President Has Abandoned His Duty Station, Generals Say

"The President Has Effectively Gone AWOL"

This is a very good article from The Nation, that shows just how out of step our "Commander-in-Chief is with his military commanders in Iraq and the Pentagon. I highly recommend it and encourage you all to read it and leave your comments.

George Bush, the most ideologically-driven and politically calculating president in American history, wants Americans to believe that he has suddenly discovered a moral high ground from which to make grand declarations about how he must maintain the occupation of Iraq.

After vetoing legislation Tuesday that gave him the money to continue his war but required that he accept loose limits of its ultimate duration, the president told the nation, "I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They sent their message, and now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need."

Bush has made his position clear: Democrats, many of whom rightly argued four years ago that going to war in Iraq would be the huge mistake it has turned out to be, and who have since been far ahead of the White House in identifying the nature of the crisis that has since developed, are now to be dismissed as the players of political games when they advocate for a strategy that would begin bringing US troops home from the conflict on a schedule beginning October 1.

That's a remarkable line of analysis from a president whose inability to recognize the flaws in his own neo-conservative vision has rendered his wrong at every turn, and whose determination to play politics with life-and-death decisions has defined not just his approach to the Iraq war but his tenure as president.
Source

How can the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops and the tens of thousands of among Iraqi civilians be less important to Mr. Bush than his pride? I recall a line used by Harry Truman that went, "I'd rather be right than President"; in this case I think BUsh would rather be President than be right, or admit that he might have been wrong. More's the pity.

Yeah, some knuckleheads in Congress decided that to give funding to the military, the President would also have to sign something agreeing to their agenda.

Talk about underhanded.

old bushy has had lots of practice being AWOL.
no one should be surprised.
i think the members of the military should follow bushy boy's lead, and just not show up for work. they could get some booze, blow and whores, instead. and then, they can become president, too.

And billybob comes up with a useless personal attack that has nothing to do with the topic at all.

we are talking about bush, aren't we?
why was my attack 'useless'? i thought it pretty effective.

Originally posted by billybob
we are talking about bush, aren't we?
why was my attack 'useless'? i thought it pretty effective.

The Topic is about whether Bush is listening to his military commanders on the ground in Iraq when all of the commanders are saying the war is essentially over and unwinnable. Personal attacks on his character, etc may feel good but they drag the thread off topic. We are all ready to hear what you have to offer in the way of comments and observations on the thread topic, if you want to contribute.

i apologize for cutting to the chase, then.
my point is, that this (p)resident in the white house, has no moral high ground to stand on.
my point is, that he is only ever interested in the agendas of the elites and the house of rothschilds.
my point is, that when you are in line with the goals of the the 13 elite bloodlines and the house of rothschilds, you can DO WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT and GET AWAY WITH IT.

i stand by my statements. i feel they are totally on topic.

and if i could quote the original thread starter:

I highly recommend it and encourage you all to read it and leave your comments.

BUSH DOES BLOW and went AWOL a bunch of times when he was in the air force!!! his military record SUCKS, and he is the guy who is deciding against nearly EVERYONE that the fight will continue, because he wants it to. he will sacrifice thousands of lives, in bright splattery red, because HE WANTS IT, and that's it.

i hope he comes back as an anal wart is his next life.

Originally posted by billybob
BUSH DOES BLOW and went AWOL a bunch of times when he was in the air force!!! his military record SUCKS, and he is the guy who is deciding against nearly EVERYONE that the fight will continue, because he wants it to. he will sacrifice thousands of lives, in bright splattery red, because HE WANTS IT, and that's it.

It was never proven that he went AWOL.


Also, I must point out just how ignorant and idiotic your statements are. Do you know even what a veto is?

Before even starting that "war," Bush had to go to Congress for authorization, WHICH WAS APPROVED. Now some of Congress turned on him (rightfully so, maybe). But not "nearly everyone." To say such a thing means that either you're quite ignorant or trying to spread propaganda.

by 'nearly everyone', i'm talking about mostly the people of the united states.

you could have said 'ignorant' a couple more times, speaking of effective propoganda.

NOTE: he met his annual requirement, excluding the required physical examination, only by making up 36 missed days.

missed days?

AWOL----absent for 30 days or less.

In summary, the Bush campaign maintains that:

1) George Bush did attend drills in Alabama.

2) The records that could back up this assertion are missing.

3) Bush "fulfilled his obligation and was honorably discharged."

4) The Bush campaign will find someone who remembers George reporting for duty in Alabama.

Regarding #1: Governor Bush, who is said to have an excellent memory for names and faces, says, "I read the comments from the guy who said he doesn't remember me being there, but I remember being there." Later he said, "I pulled duty in Alabama and I read the comments and the guy said he didn't remember me. That's 27 years ago, but I remember being there."

Regarding #2: There are records that show Bush did not report for duty. Bush missed two physicals and was officially reported as missing for a year by senior officers. Records show that he was required to make up missed time. In addition, the absence of attendance records in a military that is noted for keeping such records indicates not that they were lost but that G.W. did not report for duty.

Regarding #3: The following statement and its variations have been made in order to deflect attention from the missing year. "I served my full obligation with the Texas National Guard. That's why I was honorably discharged," Bush said. You have to read carefully the claims that Bush "did the time that was required." The Bush campaign says that since George got an honorable discharge, he must have done what was required. The assertion is true only if you include the 36 days of "service" that Lt. Bush had to fulfill because he missed at least that many days in the previous year.

Regarding #4: To date, all the Bush campaign can find are two professional Republicans who say they heard Bush say he went to drills. The campaign ignores the four senior officers and the other evidence that says clearly Bush did not attend drills.

try this link...coke head playboy DESERTER from hell

BillyBob

We have all got the message loud and clear; Bush was AWOL in the National Guard. However, that is not what I was referring to when I started this thread. I was not referring to his military service when I used the term AWOL in the header, but about his service as Commander-in-Chief. It's my fault, really, I guess, for using that term; I was pretty sure that someone would take off on a tangent when they saw the AWOL in the thread title. Unfortunately, you proved me right.

If you look at the other posts in this thread you will see that no one else is talking about Bush's National Guard service, so, please either get with the real topic of the thread or find another thread more in keeping with your posts. Thanks.

Actually, it hasn't been proven at all. Though I don't doubt it.

You would have thought that the people speaking out would have been enough. This should be obvious its something else and always has been



Our idea of supporting the troops= We've realized its wrong. We no longer want our men/women to get killed, and we want them to come home.



Bush's idea of supporting the troops= remaining in Iraq and seeing more dead American children fighting for his mistake. His idea of supporting troops means having them remain in a warzone


At this point in the game, the phrase "Suuport Your Troops" should only mean that we want them to come home alive and unharmed ASAP.

Well, what can be said about a president who ignores the wishes of the people? And if last year's Demo win didn't speak for the people, poll after poll indicates that the majority of Americans are against the war and want our soldiers to come home. If the generals say the war is unwinnable, that's good enough for me, they're the experts. But Bush doesn't listen to anyone, he just does whatever he wants - and lied to the American people about WMD's in Iraq.
We shouldn't be there, the war is based on bogus non-existant info.

We're not a democracy. Things aren't that simple. You don't just pick up and leave whenever public support drops below 50.1%.

Mr. Fantasy wrote:"The President Has Effectively Gone AWOL"

This is a very good article from The Nation, that shows just how out of step our "Commander-in-Chief is with his military commanders in Iraq and the Pentagon. I highly recommend it and encourage you all to read it and leave your comments."

_________________________

From what I read as your suggesting we read:
these 'Military Commanders' are retired ie non-active. If what I read is true, it disputes your thread -- yes?

Non-Active brass can say whatever they wish as their not in anyway making ongoing decisions in Iraq or Afghanistan, or advising the President or reporting their decisions to Congress..

Dallas

Originally posted by Johnmike
We're not a democracy. Things aren't that simple. You don't just pick up and leave whenever public support drops below 50.1%.

Excuse me? Did I get that right, we're not a democracy? Then, pray tell, what are we? And, please, don't say a republic because the one definition of our government does not exclude the other. Or, are you making a cynical comment on the state of our failing society? Please, be more precise. Your confusing the hell out me.

We are a constitutional republic.

Originally posted by Johnmike
We are a constitutional republic.

Like I said, A republic can still be democratic in it's structure. For example:

One of the frequent emails I receive argues that my assumption that the United States is a democracy is wrong. It’s a republic. I’m informed that our forefathers were distrustful of democracy. They believed it was mob rule, and a dictatorship of the majority – 50.1 percent would beat 49.9 percent always. So they wrote a constitution and added a Bill of Rights that sharply limited the power of majorities, checked the power of the legislative, administrative, and judicial branches of government by pitting their power against each other, established states rights against the federal government, and only allowed for the direct election to the House of Representatives.

In this classic meaning, the United States is surely a republic. But, what confuses the issue, as in the use of “liberal,” is that words change their meaning. Both the terms liberal and democracy have undergone a change in definition since the 18th Century. Liberal no longer means what it did then; now it is what we call a conservative or libertarian (depending on which 18th Century liberal one reads). And democracy that was then limited to the meaning of mob rule, has now evolved to mean both parliamentary (the closest to classic democratic institutions) and republic.

In present political science writing, democracy means any government, whether a parliamentary democracy, majority rule democracy, OR A REPUBLIC, that has open, fair, and periodic elections for the highest offices, near universal franchise, and secret ballot. A liberal democracy is one with not only such elections, but also civil rights, like freedom of religion and speech. The term now used for the classic meaning of democracy is pure democracy, pure and simple. Link

A Constitutional Republic does not mean that we are not at the same time a Democracy.

No, a democracy means the absolute will of the majority. It is fundamentally different in concept, and entirely different in practice.

you are no longer a republic. the country is run mostly by executive orders. it is not a RERESENTATIVE republic, when the wishes of the public are not reflected by the ADMINISTRATION.

fromwiki:

A republic is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on popular consent and whose governance is based on popular representation and control. Several definitions stress the importance of the rule of law as among the requirements for a republic.

your country is sadly, a poorly disguised dictatorship.
the constitution IS 'just a piece of paper' (-g. bush) because NO ONE is successfully defending it when it is needed (ie. now).

and, mr. fantasy, unless you are a mod, or you sick one on me, i'll post whatever the damn hell i want. as i said, i think my insights into bushy boy's past are signifigant and relevant to this thread. the man is a walking crime, from savings and loans scandals, insider trading, perjury, pedophilia, rape and CONPIRACY and treason. he is indefensible, and if i were an american, i would be looking for ANY avenue to get him out of office, and into a nice cold cell.
in a court of law, CHARACTER WITNESS is admissible evidence which give clues about the motivations and morals of the accused.