Visit Brian Flemming's author page
— Brian Flemming's Blog
yeah, that comparison made sense.
Try the links.
Ah yes, the beloved Chicken Hawk ploy.
Wait a second Brian... are you a vet?
what does that have to to with the comparison between saddam and bush, pray?
of course Bush actually was a pilot in the Air National Guard, dipshit.
Who put himself in grave danger of being in a flying accident during the Vietnam War.
His division of the National Guard was called the champaign division because of all the rich sons of oil execs who were in it to avoid the possibility that they would be killed in the war their daddies supported.
The comparison to Saddam is dumb, but I must admit my jaw dropped when I saw Bush's hypocritical photo-op.
May 1--Bush dresses up like a soldier, going out of his way to stage a photo op designed to align himself with the military.
May 2--Conservatives all over the U.S. condemn the hypocrisy of a man who avoided service in Vietnam putting on the uniform of a real soldier, the same way they would have if Clinton had done it. They also warn how dangerous it is for the leader of a free country like the U.S. to emphasize his military role so strongly, as dressing up in military clothes is something a dictator does. Not only is it unseemly and un-Presidential, but it's flat-out the wrong message for a conservative President to be sending, the conservatives say.
Oh, wait. Scratch that May 2 part. Didn't happen.
David Corn has a good refresher on Bush's military mystery on the Nation's website.
It should be noted that John Kerry who has been slagged by conservatives for his regime change remark was not only a decorated war hero, he was also one of the founders of the Vietnam Vets Against the War (though he hasn't been as courageous about this war).
I wish David Corn could distinguish whether Bush was an officer or enlisted member.
Indeed, Senator Kerry is an interesting guy, too.
You link to a 1996 article that has since been debunked.
You are very generous with the term debunked. Did you read the article you linked?
This post is exceedingly PETTY. It's not really even properly a post, in that it has no writing. It contains no argument about public policy, nothing but the general inference of your usual whining little commie "BUSH BAD" crap.
This is pretty low ebb, Brian. If you're going to insist on the continuing politics of personal destruction, then at least come up with some words to express your seething hatred for the president.
I understand that this may be difficult, in that this hatred comes from some primal internal place ultimately really having nothing to do with Dubya or his policies. Try to give words to your personal Freudian issues, though, so that we may gain some insight into the bitterness of your soul.
Actually, I think it's a great post. It shows the brilliance of the Administrations propaganda machine -- speaking to all the petty dictators of the world in their language, the language of simple simbols ... "not only can our military kick your ass, I (George Bush) can kick your ass, so you better not piss me off." And he said it with a smile.
Yes, you've captured it exactly. That's our President's foreign policy in a nutshell.
Are you claiming that Bush served his country honorably during the Vietnam War?
Or are you claiming, alternately, that it's fine for someone who did not serve his country honorably during the Vietnam War to use this country's military in this way for political advantage?
I'll take your evasion of my question as agreement. You didn't read the article you linked. I guess I should expect that based upon past observations.
Sorry. Didn't notice comment 11.
You may be right that "debunked" is not quite the right word. What I meant was that the 1996 article describes Kerry as making a film about his heroism in the field. Whereas a later witness to that film admitted:
certain people don't go to die in a war. it's a [sad] simple fact in america. it SHOULD be changed (though, it actually shouldn't because that would imply re-issuing the draft) BUT, clinton dodged the draft in a WAY slimier way (there was SOME chance, if something drastic happened, that bush would have gone to war, clinton over in england, NEVER would have). i'm not saying rich kids going to "army camp" to look good on their resumes is a good thing, BUT your obsession with hating bush when the god-like clinton did even worse, is pathetic.
Actually, Brian, I thought the article was interesting from the viewpoint that John Kerry appears to struggle with his past as I'm sure most people that lived through that period do. He threw away his medals once and now he uses them as a campaign highlight. I'm not judging, just making an observation. You can decide for yourself how heroic that is.
I think you misunderstand my point of view, as you've, by implication, mischaracterized me with your posts. I don't question your entries because I'm enamored with Bush or staunchly conservative (I'm neither). I question them because I think they're disingenuous and sensationalist.
As I said, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your cryptic remark, "Indeed, Senator Kerry is an interesting guy, too," which linked to a story that implicitly accused Kerry of exploiting his Vietnam War experience for political gain.
But now you write...
Well, I won't challenge you to state whether you affirm or deny whether Kerry has exploited his war experience for political gain before I'll answer that(deja vu).
The point I was attempting to make with the remark about John Kerry being an interesting guy was that was that he made decisions as a younger man that could be construed in more than one way.
Did he throw away his medals (according to the article, no, not his own)? Was it heroic? I think it took courage but, personally, don't think it was heroic. Does it matter? I think that's questionable. What has he done since? Are his decisions and actions as a 25 year old an adequate measure of who he is now?
I must admit that I roll my eyes every time I hear him say something to the effect that he is more capable of judging a situation based upon his Viet Nam experience. But the reason I won't vote for him is because I disagree with his ideas and positions.
Brian - In #7 you imply that people were upset because Clinton dodged the draft in much the same way that Bush did. I'll leave it to others to decided whether enrolling in a different branch of the military and taking advantage of the looseness afforded him as a result is equivalent to enrolling in a foreign university.
I will say only that I don't think Clinton's avoidance of military service was the core of the issues. As I remember it, there was a letter he had written at the time in which he wrote "I loathe the military." That was what got people irate - that a man with an expressed hatred for the military would later become Commander in Chief of that same military.
Of course, people change, and he was a young college student when he wrote that, so I don't suppose I really care. But to suggest that Bush's record is equivalent to Clinton's is at best ignorant. In your case, Brian, since you aren't completely ignorant, I have to assume it's willful maliciousness. 8^)
To rephrase more succintly, the worst that can be said about Bush's military record is that he served four years and ditched out on the last two to get involved in politics.
Clinton, on the other hand, served for zero years and instead wrote about how he "loathe[d] the military."
Neither should be ignored, but Bush seems to be far more easily excused.
Oh, and one last thing.