Bush: I want the romance of war

reply to post by Johnmike


It's a secret.

j/k

I recalled an article about this being posted on news.au.com and discovered it referenced the Reuters article.

I then did a search using the author's name in conjunction with "Reuters" and up it popped.

I've got a lot of news/oped/info sources bookmarked; 38 currently and adding more all the time.

Of course, If I hadn't noticed the news.com.au article the other day, it might have taken a little longer.

When a news source is attacked, I consider it a challenge to find independent confirmation of the story in question.

If it's not out there then I'll question the veracity of the report.

You see, it's perfectly legal for the media to lie.

And it's important to me to attempt to see through the lies.

For more info check out these threads:

Big Media and The New World Order | The Murdoch Empire

FOX, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC etc...No ISSUES, just gossip, and the corporations are loving it!

Thanks for your interest.

reply to post by TheBorg


QFE

All the greatest leaders in history, ( i discount those generals that sat in little white tents 2 miles behind the front line.. because this is were the modern Leader sitting 3000 miles behind the front line comes from). stood with thier men and led from the front..

'Lead by example'
'i wouldn't ask you to do anything i wouldn't do myself' that is why those men fought with passion because thier leaders installed it into them. this has been replaced in modern times by technology....

A man sitting thousands of miles away is not best to assess the situation on the ground .. no matter how many reports he recieves.

If the leaders of a country that declare war on another country are forced to lead from the front in the first charge.. i believe a dramatic drop in wars would occur period!.

if he loves it so much i agree send him out .. the iraq war will be over in a week.

I can remember a commercial from the 70's. A huge group of people gathered together and their respective leaders roll up their sleeves to fight. I thought it was a good idea then, as I do now.

Of course, we would have to get Jane Fonda to fight in W's stead..after all she was actually brave enough to go to Viet Nam at the same time he requested to NOT be sent overseas.

As for Barbara running along side the train as it moves slowly out of the station; I don't think that's a proper analogy, as she is barely speaking to him.

You know you're pretty bad when your own mother can't stand you.



[edit on 3/15/08 by themillersdaughter]

reply to post by goosdawg


Like I said, if I see it from a better source, I'll consider it. Otherwise, I have better things to do with my time than to verify every story that pops up from some dubious source. I'd be here all day if I did that. Its good to know that you have so much free time on your hands that you can.

I stand by my earlier statement, however. I see no reason to believe an Iranian press report about Bush or the US at face value.

The Reuters source is good enough.

reply to post by TheBorg


High Five, Dude.
You are so right.
Bush has no right to call himself commander in chief. Period.
That title has a real meaning and is very spacific.
It is the title the president has while he is in the field, leading the troops in war.
None of those requirements are met in the present situation.
He should be arrested and thrown in prison for pretending to be an officer.
I am sure he has called himself the Commander in Chief already, and that is a crime.
You do not become automaticly that just by winning an election.
First you have to crawl out of your hole and be a leader, and not metaphoricly.

[edit on 15-3-2008 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by vor78


I consider it my patriotic duty as an engaged citizen to be well informed on the issues that concern me, to the best of my ability.

If that means examining the propaganda from both sides of an issue, then so be it.

I can afford the time to think for myself, thanks.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Bush has no right to call himself commander in chief. Period.
That title has a real meaning and is very spacific.
...
I am sure he has called himself the Commander in Chief already, and that is a crime.

No, it is not "spacific." The president is in charge of the military in every way. He automatically outranks every military officer, from private to general.

The president is the Commander-in-Chief of the entire military. I'm just wondering, have you ever read the constitution?

U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 2, Clause 1.

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

What about this scenario; shortly after 9/11/01, the president meets with the domestic auto manufacturers and labor unions(U.A.W., Teamsters, etc....) which includes agreements that as long as American auto plants stay open and labor will not strike for however long, that instead of spending billions if not @ least a trillion on a war, the government uses that money instead on energy development or infrastructure development to reduce foriegn oil. OPEC, losing bowel control while watching oil futures plummet, hunt down binny and company themselves, along with every other terrorist outfit in the greater middle east metropolitan area, we win the war on terror without firing a shot and kicking global warmings a** as well. No need for romance of war Mr. President. But then again, this president isn't in it for the romance.

K-bye

So, how many of those here who denigrate GW Bush's military service have actually served in the military themselves? How many have served in Iraq or Afghanistan and of those how many have served in combat?

It is true that a lot of men during the war in Vietnam avoided the draft by serving in the National Guard or the Reserves.

Very many avoided the draft simply by enlisting in a branch of the service before they were drafted and some by enlisting before they were even draft eligible.

I was one of the latter. I wanted no part of the draft, so at seventeen I enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and volunteered for service in Vietnam.

Many who didn't want to serve in Vietnam joined the the Coast Guard, Navy, the Air Force, or the Army in fields that would be unlikely to be deployed in-country.

There are many honorable ways to serve one's country in a time of war and most of those do not involve combat or even setting foot inside the theater of operations.

Of all those who served during the war in Vietnam only about 3 million of us actually set foot in Vietnam.

What about all the rest? Is their service less honorable?

I think not.

So, those of you who fault the president for his service, what have you done in the cause of freedom?

What of your service?

Why Haven't You Enlisted?


[edit on 2008/3/15 by GradyPhilpott]

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Thank you for your service. Seriously. This country never properly honored the troops from the Vietnam Era. That is one of our greatest sins as a country.

That being said, there is a difference between serving in theater and state-side I believe. I'm not saying it has less value but, it is different. The things you have to do, witness and experience in-theater are a very different reality from the U.S. protective bubble.

I denigrate Bush (shrub as I saw someone else on ATS refer to him as)

You asked...

So, those of you who fault the president for his service, what have you done in the cause of freedom?

Answer: given him my first born.

What of your service?

Answer: counted real hanging chads in Florida in 2000 trying to save us from all of this muck until the suPREME court made us stop before we were done.

Why Haven't You Enlisted?

Age and have three young children I'm raising alone. The older one...please see above.

Just because we don't support GW doesn't make us any less honorable in my opinion. Seriously though....thank you again for serving in theater. It is a very brave thing to do.

Peace

reply to post by DancedWithWolves


You are correct that serving in theater is different than serving elsewhere, but you have not answered why Bush's service is not honorable.

Did you lose a child in the war?

You have my condolences and my gratitude.

But, that is no reason to fault GW's service in the Air National Guard.

How can Bush try to glorify this war when he must be aware of the suicide rate for service men? The man has the brain of a chimp.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Nooo....my son is finally coming home in April from the Middle East. I only loaned him to GW. I should have been more specific. There are many parents though who have and will experience this loss.

I denigrate George W. because he was speaking to troops who are in theater and had the audacity to speak of war as romantic to those that know its nightmares. I denigrate George W. because of his fiscal policies, his countless lies, his mentality, and his violence as a solution to everything approach.

What is it you think George W. actually did do during his prior service that makes him so out of touch with the realities of war? What were his specific duties? It's almost like he has a video-game mentality of war...it just makes no sense to speak this way to our troops.

Peace

edit: forgot the little reply to tag...back to you Grady
edit: the dastardly typos

[edit on 15-3-2008 by DancedWithWolves]

[edit on 15-3-2008 by DancedWithWolves]

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

but you have not answered why Bush's service is not honorable.

Pretty simple answer.
A lot more people were trying to join the Air National Guard than there was slots available.
Bush was the first to be given a spot when he was not a pilot.
He jumped in line in front of a thousand experienced pilots.
There is no evedence that he fulfilled his obligations.

[edit on 15-3-2008 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by DancedWithWolves
What is it you think George W. actually did do during his prior service that makes him so out of touch with the realities of war?

I don't think that he's out of touch with the realities of war.

I think he was honoring our troops who are in harm's way and as usual those who hate the president seized upon his words to smear him as they always do.

Many of us older guys would like to have the opportunity to serve in this war. Many older people who never served, feel guilt for never having done so, if they have a conscience, that is.

Those who have been to war and know of the hardship and the danger, also recognize the romance of war.

During the times of trying to stay alive, not having enough to eat or never getting enough sleep, of seeing death, and experiecing injuries and wounds both minor and severe, there isn't much that is romanitic or glorious, but it is in these sacrifices for those whom one does not know, will never know and even who have not yet been born, that glory and romance emerge.

It has never been any different and only those who have so served will fully understand.

"For those who have never fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know."

www.chronique.com...

Grady, if war is so glorious why is there such a high suicide rate for service people in the U.S army during the ongoing Iraq war? I ask without malice.

I think he's confused thinking those guys who allways protect diplomates belong to the millitary. There accually Black Water. They get to shoot every thing up and not get in trouble for it. Cowboy behavior and that is something Bush likes plus there being paid a fortune to do it something else Bush likes. But the millitary doesn't get to shoot first ask questions latter and that idea would make Bush do drugs and hide like he did when he was in the national guard.

You know, he is commander in chief. He has the authority to stroll into the field and take command of a unit. Perhaps he should. It would do wonders for his approval ratings among conservatives, and god willing might teach him an important lesson.

It's not entirely unprecedented either. President Madison took command of a naval battery in an attempt to stall the British during the American retreat from Bladensburg in 1814 and was nearly captured during the battle.

Come to think of it, that, and a New Orleans-like final battle might be the only hope for history to remember Mr. Bush's war with the same selective approach to detail that has been given to Mr. Madison's war. All things considered, I'd say this little quip might be the best policy idea Bush has had in a while.

Originally posted by Corum
Grady, if war is so glorious why is there such a high suicide rate for service people in the U.S army during the ongoing Iraq war? I ask without malice.

I think you need to read my post again.

I don't know why the suicide rate is what it is.

There are many factors that influence such events.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
A lot more people were trying to join the Air National Guard than there was slots available.
Bush was the first to be given a spot when he was not a pilot.
He jumped in line in front of a thousand experienced pilots.
There is no evedence that he fulfilled his obligations.

There is no proof of any of those allegations.

The only documents that support those assertions that have ever surfaced were proven to be falsified after the fact.

Dan Rather lost his job over that incident.

Do you hold Bill Clinton to the same standard?

He didn't even honor his verbal commitment to participate in the ROTC.

He committed troops to the Bosnian operations and ordered hundreds of air strikes against Iraq.

If you want a draft-dodging president, there's your man.

Can people really be so ignorant of such recent history?