G. W. Bush resume'
- Thread starter Sparx
- Start date
I don't know about "bloated", since it's managed to win several wars since that time, and I sure wouldn't want this nation to ever come in second when it comes to military strength.
But you may have noticed that that bloated military employs a few million people as well, including most of this county.
Bush went to the National Guard - Kerry tried to get out of it altogether claiming he was going to study in *FRANCE*. (We won't even MENTION that Clinton dodged it COMPLETELY). When THAT didn't work, he chose Navy duty, spending most of his time safely off-shore. I've heard many accounts of his time on the swift boats, and am not sure where the truth is. But it IS true he got out as soon as humanly possible, and wangled his way out of the Navy early, and spent the balance of that time bad-mouthing his fellow soldiers. Maybe he DID show courage 35 years ago but I've no respect for what he did when he returned. He may as well have shot his own troops.
Not relevant, you say? Too long ago? Fine. Let's not bring it up. Funny thing is, for someone who insists on NOT bringing it up, Kerry does a great job of doing just that - bringing it up. He got three Purple Hearts for obviously minor injuries, but won't allow the records to be released so people can learn he got a couple of boo-boos and left Vietnam. He WILL talk about 'fighting and bleeding' for his country.
Geez. Ken, didn't you serve in Vietnam? Shouldn't you run for President? Apparently, it's a qualification for being President. It used to be something of a disgrace in the 70's to hear the Dems talk about it THEN. Now it's a badge of honor.
To me, ALL of this is irrelevant. I know that if 9/11 happens again, I don't want a president who will go begging the French and Germans if it's ok to hit back. I don't want someone who will toss a few Cruise missiles and hit a camel in the butt. I don't want someone who claims he'll balance the budget but already has a plan that WON'T do that. I don't want a guy who votes FOR a war he was against.
Here's a question - is he FOR gay marriages, or against? Last I checked, he was against, but things might have changed since this morning. One thing I'm sure of, he'll bash Bush for stating his opinion openly. Maybe that's what I'm not getting. When no one knows your opinion, no one can call you to account for it.
Not "in country" but "in theater", where I was it was illegal to even be there and I won't say anymore about that. But I have no ambition on being the President nor would I care to be under the microscope like what happens when someone decides to run. There are many skeletons in my closet that should stay there.
I don't think serving in the military is or should be a requisite to holding our highest office. But if Kerry is going to bash Bush's service record in the Guard then Kerry's record should be opened up for scrutiny too. I want to hear more about him shooting an already wounded enemy soldier and ordering the destruction of hooches housing civilians.
itsbob
I bowl overhand
How can you say ANYONE ran from the war by enlisting in the guard.. like today MANY gurad units did get activated and sent to Vietnam.. matter of fact I'm SURE the families of the 5 NH guardsman that died in country would LOVE to hear how theie husbands sons and brothers COULDN'T have died over there because they were in the guard!!
AND if it were true that he went AWOL there was a regulation concerning that.. if you had two or more un-excused abscences from your guard or reserve unit.. you were AUTOMATICALLY called up on Active Duty..
If Kerry had his way and we didn't have the M! the M2/3 the F-16 etc.. etc... we would have takena a SERIOUS AZZ beatin the first time around in Iraq..
Teddy is proof, if you are a dirtbag and want to get elected, come to Massachusets.. the Massholes will elect ANYBODY!!
jlabsher
Sorry about that chief.
In fact, during the Vietnam era, joining the guard was a sure way to cut and run. Nowdays, joining the guard is a sure way to get into combat, times change.
The navy will be cutting 50,000 sailors over the next 5 years, 25, 000 by the end of next year. http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0304/030204cdpm2.htm
The navy will be cutting 50,000 sailors over the next 5 years, 25, 000 by the end of next year. http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0304/030204cdpm2.htm
Looking at the statistics for Vietnam (I’ll use this site, http://www.mrfa.org/vnstats.htm , no implied endorsement just the first one I found) and you can see that reservists and Guard personnel were there and they did die. So it wasn’t a sure way to cut and run.
Many found leaving the country was better and we let them serve two tours as President sending our troops off to battle.
ylexot
Super Genius
I hope you're not using that to show that the military (and it's budget) is "bloated". If you are, consider this:
"Chief of Naval Operations Vern Clark said Tuesday he intends to cut the Navy by nearly 50,000 personnel over five years in a move toward more manpower-efficient weapons."
Those "more manpower-efficient weapons" cost a whole lot more than 50,000 sailors do. He even says so later:
"Clark said he can save up to $1.5 billion a year for every 10,000 personnel he cuts and needs to use that money to buy the next generation of ships and aircraft."
We could have a MUCH cheaper military, but it would take many more people in the military and if there was a battle, there would be a whole lot more body bags.
Last edited: