| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2004 03:55:25 PM |
| Object: |
There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
I was in college during the Gulf War and I can still remember the professors in my "War,
Peace, Justice and Human Survival" class telling us that we might be drafted to make up
for the 100,000 casualties that we could sustain fighting the ferocious, battle hardened
Iraqis in what would surely be another Vietnam. Being a dopey college kid, I totally
bought into what they were saying and mentally prepared myself to go fight and maybe die
in the "big sandy" if my country called on me. However, now that we're more than a
decade out from the Gulf War, we all know that the US laid a beatdown for the ages on
Iraq that will probably be studied in military academies on the moon 100 years from now.
But, since we're locked in a global war on terror that doesn't look like it will be over
anytime soon, we're again hearing hysterical left-wingers claiming that there's going to
be another draft. Here's someone named Michael Lenz hitting all the high spots of the
paranoid "the BushHitler is going to draft you for his Haliburton oil war" argument...
"(T)he Defense Department has called on volunteers to sit on local draft boards. Could
the re-emergence of the draft be just around the corner?
....Despite our Marines’ complaints of fatigue (and rightly so) and the realization that
American troops are indeed stretched to capacity around the globe, it appears unlikely
that President Bush would reinstate a national draft before the 2004 presidential
election.
Arguably, such a maneuver would damage the president’s chances for re-election. However,
if the violence does not subside within the next year and an escalation of conflict
ensues, President Bush, assuming he wins election, might very well incorporate the draft
into his post-war strategy.
....Daniel Ellsberg, a former employee for the Defense Department who leaked the Pentagon
Papers to The New York Times and Washington Post, spoke at Amherst College and noted the
likelihood of a future draft.
"If President Bush is re-elected, it is likely that he will reinstate the draft. The war
on terrorism will not end in Iraq, but instead will proceed into countries like Syria
and Iran," said Ellsberg."
Ok, let's run the gauntlet here shall we? First off, contrary to the impression some
people are being given, the draft boards aren't doing anything out of the ordinary.
According to the National Selective Service office, they're filling open slots like they
always do, although there are a few more open positions than usual. So there's nothing
to worry about there.
Next, whether we need anymore troops or not is debatable. Over the next few months, most
people in the know expect the number of troops in Iraq to drop significantly and there
are already large numbers of troops in other parts of the world who will be redeployed
elsewhere as we continue to close and move bases around the world. For example, there
are 40,000 troops in South Korea right now who are there because they're a security
blanket for the South Koreans, not because they're necessarily needed.
But, let's assume that we do decide that we need another few divisions, why would we not
simply recruit them? Keep in mind that 8 Army divisions were slashed during the Clinton
years, so there's no question that we can field a much larger volunteer force than we
already do. Furthermore, the military is currently hitting its recruiting goals, so we
have no reason to think that we couldn't add many, many, more volunteers if we decided
it was necessary.
Last but not least, you have to understand that a draft would be incredibly unpopular on
both sides of the aisle in anything other than the most dire of emergencies. "So what,"
you say, "that just means President Bush will wait until after he's reelected to call
for a draft". Look, it just doesn't work like that with something that would be as
unpopular as a draft. If Bush called for a draft in 2005, every Democrat across the
country would be running on it in 2006. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that
implementing the draft would probably cost the GOP the Senate and quite possibly even
the House. You think Bush is going to do that? Fat chance buddy.
So take my advice and don't sweat a draft, it's just not going to happen...
.
|
|
| User: "Server 13" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
27 Oct 2004 03:54:29 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
I was in college during the Gulf War and I can still remember the professors in my "War,
Peace, Justice and Human Survival" class telling us that we might be drafted to make up
for the 100,000 casualties that we could sustain fighting the ferocious, battle hardened
Iraqis in what would surely be another Vietnam. Being a dopey college kid, I totally
bought into what they were saying and mentally prepared myself to go fight and maybe die
in the "big sandy" if my country called on me. However, now that we're more than a
decade out from the Gulf War, we all know that the US laid a beatdown for the ages on
Iraq that will probably be studied in military academies on the moon 100 years from now.
But, since we're locked in a global war on terror that doesn't look like it will be over
anytime soon, we're again hearing hysterical left-wingers claiming that there's going to
be another draft. Here's someone named Michael Lenz hitting all the high spots of the
paranoid "the BushHitler is going to draft you for his Haliburton oil war" argument...
"(T)he Defense Department has called on volunteers to sit on local draft boards. Could
the re-emergence of the draft be just around the corner?
...Despite our Marines’ complaints of fatigue (and rightly so) and the realization that
American troops are indeed stretched to capacity around the globe, it appears unlikely
that President Bush would reinstate a national draft before the 2004 presidential
election.
Arguably, such a maneuver would damage the president’s chances for re-election. However,
if the violence does not subside within the next year and an escalation of conflict
ensues, President Bush, assuming he wins election, might very well incorporate the draft
into his post-war strategy.
...Daniel Ellsberg, a former employee for the Defense Department who leaked the Pentagon
Papers to The New York Times and Washington Post, spoke at Amherst College and noted the
likelihood of a future draft.
"If President Bush is re-elected, it is likely that he will reinstate the draft. The war
on terrorism will not end in Iraq, but instead will proceed into countries like Syria
and Iran," said Ellsberg."
Ok, let's run the gauntlet here shall we? First off, contrary to the impression some
people are being given, the draft boards aren't doing anything out of the ordinary.
According to the National Selective Service office, they're filling open slots like they
always do, although there are a few more open positions than usual. So there's nothing
to worry about there.
Next, whether we need anymore troops or not is debatable. Over the next few months, most
people in the know expect the number of troops in Iraq to drop significantly and there
are already large numbers of troops in other parts of the world who will be redeployed
elsewhere as we continue to close and move bases around the world. For example, there
are 40,000 troops in South Korea right now who are there because they're a security
blanket for the South Koreans, not because they're necessarily needed.
But, let's assume that we do decide that we need another few divisions, why would we not
simply recruit them? Keep in mind that 8 Army divisions were slashed during the Clinton
years, so there's no question that we can field a much larger volunteer force than we
already do. Furthermore, the military is currently hitting its recruiting goals, so we
have no reason to think that we couldn't add many, many, more volunteers if we decided
it was necessary.
Last but not least, you have to understand that a draft would be incredibly unpopular on
both sides of the aisle in anything other than the most dire of emergencies. "So what,"
you say, "that just means President Bush will wait until after he's reelected to call
for a draft". Look, it just doesn't work like that with something that would be as
unpopular as a draft. If Bush called for a draft in 2005, every Democrat across the
country would be running on it in 2006. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that
implementing the draft would probably cost the GOP the Senate and quite possibly even
the House. You think Bush is going to do that? Fat chance buddy.
So take my advice and don't sweat a draft, it's just not going to happen...
Unless one of about a dozen things changes. lol
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
27 Oct 2004 06:36:29 PM |
|
|
In our last thrilling episode, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> was pushed
over the cliffs of alt.conspiracy on Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:55:25 GMT by
Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
I was in college during the Gulf War
Funny, I was in the Gulf War during the Gulf War.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
27 Oct 2004 07:44:22 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:e7c0o0d6i39l97qm66h35ipvkp78qd1kt2@4ax.com...
In our last thrilling episode, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> was pushed
over the cliffs of alt.conspiracy on Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:55:25 GMT by
Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
I was in college during the Gulf War
Funny, I was in the Gulf War during the Gulf War.
Damn....
That's gonna leave a nasty red mark.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alexandre" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
27 Oct 2004 08:28:59 PM |
|
|
Of course there won't be a "Bush draft!"
He would come across as too hypocritical, inasmuch as our brave President
joined the Air National Guard in order to avoid real military service during
a time that America was at war. Typical bully, picking on those weaker than
him as long as he can't be hurt. Starting up a draft would only bring that
to light.
--
Excerpt from "What is A Liberal" Speech by John F Kennedy -- Sept. 14, 1960
=============================================================
I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in
human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart
as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as
the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith
in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the
heart of the liberal faith.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
28 Oct 2004 02:56:45 AM |
|
|
"Alexandre" <alias@hidden.now> wrote
Of course there won't be a "Bush draft!"
If Bush gets away with stealing office again, there will be
a Bush draft.
He would come across as too hypocritical,
What, the draft-dodger-turned-deserter who coward behind his
smearboat campaign as they slandered a decorated war hero?
Please. If it weren't for double standards Bush would have no
standards....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
28 Oct 2004 11:13:09 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:M_KdnTtcaewrOR3cRVn-3g@comcast.com:
"Alexandre" <alias@hidden.now> wrote
Of course there won't be a "Bush draft!"
If Bush gets away with stealing office again, there will be
a Bush draft.
I think you mean, "If Bush steals the election it will be the first time
he has done so."
He would come across as too hypocritical,
What, the draft-dodger-turned-deserter
Explain how joining the military is dodging the draft.
who coward behind his smearboat campaign as they slandered a decorated
war hero?
Bush has nothing to do with the SBVT. Unless you want to admit that Kerry
is behind all the 527s smearing Bush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
28 Oct 2004 05:17:37 PM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
If Bush gets away with stealing office again, there will be
a Bush draft.
I think you mean,
Nobody has ever doubted what you "think". Only your sanity is
in question.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
27 Oct 2004 10:47:50 PM |
|
|
"Alexandre" <alias@hidden.now> wrote in
news:2ub0asF27knujU1@uni-berlin.de:
Of course there won't be a "Bush draft!"
He would come across as too hypocritical, inasmuch as our brave
President joined the Air National Guard in order to avoid real military
service during a time that America was at war.
Serving in the Air National Guard *is* real military service, dumbass.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
28 Oct 2004 03:00:49 AM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Serving in the Air National Guard *is* real military service,
dumbass.
While deserting your unit at a time of war is serving yourself!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
27 Oct 2004 10:53:32 PM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:GZZfd.10561$233.2530@okepread05...
"Alexandre" <alias@hidden.now> wrote in
news:2ub0asF27knujU1@uni-berlin.de:
Of course there won't be a "Bush draft!"
He would come across as too hypocritical, inasmuch as our brave
President joined the Air National Guard in order to avoid real military
service during a time that America was at war.
Serving in the Air National Guard *is* real military service, dumbass.
Yes it is "real" military service. Why do some of these people try to put
down
those who serve?
I am sure you and I know why, it is based solely on their political
preference. If Bush was a Democrat they would be praising him. He is
Republican, so they nit pick. Simple matter of them showing their bigotry.
It is sad actually since so many of these liberals proclaim themselves as
being so much better than others, and speaking out against issues like
bigotry and racism...when I see so many of them display their bigotry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
27 Oct 2004 10:56:18 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:nIWdncv5rfEO8R3cRVn-ig@comcast.com:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:GZZfd.10561$233.2530@okepread05...
"Alexandre" <alias@hidden.now> wrote in
news:2ub0asF27knujU1@uni-berlin.de:
Of course there won't be a "Bush draft!"
He would come across as too hypocritical, inasmuch as our brave
President joined the Air National Guard in order to avoid real
military service during a time that America was at war.
Serving in the Air National Guard *is* real military service, dumbass.
Yes it is "real" military service. Why do some of these people try to
put down those who serve? I am sure you and I know why, it is based
solely on their political preference. If Bush was a Democrat they would
be praising him. He is Republican, so they nit pick. Simple matter of
them showing their bigotry. It is sad actually since so many of these
liberals proclaim themselves as being so much better than others, and
speaking out against issues like bigotry and racism...when I see so many
of them display their bigotry.
Where were Bush's critics when draft dodging Clinton was running for president?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
28 Oct 2004 03:07:09 AM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
Where were Bush's critics when draft dodging
Clinton was running for president?
1) Clinton was against the war, Bush was a (chicken) hawk.
2) Clinton did not break any laws or violate any oaths of
service, while Bush did both.
3) Clinton didn't lie about what he did, Bush has never told
the truth.
4) Clinton never smeared his Republican opponents, both
of whom served valiantly. Bush hired Nixon's thug -- John
O'Neill -- to smear John Kerry's military record.
You're comparing "not serving" to "dishonorable service."
You are a pig.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
27 Oct 2004 11:04:19 PM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:C5_fd.10563$233.9596@okepread05...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:nIWdncv5rfEO8R3cRVn-ig@comcast.com:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:GZZfd.10561$233.2530@okepread05...
"Alexandre" <alias@hidden.now> wrote in
news:2ub0asF27knujU1@uni-berlin.de:
Of course there won't be a "Bush draft!"
He would come across as too hypocritical, inasmuch as our brave
President joined the Air National Guard in order to avoid real
military service during a time that America was at war.
Serving in the Air National Guard *is* real military service, dumbass.
Yes it is "real" military service. Why do some of these people try to
put down those who serve? I am sure you and I know why, it is based
solely on their political preference. If Bush was a Democrat they would
be praising him. He is Republican, so they nit pick. Simple matter of
them showing their bigotry. It is sad actually since so many of these
liberals proclaim themselves as being so much better than others, and
speaking out against issues like bigotry and racism...when I see so many
of them display their bigotry.
Where were Bush's critics when draft dodging Clinton was running for
president?
Praising Clinton of course.
You know what strikes me the most out of this whole election year. Prior to
Kerry winning the nomination, no one ever spoke of Kerry. He was a nobody.
These lib's were thinking that Gephart was going to get the nomination and
they were trailing along on his coattails praising him for a while. Then it
looked like Howard Dean was going to win it, then they jumped off of
Gephart's bandwagon and hopped on his. They didn't know what to do with
Edwards or Kerry just yet so they were playing it safe. If Al Sharpton was
winning they would switch to his bandwagon and praise him.
Well Kerry won, and they all jumped on his bandwagon. Suddenly, these Kerry
supporters come out of the woods, talking about his whole life history. As
if they have known Kerry all along.
It is so funny watching these lib's praise people they don't even know, all
because they feel that he is the one that can defeat a republican. They
don't vote for the "person", they vote for the party. Kind of sad actually.
I have looked very hard to find one single person willing to come forth and
stake their name for the record and publicly show they have confidence in
John Kerry. Not one of them is willing to do that, showing that even they
don't have the confidence that Kerry is the best man for the job.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
27 Oct 2004 11:04:40 PM |
|
|
In article <kaSdncF7puuL8h3cRVn-oA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:C5_fd.10563$233.9596@okepread05...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:nIWdncv5rfEO8R3cRVn-ig@comcast.com:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:GZZfd.10561$233.2530@okepread05...
"Alexandre" <alias@hidden.now> wrote in
news:2ub0asF27knujU1@uni-berlin.de:
Of course there won't be a "Bush draft!"
He would come across as too hypocritical, inasmuch as our brave
President joined the Air National Guard in order to avoid real
military service during a time that America was at war.
Serving in the Air National Guard *is* real military service, dumbass.
Yes it is "real" military service. Why do some of these people try to
put down those who serve? I am sure you and I know why, it is based
solely on their political preference. If Bush was a Democrat they would
be praising him. He is Republican, so they nit pick. Simple matter of
them showing their bigotry. It is sad actually since so many of these
liberals proclaim themselves as being so much better than others, and
speaking out against issues like bigotry and racism...when I see so many
of them display their bigotry.
Where were Bush's critics when draft dodging Clinton was running for
president?
Praising Clinton of course.
He never dodged anything, you idiots.
You know what strikes me the most out of ...
Bored...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shawn Hearn" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
29 Oct 2004 02:11:33 PM |
|
|
In article <C5_fd.10563$233.9596@okepread05>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:nIWdncv5rfEO8R3cRVn-ig@comcast.com:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:GZZfd.10561$233.2530@okepread05...
"Alexandre" <alias@hidden.now> wrote in
news:2ub0asF27knujU1@uni-berlin.de:
Of course there won't be a "Bush draft!"
He would come across as too hypocritical, inasmuch as our brave
President joined the Air National Guard in order to avoid real
military service during a time that America was at war.
Serving in the Air National Guard *is* real military service, dumbass.
Yes it is "real" military service. Why do some of these people try to
put down those who serve? I am sure you and I know why, it is based
solely on their political preference. If Bush was a Democrat they would
be praising him. He is Republican, so they nit pick. Simple matter of
them showing their bigotry. It is sad actually since so many of these
liberals proclaim themselves as being so much better than others, and
speaking out against issues like bigotry and racism...when I see so many
of them display their bigotry.
Where were Bush's critics when draft dodging Clinton was running for
president?
I was probably at home, if you must know.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
28 Oct 2004 12:42:04 AM |
|
|
In article <C5_fd.10563$233.9596@okepread05>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:nIWdncv5rfEO8R3cRVn-ig@comcast.com:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:GZZfd.10561$233.2530@okepread05...
"Alexandre" <alias@hidden.now> wrote in
news:2ub0asF27knujU1@uni-berlin.de:
Of course there won't be a "Bush draft!"
He would come across as too hypocritical, inasmuch as our brave
President joined the Air National Guard in order to avoid real
military service during a time that America was at war.
Serving in the Air National Guard *is* real military service, dumbass.
Yes it is "real" military service. Why do some of these people try to
put down those who serve? I am sure you and I know why, it is based
solely on their political preference. If Bush was a Democrat they would
be praising him. He is Republican, so they nit pick. Simple matter of
them showing their bigotry. It is sad actually since so many of these
liberals proclaim themselves as being so much better than others, and
speaking out against issues like bigotry and racism...when I see so many
of them display their bigotry.
Where were Bush's critics when draft dodging Clinton was running for
president?
The difference is that Clinton was up-front about opposing the war.
AFAICT, he did nothing illegal to avoid the draft. STill, the
Republicans tried to smear him for not serving. Now, when we have a
president who got out of Vietnam using family connections, and may have
avoided part of his service even so, and the Democrats have a war hero
running for PResident, it suddenly isn't so important. Speaking of
hypocrisy.
--
Dave Fritzinger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
28 Oct 2004 06:53:27 AM |
|
|
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-BB3B6A.19421327102004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
In article <C5_fd.10563$233.9596@okepread05>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:nIWdncv5rfEO8R3cRVn-ig@comcast.com:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:GZZfd.10561$233.2530@okepread05...
"Alexandre" <alias@hidden.now> wrote in
news:2ub0asF27knujU1@uni-berlin.de:
Of course there won't be a "Bush draft!"
He would come across as too hypocritical, inasmuch as our brave
President joined the Air National Guard in order to avoid real
military service during a time that America was at war.
Serving in the Air National Guard *is* real military service, dumbass.
Yes it is "real" military service. Why do some of these people try to
put down those who serve? I am sure you and I know why, it is based
solely on their political preference. If Bush was a Democrat they
would
be praising him. He is Republican, so they nit pick. Simple matter of
them showing their bigotry. It is sad actually since so many of these
liberals proclaim themselves as being so much better than others, and
speaking out against issues like bigotry and racism...when I see so
many
of them display their bigotry.
Where were Bush's critics when draft dodging Clinton was running for
president?
The difference is that Clinton was up-front about opposing the war.
AFAICT, he did nothing illegal to avoid the draft. STill, the
Republicans tried to smear him for not serving.
No, it wasn't that. It was the letter he sent stating he loathed the
military.
And as a veteran myself, who was active duty when Clinton was elected, that
didn't go over very well and many military members couldn't stand Clinton.
Now, when we have a
president who got out of Vietnam using family connections, and may have
avoided part of his service even so, and the Democrats have a war hero
running for PResident, it suddenly isn't so important. Speaking of
hypocrisy.
A war hero who turned his back on his fellow soldiers and accused them of
war crimes.
--
Dave Fritzinger
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
28 Oct 2004 02:39:13 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message news:<4emdnUnp3eKQQB3cRVn-og@comcast.com>...
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-BB3B6A.19421327102004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
In article <C5_fd.10563$233.9596@okepread05>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:nIWdncv5rfEO8R3cRVn-ig@comcast.com:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:GZZfd.10561$233.2530@okepread05...
"Alexandre" <alias@hidden.now> wrote in
news:2ub0asF27knujU1@uni-berlin.de:
Of course there won't be a "Bush draft!"
He would come across as too hypocritical, inasmuch as our brave
President joined the Air National Guard in order to avoid real
military service during a time that America was at war.
Serving in the Air National Guard *is* real military service, dumbass.
Yes it is "real" military service. Why do some of these people try to
put down those who serve? I am sure you and I know why, it is based
solely on their political preference. If Bush was a Democrat they
would
be praising him. He is Republican, so they nit pick. Simple matter of
them showing their bigotry. It is sad actually since so many of these
liberals proclaim themselves as being so much better than others, and
speaking out against issues like bigotry and racism...when I see so
many
of them display their bigotry.
Where were Bush's critics when draft dodging Clinton was running for
president?
The difference is that Clinton was up-front about opposing the war.
AFAICT, he did nothing illegal to avoid the draft. STill, the
Republicans tried to smear him for not serving.
No, it wasn't that. It was the letter he sent stating he loathed the
military.
Do you have a reference for this? What was the date of the letter?
And as a veteran myself, who was active duty when Clinton was elected, that
didn't go over very well and many military members couldn't stand Clinton.
I realize many in the military disliked Clinton. Of course, one could
ask why you are even discussing Clinton, since he is not, as far as I
am aware, running for president.
Now, when we have a
president who got out of Vietnam using family connections, and may have
avoided part of his service even so, and the Democrats have a war hero
running for PResident, it suddenly isn't so important. Speaking of
hypocrisy.
A war hero who turned his back on his fellow soldiers and accused them of
war crimes.
One, he repeated accusations of others, as far as I am aware. And,
your diversion above doesn't change the fact that Kerry was a war hero
(who has been smeared by people aligned with Bush), and that Bush
avoided service in Vietnam. And, he used family connections to do so.
BTW, if you want to see a scary article about Bush, it is in todays NY
Times, written by a Christian who is very worried about how Bush's
religion affects his policy making. The link is here:
http://nytimes.com/2004/10/28/opinion/28wright.html
--
Dave Fritzinger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
28 Oct 2004 03:11:23 PM |
|
|
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b82925bb.0410281139.905e08a@posting.google.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<4emdnUnp3eKQQB3cRVn-og@comcast.com>...
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-BB3B6A.19421327102004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
In article <C5_fd.10563$233.9596@okepread05>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:nIWdncv5rfEO8R3cRVn-ig@comcast.com:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:GZZfd.10561$233.2530@okepread05...
"Alexandre" <alias@hidden.now> wrote in
news:2ub0asF27knujU1@uni-berlin.de:
Of course there won't be a "Bush draft!"
He would come across as too hypocritical, inasmuch as our brave
President joined the Air National Guard in order to avoid real
military service during a time that America was at war.
Serving in the Air National Guard *is* real military service,
dumbass.
Yes it is "real" military service. Why do some of these people try
to
put down those who serve? I am sure you and I know why, it is based
solely on their political preference. If Bush was a Democrat they
would
be praising him. He is Republican, so they nit pick. Simple matter
of
them showing their bigotry. It is sad actually since so many of
these
liberals proclaim themselves as being so much better than others,
and
speaking out against issues like bigotry and racism...when I see so
many
of them display their bigotry.
Where were Bush's critics when draft dodging Clinton was running for
president?
The difference is that Clinton was up-front about opposing the war.
AFAICT, he did nothing illegal to avoid the draft. STill, the
Republicans tried to smear him for not serving.
No, it wasn't that. It was the letter he sent stating he loathed the
military.
Do you have a reference for this? What was the date of the letter?
Oh puh-lease David, you surely can't be that stupid????
The letter was plastered all over the media, talk show's, radio
broadcast...for a very long time.
I have no problem providing you the letter, but before I do I just want to
make sure you are not that stupid.
Surely you are joking, everyone knows about the letter he wrote, in which he
stated he loathed the military.
And as a veteran myself, who was active duty when Clinton was elected,
that
didn't go over very well and many military members couldn't stand
Clinton.
I realize many in the military disliked Clinton. Of course, one could
ask why you are even discussing Clinton, since he is not, as far as I
am aware, running for president.
O.k., so if Kerry wins you will not mention Bush right?
Now, when we have a
president who got out of Vietnam using family connections, and may have
avoided part of his service even so, and the Democrats have a war hero
running for PResident, it suddenly isn't so important. Speaking of
hypocrisy.
A war hero who turned his back on his fellow soldiers and accused them of
war crimes.
One, he repeated accusations of others, as far as I am aware.
Others? You mean his own crew, and if many have testified that he also
participated in
such horrible acts.
And,
your diversion above doesn't change the fact that Kerry was a war hero
(who has been smeared by people aligned with Bush), and that Bush
avoided service in Vietnam. And, he used family connections to do so.
Oh, here we go again.."diversion".
Your "diversion" talking about Bush has been noted. Two can play at that
game.
BTW, if you want to see a scary article about Bush, it is in todays NY
Times, written by a Christian who is very worried about how Bush's
religion affects his policy making. The link is here:
http://nytimes.com/2004/10/28/opinion/28wright.html
Hmm, maybe I should return the favor to you. I provided you an article on
Richard Clarke..and what was your response? Oh yea, you attacked the source
didn't you.
Isn't New York Times the newspaper where reporters make up stories??
What was that reporters name again?
By the way, I am not a registered member for the New York Times so I can not
access the article.
But from reading the link I can safely conclude..
a) A source that has proven to be untrustworthy
b) It is a opinion column.
Note; your diversion of trying to attack Bush and his religious beliefs.
Do you have something against religion too?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
29 Oct 2004 12:29:36 AM |
|
|
In article <45OdndblgswuzBzcRVn-tg@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b82925bb.0410281139.905e08a@posting.google.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<4emdnUnp3eKQQB3cRVn-og@comcast.com>...
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-BB3B6A.19421327102004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
In article <C5_fd.10563$233.9596@okepread05>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:nIWdncv5rfEO8R3cRVn-ig@comcast.com:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:GZZfd.10561$233.2530@okepread05...
"Alexandre" <alias@hidden.now> wrote in
news:2ub0asF27knujU1@uni-berlin.de:
Of course there won't be a "Bush draft!"
He would come across as too hypocritical, inasmuch as our brave
President joined the Air National Guard in order to avoid real
military service during a time that America was at war.
Serving in the Air National Guard *is* real military service,
dumbass.
Yes it is "real" military service. Why do some of these people try
to
put down those who serve? I am sure you and I know why, it is based
solely on their political preference. If Bush was a Democrat they
would
be praising him. He is Republican, so they nit pick. Simple matter
of
them showing their bigotry. It is sad actually since so many of
these
liberals proclaim themselves as being so much better than others,
and
speaking out against issues like bigotry and racism...when I see so
many
of them display their bigotry.
Where were Bush's critics when draft dodging Clinton was running for
president?
The difference is that Clinton was up-front about opposing the war.
AFAICT, he did nothing illegal to avoid the draft. STill, the
Republicans tried to smear him for not serving.
No, it wasn't that. It was the letter he sent stating he loathed the
military.
Do you have a reference for this? What was the date of the letter?
Oh puh-lease David, you surely can't be that stupid????
The letter was plastered all over the media, talk show's, radio
broadcast...for a very long time.
I have no problem providing you the letter, but before I do I just want to
make sure you are not that stupid.
Surely you are joking, everyone knows about the letter he wrote, in which he
stated he loathed the military.
OK, now that your rant is over, how about actually answering my question
for a change.
And as a veteran myself, who was active duty when Clinton was elected,
that
didn't go over very well and many military members couldn't stand
Clinton.
I realize many in the military disliked Clinton. Of course, one could
ask why you are even discussing Clinton, since he is not, as far as I
am aware, running for president.
O.k., so if Kerry wins you will not mention Bush right?
I promise to mention Bush only as many times as the conservatives have
mentioned Clinton. OK, I'll cut you a break. Only half as many times, as
Bush will have "served" only half as long as Clinton.
8^)
Now, when we have a
president who got out of Vietnam using family connections, and may have
avoided part of his service even so, and the Democrats have a war hero
running for PResident, it suddenly isn't so important. Speaking of
hypocrisy.
A war hero who turned his back on his fellow soldiers and accused them of
war crimes.
One, he repeated accusations of others, as far as I am aware.
Others? You mean his own crew, and if many have testified that he also
participated in
such horrible acts.
Cite?
And,
your diversion above doesn't change the fact that Kerry was a war hero
(who has been smeared by people aligned with Bush), and that Bush
avoided service in Vietnam. And, he used family connections to do so.
Oh, here we go again.."diversion".
I guess that means you were caught again.
Your "diversion" talking about Bush has been noted. Two can play at that
game.
Yeah, I talked about Bush because it was a race between Bush and Kerry,
and one must compare the two candidates.
BTW, if you want to see a scary article about Bush, it is in todays NY
Times, written by a Christian who is very worried about how Bush's
religion affects his policy making. The link is here:
http://nytimes.com/2004/10/28/opinion/28wright.html
Hmm, maybe I should return the favor to you. I provided you an article on
Richard Clarke..and what was your response? Oh yea, you attacked the source
didn't you.
I read the article, liar. And, I commented on it. It was just a
diversion, and had nothing to do with the point I was making and you
obviously couldn't refute. Nice try, but your lying is too obvious. BTW,
I notice you didn't read the article.
Isn't New York Times the newspaper where reporters make up stories??
Ah yes, trying to make a big deal about one reporter who made up
stories. In case you forgot, the NYT has had a thorough housecleaning
because of that incident.
What was that reporters name again?
Jayson Blair, I believe. Your point?
By the way, I am not a registered member for the New York Times so I can not
access the article.
So, register. It is free, and you don't have to get any spam.
But from reading the link I can safely conclude..
a) A source that has proven to be untrustworthy
And, why would that be?
b) It is a opinion column.
Never said it was anything else. You should read it, however. It is by a
religious person (Baptist, I believe) who comments on a book that Bush
reads every day and appears to take very seriously.
Note; your diversion of trying to attack Bush and his religious beliefs.
No diversion at all. It was added as an addendum to my response. Are you
so desperate that you don't recognize that?
Do you have something against religion too?
Not at all. I just don't believe your religion should play such a strong
role that it makes you overlook reality. Sort of like the creationists,
who ignore reality because it goes against their interpretation of the
Bible.
--
Dave Fritzinger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
29 Oct 2004 08:25:36 AM |
|
|
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-76B100.19293528102004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
In article <45OdndblgswuzBzcRVn-tg@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b82925bb.0410281139.905e08a@posting.google.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<4emdnUnp3eKQQB3cRVn-og@comcast.com>...
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-BB3B6A.19421327102004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
In article <C5_fd.10563$233.9596@okepread05>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:nIWdncv5rfEO8R3cRVn-ig@comcast.com:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:GZZfd.10561$233.2530@okepread05...
"Alexandre" <alias@hidden.now> wrote in
news:2ub0asF27knujU1@uni-berlin.de:
Of course there won't be a "Bush draft!"
He would come across as too hypocritical, inasmuch as our brave
President joined the Air National Guard in order to avoid real
military service during a time that America was at war.
Serving in the Air National Guard *is* real military service,
dumbass.
Yes it is "real" military service. Why do some of these people
try
to
put down those who serve? I am sure you and I know why, it is
based
solely on their political preference. If Bush was a Democrat
they
would
be praising him. He is Republican, so they nit pick. Simple
matter
of
them showing their bigotry. It is sad actually since so many of
these
liberals proclaim themselves as being so much better than others,
and
speaking out against issues like bigotry and racism...when I see
so
many
of them display their bigotry.
Where were Bush's critics when draft dodging Clinton was running
for
president?
The difference is that Clinton was up-front about opposing the war.
AFAICT, he did nothing illegal to avoid the draft. STill, the
Republicans tried to smear him for not serving.
No, it wasn't that. It was the letter he sent stating he loathed the
military.
Do you have a reference for this? What was the date of the letter?
Oh puh-lease David, you surely can't be that stupid????
The letter was plastered all over the media, talk show's, radio
broadcast...for a very long time.
I have no problem providing you the letter, but before I do I just want
to
make sure you are not that stupid.
Surely you are joking, everyone knows about the letter he wrote, in which
he
stated he loathed the military.
OK, now that your rant is over, how about actually answering my question
for a change.
I was really hoping you were kidding about never hearing of this...I guess
you weren't. Imagine that...
http://www.gmasw.com/draft_no.htm
The following is Bill Clinton's December 1969 Colonel Eugene Holmes. This
text was taken verbatim from "SLICK WILLIE", by Floyd G. Brown. Not a word
has been changed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sorry to be so long in writing. I know I promised to let you hear from
me at least once a month, and from now on you will, but I have had to have
some time to think about this first letter. Almost daily since my return to
England I have thought about writing, about what I want to and ought to say.
First, I want to thank you, not just for saving me from the draft, but for
being so kind and decent to me last summer, when I was as low as I have ever
been. One thing which made the bond we struck in good faith somewhat
palatable to me was my high regard for you personally. In retrospect, it
seems that the admiration might not have been mutual had you known a little
more about me, about my political beliefs and activities. At least you might
have thought me more fit for the draft than for ROTC.
Let me try to explain. As you know, I worked for two years in a very minor
position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I did it for the
experience and the salary but also for the opportunity, however small, of
working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of
feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam. I did
not take the matter lightly but studied it carefully, and there was a time
when not many people had more information about Vietnam at hand than I did.
I have written and spoken and marched against the war. One of the national
organizers of the Vietnam Moratorium is a close friend of mine, After I left
Arkansas last summer, I went to Washington to work in the national
headquarters of the Moratorium, then to England to organize the Americans
for the demonstrations Oct. 15 and Nov. 16.
Interlocked with the war is the draft issue, which I did not begin to
consider separately until early 1968. For a law seminar Georgetown I wrote a
paper on the legal arguments for and against allowing, within the Selective
Service System, the classification of selective conscientious objection, for
those opposed to participation in a particular war, not simply to
"participation in war in any form."
From my work I came to believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate.
No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have
the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may
oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case,
does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation.
The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people
collectively was at stake. Individuals had to fight, if the nation was to
survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is
no such case. Nor was Korea an example where, in my opinion, certain
military action was justified but the draft was not, for the reasons stated
above.
Because of my opposition to the draft and the war, I am in great sympathy
with those who are not willing to fight, kill, and maybe die for their
country (i.e. the particular policy of a particular government) right or
wrong. Two of my friends at Oxford are conscientious objectors. I wrote a
letter of recommendation for one of them to his Mississippi draft board, a
letter which I am more proud of than anything else I wrote at Oxford last
year. One of my roommates is a draft resister who is possibly under
indictment and may never be able to go home again. He is one of the bravest,
best men I know. That he is considered a criminal is an obscenity.
The decision not to be a resister and the related subsequent decisions were
the most difficult of my life. I decided to accept the draft in spite of my
beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability within the
system. For years I have worked to prepare myself for a political life
characterized by both practical political ability and concern for rapid
social progress. It is a life I still feel compelled to try to lead. I do
not think our system of government is by definition corrupt, however
dangerous and inadequate it has been in recent years. (The society may be
corrupt, but that is not the same thing, and if that is true we are all
finished anyway.)
When the draft came, despite political convictions, I was having a hard time
facing the prospect of fighting a war I had been fighting against, and that
is why I contacted you. ROTC was the one way left in which I could possibly,
but not positively, avoid both Vietnam and resistance. Going on with my
education, even coming back to England, played no part in my decision to
join ROTC. I am back here, and would have been at Arkansas Law School
because there is nothing else I can do. In fact, I would like to have been
able to take a year out perhaps to teach in a small college or work on some
community action project and in the process to decide whether to attend law
school or graduate school and how to begin putting what I have learned to
use.
But the particulars of my personal life are not nearly as important to me as
the principles involved. After I signed the ROTC letter of intent I began to
wonder whether the compromise I had made with myself was not more
objectionable than the draft would have been, because I had no interest in
the ROTC program in itself and all I seemed to have done was to protect
myself from physical harm. Also, I began to think I had deceived you, not by
lies because there were none but by failing to tell you all the things I'm
writing now. I doubt that I had the mental coherence to articulate them
then.
At that time, after we had made our agreement and you had sent my 1-D
deferment to my draft board, the anguish and loss of my self-regard and self
confidence really set in. I hardly slept for weeks and kept going by eating
compulsively and reading until exhaustion brought sleep. Finally, on Sept.
12 I stayed up all night writing a letter to the chairman of my draft board,
saying basically what is in the preceding paragraph, thanking him for trying
to help in a case where he really couldn't, and stating that I couldn't do
the ROTC after all and would he please draft me as soon as possible.
I never mailed the letter, but I did carry it on me every day until I got on
the plane to return to England. I didn't mail the letter because I didn't
see, in the end, how my going in the army and maybe going to Vietnam would
achieve anything except a feeling that I had punished myself and gotten what
I deserved. So I came back to England to try to make something of this
second year of my Rhodes scholarship.
And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been good to me
and have a right to know what I think and feel. I am writing too in the hope
that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how
so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country
but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted
years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give. To many of us, it is
no longer clear what is service and what is disservice, or if it is clear,
the conclusion is likely to be illegal.
Forgive the length of this letter. There was much to say. There is still a
lot to be said, but it can wait. Please say hello to Col. Jones for me.
Merry Christmas.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton
And as a veteran myself, who was active duty when Clinton was elected,
that
didn't go over very well and many military members couldn't stand
Clinton.
I realize many in the military disliked Clinton. Of course, one could
ask why you are even discussing Clinton, since he is not, as far as I
am aware, running for president.
O.k., so if Kerry wins you will not mention Bush right?
I promise to mention Bush only as many times as the conservatives have
mentioned Clinton. OK, I'll cut you a break. Only half as many times, as
Bush will have "served" only half as long as Clinton.
8^)
Hmmmm, guess we shall see.
Now, when we have a
president who got out of Vietnam using family connections, and may
have
avoided part of his service even so, and the Democrats have a war
hero
running for PResident, it suddenly isn't so important. Speaking of
hypocrisy.
A war hero who turned his back on his fellow soldiers and accused them
of
war crimes.
One, he repeated accusations of others, as far as I am aware.
Others? You mean his own crew, and if many have testified that he also
participated in
such horrible acts.
Cite?
And,
your diversion above doesn't change the fact that Kerry was a war hero
(who has been smeared by people aligned with Bush), and that Bush
avoided service in Vietnam. And, he used family connections to do so.
Oh, here we go again.."diversion".
I guess that means you were caught again.
Maybe in your imagination
Your "diversion" talking about Bush has been noted. Two can play at that
game.
Yeah, I talked about Bush because it was a race between Bush and Kerry,
and one must compare the two candidates.
BTW, if you want to see a scary article about Bush, it is in todays NY
Times, written by a Christian who is very worried about how Bush's
religion affects his policy making. The link is here:
http://nytimes.com/2004/10/28/opinion/28wright.html
Hmm, maybe I should return the favor to you. I provided you an article on
Richard Clarke..and what was your response? Oh yea, you attacked the
source
didn't you.
I read the article, liar.
I didn't say you didn't read the article, liar..I said you attacked the
source.
And, I commented on it.
The only thing I seen you do was attack the source.
It was just a
diversion, and had nothing to do with the point I was making and you
obviously couldn't refute. Nice try, but your lying is too obvious. BTW,
I notice you didn't read the article.
It had everything to do with it, you asked me to provide you a source on the
claim I made on Richard Clarke, and I did. When you found out I could
actually back it up, you tried to use a diversion tactic by attacking the
source then claiming it had nothing to do with "your" point. Too bad, you
asked me for a source I provided it.
Isn't New York Times the newspaper where reporters make up stories??
Ah yes, trying to make a big deal about one reporter who made up
stories. In case you forgot, the NYT has had a thorough housecleaning
because of that incident.
Ahh..o.k.
What was that reporters name again?
Jayson Blair, I believe. Your point?
By the way, I am not a registered member for the New York Times so I can
not
access the article.
So, register. It is free, and you don't have to get any spam.
But from reading the link I can safely conclude..
a) A source that has proven to be untrustworthy
And, why would that be?
There history. Hey if you guys can do that to Fox News, we can do it to NYT
b) It is a opinion column.
Never said it was anything else. You should read it, however. It is by a
religious person (Baptist, I believe) who comments on a book that Bush
reads every day and appears to take very seriously.
Note; your diversion of trying to attack Bush and his religious beliefs.
No diversion at all. It was added as an addendum to my response. Are you
so desperate that you don't recognize that?
Do you have something against religion too?
Not at all. I just don't believe your religion should play such a strong
role that it makes you overlook reality.
"my" religion??? since when is it mine?
Sort of like the creationists,
who ignore reality because it goes against their interpretation of the
Bible.
I happen to believe that creation and evolution can work together.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
30 Oct 2004 08:02:16 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message news:<Vs2dnXsBYpuf2R_cRVn-jQ@comcast.com>...
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-76B100.19293528102004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
In article <45OdndblgswuzBzcRVn-tg@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b82925bb.0410281139.905e08a@posting.google.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<4emdnUnp3eKQQB3cRVn-og@comcast.com>...
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-BB3B6A.19421327102004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
In article <C5_fd.10563$233.9596@okepread05>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:nIWdncv5rfEO8R3cRVn-ig@comcast.com:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:GZZfd.10561$233.2530@okepread05...
"Alexandre" <alias@hidden.now> wrote in
news:2ub0asF27knujU1@uni-berlin.de:
Of course there won't be a "Bush draft!"
He would come across as too hypocritical, inasmuch as our brave
President joined the Air National Guard in order to avoid real
military service during a time that America was at war.
Serving in the Air National Guard *is* real military service,
dumbass.
Yes it is "real" military service. Why do some of these people
try
to
put down those who serve? I am sure you and I know why, it is
based
solely on their political preference. If Bush was a Democrat
they
would
be praising him. He is Republican, so they nit pick. Simple
matter
of
them showing their bigotry. It is sad actually since so many of
these
liberals proclaim themselves as being so much better than others,
and
speaking out against issues like bigotry and racism...when I see
so
many
of them display their bigotry.
Where were Bush's critics when draft dodging Clinton was running
for
president?
The difference is that Clinton was up-front about opposing the war.
AFAICT, he did nothing illegal to avoid the draft. STill, the
Republicans tried to smear him for not serving.
No, it wasn't that. It was the letter he sent stating he loathed the
military.
Do you have a reference for this? What was the date of the letter?
Oh puh-lease David, you surely can't be that stupid????
The letter was plastered all over the media, talk show's, radio
broadcast...for a very long time.
I have no problem providing you the letter, but before I do I just want
to
make sure you are not that stupid.
Surely you are joking, everyone knows about the letter he wrote, in which
he
stated he loathed the military.
OK, now that your rant is over, how about actually answering my question
for a change.
I was really hoping you were kidding about never hearing of this...I guess
you weren't. Imagine that...
http://www.gmasw.com/draft_no.htm
The following is Bill Clinton's December 1969 Colonel Eugene Holmes. This
text was taken verbatim from "SLICK WILLIE", by Floyd G. Brown. Not a word
has been changed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sorry to be so long in writing. I know I promised to let you hear from
me at least once a month, and from now on you will, but I have had to have
some time to think about this first letter. Almost daily since my return to
England I have thought about writing, about what I want to and ought to say.
First, I want to thank you, not just for saving me from the draft, but for
being so kind and decent to me last summer, when I was as low as I have ever
been. One thing which made the bond we struck in good faith somewhat
palatable to me was my high regard for you personally. In retrospect, it
seems that the admiration might not have been mutual had you known a little
more about me, about my political beliefs and activities. At least you might
have thought me more fit for the draft than for ROTC.
Let me try to explain. As you know, I worked for two years in a very minor
position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I did it for the
experience and the salary but also for the opportunity, however small, of
working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of
feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam. I did
not take the matter lightly but studied it carefully, and there was a time
when not many people had more information about Vietnam at hand than I did.
I have written and spoken and marched against the war. One of the national
organizers of the Vietnam Moratorium is a close friend of mine, After I left
Arkansas last summer, I went to Washington to work in the national
headquarters of the Moratorium, then to England to organize the Americans
for the demonstrations Oct. 15 and Nov. 16.
Interlocked with the war is the draft issue, which I did not begin to
consider separately until early 1968. For a law seminar Georgetown I wrote a
paper on the legal arguments for and against allowing, within the Selective
Service System, the classification of selective conscientious objection, for
those opposed to participation in a particular war, not simply to
"participation in war in any form."
From my work I came to believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate.
No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have
the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may
oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case,
does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation.
The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people
collectively was at stake. Individuals had to fight, if the nation was to
survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is
no such case. Nor was Korea an example where, in my opinion, certain
military action was justified but the draft was not, for the reasons stated
above.
Because of my opposition to the draft and the war, I am in great sympathy
with those who are not willing to fight, kill, and maybe die for their
country (i.e. the particular policy of a particular government) right or
wrong. Two of my friends at Oxford are conscientious objectors. I wrote a
letter of recommendation for one of them to his Mississippi draft board, a
letter which I am more proud of than anything else I wrote at Oxford last
year. One of my roommates is a draft resister who is possibly under
indictment and may never be able to go home again. He is one of the bravest,
best men I know. That he is considered a criminal is an obscenity.
The decision not to be a resister and the related subsequent decisions were
the most difficult of my life. I decided to accept the draft in spite of my
beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability within the
system. For years I have worked to prepare myself for a political life
characterized by both practical political ability and concern for rapid
social progress. It is a life I still feel compelled to try to lead. I do
not think our system of government is by definition corrupt, however
dangerous and inadequate it has been in recent years. (The society may be
corrupt, but that is not the same thing, and if that is true we are all
finished anyway.)
When the draft came, despite political convictions, I was having a hard time
facing the prospect of fighting a war I had been fighting against, and that
is why I contacted you. ROTC was the one way left in which I could possibly,
but not positively, avoid both Vietnam and resistance. Going on with my
education, even coming back to England, played no part in my decision to
join ROTC. I am back here, and would have been at Arkansas Law School
because there is nothing else I can do. In fact, I would like to have been
able to take a year out perhaps to teach in a small college or work on some
community action project and in the process to decide whether to attend law
school or graduate school and how to begin putting what I have learned to
use.
But the particulars of my personal life are not nearly as important to me as
the principles involved. After I signed the ROTC letter of intent I began to
wonder whether the compromise I had made with myself was not more
objectionable than the draft would have been, because I had no interest in
the ROTC program in itself and all I seemed to have done was to protect
myself from physical harm. Also, I began to think I had deceived you, not by
lies because there were none but by failing to tell you all the things I'm
writing now. I doubt that I had the mental coherence to articulate them
then.
At that time, after we had made our agreement and you had sent my 1-D
deferment to my draft board, the anguish and loss of my self-regard and self
confidence really set in. I hardly slept for weeks and kept going by eating
compulsively and reading until exhaustion brought sleep. Finally, on Sept.
12 I stayed up all night writing a letter to the chairman of my draft board,
saying basically what is in the preceding paragraph, thanking him for trying
to help in a case where he really couldn't, and stating that I couldn't do
the ROTC after all and would he please draft me as soon as possible.
I never mailed the letter, but I did carry it on me every day until I got on
the plane to return to England. I didn't mail the letter because I didn't
see, in the end, how my going in the army and maybe going to Vietnam would
achieve anything except a feeling that I had punished myself and gotten what
I deserved. So I came back to England to try to make something of this
second year of my Rhodes scholarship.
And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been good to me
and have a right to know what I think and feel. I am writing too in the hope
that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how
so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country
but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted
years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give. To many of us, it is
no longer clear what is service and what is disservice, or if it is clear,
the conclusion is likely to be illegal.
Forgive the length of this letter. There was much to say. There is still a
lot to be said, but it can wait. Please say hello to Col. Jones for me.
Merry Christmas.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton
Just two points here. One, it was a pretty reasonable letter, and
pointed out his feelings at the time. The second point is the more
important. The letter was written 35 years ago, for goodness sake.
Haven't you yasi things 35 years ago about which you might think
differently now? I certainly have.
And as a veteran myself, who was active duty when Clinton was elected,
that
didn't go over very well and many military members couldn't stand
Clinton.
I realize many in the military disliked Clinton. Of course, one could
ask why you are even discussing Clinton, since he is not, as far as I
am aware, running for president.
O.k., so if Kerry wins you will not mention Bush right?
I promise to mention Bush only as many times as the conservatives have
mentioned Clinton. OK, I'll cut you a break. Only half as many times, as
Bush will have "served" only half as long as Clinton.
8^)
Hmmmm, guess we shall see.
Yes, we certainly shall. Sometime in the next couple of months...
Now, when we have a
president who got out of Vietnam using family connections, and may
have
avoided part of his service even so, and the Democrats have a war
hero
running for PResident, it suddenly isn't so important. Speaking of
hypocrisy.
A war hero who turned his back on his fellow soldiers and accused them
of
war crimes.
One, he repeated accusations of others, as far as I am aware.
Others? You mean his own crew, and if many have testified that he also
participated in
such horrible acts.
Cite?
None, I notice.
And,
your diversion above doesn't change the fact that Kerry was a war hero
(who has been smeared by people aligned with Bush), and that Bush
avoided service in Vietnam. And, he used family connections to do so.
Oh, here we go again.."diversion".
I guess that means you were caught again.
Maybe in your imagination
Your "diversion" talking about Bush has been noted. Two can play at that
game.
Yeah, I talked about Bush because it was a race between Bush and Kerry,
and one must compare the two candidates.
BTW, if you want to see a scary article about Bush, it is in todays NY
Times, written by a Christian who is very worried about how Bush's
religion affects his policy making. The link is here:
http://nytimes.com/2004/10/28/opinion/28wright.html
Hmm, maybe I should return the favor to you. I provided you an article on
Richard Clarke..and what was your response? Oh yea, you attacked the
source
didn't you.
I read the article, liar.
I didn't say you didn't read the article, liar..I said you attacked the
source.
And, I commented on it.
The only thing I seen you do was attack the source.
You really should check your memory, then. I also noted the
irrelevency of the article. And, yes, it was totally irrelevent to
what we were discussing. Which is why I called it a diversion.
It was just a
diversion, and had nothing to do with the point I was making and you
obviously couldn't refute. Nice try, but your lying is too obvious. BTW,
I notice you didn't read the article.
It had everything to do with it, you asked me to provide you a source on the
claim I made on Richard Clarke, and I did. When you found out I could
actually back it up, you tried to use a diversion tactic by attacking the
source then claiming it had nothing to do with "your" point. Too bad, you
asked me for a source I provided it.
What you seem to be missing, on purpose, I presume, is that the whole
point of whether Clarke had anyting to do with the Saudis leaving the
country has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of the rest of
what he said. Which is why I said it was a diversion. My only mistake
is that I took the bait, as it were, and gave you the chance to make a
big deal of something that was essentially off topic.
Isn't New York Times the newspaper where reporters make up stories??
Ah yes, trying to make a big deal about one reporter who made up
stories. In case you forgot, the NYT has had a thorough housecleaning
because of that incident.
Ahh..o.k.
Can't answer, I see. You really should try to get your information
from someplace other than conservative sources.
What was that reporters name again?
Jayson Blair, I believe. Your point?
Didn't answer, I see. BTW, he no longer works there.
By the way, I am not a registered member for the New York Times so I can
not
access the article.
So, register. It is free, and you don't have to get any spam.
Afraid to read the article? I can see why.
But from reading the link I can safely conclude..
a) A source that has proven to be untrustworthy
And, why would that be?
There history. Hey if you guys can do that to Fox News, we can do it to NYT
Actually, their history is as the best paper in the US. Their
editorial page can be liberal (though with columnists like David
Brooks and Bill Safire, they at least try to be somewhat balanced.
More than you can say for rightwing papers like the Washinton Times or
the WSJ.
b) It is a opinion column.
Never said it was anything else. You should read it, however. It is by a
religious person (Baptist, I believe) who comments on a book that Bush
reads every day and appears to take very seriously.
I see you are still afraid to read the article. Why is that?
Note; your diversion of trying to attack Bush and his religious beliefs.
No diversion at all. It was added as an addendum to my response. Are you
so desperate that you don't recognize that?
Do you have something against religion too?
Not at all. I just don't believe your religion should play such a strong
role that it makes you overlook reality.
"my" religion??? since when is it mine?
Sorry, the reference was to a generic "your" not to your religion
specifically. Actually, it was a reference to Bush's religion.
Sort of like the creationists,
who ignore reality because it goes against their interpretation of the
Bible.
I happen to believe that creation and evolution can work together.
OK, now when you can come up with some evidence for creation, I might
listen to you.
--
Dave Fritzinger
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: There isn't going to be a "Bush Draft" |
30 Oct 2004 09:07:39 PM |
|
|
In article <b82925bb.0410301702.6440484f@posting.google.com>, David
Fritzinger <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<Vs2dnXsBYpuf2R_cRVn-jQ@comcast.com>...
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-76B100.19293528102004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
In article <45OdndblgswuzBzcRVn-tg@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b82925bb.0410281139.905e08a@posting.google.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<4emdnUnp3eKQQB3cRVn-og@comcast.com>...
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-BB3B6A.19421327102004@orngca-news04.socal.rr.com...
In article <C5_fd.10563$233.9596@okepread05>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:nIWdncv5rfEO8R3cRVn-ig@comcast.com:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:GZZfd.10561$233.2530@okepread05...
"Alexandre" <alias@hidden.now> wrote in
news:2ub0asF27knujU1@uni-berlin.de:
Of course there won't be a "Bush draft!"
He would come across as too hypocritical, inasmuch as our brave
President joined the Air National Guard in order to avoid real
military service during a time that America was at war.
Serving in the Air National Guard *is* real military service,
dumbass.
Yes it is "real" military service. Why do some of these people
try
to
put down those who serve? I am sure you and I know why, it is
based
solely on their political preference. If Bush was a Democrat
they
would
be praising him. He is Republican, so they nit pick. Simple
matter
of
them showing their bigotry. It is sad actually since so many of
these
liberals proclaim themselves as being so much better than others,
and
speaking out against issues like bigotry and racism...when I see
so
many
of them display their bigotry.
Where were Bush's critics when draft dodging Clinton was running
for
president?
The difference is that Clinton was up-front about opposing the war.
AFAICT, he did nothing illegal to avoid the draft. STill, the
Republicans tried to smear him for not serving.
No, it wasn't that. It was the letter he sent stating he loathed the
military.
Do you have a reference for this? What was the date of the letter?
Oh puh-lease David, you surely can't be that stupid????
The letter was plastered all over the media, talk show's, radio
broadcast...for a very long time.
I have no problem providing you the letter, but before I do I just want
to
ma | | | | | | | | | | | | |
