to serving in combat. The others being enlistment in a non-combat field in another of a branch of service than the Marines or Army, or student deferment.

"Bush supporters don’t have to find a witness. The burden of proof falls on those making the serious charge of “deserter.”

Au contraire, Junior. The burden of proof falls on those who are making the most questionable claim. You are claiming nothing less than that the future President of the United States and then son of the US Ambassodor the the UN reported to duty for what was supposed to be an 18-month hitch and that NOBODY REMEMBERS HE DID.

And don’t forget, President Bush owes almost everything he has to his family connections and his immense skills as a glad-hander — and nobody remembers if he was there?

Puh-leeze! I can’t imagine anyone but the most extreme and self-delusional Dittohead buying that one. What a pathetically weak attempt to confuse the issue!

I think somebody’s been listening to a little too much Rush Limbaugh.

Anything’s possible, my friend. But, there are many conceivable explanations for a lack of memory other than desertion. Don’t forget that Bush was just one of thousands of soldiers. Nobody then knew that he would become President or that his father would become President. If you were a juror, would you convict a defendant based on the “evidence” that nobody remembers what happened?

Furthermore, the presumption ought to be that if he had deserted or gone AWOL for months, he would have been disciplined. That would have been in his record. So, not only do you have no positive evidence of Bush’s alleged crimes, you also have to postulate a cover-up. And, you have to postulate that those perpetrating the cover-up have forgotten about it or they are still lying today. Occam’s razor cuts this argument to shreds.