Page 1 of 1

Has Bush put his presidency on the line?

Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:03 pm
by JFlosum
Recent developments since the Blix report to the U.N. have some speculating that Powell has put Bush between a rock and hard place. It was Powell that insisted that Bush go back to the U.N. before attacking Iraq militarily.

Bush may enjoy rather high (but slipping) approval rating but most Americans and onlookers form outside the U.S. see Powell as a much higher authority on maters involving armed conflict. Bush having served on what some consider the very lowest levels of military service, the National Guard, and Powell having served as the highest-ranking military person in the country. (The Commander and Chief is a civilian position)

Powell presented his “lacking the smoking gun” case to the U.N. and failed to gain any ground at all among the all-powerful Security Council. Then in walks Blix and hands the opposition exactly what the needed to support their containment with out force position.

Seeing Bush’s failure to move and haven taken Powell’s advice to seek U.N. approval before attacking, can he expect Powell to reevaluate his position now that he has failed to gain U.N. support? It seems doubtful to me that Bush can ignore a very popular Powell and go it alone with out his support.

There seems to be some division on rather the Blix report has increased the possibility of war or hastened it. At least on Wall Street analyst with one eye on the markets and one on the war is saying he thinks this will come sooner rather then latter.

Prudential Sec. analyst Chuck Gabriel believes the U.S. and Britain will decide to go it alone. "We guess that this might entail giving Saddam an ultimatum to evacuate Baghdad within as little as 48 hours." He believes war could come in two to three weeks.

Others see at least a bit of a reprieve for the time being. Here’s a Reuters story to that effect.

Investors See War Delay, Buy Stocks http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=580&e=4&cid=580&u=/nm/20030217/bs_nm/markets_global_dc

Re: Has Bush put his presidency on the line?

Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 4:28 pm
by Old Scout
what some consider the very lowest levels of military service, the National Guard,
I have a real problem with comments like this. After serving a hitch in the Air Force, I spent twenty years in the National Guard as a Combat Engineer and as a Tank Commander. The National Guard makes up about 52% of the military and on the weekends that we train and the two weeks in the summer we trained just as hard and were required to meet the same standards as the regular Army.

In 1986 when we went to Germany during Operation Reforger, we met or exceded every standard that the Army set for a depolying unit. Unlike in the past where the military had months to get units ready for combat, we were expected to report for deployment ready to go. There are many units that have already been activated in the past few weeks and I am sure there will be many more.

It is about time people cut the weekend warrier bull and give the National Guard the respect it deserves.

Re: Has Bush put his presidency on the line?

Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 7:36 pm
by JFlosum
Don’t shoot the messenger.

I could not agree with you more OldScout. They are not my sentiments but it does seem to be those of others, at least in regard to Bush. If you remember someone on one of the other topics made reference to his service record. My reply to the poster was it doesn’t make a dang bit of difference.

Thank you for very eloquently defending, and rightly so, the National Guard. They have served this country gallantly in the past and I have no doubt they will do so again if called to do so. When called to duty these people put their normal lives on hold, and run off to lay down their lives to defend our country. We owe them the utmost respect, admiration and above all, our undying thanks.

Re: Has Bush put his presidency on the line?

Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 10:01 am
by Old Scout
If anyone is interested in the history of the 32nd Red Arrow Division here is a link that gives a brief rundown of where they were and what they did.

http://www.grunts.net/army/32ndid.html
This doesn't sound like a second rate unit to me!

Re: Has Bush put his presidency on the line?

Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 4:32 pm
by NurseNell
Originally posted by JFlosum:
I could not agree with you more OldScout. They are not my sentiments but it does seem to be those of others, at least in regard to Bush. If you remember someone on one of the other topics made reference to his service record. My reply to the poster was it doesn’t make a dang bit of difference.
The National Guard is a vital part of the military. Most who choose to serve in the Guard make a conscious choice to do so and often they do so after already serving active duty in the military. George W. Bush joined the National Guard to avoid the draft and, as recent documents available through the Freedom of Information Act show, he had a less than stellar performance. Be sure to read his fitness reports: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm

And now he's the commander in chief?

Re: Has Bush put his presidency on the line?

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2003 11:50 am
by JFlosum
Yup, he’s the Prez NurseNell!! That just galls the heck out you don’t it? :D :D

And just what was Billy Clinton doing during Viet Nam? Hiding under some desk? Of course he was probably not alone…….

…..and what about AlGore: Yet nobody's investigated Al Gore's military record -- the strangely shortened six-month tour as a reporter in Vietnam. Special privileges invoked? Nobody cares. Lying to a nationwide convention audience about your sister's death spurring you to fight the tobacco menace? Nobody cares.

Gore the environmentalist making $20,000 a year in zinc mining royalties? Nobody cares. Even worse, getting it from Occidental Petroleum, part of the the cozily slimy relationship between the Gore family and the Soviet stooge Armand Hammer. In his book, "Dossier," Edward Jay Epstein noted a Whitewater-style deal between Al Gore Sr. and Hammer: "In 1950, Hammer had made Congressman Gore a partner in a cattle-breeding business, and Gore made a substantial profit." (Gore the Elder later worked directly for Hammer for $500,000 a year.) This might explain why young Al wrote to Dad that anti-communism was a "psychological ailment," a "national madness." Hammer's business interests in communist countries were a family cash cow!

More on Gore: Al Gore's military record has resurfaced with more lies than truth.
His 12-month Vietnam duty turns out to be missing in action for seven months because when his daddy, Sen. Gore, pulled some strings, Al was sent back and admitted into divinity school.

No, a military background is not required, but when a person shirks his duty to defend his country, he should be classified "unwanted" as a presidential nominee………these last eight years were unbearable, especially when a draft dodger (Bill Clinton ) had the gall to place a wreath upon the Soldiers Tomb. -- Purple Heart veteran

Ya, Ya …Gore’s the answer… wish we could reverse that election… AlGore much better at lying and cheating….. He gets away with it!

<small>[ February 19, 2003, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: JFlosum ]</small>

Re: Has Bush put his presidency on the line?

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2003 6:05 pm
by NurseNell
Originally posted by JFlosum:
[QB]Yup, he’s the Prez NurseNell!! That just galls the heck out you don’t it?
I wouldn't say it galls the heck out of me. He didn't win the popular vote and frankly, Gore would have been no more effective IMHO. It doesn't change the fact that neither of them has a military record one can be proud of. Money talks and both are proof of that.

And just what was Billy Clinton doing during Viet Nam? Hiding under some desk? Of course he was probably not alone…….
Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar and like other Rhodes Scholars had a draft deferment. Like him or not, dummies don't get to be Rhodes Scholars. His family was poor too so no buying his way into anything. BTW, I didn't vote for Clinton and if you've read my past posts you'd know I do not like the man or his wife.

Ya, Ya …Gore’s the answer… wish we could reverse that election… Al Gore much better at lying and cheating….. He gets away with it!
Please show me in black and white where I ***EVER*** said Gore would be better. BTW, GWB does pretty good in the lying and cheating department too. It seems to be a requirement for politics. Who was it that said "When roll is called at the Senate the Senators don't know whether to answer "Here" or "Not Guilty"?

Nell

<small>[ February 19, 2003, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: NurseNell ]</small>

Re: Has Bush put his presidency on the line?

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2003 7:20 pm
by JFlosum
NurseNell!!

That is funny! I don’t know who said it but I know I am going to steal it!!

More I read of your posts the more I like you!

I may be guilty of assuming that someone bashes Bush would have preferred Gore. And I never for one moment have ever thought Clinton was anything but brilliant, but still dim compared to Hillary. Now there is one smart cookie!

However of the four, I still go with Bush. He was not my first choice (or second or third for that matter) but I am not going to belittle or defame him just because he was not my guy, or didn’t serve in the military in the manner I would have liked, or because he didn’t win the popular vote or because, because, because…. I see all that stuff as counter productive.

We seem to have taken the role of “the loyal opposition” and moved into an aggressive, slash, burn and take no prisoners mode. I did not support those tactics when Clinton was in the office nor do I support them against Bush. The man is our president. We need to go forward.

Incidentally, “my guy” was actually a gal, and still is. We will get another chance in 2008. I doubt she runs against Bush in 2004.

Re: Has Bush put his presidency on the line?

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2003 7:29 pm
by NurseNell
Originally posted by JFlosum:
NurseNell!!

That is funny! I don’t know who said it but I know I am going to steal it!!
I'm thinking it was Teddy Roosevelt who said it.

Nell

Re:

Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 12:16 am
by Dopey Dwarf
.

Re: Has Bush put his presidency on the line?

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:44 pm
by Blanard Sanderson
Baby, get your mind out of the gutter!

Re: Has Bush put his presidency on the line?

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:46 pm
by Blanard Sanderson
For cry-pee, don't you think george would look funny with a mustache?

Re: Has Bush put his presidency on the line?

Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2003 9:57 am
by Old Scout
To get back to the original reason for this thread.
A friend of mine brought up an interesting point about why Germany and France don't want us to go into Iraq.
There have been rumors for a long time about other countries selling equipment and technology to Iraq. What don't the french and germans want us to find. Have they been selling or trading things for oil that they would rather not have the rest of the world knowing about.

Just makes you wonder !