Is this the first time Bush has stood in front of a microphone and NOT mentioned Iraq? Of course he doesn't bother mentioning Bin Laden anymore but for him to understand that he can talk about WWII without bringing in current wars is impressive
LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,576
- 126
"Stupid shrub dishonored all veterans by not attending the dedication. It just shows that he doesn't give a damn about them. Not only that, he was also too much of a coward to risk the possible terrorist attack, so he sent lackeys there to get blown up instead. What a slimeball."
What we would have heard if Dubya had to miss the dedication.
What we would have heard if Dubya had to miss the dedication.
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
"Stupid shrub dishonored all veterans by not attending the dedication. It just shows that he doesn't give a damn about them. Not only that, he was also too much of a coward to risk the possible terrorist attack, so he sent lackeys there to get blown up instead. What a slimeball."
What we would have heard if Dubya had to miss the dedication.
Other people might have said that. But not me. I would have been happy if he has stayed away and kept the attention on WW2 and the veterans of that war.
It would've been nice if this thing was completed back in the early '90s and dedicated by Bush Sr.
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
"Stupid shrub dishonored all veterans by not attending the dedication. It just shows that he doesn't give a damn about them. Not only that, he was also too much of a coward to risk the possible terrorist attack, so he sent lackeys there to get blown up instead. What a slimeball."
What we would have heard if Dubya had to miss the dedication.
Other people might have said that. But not me. I would have been happy if he has stayed away and kept the attention on WW2 and the veterans of that war.
You will take anything Bush does and turn it into a negative. He should have been there.. WWII vets obviously wanted him there (I haven't seen anyone say otherwise), and thats what matters. Maybe you should post a message thanking WWII vets for their service instead of turning their memorial into a political mouthpiece for your misguided opinions.
Those vets gave you the right to speak your misguided crap in this forum, and you shouldn't be saying that their President should not attend. If Bush turned it into some political speech I might agree with you, but from everything I have seen he kept it on-topic and focused on them. Give Bush credit where it is due.. He can obviously take an important thing and not turn it political, maybe you should too.
To quote Ozoned:
" I agree with what you posted.."
Now to expand in an un-Ozoned fashion: Bush Sr. served honorably. It would have been nice to have him do that back in the 90s so more vets could have seen it.
Those vets gave you the right to speak your misguided crap in this forum, and you shouldn't be saying that their President should not attend.
Wow. Look at your sentence again and look for the inconsistency. If they gave me the right to speak in this forum, then I'm going to use it. You are suggesting I not speak and you are contradicting the goal of what people in WW2 fought for. Do you see this inconsistency now?
"Maybe you should post a message thanking WWII vets for their service instead of turning their memorial into a political mouthpiece for your misguided opinions."
Did you read the part where I said this should have done sooner? And where I said it was sad so many have died? I thank the WWII vets. My family members are among them. It seems like you looked over the parts of my post that were pro-vet. Perhaps you were blinded by that by the fact that you can't stand anyone criticizing the president in a free society?
"You will take anything Bush does and turn it into a negative. "
Hardly. Do you have any evidence for that statement?
"WWII vets obviously wanted him there (I haven't seen anyone say otherwise), and thats what matters."
Proof of something not not being the case is not proof that it is the case.
"Give Bush credit where it is due.. "
He deserves no credit for this. The article mentions Bob Dole and Tom Hanks. I'm not giving Bush any credit for this memorial.
LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,576
- 126
Infohawk, I cannot think of any way Dubya could have gotten out of attending the dedication.
What reason could he give for not being there? Short of some giant emergency somewhere, or a physical injury, I see no way at all for him to miss the dedication without it looking very bad to the public.
What would he say to explain his absence to the people?
How would he explain the abdication of his duty as President and Commander in Chief?
If he makes up a story and the press finds out, it's ten times worse.
It's not a personal thing anyway, he is there as the symbolic representative of the country and it's military. He's not there as Dubya.
What reason could he give for not being there? Short of some giant emergency somewhere, or a physical injury, I see no way at all for him to miss the dedication without it looking very bad to the public.
What would he say to explain his absence to the people?
How would he explain the abdication of his duty as President and Commander in Chief?
If he makes up a story and the press finds out, it's ten times worse.
It's not a personal thing anyway, he is there as the symbolic representative of the country and it's military. He's not there as Dubya.
You're right to a large extent. A lot of people would have held it against Bush. But in my book he would have elevated himself. And he could have explained that he didn't want to deflect attention away from WW2 by bringing himself (and therefore Iraq) into the picture and to let veterans like Bob Dole and Sr. run it. I'm not saying this would have been probably or popular, by I think it would have been the right thing to do.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I for one am glad Bush dedicated the WWII Memorial - just as I would be glad if ANY President had done so. It is mostly ceremonial anyway and it's what Presidents do. To those who are getting their panties in a bind about Bush accepting this on behalf of Americans and Veterans - I think you need to take a step back from your partisan hatred and childish whining. Bush is the President - it's time you people accept that. Just because YOU don't think Iraq was necessary and hate Bush doesn't mean he can't dedicate this sort of a Memorial. "hands are stained with blood" :roll: Grow up info - that tired BS doesn't play. You can keep trying to make us lose this War politically like you(or your parent's generation) did with Vietnam -but we didn't and won't lose it militarily and the American people are smare enough to realize that some people are trying to make this another political loss. I'm amazed with the level of hatred for Bush for doing what needed to be done and what he would have been blasted for not doing if he hadn't. Like I said - it's time for some of you to take a break and re-evaluate your hatred. Carrying around that level of hatred can't be good for one's mental health and it's becoming more and more evident you can't control it.
Oh and one more thing to those who need a knee trigger adjustment:
Did you whine about Clinton dedicating the Korean War Memorial?
***************
I echo Bush's statement he made to end his speach:
CkG
Oh and one more thing to those who need a knee trigger adjustment:
Did you whine about Clinton dedicating the Korean War Memorial?
***************
I echo Bush's statement he made to end his speach:
May God bless all who have served our nation. I thank each and every one of you.
CkG
CkG,
As usual your post has more inflammatory remarks and fallacious reasoning than constructive comments or questions. I will point out two examples of your logical fallacies. After that, I will address the few things that are on topic:
"You can keep trying to make us lose this War politically like you(or your parent's generation) did with Vietnam -but we didn't and won't lose it militarily and the American people are smare enough to realize what some people are trying to do make this another political loss."
Stop attacking me and my motives. It doesn't weaken my argument. Google for logical fallacies. In another sentence you say "your bs doesn't fly." Why don't you explain why it's BS instead of just saying it is the case.
"Did you whine about Clinton dedicating the Korean War Memorial?"
No. Clinton hadn't dragged this country through the mud with fabricated wars. That's the difference. Bush led an unjust war. Clinton didn't.
Finally, I'm glad you thanked John Kerry for his service to the country. That's mature of you.
As usual your post has more inflammatory remarks and fallacious reasoning than constructive comments or questions. I will point out two examples of your logical fallacies. After that, I will address the few things that are on topic:
"You can keep trying to make us lose this War politically like you(or your parent's generation) did with Vietnam -but we didn't and won't lose it militarily and the American people are smare enough to realize what some people are trying to do make this another political loss."
Stop attacking me and my motives. It doesn't weaken my argument. Google for logical fallacies. In another sentence you say "your bs doesn't fly." Why don't you explain why it's BS instead of just saying it is the case.
"Did you whine about Clinton dedicating the Korean War Memorial?"
No. Clinton hadn't dragged this country through the mud with fabricated wars. That's the difference. Bush led an unjust war. Clinton didn't.
Finally, I'm glad you thanked John Kerry for his service to the country. That's mature of you.
You took my previous sentence out of context. By all I was referring to everyone that challenges my character, education, service instead of my arguments. I never said I think most people at P&N lack an understanding of logic and reason.
I never said you are beneath me. Even if I thought that or you thought you were above me, it wouldn't impact our arguments. Someone's motives or feelings don't have a connection with their arguments. Imagine I say angrily and while hating you that 1+1 = 2. Am I wrong about 1+1 = 2? No. The emotions and motives had nothing to with the right answer.
Did you read that link about logical fallacies? It's not partisan. It's part of the Western tradition that should be important to all Americans.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
"He hands are stained with blood"
"His war is a farce.", "hands are stained with blood" Why don't you try to explain your inflamitory rhetoric instead of trying to presenting it as fact? It's BS because it's unsupported and the same tired emotional garbage that is trotted out all the time.
"fabricated wars", "unjust war" :roll: It wasn't "fabricated" nor was it "unjust" IMO. You and others can try as hard as you want to say it was but it's still just an anonymous intarweb opinion.
Yes, I thank all Veterans for serving their country. I don't however agree with what some of them did after the War - john kerry being one such example.
As usual your reply was nothing more than what you tried to claim my post was. More innuendo, opinion, and rhetoric presented as "fact". I'm not sure why you can't see past your partisan hatred of Bush to support the dedication of this Memorial, but I have some opinions on that.
Now to further address the Vietnam political war that was lost - you seem to have taken that personally. You might want to read up on it if you don't understand that we lost that politically not militarily. The same attempt is being made today by some to play the same emotional rhetoric game that was played back then. The war isn't lost but it seems some are trying awful hard to make it look that way.
Oh, and get off your "fallacy" high-horse - your "logic" skills are severly lacking yourself and it's laughable that you try to hide behind that accusation all the time.
CkG
I could understand how you could have been confused. Perhaps I should have been more clear. There's a difference between using inflammatory remarks directed at the person you're debating and a third person. The problem with your inflammatory comments is they are addressed at me. It gets in the way of the discussion and they basically amount to ad hominem because you are trying to discredit me with your inflammatory remarks. My criticisms of Bush are the subject at issue. Please address them and not me.
"Oh, and get off your "fallacy" high-horse - your "logic" skills are severly lacking yourself and it's laughable that you try to hide behind that accusation all the time."
I've mentioned before that you are free to point out my logical fallacies by name. You haven't done so in the past.
"It's BS because it's unsupported and the same tired emotional garbage that is trotted out all the time."
A) Because something is repeated doesn't make it wrong. If you scream DC is the capitol of the US over and over it's still right.
B) Why is it unsupported? Support your statement. I have support for my argument. Bush is responsible for a war that was not necessary, which most people in the US were misled to want, and it caused lots of unecessary death. Hence he has blood on his hands. He is responsible.
"Now to further address the Vietnam political war that was lost - you seem to have taken that personally. "
I didn't take that comment personally and it's off-topic. Even if I did take it personally, how is it relevant to our discussion? I've read about Vietnam. Start another thread about it and I'll be happy to post on it. This is not the place.
" I'm not sure why you can't see past your partisan hatred of Bush to support the dedication of this Memorial, but I have some opinions on that."
I'm not sure why you assume I hate Bush. I don't. I think he's a terrible president. There's a big difference. And even if I did hate Bush, attacking my motives would do nothing.
"Oh, and get off your "fallacy" high-horse - your "logic" skills are severly lacking yourself and it's laughable that you try to hide behind that accusation all the time."
How am I hiding behind the accusation that people are engaging in fallacious reasoning? I'm not going to stop criticizing people for using fallacious reasoning. I invite people to tell me if I'm engaging in fallacious reasoning and to name the type of fallacy that is being used.
"Oh, and get off your "fallacy" high-horse - your "logic" skills are severly lacking yourself and it's laughable that you try to hide behind that accusation all the time.
"I've mentioned before that you are free to point out my logical fallacies by name. You haven't done so in the past.
"It's BS because it's unsupported and the same tired emotional garbage that is trotted out all the time."
A) Because something is repeated doesn't make it wrong. If you scream DC is the capitol of the US over and over it's still right.
B) Why is it unsupported? Support your statement. I have support for my argument. Bush is responsible for a war that was not necessary, which most people in the US were misled to want, and it caused lots of unecessary death. Hence he has blood on his hands. He is responsible.
"Now to further address the Vietnam political war that was lost - you seem to have taken that personally. "
I didn't take that comment personally and it's off-topic. Even if I did take it personally, how is it relevant to our discussion? I've read about Vietnam. Start another thread about it and I'll be happy to post on it. This is not the place.
" I'm not sure why you can't see past your partisan hatred of Bush to support the dedication of this Memorial, but I have some opinions on that.
"I'm not sure why you assume I hate Bush. I don't. I think he's a terrible president. There's a big difference. And even if I did hate Bush, attacking my motives would do nothing.
"Oh, and get off your "fallacy" high-horse - your "logic" skills are severly lacking yourself and it's laughable that you try to hide behind that accusation all the time.
"How am I hiding behind the accusation that people are engaging in fallacious reasoning? I'm not going to stop criticizing people for using fallacious reasoning. I invite people to tell me if I'm engaging in fallacious reasoning and to name the type of fallacy that is being used.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Your opinion does not represent anything but an anonymous intarweb opinion. Bush did not drag the dedication of the Memorial through the mud. The Iraq war wasn't a farce - just as WWII wasn't. His hands aren't stained, and he did the right thing by attending and speaking at the dedication of the Memorial.
CkG
InfoPigeons argument strategy:
1. Post a link to an article.
2. Make inflamatory statements about Bush.
3. Deny making inflamatory statements about Bush. He really likes Bush.
4. Makes more imflamatory statements about Bush.
5. Asks people to stop saying he doesn't like Bush, even those everything he says is negative and inflamatory.
6. Tells people arguing against them they are making logical falacies, tossing in some more inflamatory statements about Bush while denying he hates him.
7. Insult all people who disgree with him, claiming they are all making logical falacies in their arguments.
8. Claim he didn't insult anyone, and insult them again while doing so.
9. Ask for proof of him hating Bush, while providing no proof of his inflamatory claims against Bush.
10. All the conservatives get tired of his hatred and just move on.
11. He thinks he won.
1. Post a link to an article.
2. Make inflamatory statements about Bush.
3. Deny making inflamatory statements about Bush. He really likes Bush.
4. Makes more imflamatory statements about Bush.
5. Asks people to stop saying he doesn't like Bush, even those everything he says is negative and inflamatory.
6. Tells people arguing against them they are making logical falacies, tossing in some more inflamatory statements about Bush while denying he hates him.
7. Insult all people who disgree with him, claiming they are all making logical falacies in their arguments.
8. Claim he didn't insult anyone, and insult them again while doing so.
9. Ask for proof of him hating Bush, while providing no proof of his inflamatory claims against Bush.
10. All the conservatives get tired of his hatred and just move on.
11. He thinks he won.
"Bush did not drag the dedication of the Memorial through the mud."
I think he did because he has blood on his hands (my next point) and because he is associated with the Iraq war (which is a farce: see below) and the prisoner abuse.
I was speaking figuratively of course when I said he has blood on his hands. What problem specifically did you have with my previous post where I explained he has blood on hands?
"The Iraq war wasn't a farce - just as WWII wasn't. "
I never said WWII wasn't a farce. It is an example of a war where the US did the right thing. Iraq is a farce because it was predicated on the idea that Iraq was a threat to the US. Even if they had WMDs, it wasn't a threat to the US because nobody in their right mind would believe Iraq could reach the US with missiles. And the terror connection? There wasn't one. The admistration tried to create one. But again, Saddam is disliked by mosts extremists and vice versa. He was secular. So it was a farce because the administration built up a crazy story how Iraq was a danger to the US and never corrected the popular misconception that 9/11 and Iraq just weren't connected. For that mislead (or mistake, in which case it's still a farce), it was a farce. And that's not even getting into the disregard for the international community and the spirit of the UN which the US founded.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I think he didn't because I don't accept your opinion that he has blood on his hands because he is associated with the Iraq war(which isn't a farce) nor because of the prison abuse.(to suggest that would be to say all military personel are guilty by association)
I don't agree with your opinion. I believe the war was necessary and that it was justified.
eh? "His war is a farce. WW2 wasn't."
Iraq isn't a farce because Saddam was a threat and did provide security to the region or further internation peace like was demanded of him
missiles aren't the only "threat" we face in this day and age
Saddam paid families of terrorists - he supported terrorism
That doesn't mean he wouldn't have or didn't support those who hate America or "Western civilization" and are trying to destroy it.
Nope -still haven't made your case. Even if someone could believe your story - it doesn't mean he drug the memorial through the mud. He is the President. Presidents dedicate/accept memorials on behalf of the nation and those who it is honoring. Again - just because you don't like the Iraq war doesn't equate to Bush "dragging this memorial through his mud" nor does it make a case for it not being the "right thing" for him to do.
CkG
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter