George Bush Joke

[LowerCaseRepublican]

IlliniBob, regarding the Vietnam "spit upon soldier" myth...

 

http://www.mountainx.com/news/2003/0319troops.php

 

snip --

 

It's become an article of patriotic faith: When our boys came wearily home from America's failed involvement in Vietnam, longhaired protesters in the airports spat on them and called them "baby killers." Today, countless veterans insist they remember this happening to them.

 

But according to Vietnam vet Jerry Lembcke – a sociology professor at Holy Cross College in Worcester, Mass., and the author of The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam (New York University Press, 1998)– there's no documentary evidence that it actually did.

 

"If you go back and look at the historical record, like I did – newspaper accounts, police records, and also just things historians have written," Lembcke told this reporter, "you don't find any record or any evidence that these things happened – or even that they were being claimed as happening – in the late '60s and early '70s." A number of other scholars cited by Lembcke have also combed contemporary records in vain. Not so much as a letter penned by a GI writing home at the time has turned up that describes being spat on, he says.

 

What the researchers did find, however, were numerous contemporary accounts of anti-war protesters being spat on and labeled "traitors," "cowards" or "commies" by pro-war demonstrators. Civilian peace groups and veterans' groups like Vietnam Veterans Against the War worked together closely, Lembcke documents, and vets initiated such dramatic protest actions as burning draft cards and throwing their medals back at the Pentagon. "Most actual hostility toward Vietnam vets emanated from other, older vets who despised their long hair, love beads and peace symbols," Lembcke writes.

 

The myth, he maintains, began circulating in the 1970s in oral form; it was most commonly set in the San Francisco Airport. By the 1980s, movies such as Rambo: First Blood were helping cement the story in the public's consciousness. And in the early '90s, the tale gained prominence along with yellow ribbons, as promoters made "supporting the troops" an emotional justification for another controversial conflict.

[cwsox]

As for the Vietnam troops being supported, so all I've read about soldiers returning home to being spat upon and called baby killers and such is bulls***? Everything I've read says that the treatment of American soldiers on their return was truly shameful.

what have you read?

 

as Apu points out, such was the stuff of Rambo movies but it wasn't true.

 

He cited the seminal book on that subject before I could but here is a link

 

what was real

 

the troops in Nam were our brothers (mostly, fewer sisters then), our friends, our selves.

No one had a problem with draftees doing what they had to do, which was get indicted and serve.

 

We wanted to bring them home.

 

Apu said the rest better than I can.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

yes, the campaign *COULD* have been built better, but let's just get past that for a second. Saddam himself WAS a WMD. He is no longer in power. Us, Iraq, the Middle East, and the rest of the world is safer now b/c of it. Regimes like that are bad for the country, the region, and the world. Also, who is to say that Iraqs supposed WMDs werent shipped out? We gave them so much warning we were coming they could have easily shipped them out to Libya or Syria. Yes, they are 'IFs' but not too far fetched, right? It is known that they have had them, and based on Saddams track record, what is there to assume he actually followed the UN resloutions THIS time around? But you know, maybe he did, who knows. Also, we know the UN is reluctant to do anything. So, you're right, the campaign COULD have been built better, but it wasnt. Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, the Senate (Kerry included) all had access to the same documents. They voted for it, and as a result Saddam is out of power, and yes, Iraq is better because of it

Firstly, your point regarding the UN. There are a lot of countries that thumb their noses at UN resolutions and still remain our allies. Take for example, Israel. It is the #1 violator of UN resolutions yet we give it $15 million in aid per day. Also, there's Turkey. After they burned down the 3,000+ villages of Kurdistan within Turkey, the US didn't say a damn thing and exempted them from their UN resolution condemning treatment of the Kurds. We still give Turkey lots of military aid which is used to repress Kurdish people there.

 

Saddam was an assmuppet. But the slippery slope that was created is bad for international relations. Pakistan/India could use it in their border dispute and they've already started that with Indian government officials saying that Musharref's inability to control his military in Kashmir is a justification for India nuking Pakistan. Preemptive and preventive warfare was already dismissed as a justification for war over 50 years ago at the Nuremburg tribunal with the justices saying it was a crime against peace...which entailed war crimes and crimes against humanity, so it was the worst crime to be perpetrated. A lot of their evidence was lies though that did not even go towards Iraq having WMD (or not havng WMD as seems is the case) They asserted that Iraq tried to get nuclear materials from Niger and had to admit the documents were fraudulent and Iraq never tried. They also asserted that Iraq had a nuclear program and in the speech Bush cited a UN Atomic Energy Agency report that didn't exist. They said Iraq was an imminent threat and then just last week Rumsfeld said anybody saying the administration thought "Iraq was an imminent threat" was lying and it was a "figment of their imagination." Then the journalist on 'Face the Nation' threw it right back in his face showing quotes of 2 times where Rumseld himself said Iraq was "an imminent threat". Rummy damn near s*** himself...he was struggling for words after that. This isn't even discussing the plagiarized speech from grad school work done in 1991 that became Powell's speech to the UN on February 5.

 

Hussein Kamal, the head of the Iraqi weapons program and who the US/UK relied on for a lot of their weapons intelligence, in his testimony said that there were no chemical or biological weapons of any consequence after, I believe it was 1995. Scott Ritter and Doug Rokke, two of the head UN inspectors post Gulf War I said that over 95% of the weapons were neutralized and destroyed; they knew what they were looking for and got access to look wherever they wanted. It's a common fallacy to believe that Saddam ordered them out in 1998 when it was actually the UN, at the behest of the Security Council that forced them out. (I actually had an opportunity to meet with Doug Rokke and found that out) The drones we said would spray chemical agent were found and they were not designed to spray chemical or biological agent (I think it was the UK Guardian Unlimited that said the drones were actually like duct taped weed whackers and other materials like that)

 

As for Iraq being better...I was going through local newspapers for headlines for a collage I'm making and found that 100,000 Sunnis are protesting the new Constitution. A lot of people are saying that the Council in place (which is being paid $460,000+ for the "crucial intelligence" that they gave us about WMD, especially from Ahmad Chalabi which ended up being incredibly bad) is just a shill for the US. The occupying power is terming the Iraqi resistance forces as terrorists, but these resistance forces obviously see the American forces as terrorists on their soil. Indeed, in several open interviews by the BBC and CNN, ordinary Iraqis openly asked American forces to leave Iraq immediately. There are a lot of Iraqis in interviews I've seen that said Iraq is turning into a civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites...and they said, as bad as the Saddam regime was, at least there was no chaos. They really have been putting down Bremer and said when he leaves, there is going to be absolute f***ing chaos. They don't really want Saddam in power or US occupying forces there infringing on their rights. They want to be independent.

 

The attached photo is the day that we were told a ton of people were out for the toppling of the Saddam statue. Check out this wide photo of it and see how many people are actually out there.

 

http://www.bushflash.com/lies.html Is a link to Happy Iraqis Courtesy of Photoshop...worth checking out.

[cwsox]

I never said it was political. It is wartime policy.

Bulls***.

 

It is political policy.

 

It is also not true that the cost of war is not being hidden as you claim.

 

You call the White House or the Pentagon and get the Iraqi casualty figures. They aren't releasing them. Just as the US casualty figures have been downplayed.

 

Bob, I don't like fighting with you. You are a good guy. I just want to acknowledge that, as nothing here is personal.

[Rex Kickass]

Do I think Bush's joke was funny? No. Would I have minded as much if his father had done the same? Probably not. Why? Because there is an aura of arrogance that I see around the Bush administration. If his father did it, it might have seemed like good natured humor. But when he does it, its like he's thumbing his nose at everyone that believed his hype about WMD. And that's not exactly "restoring dignity to the office" is it?

[DBAHO]

Responses from down here,

 

PRIME Minister John Howard today joined other critics in giving the thumbs down to United States President George W Bush's jokes about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq.

 

The president hosted a black-tie media event in Washington in which he poked fun at his staff and himself for not finding the alleged stash of weapons that bolstered the case for invading Iraq.

 

But political rivals and family members of soldiers serving in Iraq quickly took him to task over the jokes' appropriateness.

 

"I wouldn't have told those jokes. I wouldn't have," Mr Howard told Channel 9.

 

"Every country has it's own style but I'm an extremely cautious person about those things."

 

Australian Greens leader Senator Bob Brown last week said the jibes were in bad taste and warranted an apology.

 

"It was rotten to joke about a process which has cost 500 coalition lives and up to 50,000 Iraqi lives," Mr Brown said earlier today.

 

"His joke shows poor judgment, poor rapport with those in Iraq and appalling leadership."

 

The jokes came at Wednesday night's annual Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner in the US capital.

 

In a 10-minute, mostly puckish, self-deprecating speech, the president presented a slide show he called an election-year, White House photo album.

 

In several photos, he appeared to be searching the Oval Office. A photo of Mr Bush looking under a piece of furniture was flashed on the large projection screens in the ballroom.

 

"Those weapons of mass destruction got to be here somewhere," Mr Bush said in his narration, drawing laughter from the audience of journalists, politicians, bureaucrats and other guests.

 

Another photo showed him looking through a window. "Nope, no weapons over there," the president said.

[Spiff]

Firstly, your point regarding the UN. There are a lot of countries that thumb their noses at UN resolutions and still remain our allies.  Take for example, Israel.  It is the #1 violator of UN resolutions yet we give it $15 million in aid per day.  Also, there's Turkey.  After they burned down the 3,000+ villages of Kurdistan within Turkey, the US didn't say a damn thing and exempted them from their UN resolution condemning treatment of the Kurds.  We still give Turkey lots of military aid which is used to repress Kurdish people there.

 

Saddam was an assmuppet.  But the slippery slope that was created is bad for international relations.  Pakistan/India could use it in their border dispute and they've already started that with Indian government officials saying that Musharref's inability to control his military in Kashmir is a justification for India nuking Pakistan.  Preemptive and preventive warfare was already dismissed as a justification for war over 50 years ago at the Nuremburg tribunal with the justices saying it was a crime against peace...which entailed war crimes and crimes against humanity, so it was the worst crime to be perpetrated.  A lot of their evidence was lies though that did not even go towards Iraq having WMD (or not havng WMD as seems is the case)  They asserted that Iraq tried to get nuclear materials from Niger and had to admit the documents were fraudulent and Iraq never tried.  They also asserted that Iraq had a nuclear program and in the speech Bush cited a UN Atomic Energy Agency report that didn't exist.  They said Iraq was an imminent threat and then just last week Rumsfeld said anybody saying the administration thought "Iraq was an imminent threat" was lying and it was a "figment of their imagination."  Then the journalist on 'Face the Nation' threw it right back in his face showing quotes of 2 times where Rumseld himself said Iraq was "an imminent threat".  Rummy damn near s*** himself...he was struggling for words after that.  This isn't even discussing the plagiarized speech from grad school work done in 1991 that became Powell's speech to the UN on February 5.

 

Hussein Kamal, the head of the Iraqi weapons program and who the US/UK relied on for a lot of their weapons intelligence, in his testimony said that there were no chemical or biological weapons of any consequence after, I believe it was 1995.  Scott Ritter and Doug Rokke, two of the head UN inspectors post Gulf War I said that over 95% of the weapons were neutralized and destroyed; they knew what they were looking for and got access to look wherever they wanted.  It's a common fallacy to believe that Saddam ordered them out in 1998 when it was actually the UN, at the behest of the Security Council that forced them out.  (I actually had an opportunity to meet with Doug Rokke and found that out) The drones we said would spray chemical agent were found and they were not designed to spray chemical or biological agent (I think it was the UK Guardian Unlimited that said the drones were actually like duct taped weed whackers and other materials like that)

 

As for Iraq being better...I was going through local newspapers for headlines for a collage I'm making and found that 100,000 Sunnis are protesting the new Constitution.  A lot of people are saying that the Council in place (which is being paid $460,000+ for the "crucial intelligence" that they gave us about WMD, especially from Ahmad Chalabi which ended up being incredibly bad) is just a shill for the US.  The occupying power is terming the Iraqi resistance forces as terrorists, but these resistance forces obviously see the American forces as terrorists on their soil. Indeed, in several open interviews by the BBC and CNN, ordinary Iraqis openly asked American forces to leave Iraq immediately.  There are a lot of Iraqis in interviews I've seen that said Iraq is turning into a civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites...and they said, as bad as the Saddam regime was, at least there was no chaos.  They really have been putting down Bremer and said when he leaves, there is going to be absolute f***ing chaos.  They don't really want Saddam in power or US occupying forces there infringing on their rights.  They want to be independent.

 

The attached photo is the day that we were told a ton of people were out for the toppling of the Saddam statue.  Check out this wide photo of it and see how many people are actually out there.

 

http://www.bushflash.com/lies.html Is a link to Happy Iraqis Courtesy of Photoshop...worth checking out.

haha you are so gay. how long did it take you to type that out, like an hour? time well spent. :headshake

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

especially when our focus should have been on Al Qaeda.

I've heard how you'd like to deal with Al Queda and other terrorist groups many times & let me say again that taking money away from the defense budget and handing it to them and begging them to forgive us for our infidel ways is certainly not "focusing on Al Queda".

[Texsox]

I've heard how you'd like to deal with Al Queda and other terrorist groups many times & let me say again that taking money away from the defense budget and handing it to them and begging them to forgive us for our infidel ways is certainly not "focusing on Al Queda".

Spending money on the Osprey doesn't solve the problem either. Not every item in the Defense budget is critical to our safety. It would be nice to spend a couple trillion dollars per year on defense, but we can't afford everything.

 

My biggest objection is do not go cheap on the stuff we do have, to fund more stuff. Do not cut back on training, pay raises, and comfort items to fund some boon doggle that a General's pal proposes.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Spending money on the Osprey doesn't solve the problem either. Not every item in the Defense budget is critical to our safety. It would be nice to spend a couple trillion dollars per year on defense, but we can't afford everything.

 

My biggest objection is do not go cheap on the stuff we do have, to fund more stuff. Do not cut back on training, pay raises, and comfort items to fund some boon doggle that a General's pal proposes.

The Osprey was a piece of s*** that got people killed. Agreed.

 

The Comanche helicopter was a multi year, multi billion dollar waste of money. Agreed.

 

 

But. Consider this. The Bradley fighting vehicle and the M1A1 tank, the 2 most powerful fighting vehicles in the world and proven many times over in combat, were also " boondoggles" and "favors to cronies". ( They made a movie parodying the development of the Bradley if I am not mistaken )

 

The point I'm trying to make is that weapons development is going to benefit somebody. Those evil corporations who are constantly derided as war profiteers have developed the weapons that make our military second to none and saved countless thousands of American lives in battle.

 

Talk to the soldier I saw in Iraq who was shot twice in the chest from an AK 47 and came out of it with 2 small bruises if the company that made his body armor was an evil war profiteer.

[Texsox]

I have a great deal of respect for our weapons developers. We have set a standard around the world.

 

I believe it s wrong to describe anyone who objects to a piece of military spending as weak on defense. Just like it is wrong to describe anyone who objects to a child welfare bill being branded as wanting to starve babies.

 

I would rather everyone has great body armour than everyone having good body armour so a General's pal can be the supplier.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Nuke, speaking of that body armor...isn't that something people have to buy on their own since the administration is not giving it to them for protection?

 

And Spiff, I'm disappointed at your lack of creativity in putting me down. Not your best work; you could have done much better.