# Bush insults those making the supreme sacrifice.



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 15, 2003)

Seems ol 'W' is more concerned with fund raising and flag waving than paying proper respect to those he and his buddies have sent to fight and die.

First he pushes through a cut in veterans benefits, Then a cut in combat pay, and now this.  Must be nice to not have a heart...or soul.  If this is an example of good Christian values, then color me glad I'm not one.

:soapbox:



> *Spinning in their graves *
> 
> November 15, 2003
> 
> ...



and



> *Bush Ignores Soldiers' Burials*
> 
> By Christopher Scheer, AlterNet
> October 30, 2003
> ...


----------



## Ender (Nov 15, 2003)

oh real good...can't come up with your own opinion so you get one from some penny ante web site..*LOL....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 15, 2003)

Heh. Naw, the info I got from several other sites...those 2 just had the better articles.

I've -always- thought W was/is a putz.

I thought that regardless of who won the last election, both the Dems and the Reps. fronted bad candidates.

This stuff however just keeps confirming it.  

On the lighter side of things.... W is in the running for the Guiness Book for "Most coverups in a year".

I believe Bill Gates is currently in the lead though.


----------



## pknox (Nov 15, 2003)

This makes me completely sick.  And so close to Veteran's Day -- takes real chutzpa on his part. 

Ya know, if I were Wesley Clark, I might just use this.  Imagine the commercial:

Screen cut in 1/2 vertically - one side a picture of W landing that jet on the aircraft carrier, one side black. 

In bold white print on the black side, talk about how many soldiers have been killed since the conflict in Iraq was "downsized."  List all the goals that W planned to accomplish.  Then list the ones that were actually successful (pretty much a blank screen).  Talk about the $87 billion he wants.  Change to picture showing W in his flight suit and his goofy grin.

Change to a picture of a flag-draped coffin, and run info from the articles Kaith posted.  Talk about how our "veteran", "pro-military" prez has screwed those men and women who gave their lives for our freedom.

Change to a picture of W in his national guard jet, "defending the homefront" (I didn't realize Texas was such a strategic target back then.)  After 2 or so seconds, show Wesley Clark in his full regalia.

Let people make their choice.


----------



## Ender (Nov 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *Heh. Naw, the info I got from several other sites...those 2 just had the better articles.
> 
> I've -always- thought W was/is a putz.
> ...



try using some critcal thinking next time....the ban on cameras has been in place for over 12 years...*L

Clinton used the re-patriations as a photo op...many of the families requested he not be there, the policy was set up for families of the deceased and THEY can invite the media if THEY choose. but who cares what the families want right?....now THAT is disgusting.

and then we have Maxine Waters decrying that GW doesn't attend all the funerals....funny how 3 people die EVERY night in her district from shootings, but why doesn't she attend those funerals???

do some analysis without the slant and maybe what you post might have some credibility.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 15, 2003)

You may be right.  (I haven't had a chance to dig as much as I'd prefer).

Even if so, does that really excuse the cuts in benefits and pay?  Especially when every year congress seems to vote itself a pay raise?

I do include Clinton (and her husband) in the 'Putz List'.  


It may be a 12 yr old ban.  The point is, this is the largest military operation in a decade.  We are asking these men and women to sacrifice and die.  Don't they deserve a more respectful treatment?  

Clinton and W both have issues with military service...I believe 1 was a draft doger, the other AWOL. 

We are also not talking about random civilian deaths.  Now, are those 3 deaths every night average joes, or are they cops, firefighters and other service personel?


----------



## Mithios (Nov 17, 2003)

Good point's!! I had not heard some of this.   Mithios


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2003)

1 thing:  Some of the information I post may be in error.  It is what I can find though.  If anyone has information that will prove this wrong or correct, please post it.  

Thanks.


----------



## Moonknife (Nov 17, 2003)

Good post!  Lot of things to think about.  Thanks

M


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 17, 2003)

One other thought ... the 'So-Called-Liberal-Media' is doing a great job reporting on the 7 or 8 injured soldiers for every death. Well over 2000 soldiers have been 'injured' .. but I have only heard a couple of stories about this .. and just one report from Walter Reed.

but 'injured' is such a nice, pleasant word for what happens to these guys. The injuries are often the result of Rocket Propelled Grenades blasting through the transport vehicles during an ambush. ... and then the rocket part of the weapon will rip through an arm or leg.  The other day .. I read a truly scary story from a solder who suffered such an attack.

Of course, for only those attacks that result in at least 1 death are the number of injured reported in the media. If nobody dies, we don't hear about it.

And ... from the 'We live in a great country' department. Our battlefield medical techniques have improved to the point that far more injured are saved.. (there is this neat little packet of a powder that clots the blood almost immediately) ... and those who do lose a leg, or an arm, do get the very best prosthesis available .. as well as extensive instruction on how to live with the device.

I know this post rambled a bit ... oh, well.

Mike


----------



## pknox (Nov 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *And ... from the 'We live in a great country' department. Our battlefield medical techniques have improved to the point that far more injured are saved.. (there is this neat little packet of a powder that clots the blood almost immediately)*



I actually saw that on "Tactical to Practical" on the History Channel, a few months back.  Very cool stuff, and according to the program, it is supposedly going to be available for civilian use shortly.


----------



## ABN (Nov 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pknox _
> *  After 2 or so seconds, show Wesley Clark in his full regalia.
> Let people make their choice. *




After you see Clark in his regalia, read what fellow officers he served with, over, and under have to say about him. You'll find a repetetive theme that centers around his lack of professionalism and integrity. Personally I would have no problem with a former military man running for office, just definitely not Clark. This man ain't no Eisenhower. 


Regards,

andy


----------



## pknox (Nov 17, 2003)

True.  But he ain't no W either, and that may just be enough.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ABN _
> *After you see Clark in his regalia, read what fellow officers he served with, over, and under have to say about him. You'll find a repetetive theme that centers around his lack of professionalism and integrity. Personally I would have no problem with a former military man running for office, just definitely not Clark. This man ain't no Eisenhower.
> 
> 
> ...


If Clark was such a charleton how the hell did he make General. I think these people popping out of the woodwork to bash him are just rallying for their lame political agendas, Why didn't they complain to whomever would listen as he went up through the ranks? How do you know he aint no Ike anyway?


----------



## pknox (Nov 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *If Clark was such a charleton how the hell did he make General. I think these people popping out of the woodwork to bash him are just rallying for their lame political agendas, Why didn't they complain to whomever would listen as he went up through the ranks? How do you know he aint no Ike anyway? *



Possibly.  However, if the claims are true, I think the key phrase there is "whomever would listen" -- if the man was on the fast track for Generalship, getting in his way may have been akin to career suicide.  Few people would want to take that chance.  I also don't believe he would be the first General who had made enemies along the way.  Even if the complaints are true, that doesn't necessarily mean he's a bad guy.  It just may mean that his detractors are more vocal than his supporters.  The military can be very political - especially when you start getting to the higher ranks, where promotions become much more competitive.  If he has done some truly nasty stuff, don't worry -- I'm sure the Republican powers-that-be will dig it up and tell us about it. 

Either way, the real question is whether or not he is a better alternative than what we have now.  If he's Ike or not doesn't really matter - it's whether or not he's good enough to do the job.  Unfortunately, I don't think our present leader is.  But that's just my opinion.  Next November is a long way away - let's see how it shakes out.


----------



## ABN (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *If Clark was such a charleton how the hell did he make General. I think these people popping out of the woodwork to bash him are just rallying for their lame political agendas, Why didn't they complain to whomever would listen as he went up through the ranks? How do you know he aint no Ike anyway? *



   You'd be amazed at how politicized the upper echelons of the military became after the Clinton administration moved into power. (remember stress cards, don't ask don't tell etc. if you didn't play by the rules you were gone) Many "warfighters" were quietly eased out into retirement (such as the current CoS Army GEN Schoomaker) while many corporatists moved in. Why didn't anyone complain as he moved up? It all depends on who you have watching out for you. In some ways, the conventional military can be a "go along to get along" and "don't rock the boat" environment. Alliances are forged over careers and people look out for each other. Clark was also aided by the fact that he was from Arkansas and had been a Rhodes scholar. (sound familiar?)

   Regarding the commentary made by other retired Generals, I don't think there is any political motivation behind it whatsoever. Schwarzkopf declined the Chief of Staff's job because he had no desire to play politics. Hugh Shelton and Clark were contemporaries who served as Generals under the same administration. Shelton also has no political agenda. Also if a General had problems with another Generals policies or views they usually remain quiet about it, however when you hear things such as issues of integrity being raised by several senior officers about another, that should raise more red flags than a May Day parade.

   How do I know he ain't no Ike? take a look at his handling of the Bosnia/Kosovo campaign. He literally hugged and traded hats with Ratko Mladic (Serb indicted for war crimes) and made several intelligence gaffes (remember the tomahawk that hit the Chinese embassy? Old Wes went on faulty intel that was not verified by secondary sources, which is SOP,before ordering the strike). His lack of discipline and following orders of the civillian National Comand Authority was so bad that he had to have both a DOD and State Department representative with him at all times to keep him from spouting off and trying to make his own policy. It's pretty bad when you can infuriate both DOD and State at the same time. finally he was so incompetent that he had to be relieved by Clinton. Now that's bad. I also have had the oportunity to talk with several friends who have done Bosnia and KFOR missions from the inception of the operation until now. Collectively they all had nothing good to say about Clark. Many people said the same things he wouldn't act on solid intelligence, acted rashly on poor intel, he would take credit for the accomplishments of others but, was quick to delegate blame for his mistakes. As an NCO I can tell you that is the worst kind of officer to have to serve under. Now that he's retired and I'd no longer fall under his orders, I wouldn't follow him to heaven.
   His waffling on "I loved him then, I don't love him now that I'm running" in regard to the current administration just shows how opportunistic a man he is.

Regards, 

andy


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 18, 2003)

I just read this article ... http://slate.msn.com/id/2091194/  ... and it seems to relate to several of your thoughts. 

For instance, if General Shelton thinks that General Clark has some integrity issues, it is unfair to make the charge without backing it up with facts, (If it is an opinion of the man, that's different, opinions are like @$$holes <g>) especially if these integrity issues would somehow be relevant to being President.

According to the article, Secretary Cohen was responsible for General Clark's dismissal. President Clinton signed the order thinking it was a normal succession order.

But for me, the silliest phrase in your post is ...



> acted rashly on poor intel



Wow .. where have we seen that recently ?

Peace ... Mike


----------



## ABN (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *
> 
> But for me, the silliest phrase in your post is ... "acted rashly on poor intel."
> ...




TOUCHE! Sir, my head is bloody but unbowed. Very good point. We could definitely have a good thread about that. 

   One thing to consider about why Shelton didn't mention specific facts is the possibility that some of them could be sensitive (such as deals being made during the Bosnia campaigns for some Serbs to be left alone for hypothetical example). food for thought...

andy


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 18, 2003)

Oh yeah, the old we can't talk about it but trust us he's not right for the job.


----------



## Ender (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *You may be right.  (I haven't had a chance to dig as much as I'd prefer).
> 
> Even if so, does that really excuse the cuts in benefits and pay?  Especially when every year congress seems to vote itself a pay raise?
> ...




The ban was put in at the request of the families and the military to give them privacy ..pure and simple. if they wish to invite the media. they are free do to so. ...but, it has been the policy of the Bush administration to hand write a letter each each of the fallen, and to not politicize these deaths as many try to do. i beleive that is the best course to take in my opinion.

again with the AWOL?..come on now, you're just parroting the media.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 18, 2003)

Ok, if he wasn't AWOL, what was he?  I've seen no information to contradict the claim.

I agree with the privacy issues, and wasn't aware that there were letters being sent. I agree, best not to politisize their sacrifices.

:asian:


----------



## ABN (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Oh yeah, the old we can't talk about it but trust us he's not right for the job. *



Like I said, if that many fellow senior officers raise questions concerning your integrity and you have a record that is spotty, it's bound to raise some questions. Others have also raised questions concerning his actions while NATO commander and prior. check out

http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html 

You can also check out http://www.counterpunch.org/clark.html 

and
http://www.drudgereport.com/clark.htm 

and finally:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/969047.asp?cp1=1 

   These are a few different articles from various orgs of varying political stripes. It's a rather multi-partisan prism through which to see Clark.

   Something else of interest. When John Kerry, Bob Dole, and John McCain announced that they were running, guys from their old units flocked around them to endorse them. Why hasn't the same thing happened to Clark? There's something to be said for the fact that the men you led won't back you up...there's got to be a reason for it, and it's not political.

Regards,

andy


----------



## Phil Elmore (Nov 18, 2003)

*Politics as Personal Security Risk*


----------



## pknox (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ABN _
> *Something else of interest. When John Kerry, Bob Dole, and John McCain announced that they were running, guys from their old units flocked around them to endorse them. Why hasn't the same thing happened to Clark? There's something to be said for the fact that the men you led won't back you up...there's got to be a reason for it, and it's not political.
> *



Excellent point.  While that does indeed raise a red flag in my eyes as well, I wouldn't definitively say it's not political.  I would go so far as to say it "may very well not be political", or even that it's "not likely", but it's hard to guess at other people's motives, and often dangerous to assume we know the reasons behind their actions.  If some of these people are still in the military, or associated with it in some way, they may simply have too much to lose by speaking up - especially if what they say is perceived as going against the current administration.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ABN _
> *You'd be amazed at how politicized the upper echelons of the military became after the Clinton administration moved into power. *



Hmmm.  My recollection is that the military didn't need Clinton to become politicized. 

Political game play starts out at the company level and extends all the way to the Pentagon.  I saw two excellent captains (and good friends from when I was in the FMF) take hits and get "shot out of the saddle" (read career ruined) because of the machinations of one particularly ruthless colonel.  This was duing the Reagan years.

The game was always there.  There is political shuffling and infighting under Rumsfeld.  People get sacked if it turns out they've aligned with the wrong guy.  It goes with the territory.

Ugly stuff.  I hate it.

Regards,


Steve Scott


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 19, 2003)

Yeah, I agree. It's always remarkable, when people claim that Bill Clinton invented things like politics...same old nonsense as calling lefties, "politically correct," as though a) lefties didn't invent the phrase, "politically correct," as a criticism of holier-than-thou lefties, and b) centrists, conservatives and right-wingers had no politics. 

It's worth taking a gander at Bruce Catton's books on the Civil War--guys like Hooker and McClelland and Ben Butler didn't get where they were without politicians. Or look at Dugout Doug MacArthur, who referred to himself in the third person, got us into all sorts of trouble in Korea, and finally got thrown out for insubordination. Or Alexander Haig (who continued a proud tradition of loopiness and incompetence begun by his famous WWI namesake), or...

It wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out that Gen. Clark's a little--well--let's just say less-than-heroic. It's one of the reasons I wouldn't vote for him. However, one kinda nice thing we can say about old Bill is that at least HE was embarassed by his perfectly-legal draft-ducking when he dealt with the military.  More than can be said for Dubya, with his--let's just say, "spotty," Texas ANG record--and his landing on carriers, then his staff lying for no reason about the banners. 

I heard an interresting argument the other day, though, about why it is that Democrats look like idiots riding in tanks, etc., and Republicans usually don't...the claim was that flag-waving comes natural to one party, and the other is always thinking--as I do--that they really shouldn't be doing this.

Then too, there's the way folks like John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, and that Georgia Congressmaan--was it Max Cleland? ex-Vet's Affairs head? in a wheelchair, lost both legs and an arm in war--get assaulted by Republicans and nut-cases...


----------



## ABN (Nov 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hardheadjarhead _
> *Hmmm.  My recollection is that the military didn't need Clinton to become politicized.
> 
> Political game play starts out at the company level and extends all the way to the Pentagon.  I saw two excellent captains (and good friends from when I was in the FMF) take hits and get "shot out of the saddle" (read career ruined) because of the machinations of one particularly ruthless colonel.  This was duing the Reagan years.
> ...




Steve you are absolutely right. The reasons I used the Clinton presidency as a benchmark are:

1. This was an administration that attempted to force feed sociological changes to the military in the interest of political expediency (i.e Clinton's attempt to remove the ban on homosexuals which was diluted into the even more ridiculous don't ask don't tell policy.) and not in the interests of society and the country as a whole (Truman's integration of the armed forces).

2. This also coincides with the time period that I enlisted (1992) so it's from that period on that I have had personal experience with the military as a member and have seen, and/or been subject to, or affected by the various changes that have occured.

   RMC, excellent reference to the Civil War and the Union's (and to a much lesser extent the Confederacy's) problem with political generals. Catons books are incredible and I recommend that anyone who can visit at least one Civil War battlefield in their lifetime (Antietam and Gettysburg are quite moving) The more I see of politics though, the more I wonder why anyone with a professional military background would want to get involved in anything involving an election. Then again what the hell do I know, I'm just an NCO who still likes to break things....


regards,

andy


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 19, 2003)

Harry Truman force-fed sweeping social change to the military, too, precisely in order to step up changes in American society, when he ordered integration. 

Americans have ALWAYS started many social changes in the military. For example, the sad fact is that today, the military is FAR more egalitarian in terms of gender, race and class than any other aspect of American society--certainly it's fairer even than the educational system...

We're just arguing over which changes we want, and which we don't. It's disingenous and ideological to pretend that the OTHER side is playing these games, and WE would never do that, perish forbid...


----------



## ABN (Nov 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *. Americans have ALWAYS started many social changes in the military. For example, the sad fact is that today, the military is FAR more egalitarian in terms of gender, race and class than any other aspect of American society--certainly it's fairer even than the educational system...*




You reminded me of something I heard while watching a very large Hispanic Drill SGT give shock treatment to a bunch of new recruits fresh off the cattle car at Benning, it was something like "Here we practice affirmative action. When I tell you to do something, you answer in the affirmative and get into action..."

  Every political party and administration has an agenda, some more popular that others. Some do immense harm some do immense good. Somehow though, we manage to live through them and hoepfully continue to grow as a nation.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 19, 2003)

> You'd be amazed at how politicized the upper echelons of the military became after the Clinton administration moved into power.



Let me say this, about that. ...

... but first a few words from your sponsor ... I am a very left liberal. I mean way over there. Most people think I am a nut. I voted for Nader in the last election, and I live in New Hampshire, where every Gore vote was important. (I think it was less than a 2000 voter difference between Gore and Bush) .... OK .... that's enough of a disclaimer.

When you listen to the right wing media ... Imus (center-right), O'Reilly (right-right), Limbaugh (right-right-right), Jay Severins (right-right-right- He's local Boston) , *they want to blame everything on Bill Clinton.*  Hell, today, Bill O'Reilly was linking together the Michael Jackson Neverland Ranch search and arrest warrants to Bill and Hillary Clinton (connected via a private investigator).

Now, this is not to say that there are not some places where it would be legitimate to hold Bill Clinton accountable kinda like holding Ronald Reagan accountable for Iran-Contra but, let's be clear about our arguements. 

I think using the name 'Clinton' is incendiary, and it is designed to be. Similarly, using the name 'Reagan' seems to have taken on a meaning of high patriotic beliefs. 

Thanks for letting me rant.

Mike


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 19, 2003)

> Hell, today, Bill O'Reilly was linking together the Michael Jackson Neverland Ranch search and arrest warrants to Bill and Hillary Clinton (connected via a private investigator).



<groan!>

I agree.  Anytime anybody criticizes this administration somebody pipes up, "Hey, when Bill Clinton was in office....!"

Bill Clinton ISN'T in office.  Bush IS.  Bill Clinton, at present, is powerless to do anything about anything.  Bush is not.  I rather admire Bush for sticking to his guns amidst much criticism.  He doesn't lay any of this on Clinton.  I can't say the same for the political pundits who are his advocates.

I'm not defending Clinton here.  I have my problems with Clinton.  Its Clinton's fault my back went out in 1993.  If it weren't for him, I'd be leaner.  I can directly attribute fourteen of my character faults to his dishonesty and incompetency as President.  He was an awful role model for me as an adult male...I can't seem to stay away from cigars.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## ABN (Nov 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hardheadjarhead _
> [BBush is not.  I rather admire Bush for sticking to his guns amidst much criticism.  [/B]



   As I drift further OT, did anyone see/hear Bush's speech in the UK? It was interesting to see him put the UN on the spot and compare it to the old League of Nations. It was also interesting to see 16,000 police officers standing by to deal with 200 protesters.

andy


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hardheadjarhead _
> *<groan!>
> 
> I agree.  Anytime anybody criticizes this administration somebody pipes up, "Hey, when Bill Clinton was in office....!"
> ...


Ha Ha, I've been thinking about taking them up. Chicks dig a Humidor. Some more than others.:rofl:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 20, 2003)

TOD...

Well, I can say that I practice safe sex when it comes to cigars.  I always leave the wrapper on.

Steve


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 28, 2003)

CNN report on how casulties are handled.  It adds a different perspective on my initial posting, plus confirms some things I believe others have stated.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/11/28/sprj.irq.dreaded.visit.ap/index.html


> How families learn of military deaths in Iraq
> 'I knew they weren't coming to recruit anyone'
> Friday, November 28, 2003 Posted: 10:32 PM EST (0332 GMT)
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 29, 2003)

I can't wait until next November!  Lets have a recal!!!!  We gotta be able to dig up a buffed up actor and washed up professional wrestler somewhere!!!!  

With all of the radical things our president is pushing right now, I think that we may be looking back on these times in the future and wonder what the hell we were thinking.  It's nearly impossible to convince conservatives of this though.  The propaganda has too strong of a lock.  Unfortunately it may be one of those situations where you just hold on and try to live with it.

PS - I have an unemployment form on my fridge with a magnetic picture of Bush on it.  Nice reminder.  Jobless recovery!!!!!!!


----------

