The CBS Bush Military Memos

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 16th, 2004, 10:06 pm

Here's a link to a pdf version of the recently released military records concerning Bush's military service:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/091 ... ervice.pdf

To me it looks clearly to be fake. It had superscripts after the numbers which weren't introduced until Office 95.

So what is this anyway ... a left-wing plot to attack Bush's military service ... a right-wing plot to make the left-wing attackers look bad ... something else?

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » September 16th, 2004, 11:14 pm

its fake... Look at the l (1)

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 17th, 2004, 12:09 am

I don't care. No one should.

Aggressor Prime · September 17th, 2004, 12:24 am

Me either.
Bush = good.
Kerry = bad.

It is common sense who to vote for if you can.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 17th, 2004, 12:59 am

Lol I should clarify

Politics Pre-9/11 = Useless
Constitution = Good
GOP Violating Constitution = Bad
Saddam = Bad
Osama = Worse, much, much worse
Not Catching Osama = Bad
Useless, pointless Iraqi Guerilla War resulting in defeat and decades of Civil War = Worst possible scenario
Americans dying for Iraqis = Wrong
Americans dying for Oil = Very, Very Wrong
Bush = Worst President In Last 25 years
Iraq = Worst mistake since Vietnam
Those who can't see that = Republicans
Stupid = See Above
Osama = Alive and Well
Terrorism = Stronger Than Ever
Ashcroft = Gestapo
Rumsfeld = War hawk and maniac
Wolfowitz = See Rumsfeld
Bush = Neo-conservative puppet and drunkard simpleton

Kerry = Lesser of two evils.

I would vote for a pack of tic-tacs over Bush. If he is reelected I see a draft by 2006 followed by massive global unrest. I see North korea Invading South Korea, threatening Japan with Nukes if we use them against the North. I see less and less freedom. I see police state issued under the guise of a 'Red' Terror Warning. I see the Executive branch not being checked by legislative or judicial. I see Cheney taking over after Bush leaves. You think Iraq is the worst thing that can happen? Think Nuclear War.

I am saddened by the fact that 16% of this nation is uneducated immigrants and the rest are gullible hicks like yourselves who love their automatic rifles and hate free speech. Bush speaks your language, right? I done gone started war, yeeeeeeehawwww! Ya'll done send ur kids down here, kids who didn't vote because votin' don't matter no more, and I'll give em a gun an we'll kill us some browns! They 'tacked dem towers! Don't go askin congress, dey don' matter no more neither. Neither do them 1000+ ded, ya see? We done killd us a lot morr! YEEEEEEEEHAAAWW.

Fuck Bush. If Democracy doesn't win this November expect to see me in Washington. I will fight for democracy, fight for you, even if you are all too foolish to see that the only war on terror is being waged by the conservatives against all of us. I won't wait for Bush to place me in some far off place to fight for his business interests, I'll fight now for my freedom.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 17th, 2004, 2:29 am

Since when is Bush some war mongering lunatic? I hope you have some way to back up saying that Bush knew there were no WMD's. Otherwise I don't see much more of a point in arguing with you.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » September 17th, 2004, 2:31 am

If you want to see Less and Less freedom just take a look at Russia

You say Kerry is the lesser of the two evils ok but he isn't that great i mean newsweek (or some news place like it) did a poll and half of the people voting for Kerry is to get away from bush, thats not saying much for Kerry. Pluse i'm pretty sure the points have risen in favor for Bush simply because they have heard of what Kerry has voted for in the last 30 years.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 17th, 2004, 2:39 am

Go read Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke or Disarming Iraq by Hans Blix. These are accounts of how monumentally misguided the US became under Bush's leadership, and how a case was fabricated against Iraq using false testimony of defectors like Ahmed Chalabi who were motivated by personal grudges and power grabs. The intelligence of this nation was correct, the CIA stated clearly there was no case for Iraqi WMD's and Hanz Blix stated clearly that there were none in Iraq. Obviously, the United States either was completely, utterly misguided in it's search (And that means all of the leadership), or it willingly chose a case for war that was constructed of third hand accounts and lies. The motivation to fight a baseless war is for anyone to guess.

Aggressor Prime · September 17th, 2004, 2:42 am

"We didn't find weapons of mass destruction, but what we found was much worse."

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 17th, 2004, 2:43 am

So you are saying that the CIA clearly stated that there were no WMD's in Iraq, but at the same time Congress, who saw what the CIA said, voted for the war and Great Britain as well as nearly 30 other smaller countries joined us?

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 17th, 2004, 2:44 am

Aggressor Prime wrote:"We didn't find weapons of mass destruction, but what we found was much worse."

Sorry, I can't think of much worse of a terrorist tool than a WMD. Before you post again please lessen your OMG-Bush-is-the-best-president-ever attitude.

Aggressor Prime · September 17th, 2004, 2:50 am

That is what the weapon inspector said when he came back. You never hear the second part. What is worst than weapons of mass destruction? Just think about it.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 17th, 2004, 2:59 am

Something that can't be used against the US.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 17th, 2004, 3:00 am

Prime I don't know what the punch line here is, but I just don't follow.

Congress knows that to deny a President the capability to go to war in the months after 9/11 would be considered close to treason. And, like many Americans, the case we were shown was very clear. The only problem was, the strongest evidence turned out to be circumstantial in nature and in many cases false. Aluminum Tubes from Niger, was it? Or Lybia? Al Qaeda meeting in Baghdad with Ba'ath Party Officials? COlin Powell holds a vial of anthrax in the wake of a nationwide Anthrax attack. While none of this was reality, it was very convincing. I was convinced. The leadership knew the reality behind these facts, as is stated clearly in Richard Clarke's book.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » September 17th, 2004, 3:03 am

I think Prime is suggesting Iraq didn't have these weapons, but if they don't now who does. The much worse part he talking about may be that Iraq gave teh weapons away. Prime please explain more.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 17th, 2004, 3:12 am

Clarke's book says that Bush all but ignored Al Quaida until 9/11. It seems to make Bush appear to have done less about terrorism than Clinton did, but the 9/11 commission report came to a different conclusion.

Since I dont' intend on reading this book immediately, what's in it that makes Bush look like he overhiped the Iraq situation?

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 17th, 2004, 3:14 am

I've never found that quote. Anywhere. Hanz Blix believed that the Iraqis destroyed their weapons in 2001 because of the weapons treaties. He visited more than 700 sites within Iraq and found nothing. This was clear before the war, but the US demanded the inspectors leave Iraq so we could invade. Where is the logic jump there? Our nation went from A to C without even mentioning B.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 17th, 2004, 3:29 am

Clarke's book focuses primarily on the intelligence failures before and after 9/11. Clarke focuses on how, in leaving an unfinished war in Afghanistan to pursue an old family rival, Bush compromised America's safety. He is very critical of the case for war and blames a misguided leadership for the 'intelligence failure'. I don't remember specifics (I read it in June), but it was a fairly objective analysis of the current administration's paths to war.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 17th, 2004, 3:48 am

You've spend a lot of time accusing Bush of giving Americans bad Intel. Why should anyone believe that those claims are anything more than an angry left wing nut's attempt to smear Bush. There's a hell of a lot of anit-Bush propaganda out there, and a lot of it may sound convincing, but the truth is that it's all propaganda.

I think with this Iraq war there is no possible way we can tell now whether or not it will have been beneficial for the Middle East. As Nixon once said, you can't look at history until it's at least fifteen years old. This war is a tenth of that.

In Clarke's case, he wouldn't be the only person to cross party lines in a big way lately. Take Zell Miller for example. Clarke's book is likely slanted in the same way that Fahrenheit 9/11 is. I don't personally waste my time reading and watching partisan propaganda. If you do, I can certainly see how you would have arrived at your current opinions.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 17th, 2004, 4:17 pm

You're right, there is a lot of trash out there condemning both candidates. Smearing Kerry as a flip-flopper is just as baseless as the worst Anti-Bush Propaganda. Hell, that's the worse they can come up with for him.

If you can't tell the truth about history for 15 years, Nixon, than why did we consider you to be a national disgrace when you left and still continue to? The idea that we should not examine things as they stand now is ignorant and false. We need to think now, contain the damage and escape the horror before we poison the Middle East to American diplomacy for decades to come. 15 years? How about 15 days. The last 15 days have been the most violent of all the war. Do you think the next will be any less? Or the next after that?

I don't consider Richard A. Clarke, the first National Coordinator of Security, Infrastructure and Counterterrorism a political pundit like Moore. I also don't consider any political dissidence as 'partisan propaganda.' Are we to swallow governmental shit like it's caviar the way O'Reilly does, shutting out reality? It's our duty as citizens of this democracy to constantly question and inform ourselves of the state of our nation.

Aggressor Prime · September 17th, 2004, 4:21 pm

Go back to World War II, Germany.
They were 10X worse.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 17th, 2004, 5:00 pm

About that Nixon quote, it's unrelated to Watergate. Also, I dont' mean by taht that we shouldn't look at history until it's 15 years old, that woudl be foolish. What I meant by quoting him there was that we will not know truly whether or not the Iraq war was helpful for still a while. We simply do not know, and we won't know until we see the big picture of what it does for hte world. There's no credible evidence that Bush is a war mongering liar. All of you "evidence" comes from either left-wing nuts or angry politicians like Clarke or Miller. Each president has had to deal with books like Clarke's. Smear of this kind isn't brand new, the problem is that there are always groups of people who believe the propaganda.

Also, O'Reilly had a column a few weeks ago where he ridiculed how bad Kerry and Bush haters are doing compared to past elections over the past 200+ years. Your opinion seems to coincide with his.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 17th, 2004, 10:34 pm

I have said it once and I'll say it again, Fuck O'Reilly. He probably believes that famous Bush quote: "There should be limits to freedom." What a dick.

http://www.maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly

I know it wasn't about watergate, it's called contextual analysis and it's used to bring comparative reality to a situation, something this argument lacks. Clarke is not a politician. He is appointed by the president. Jackass. There's no proof Bush lied? There's either proof that he was incompetent and misguided or that he lied, either way, he is a terrible leader. Catastrophic Success? What a dick. The only reason it was a success was because of America's incredible military personnel and technology. The Catastrophic part was all his doing.

Stop throwing away arguments as partisan propaganda the way O'Reilly does.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 18th, 2004, 2:18 am

Suvorov, your fatal mistake is that you think that the hateful anti-Bush propaganda is true. Dems, including the liberal media, were infuriated by the 2000 election, and they say that it was stolen. Consequently, they have upped the level of anti-Bush propaganda, and you believe it. Now you post anti-O'Reilly crap when I mention how you said the same thing that O'Reilly once said. Pull yourself together and realize what's actually going on in this world. The terrorists attacked us, and we are fighting back. Faulty intel lead us into the war in Iraq, but only time will tell whether or not the war was still beneficial. What you have said here about Bush and Iraq is obsurd. I hope you someday realize how full of BS what you've been saying is.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 18th, 2004, 6:43 pm

Don't count on it. The only fatal mistake here was Bush's mistake of going to war with Iraq. If you are willing to forgive such an egregious lack of common sense and objectivity and re-elect him, than you deserve what you will get. We are not fighting against terrorists anymore. We are fighting against everyday Iraqis who see M1A1 Abrams tanks rolling down their streets because one man did not know the difference between falsehoods and truths and because our people didn't know the difference between a religious network of terrorists who attacked us and a secular nation that did not. America needs to see the error there, an error that gets more and more wrong each day. If you are OK with American men and women dieing each and everyday because of one man's mistake, than vote for Bush. If you are OK with millions of lost jobs and a deficit of hundreds of billions, than vote for Bush. I don't forgive mistakes that cost lives, and I don't support a leader who refuses to see the errors of his ways. If you do, than vote for Bush.

Aggressor Prime · September 18th, 2004, 6:58 pm

The United Nations gave Iraq 6 months in order to clear out their weapons of mass destruction for all we know.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 19th, 2004, 5:10 pm

If that is true than the UN was successful in their mission, Iraq complied with the resolution and the US waged an illegal war against a nation for absolutely no reason.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 19th, 2004, 5:12 pm

We went to war because at the end of that 6 month period the CIA said they hadn't disarmed.

Aggressor Prime · September 19th, 2004, 5:32 pm

The UN is corrupt.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 19th, 2004, 5:46 pm

... because France and Germany are permanent members.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 20th, 2004, 1:11 am

The UN is the only group in the world looking out for the good of humanity. They broker nuclear arms treaties, clean air acts and many other things that are good for humanity as a whole. The leaders of America obviously aren't looking out for the welfare of it's citizens (IE 3000+ Americans Killed by a Terrorist who hasn't been found and who barely is being looked for, 1000+ Americans killed by Iraqi Insurgents who never attacked us and who never would have attacked us). The UN was correct, and France and Germany tried to stop us from attacking an innocent nation, and we told them to fuck off. They tried to keep us from jumping blindly into the quagmire that rigth now we are neck deep in. If you decry what they do and what they represent than you have lost all bearing on reality.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 21st, 2004, 2:22 am

The French and the Germans wouldn't enter the war because they had oil deals with Saddam and would break those deals if they removed him from power. Because of France and Germany's selfishness, the UN has become ineffective in many ways. The UN has done many good things since its conception, but it's still been ineffective in other ways.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 21st, 2004, 9:10 pm

Wouldn't it make more sense to trade oil in an American Iraq than a Saddam iraq? That argument makes no sense, and I have never read anything about any oil deals those 2 countries had with Iraq that the US didn't have itself.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » September 21st, 2004, 10:28 pm

we've been arguing i should say debating on this idea, on Bush's achievements, just different aspects of it for who knows how long. I think we should debate the idea of who will better lead Iraq. I think a lot of Anti-Bush people are mad at what he has done, but when you look at it you have to see who will make Iraq a better place faster and safer. A lot of people vote for the Demo party just because they hate Bush, but will the demo party really make things better in Iraq. The basic question is yes Bush brought us into the war who will bring us out the best.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 21st, 2004, 11:55 pm

Tell me, what is the reasoning behind the idea that the man who invaded Iraq without a post-invasion plan and who so-seriously miscalculated popular sentiment (Greet us with open arms? Maybe open small arms fire!)? Bush has been a terrible leader and has absolutely no realistic plan for Iraq's future. He still acts as though the 'major combat operations' have actually ended. In reality (Where Bush rarely is...), we have lost more Americans in post-war Iraq than war Iraq. A classic Guerilla War is forming there, the most successful type of warfare known to man, and we are avoiding the issue completely. Bush offers no plans, no strategies and offers no concessions to a widespread foe who will not stop fighting. If you think that pretending the war doesn't exist will make it go away, you seriously undermine the passion with which the people of that country will fight. Now, Bush has attempted a ballsy, pretentious argument to the UN for international aid, an argument none of them want to hear. There is no victory in Iraq to be won, because each and every battle only upsets the populace more, bringing more young Iraqis to the doorstep of the radical muslim clerics hellbent on building their own little Irans and Syrias. All the while Iran continues it's own (real) nuclear program while the US's military is held down in Iraq. Does this sound like good war planning? Does Bush have any idea how to manuever the US out of the quagmire there? I don't think so.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 22nd, 2004, 12:03 am

No plans for Iraq? What do you think will happen as a result of the upcoming elections in Iraq?

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 22nd, 2004, 12:11 am

Elections mean nothing when the country is not under your control. Many of the largest cities (Fallujah, Basrah, Haifa, etc...) are out of US or Iraqi control completely. I am talking about national plans, plans for peace and food and water. Oil needs to take a backseat to peace if we plan on remaining in that nation. A recent plan called for emergency funds (Tax dollars) to be removed from rebuilding water infrastructure to rebuilding oil lines. How would you feel if you were an Iraqi without water, seeing that happen?

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 22nd, 2004, 12:36 am

Give the Iraq situation some time, and do you really thing that Kerry has a clear plan for Iraq? He can't even decide whether or not he supports the war, supports the war but doesn't support arming the troops, etc.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » September 22nd, 2004, 12:38 am

There is no way Kerry is going to clean up Iraq.. Bush is doing a great job setting up a new government and we should be out of Iraq within a year or two...

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 22nd, 2004, 12:55 am

People bitch and moan about the 87 Billion vote without looking at reality, which is that 30% of those funds have been applied and the other 70% are unaccounted for. We handed that money over to contractors and funds, and we haven't had any returns on the ground.

Bush is doing a great job setting up the governmnt, they have an amazing embassy with high tower walls lined with .50 calibur machine guns and bradley fighting vehicles idling in the courtyard. It's the largest and best defended embassy on Earth. What does that tell you about the reality in Iraq? Governmental order means nothing in a world of guerillas and terrorists. Iraq will break into civil war, and the US will blame the Interim government as it's troops evacuate.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » September 22nd, 2004, 1:44 am

Iraq wouldn't be Iraq anymore if it wasn't for Bush

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 22nd, 2004, 1:58 am

What the hell does that even mean? Iraq isn't Iraq right now because of Bush. It's Iraqistan, an anarchic state run by terrorists, ba'athists and clerics who are in a constant state of war with the US. Iraq was Iraq until we attacked it without provocation or reason.

No one can deny that as acting commander-in-chief of the United States of America, President Bush is directly responsible ofr everything that has happened in Iraq. That includes 1000+ American soldier deaths, 13,500+ Iraqi civilian deaths, and more than 100 Kidnappings of innocent people.

Iraq would not be the war-torn, guerilla nation being ripped apart by nationalists, foreigners and radical muslims if it weren't for Bush.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 22nd, 2004, 2:07 am

Suvorov wrote:Iraq would not be the war-torn, guerilla nation being ripped apart by nationalists, foreigners and radical muslims if it weren't for Bush.

No, it would be a nation lead by a brutal dictator who with the help of his two sons used chemical weapons on his own people. Before the war, the Iraqis were living in fear. Now they live surrounded by war in some cities. I strongly thing, though, that once the democratic process begins to kick in there, conditions will improve. You may disagree, but we won't know till we wait.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 22nd, 2004, 9:45 pm

We will see the consequences of our actions, positive and negative, for years to come.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 22nd, 2004, 10:46 pm

Yes, of course, but we dont' yet know whether those will be more positive than negative or vice versa.

aishel · Post by **aishel** » September 23rd, 2004, 3:03 am

Smartweb wrote:
Suvorov wrote:Iraq would not be the war-torn, guerilla nation being ripped apart by nationalists, foreigners and radical muslims if it weren't for Bush.
No, it would be a nation lead by a brutal dictator who with the help of his two sons used chemical weapons on his own people. Before the war, the Iraqis were living in fear. Now they live surrounded by war in some cities. I strongly thing, though, that once the democratic process begins to kick in there, conditions will improve. You may disagree, but we won't know till we wait.

I'd just like to add on that for me, even though they didn't find any WMD, they found enough mass graves to make it very worth it. There were literally thousands of people found in these graves, and the idea that this kind of thing could have continued for years to come if Hussein was still in power makes me very happy that Bush has done what he did.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 23rd, 2004, 8:31 pm

I too am glad Saddam is deposed, and there are many other equally brutal Dictators across the world that deserve what Saddam and his sons got. Had this war not compromised our security and the security of the Middle East I might even still agree with it, but it did. This war was poorly timed, poorly executed and poorly led. It was based on false intelligence gathered from the wrong sources. It has cost thousands of innocent Iraqi lives and more than a thousand American lives. We went in illegally and we will leave this country worse off than we came to it, and the Iraqi people did not deserve the hell we have put them through. I'd much rather have Iraqis suffering under Saddam than Iraqis suffering under Bush, because it makes us accountable for their future.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 23rd, 2004, 11:00 pm

Yes, we are accountable for Iraq's future, so all the more reason to vote for Bush this November because if Kerry is elected Iraq will become yet worse because Kerry will have a different policy each week.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 24th, 2004, 3:50 am

Bush changes his position more than Kerry. Conservative propaganda has made the general populace believe Kerry has no solid position. If you look at where Bush's single minded, warmonger position has brought us, you'd realize that a little thought and pensivity can be a good thing. Bush simplifies the world into good vs. evil, but mistakes allies for enemies and goes after the wrong evil. He is a stupid and bullheaded man, who can barely form a coherent sentence let alone an Iraqi strategy.

aishel · Post by **aishel** » September 24th, 2004, 12:20 pm

http://www.georgewbush.com/olympics/

ComputerBB

The CBS Bush Military Memos

Authentic or Not?

The CBS Bush Military Memos