<p><a href="http://www.current.tv/studio/media/684.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.current.tv/studio/media/684.htm</a></p>
<p>yeah, maybe they aren't as cool as Gun blazin bomb explodin, Toby keith playin cool guy videos but...</p>
<p>Let's keep it friendly folks! :)</p>
<p>"Officers of the armed forces have no business debating these things when it comes time to execute their orders. Their loyalty must lie with the president no matter what!"</p>
<p>I absolutely agree. I don't think anyone here is saying that is not true. My cadet is a libertarian, she thinks both major parties are full of it.</p>
<p>And just how do you propose the make sure it doesn't happen again? Tough questions...no answers. Ha!</p>
<p>Sorry...I really hate these long posts...and boy, I really wanted to stay out of this one, but some of you got my Irish up!</p>
<p>I suppose this forum is in some measure representative of the division in this country concerning the war.....</p>
<p>Dad2b...I agree with so many of your comments, especially regarding national security and the press.</p>
<p>What I notice here is the unabashed hatred of President Bush and certain notions thrown about as if they are factual. </p>
<p>**** misrepresenting Pres. Bush's IQ seems to never end despite the facts to the contrary...</p>
<p>This from the NY Times....</p>
<p>"To Bush-bashers, it may be the most infuriating revelation yet from the military records of the two presidential candidates: the young George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry. ..."
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html?ex=1256356800&en=50a1bcbb16e7cf21&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html?ex=1256356800&en=50a1bcbb16e7cf21&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland</a></p>
<p>and see urban legends .... <a href="http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm</a></p>
<p>**** Not to beat a dead horse...but everyone agreed on Iraq's WMD (not just "Washington and London") ..if there wasn't international concern then why did the UN issue 17 resolutions on Iraq over a dozen years?</p>
<p>President Clinton: "We Have To Defend Our Future From These Predators Of The 21st Century. They Feed On The Free Flow Of Information And Technology. They Actually Take Advantage Of The Freer Movement Of People, Information And Ideas. And They Will Be All The More Lethal If We Allow Them To Build Arsenals Of Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons And The Missiles To Deliver Them. We Simply Cannot Allow That To Happen. There Is No More Clear Example Of This Threat Than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His Regime Threatens The Safety Of His People, The Stability Of His Region And The Security Of All The Rest Of Us." (President Clinton, Remarks To Joint Chiefs Of Staff And Pentagon Staff, 2 /17/98)</p>
<p>"On Sunday, September 25, 2005, Tim Russert of Meet The Press, summed up the situation prevailing before the war, saying, " post September 11th, there was a fear of terrorism, an inability to know whether there were weapons of mass destruction by the public or by the media. George W. Bush said there were. Bill and Hillary Clinton said there were. The Russians, French and Germans, who opposed the war, said there were. Hans Blix of the UN said there were." ...."</p>
<p>**** Concerning the terrorist profile as described in a post above, maybe you should read this from the NY Times ....
"They were adults with education and skill, not hopeless young zealots. At least one left behind a wife and young children.....
"The concept of the suicide bomber dates to the 11th century, when the Assassins adopted it as a strategy to spread Islam through northern Persia. It appeared again among Muslims from India to the Philippines in the 1700's. During World War II, Japanese fighter pilots were recruited for suicide, or kamikaze, missions."
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/15/national/15SUIC.html?ex=1138770000&en=9ba71f05dd59b330&ei=5070%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/15/national/15SUIC.html?ex=1138770000&en=9ba71f05dd59b330&ei=5070</a></p>
<p>and this one from 'The Age' ....</p>
<p>"The new terrorists are global citizens, resourceful and meticulous, skilled with technology and with the patience to wait years for the opportunity to attack.....poverty, lack of education and chronic unemployment were not the main factors driving terrorist recruitment.... blamed Islamic ideologues, who wanted to impose a brutally repressive society upon the world.</p>
<p>**** although gassing of the Kurds occurred in 1988 as Shogun wrote, however the next administration dropped the ball as well.</p>
<p>This according to PBS Frontline, between March 1995 and August 1996 (Pres. Clinton's time)
The KDP, the largest Kurdish group under Mousoud Barzani (the son of the legendary Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani), breaks with the INC after the U.S. government fails to back a planned attack on Saddam's forces. (See Abdul Rahman on decision to break with the U.S., and Talabani, whose KDP faction stayed loyal to U.S.). </p>
<p>August 1996 KDP troops join the Iraqi Army in an attack on the INC forces based in Irbil, the largest city in Kurdistan. U.S.- backed rebels request American air support but request is denied. Iraqi troops arrest and execute hundreds of rebel leaders. (See Abdul Rahman on KDP decision to back Saddam. Talabani on lack of U.S. response to attack, which he considers another American betrayal. Also Chalabi on Kurdish infighting.)</p>
<p>**** We cannot trust the UN to act in our interest.
check out this article from the BBC on the "oil for food scandal"
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4232629.stm%5B/url%5D">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4232629.stm</a></p>
<p>****Once more, I will reiterate that the press liberal leaning and negative reporting has influenced to a great degree the opinions of many. I suggest again that you read the study from UCLA and the article from the Boston Globe...</p>
<p>Finally, as JR Dunn wrote in the 'AmericanThinker',"....A few years ago, historian Lewis Sorley published A Better War, a history covering the final years of the U.S. effort in Vietnam, in which he argued that by 1970 the U.S. had effectively defeated both the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese, only to see the victory thrown away precisely because the public at large was convinced that the war had been lost, and that no power on the earth could ever turn it around. Were facing the same thing in Iraq. ....Our forces in Iraq have performed magnificently, but they cannot win the war at home. That is up to us. ..Our victorious forces deserve no less."</p>
<p>"To Bush-bashers, it may be the most infuriating revelation yet from the military records of the two presidential candidates: the young George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry. ..." prayerful mom</p>
<p>This is pure speculation by a conservative columnist, certainly not one to be quoted in serious conversation. Also, heavy alcohol consumption and crack cocaine dulls the senses, so maybe dubya just wiped out too many brain cells during his major partay' stage, you know those swinging frat/rugby parties at Yale or ya'all know if you really wanted to have a GOOD TIME, to hook up with George Bush while he was in Texas (???) REALLY get hootched up and party (while he was flying expensive military jets). At the time the National Guard wasn't deployed abroad, so he knew he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam.</p>
<p>Seriously, DID THEY ACTUALLY FIND BUSH'S MILITARY RECORDS???</p>
<p>How would the world be different if Senator Kerry had been elected?</p>
<p>mrgreenapple, fabulous!</p>
<p>Once again, PM, right on the money. And well supported too. </p>
<p>Appreciate the post & will be using it for future reference I'm sure.</p>
<p>Thanks for all the documentation - a research hound like me can really appreciate a "news junkie" like you!</p>
<p>mrgreenapple. What was the point of posting those videos? Do you realize you are on a Service Academy Parents Forum? Our children have already chosen to serve in the military. What good does it do to undermine the authority of our CIC (2nd video) and preach gloom & doom (1st video). Just who is the "fear monger" here?? </p>
<p>Some people feel that the war in Iraq is a noble cause (see the Ben Stein article posted previously about Saints in Armor). Retention rates are high - doesn't that tell you something about what the guys seeing this war first hand are thinking about their mission?</p>
<p>USNA09m..., did you read the NY Times article??</p>
<p>The author sited Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, who called it a "creditable analysis"...I have no idea of her political leanings....do you only believe non-conservatives?</p>
<p>Can you can accuse the urban legend site (posted above) of any bias and they too debunk the myth of Pres. Bush having a low IQ.</p>
<p>As admirable as it may be to oppose something on moral grounds, I don't understand the lack of rational thought when promulgating myths that have been debunked!</p>
<p>As regards Senator Kerry....</p>
<p>"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
(Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. )</p>
<p>In response:</p>
<p>About the IQ's:
I do believe that official transcripts were found from both President Bush's and Senator Kerry's days in college, and if I am not mistaken Pres. Bush had a higher GPA than Sen. Kerry. With that being said, I really would love to see the correlation between college GPA and actual intelligence or future potential. Yes, I would imagine that an increased college GPA would usually indicate more potential. But I would bet there are many, many people out there who are now very intelligent and very succesful who graduated with low GPA's. You don't even have to go to college to be one of the richest men in the world (Bill Gates). </p>
<p>"This is pure speculation by a conservative columnist, certainly not one to be quoted in serious conversation. Also, heavy alcohol consumption and crack cocaine dulls the senses"</p>
<p>Interesting that you should bring up speculation. You say one person's argument isn't valid because it is "speculation" yet you imply that Bush both drank heavily and used "crack cocaine." Can you prove to me that these accusations are true? Please find me pictures, positive drug tests, whatever you want to bring to the table, but remember, you're not allowed to use someone's "speculation." As to the alcohol usage, I can probably give you this one, as I don't know many people who in their college/post college days did not party and did not drink, and did not drink to excess a few times. If you were to say that drinking makes you unfit to be president, well you better go ahead and nix about 3/4 of the general public right now. Now if someone were actively drinking to excess that might be a different story.</p>
<p>"At the time the National Guard wasn't deployed abroad, so he knew he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam."</p>
<p>Okay, most of the people in this forum are old enough to have served in Vietnam. How many of you actually did? Go ahead, post away. And of those who served how many of you would have done anything to get a position that would keep you in the US? Now, for those who did not serve, how many of you if drafted today to go serve in Iraq would look for a way to serve without being sent to Iraq? I know I would, I know my father did(not much use for nuclear missile officers there), and I know my sister did (volunteered, but didn't need dieticians in Gulf War I). You know what, I am just as proud of them as I am my cousin in the Army who just returned from Iraq. To me this argument against President Bush is just silly. It is merely a smear attack from people who probably did the same thing, or worse yet, ran to Canada.</p>
<p>"Seriously, DID THEY ACTUALLY FIND BUSH'S MILITARY RECORDS???"</p>
<p>Does it really matter? What would have been learned from his military records that would have any importance on how he is running the country? Would it have swayed any voters, I doubt it, those who voted for him were probably staunch supporters and nothing would have swayed them one way or the other. </p>
<p>"How would the world be different if Senator Kerry had been elected?"</p>
<p>I'm not quite sure if you are implying something here, but I would bet that we would still be in Iraq if Sen. Kerry had been elected. We still would have been attacked, and we still would have had a response. We will never know the true answer to this question. However, democrats do have another chance to have him elected president. My money is that he will not get the nomination. Either by him not running or him not garnering the support, my money is on someone other than Sen Kerry (I'm not quite sure who exactly it will be at this time) </p>
<p>I also like the fact that you mention President Bush as simply "Bush['s]" and Senator Kerry as "Senator Kerry." I doubt you did this on purpose and to be honest I think that shows more of where your thoughts come from than if you did do it on purpose. </p>
<p>In conclusion (I decided to end like they teach third graders to do), to all, please stop the personal attacks on our President. They do no one any good, and if anything make someone's argument weaker. The best way to win a debate is not to defame the other side. usna9mom, your posts are usually very well thought out in my opinion; however, this last one was merely inflammatory and downright unprofessional.</p>
<p><em>steps down off his soap box</em></p>
<p>Many of you may have seen that, but I feel it's appropriate here.</p>
<p><strong><em>In response to the second video</em></strong></p>
<p>Amid all the liberal media placing body counts as their top priority, people forgot that we are at WAR...how many wars have we experienced in which there were no casualties (besides the hippies' wars on acid rain, rainforest destruction, 'the man,' etc)?</p>
<p>Ahem, I for one was too young to go to Vietnam. I think Aspen may be the only one that old on this forum :)</p>
<p>The rest of us are spring chickens!</p>
<p>The nation is seriously divided and has been since about the middle of Clinton's administration. I blame that squarely on both political party's and ignorance among the general population with regard to current world events, history, and real science. Too many people willing to be spoon fed their opinion.</p>
<p>KP, KP, KP, where to start? Nowhere, I like your posts too much. Your observations are mostly correct. </p>
<p>That does not diminish the serious shortcomings that this adminstration has demonstrated. In my case [given my training], I am particularly alarmed by the imperial tendencies of this administration. The unwillingness to consider alternatives. The dismissal of constitutional rights as just speed bumps in the "war on terror." It amazes me how willing people are to have their rights diminished in the name of security. [Not to go off on a tangent, but I represent a man convicted of a sex offense. Despite previously serving his country and his community and because of one lapse in judgment with a minor--not as bad a you might imagine--he is on a sex offenders list for the rest of his life. He served his time and suffered the consequences. Now, after ten years of no further incidents, he continues to be branded a sex offender. You could analogize this story to suspected terrorists; no matter the person's past, no matter their current behavior, once labeled a terrorist, always a terrorist.] The indictments of Bush's IQ, his military record, etc. are all specious. I voted for him the first time; compared to Gore, I would probably still vote the same. I did not vote for him the second time; compared to Kerry, I would still vote the same. </p>
<p>Nothing is to be gained over debating the reasons for invading Iraq. I still don't know why people are not more upset over the post-invasion administration. To me THAT is the failure, the tragedy of this administration. The administration simply was not prepared or would not prepare for the aftermath. Good advice continues to be ignored. </p>
<p>The old advice is still applicable: Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. It is happening in Palestine [a whole 'nother story]; the US pushed for a democratic election [despite the misgivings of Israel as well as the existing Prime Minister] and what happens? A terrorist group gets elected. Now what? I am afraid the same will happen in Vietnam [sorry, I meant Iraq]. A democratically elected government will emerge. [Iran could be considered to have a democratically elected government for that matter.] Unfortunately, it may be a government that is not aligned with U.S. interests. Then what? Over 2,000 American lives wasted and the country, essentially, becomes what it was before.</p>
<p>Shogun is right, most of us are just a bit too young to have been afforded an opportunity to go to Vietnam. [In any event, if I remember correctly, my lottery number was about 345. Thank you very much.] It was a different time. Military service was not at all what it is today. Neither was the social environment like it was today. In retrospect, I wish I had enlisted. As a first-generation college graduate, that was not something my parents encouraged me to do.</p>
<p>Bill, you are too smart, I need a dictionary at the ready when I read your posts, haha. </p>
<p>specious: "plausible but false; "a specious claim"; "spurious inferences"</p>
<p>wow, what an incredibly useful and great word. I'm not sure if I should be ashamed for not knowing that definition or not. Thank you for educating me.</p>
<p>"Nothing is to be gained over debating the reasons for invading Iraq."
..."The old advice is still applicable: Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it" (just for editing sake I put these two sentences near each other, unlike reality TV I don't prefer to do Frankenediting)</p>
<p>I can't believe I'm going to agree with a lawyer here, haha. </p>
<p>And I apologize to all those on this board who I offended by inferring they were old ;)</p>
<p>No inference is necessary. We ARE old!
My young buck, you have so much ahead of you.</p>
<p>"My young buck, you have so much ahead of you."</p>
<p>When does deer season start? ;)</p>
<p>Hey, Walter Cronkite says it's time to get out of Iraq!</p>
<p>bill,
Old is a relative term. Compared to Walter Cronkite we're young, though I understand that he is remarrying next weekend. But, I think we would all agree that he certainly is a wise and experienced Texan, war correspondent (World War II, Vietnam), great sailor, and altogether brilliant and delightful human being. Hmmm, wonder who he voted for the last two presidential elections? :eek: Do you think mr. bush is listening to his phone calls?</p>
<p>"When does deer season start? "</p>
<p>haha, touche</p>
<p>We have to learn how to use big words so we can collect the big hourly fees! Pretty soon, as a doctor, you too will be throwing around the Latin so as to increase your take. </p>
<p>* Just got back from the doctor for my son, who has a viral infection [What did she say he had "Infectatious Throatacocus" or something similar.] ; of course there is nothing to be done for him but the doctor collected her fee anyway. Just to demonstrate how each profession has its own little scam, they run a strep-throat test on every child-- "Just to be safe"-- despite the fact that he has had his tonsils removed and it is my understanding that strep rarely occurs in those that have had their tonsils removed. * </p>
<p>But, hey, more power to you. Use the stethoscope wisely and you should have plenty of deer to choose from.</p>